https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/13/ucla-football-ncaa-transfer-database-portal/
I guess they do not like Chip Kelly’s program.
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/13/ucla-football-ncaa-transfer-database-portal/
I guess they do not like Chip Kelly’s program.
If the guy most noteworthy only played half the games in two years, it seems like it's just older guys or those who aren't going to play much.
This transfer portal is a bad idea IMO unless they have to sit a year regardless of why the are transferring. It can get where there’s no stability in college football and that ain’t good IMO. You transfer you sit 1 years unless the player has graduated.
Yep, you're right on with your thinking o this Southern. I felt the same way since the NCAA came up with this hair brained idea!
This transfer portal is a bad idea IMO unless they have to sit a year regardless of why the are transferring. It can get where there’s no stability in college football and that ain’t good IMO. You transfer you sit 1 years unless the player has graduated.
They do have to sit a year, the portal didn't change that. The only players that don't have to sit a year are graduate transfers (because they will be entering a Masters program).
Waivers are another thing entirely, those have nothing to do with the portal. They are granted in certain circumstances, however the NCAA has been way too easy with those. Need to enforce them properly or just eliminate them entirely.
lol Granted in certain circumstances, whether exaggerated or not and seemingly, by which team they want to play for.
lol Granted in certain circumstances, whether exaggerated or not and seemingly, by which team they want to play for.
Exactly, and that's the problem. Justin Fields should have never played a down this year.
lol Granted in certain circumstances, whether exaggerated or not and seemingly, by which team they want to play for.
Exactly, and that's the problem. Justin Fields should have never played a down this year.
Keep it simple... Do away with the waiver.
lol Granted in certain circumstances, whether exaggerated or not and seemingly, by which team they want to play for.
Exactly, and that's the problem. Justin Fields should have never played a down this year.
Keep it simple... Do away with the waiver.
I don't personally believe in zero tolerance, IMO there are circumstances where it would be warranted. Rare occasions though, for instance:
If a parent has terminal cancer and the kid wants to be close to them, I'd say they should be allowed to transfer without penalty. Obviously this wouldn't happen often. Another one would be abuse and/or something severely detrimental to a kid like proof the coach hit them or something along those lines.
Just for very extreme and rare cases.
I see what you mean but my stance is NO wavier for any reason. It's clean and simple for everyone. No review, no third party etc.
If a players parent is terminal a year not playing could be a good thing.
If a player is being abused then use the opportunity to report that incident.
Everyone sits a year, it's fair and clean.
It appears that this is about members of the team that are not going to see much playing time. The best player looking to leave participated in only 50% of the games during the previous 2 seasons. This is going to become a common occurrence.
I see what you mean but my stance is NO wavier for any reason. It's clean and simple for everyone. No review, no third party etc.
If a players parent is terminal a year not playing could be a good thing.
If a player is being abused then use the opportunity to report that incident.
Everyone sits a year, it's fair and clean.
...but that's not fair. It's not fair that a kid gets abused by a coach, and then is penalized for it by sitting out a year. The kid did NOTHING wrong, but gets punished again. How is that "fair"? There's a difference between equality and fairness, and you're talking about equality.
I think their is room for fairness. I don't think the NCAA has to be so cold and immovable that it can't acknowledge unique circumstances where kids were actually harmed. To say that those kids can't be treated fairly because the NCAA needs to protect itself from stupidity is, to me, ridiculous.
Every study has shown that zero tolerance doesn't work. It almost always leads to unrest and people being treated terribly for little to no reason. One examples of no tolarance:
16 yo Eagle Scout being kicked out of school because he had a hunting knife in his trunk, because he was going hunting after school and his house is 30 minutes in the opposite direction. The school said that "technically" the parking lot is still school property, and "the rules are the rules". So yeah, they treated every student equally... but it's hardly fair. Zero tolerance allows for no context, none.
It's no wonder schools around the nation have started to roll back these policies, because they didn't work. In most cases it lead to more injustice and unintended consequences.
All I am saying is that 18yo kids situations at college shouldn't be looked at as so black and white. There has to be some room for common sense.
Just my opinion though 👍
@roam
“There has to be some room for common sense.”
That would solve lots of problems.
In one breath everyone hates the NCAA and constantly bad mouths any decision they make and the so called injustice of it. They let one kid NOT sit it wont be fair to some, they make another kid sit it wont be fair to some. The NCAA is always in a no win situation with what they do. I'm not saying they don't make blunders because they do.
The point is everyone is treated the same and that is the point of being fair, there is no weighing ones hardship over another. Nothing good can come from it.
Eagle Scout-Highest rank in BSA
Quote from BSA law and as an Eagle scout he should know this.
"OBEDIENT A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and Troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them"
The rules are the rules and Eagle scout to school thug are still asked equally to follow them.
There will never be peace or agreement as to what a hardship is or is not so I say be fair.
I don't mind the transfer portal...but I do have two issues.
1. It should have a window, not open all the time.
2. No waivers
In one breath everyone hates the NCAA and constantly bad mouths any decision they make and the so called injustice of it. They let one kid NOT sit it wont be fair to some, they make another kid sit it wont be fair to some. The NCAA is always in a no win situation with what they do. I'm not saying they don't make blunders because they do.
