Uros Plavsic commits to Tennessee

#401
#401
bleedingTNorange said:
That’s also assuming that’s what is being claimed, or that something damning is being claimed...if the case is simply the AC being let go and Plavsic being told he would be there for his ASU tenure then I don’t see much reason for ASU to be anything but helpful.

I haven’t seen any mention of Plavsic’s well being having been threatened, have you?
Click to expand...

As I’ve said before I feel strongly there needs to be more to his waiver than the coach leaving. I don’t think that’s enough to get an exemption. So no we don’t know what’s being argued

But I’d expect a school to say assistant coaches contracts are renewed either year after year or after 2 years which is usually the case if that’s the only thing we are using.


Also BO doesn’t exactly Have the best track record with info so let’s take that post with a grain of salt
 
#402
#402
BruinVol said:
As I’ve said before I feel strongly there needs to be more to his waiver than the coach leaving. I don’t think that’s enough to get an exemption. So no we don’t know what’s being argued

But I’d expect a school to say assistant coaches contracts are renewed either year after year or after 2 years which is usually the case if that’s the only thing we are using.
Click to expand...
The point being you don’t have any idea if there is info in the waiver that ASU wouldn’t want to admit to, and fact is there has been zero talk or any rumor of any such thing either. If there is nothing that the school would be leery to admit to then there is zero reason that they shouldn’t do everything in their power to help a kid out, especially if they didn’t want him at their school anymore anyway, pretty simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#403
#403
bleedingTNorange said:
The point being you don’t have any idea if there is info in the waiver that ASU wouldn’t want to admit to, and fact is there has been zero talk or any rumor of any such thing either. If there is nothing that the school would be leery to admit to then there is zero reason that they shouldn’t do everything in their power to help a kid out, especially if they didn’t want him at their school anymore anyway, pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I agree.


Which in turn means when I hear that a school doesn’t “help” i don’t blame them because I know there may be some blame being placed on them in the mitigating circumstances being used.

It works both ways and there is no way to fairly say the school should always help which is being said here by a few posters.
 
#404
#404
BruinVol said:
I agree.


Which in turn means when I hear that a school doesn’t “help” i don’t blame them because I know there may be some blame being placed on them in the mitigating circumstances being used.

It works both ways and there is no way to fairly say the school should always help which is being said here by a few posters.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion if say Solomon was indeed asked/forced to play injured, which led to him missing time and then a transfer...in your opinion Michigan shouldn’t help him, or you wouldn’t blame them for not helping, even though they are the reason he played injured? That’s quite the take.
 
#405
#405
In cases where an athlete was run off by a coach or essentially had their scholarship pulled for non-disciplinary reasons, the NCAA will require a written statement from the athletics director at the previous school stating whether the athlete would not have had an opportunity to return to the team and why the athlete is transferring. The committee is being instructed to deny cases where the athlete can’t document that they’ve been run off. That marks a change from prior protocol, where a key determining factor in "run off" situations was whether the previous school objected to the waiver request."
I'm not optimistic.
haven't seen any examples of AC factoring into waivers. maybe we'll be first. but wait. We're Tennessee
 
#406
#406
bleedingTNorange said:
So in your opinion if say Solomon was indeed asked/forced to play injured, which led to him missing time and then a transfer...in your opinion Michigan shouldn’t help him, or you wouldn’t blame them for not helping, even though they are the reason he played injured? That’s quite the take.
Click to expand...

Well I’d have to know the real truth to answer that fully but either way no way the school would ever agree they forced a kid to play when he shouldn’t have played.

They wouldn’t agree they were guilty of the mitigating circumstance even if they were
 
#407
#407
BruinVol said:
Well I’d have to know the real truth to answer that fully but either way no way the school would ever agree they forced a kid to play when he shouldn’t have played.

They wouldn’t agree they were guilty of the mitigating circumstance even if they were
Click to expand...
I understand they wouldn’t, but your comments make it sounds as if “they shouldn’t” or that you agree with them “not being helpful”...that SHOULD NOT, be the case imo.
 
#408
#408
bleedingTNorange said:
I understand they wouldn’t, but your comments make it sounds as if “they shouldn’t” or that you agree with them “not being helpful”...that SHOULD NOT, be the case imo.
Click to expand...

Like I said we don’t know the real truth but i will admit I believe in most cases the mitigating circumstances are usually embellished to some degree.

So I’ll leave it at this with michigan.

If they forced a kid to play when he shouldn’t have done so they should be fired.

If they pushed him thru some bumps and bruises into playing with no additional risk to health they shouldn’t agree to such a mitigating circumstance used to gain his immediate eligibility.
 
#409
#409
And that’s fair...

As for Plavsic, if ASU told him during his recruitment that they would keep Drazen on staff during his whole tenure, or even if they said for at least 2 years, then they should admit that to the ncaa and do anything reasonably in their power to help the kid out. Again, I don’t think Tennessee and Plavsic are putting together a lie about some crazy things that happened at ASU, and if ASU didn’t want him on their roster anyway then they should have zero issue helping as much as they can.
 
#410
#410
bleedingTNorange said:
And that’s fair...

As for Plavsic, if ASU told him during his recruitment that they would keep Drazen on staff during his whole tenure, or even if they said for at least 2 years, then they should admit that to the ncaa and do anything reasonably in their power to help the kid out. Again, I don’t think Tennessee and Plavsic are putting together a lie about some crazy things that happened at ASU, and if ASU didn’t want him on their roster anyway then they should have zero issue helping as much as they can.
Click to expand...

And I think there has to be more in the request than the coach leaving. Something like the coach leaving was his only safety net and the atmosphere around the program wasn’t such that the player felt his best interest was at heart. Something to do with a feeling of being an outsider and such. That seems likely to me and if that’s the case I wouldn’t blame arizona state for not signing off on that.

There really has to be more than an assistant coach leaving and we likely will never know what else is included in this request.

I just don’t think the ncaa will ever open up the can of worms for allowing kids to leave when assistant coaches change and avoid sitting out
 
#412
#412
bleedingTNorange said:
So what do you think Barnes signed off on/lied about to get Burns eligible?
Click to expand...


My guess is he agreed that socially and academically he needed a change and moving back home was in his best interest.

The key is he choose not to disclose any disciplinary issues which clearly can hurt kids a lot in deals like this
 
#413
#413
bleedingTNorange said:
And that’s fair...

As for Plavsic, if ASU told him during his recruitment that they would keep Drazen on staff during his whole tenure, or even if they said for at least 2 years, then they should admit that to the ncaa and do anything reasonably in their power to help the kid out. Again, I don’t think Tennessee and Plavsic are putting together a lie about some crazy things that happened at ASU, and if ASU didn’t want him on their roster anyway then they should have zero issue helping as much as they can.
Click to expand...
He’s dug in on that “didn’t want him, anyway” narrative and can’t get unstuck while mucking this topic. 😎
 
#414
#414
BruinVol said:
My guess is he agreed that socially and academically he needed a change and moving back home was in his best interest.

The key is he choose not to disclose any disciplinary issues which clearly can hurt kids a lot in deals like this
Click to expand...
But Hurley couldn’t do that because...?
 
#415
#415
BruinVol said:
My guess is he agreed that socially and academically he needed a change and moving back home was in his best interest.

The key is he choose not to disclose any disciplinary issues which clearly can hurt kids a lot in deals like this
Click to expand...
Right but Plavsic didn’t have any disciplinary issues either, so why shouldn’t ASU do the same as Tennessee (especially if they don’t want the kid), and say that he’s better off much closer to “home” and everyone he knows?
 
#416
#416
butchna said:
But Hurley couldn’t do that because...?
Click to expand...



We don’t know the situation. You can’t compare the two because no two cases as the same.


From all the reports we heard about Burns it’s very possible he attended some on campus counseling. It’s likely he was forced to do so. Something like that would be huge in a waiver.


There just is no way to intelligently talk about these deals without know exactly what the mitigating circumstances are being claimed to be.
 
#417
#417
bleedingTNorange said:
Right but Plavsic didn’t have any disciplinary issues either, so why shouldn’t ASU do the same as Tennessee (especially if they don’t want the kid), and say that he’s better off much closer to “home” and everyone he knows?
Click to expand...

We don’t know any of that

And maybe more importantly home is much harder to argue
 
#418
#418
BruinVol said:
We don’t know any of that

And maybe more importantly home is much harder to argue
Click to expand...

Doesn’t seem hard to me at all, his support system, host family and anyone he’s known from his first 12 months in the US is here...Chris Walker who he was with at HHCA is employed by the UTBB team, not a hard argument at all imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#419
#419
bleedingTNorange said:
Doesn’t seem hard to me at all, his support system, host family and anyone he’s known from his first 12 months in the US is here...Chris Walker who he was with at HHCA is employed by the UTBB team, not a hard argument at all imo.
Click to expand...

Very different than real family and Arizona was home for the same amount of time for arguments sake. So I don’t see any point in what you say here .

Just a very different kind of case that we don’t know the specifics of.

What we do know is we want him eligible and now!
 
#420
#420
VEKZY said:
We helped in the process of Burns getting eligibility. It would be nice if all schools did this, but some schools want to make it as hard as possible.
Click to expand...
We did?
I’d really like to know how you know this.
Everything I heard was he was in the doghouse and being recruited over.
 
#421
#421
BruinVol said:
Very different than real family and Arizona was home for the same amount of time for arguments sake. So I don’t see any point in what you say here .

Just a very different kind of case that we don’t know the specifics of.

What we do know is we want him eligible and now!
Click to expand...
What if he’s born in Serbia, fostered immediately and never a permanent home? To me home isn’t necessarily where you’re born, as for NCAA basketball it seems pretty clear to me his “home” is Chattanooga.
 
#422
#422
bleedingTNorange said:
What if he’s born in Serbia, fostered immediately and never a permanent home? To me home isn’t necessarily where you’re born, as for NCAA basketball it seems pretty clear to me his “home” is Chattanooga.
Click to expand...

I’ve said many times this one is very odd because of this topic and I agree that it’s likely Chattanooga being called home is part of our hopes but the fact he’s lived in Arizona virtually the same amount of time makes that sketchy. This one is odd to say the least
 
#425
#425
BruinVol said:
With Soloman there were rumors that part of his waiver request included the allegation that michigan pushed him into playing with an injury.

That’s a perfect example of a waiver where the school being left wouldn’t help. They wouldn’t admit to that. No chance
Click to expand...
Sure, but there was never an assumption that I saw that Michigan was indifferent to losing Solomon.

If the presumed assumption of a few is that ASU didn't even want to keep Plavsic, then it wouldn't seem he'd need to present any damning evidence against ASU. He'd just simply apply for immediate eligibility, ASU supports his endeavor and acknowledges him as a student in good academic and civil standing, and everyone moves on. See Burns, DJ.

What BTO is insinuating, is rather that ASU was more than happy to keep Plavsic, probably preferred it, and his decision to transfer has sparked the ire of the current staff in place which has led them to being difficult in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top