The point is everyone is treated the same and that is the point of being fair, there is no weighing ones hardship over another. Nothing good can come from it.
Eagle Scout-Highest rank in BSA
Quote from BSA law and as an Eagle scout he should know this.
"OBEDIENT A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and Troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them"
The rules are the rules and Eagle scout to school thug are still asked equally to follow them.
There will never be peace or agreement as to what a hardship is or is not so I say be fair.
I don't mind the transfer portal...but I do have two issues.
1. It should have a window, not open all the time.
2. No waivers
Missed the point, my fault because I didn't explain further. The school never told anyone, nor did anyone ever think that the parking lot was included when students were told not to bring knifes to school. That's why in my post I said the school stated "technically" the parking lot was part of the school so "their hands were tied". All the rules stated was no knifes "in" school. Since he didn't bring the knife into the school, he felt he was following the rules.
Even West Point saw the farce in this ruling, and stated that the school was being stupid and they wouldn't hold it against the kid when they found out the circumstances (West Point came out with a statement after the story went public, since the boy was applying there).
I mean, you have to admin that something is wrong with a policy when a High School is more rigid than THE ARMY. LMAO
There was also a case where a 6 year old was suspended for 45 days for bringing a "weapon" to school. The weapon? A camping utensil that is a fork, spoon, and a knife. 45 days because a 6 year old wanted to use their new utensil for eating food. Again, completely asinine.
Bottoms line is sometimes life just ain’t fair and bad things can happen but if there’s a rule you have to sit 1 year if you transfer, the rules are the rules!
Bottoms line is sometimes life just ain’t fair and bad things can happen but if there’s a rule you have to sit 1 year if you transfer, the rules are the rules!
Bottom line is just about every instance of zero tolerance has failed, and multiple studies show it leads to more discontent... not less.
So basically going with this type of policy is inviting more problems than it's worth.
Also "life ain't fair" is not a good excuse to be purposefully unfair.
Bottoms line is sometimes life just ain’t fair and bad things can happen but if there’s a rule you have to sit 1 year if you transfer, the rules are the rules!
Bottom line is just about every instance of zero tolerance has failed, and multiple studies show it leads to more discontent... not less.
So basically going with this type of policy is inviting more problems than it's worth.
Also "life ain't fair" is not a good excuse to be purposefully unfair.
You are not being unfair... You are applying the same rule to everyone. That is as fair as it gets.
And having a separate rules for different individuals will lead to everyone wanting special treatment and constantly challenging and suing the NCAA like they do now. If you don't want the Justin Fields situation to keep going on then you need to just simply make everyone sit that year. Everyone is treated the same and fairly no ones situation is put above or below another.
In one breath everyone hates the NCAA and constantly bad mouths any decision they make and the so called injustice of it. They let one kid NOT sit it wont be fair to some, they make another kid sit it wont be fair to some. The NCAA is always in a no win situation with what they do. I'm not saying they don't make blunders because they do.
The point is everyone is treated the same and that is the point of being fair, there is no weighing ones hardship over another. Nothing good can come from it.
Eagle Scout-Highest rank in BSA
Quote from BSA law and as an Eagle scout he should know this.
"OBEDIENT A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and Troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them"
The rules are the rules and Eagle scout to school thug are still asked equally to follow them.
There will never be peace or agreement as to what a hardship is or is not so I say be fair.
I don't mind the transfer portal...but I do have two issues.
1. It should have a window, not open all the time.
2. No waivers
Missed the point, my fault because I didn't explain further. The school never told anyone, nor did anyone ever think that the parking lot was included when students were told not to bring knifes to school. That's why in my post I said the school stated "technically" the parking lot was part of the school so "their hands were tied". All the rules stated was no knifes "in" school. Since he didn't bring the knife into the school, he felt he was following the rules.
Even West Point saw the farce in this ruling, and stated that the school was being stupid and they wouldn't hold it against the kid when they found out the circumstances (West Point came out with a statement after the story went public, since the boy was applying there).
I mean, you have to admin that something is wrong with a policy when a High School is more rigid than THE ARMY. LMAO
There was also a case where a 6 year old was suspended for 45 days for bringing a "weapon" to school. The weapon? A camping utensil that is a fork, spoon, and a knife. 45 days because a 6 year old wanted to use their new utensil for eating food. Again, completely asinine.
I got your point...
If you are not sure ask, better safe than sorry. Don't just assume.
My sons high school states school and school property, The high school I went to ages ago was school that was everywhere inside and out.
What West Point chose to do is on them, calling the schools policy stupid is childish, coming from a school that lives by strict policy. I have no issue with them vetting and making a sound judgment for their acceptance into the academy. That still does not take away from the schools rule that simply applies to everyone. And that is the point, the same rule for everyone.
I think you need to be as ridged as you need to be as long as you are applying it to everyone the same way.
Not saying I disagree that some rules can be asinine? Yes 45 days for a 6 year old is asinine. Yes I would not call that weapon but that's not my call and with the way things happen in schools today they set those rules as they see fit.
In one breath everyone hates the NCAA and constantly bad mouths any decision they make and the so called injustice of it. They let one kid NOT sit it wont be fair to some, they make another kid sit it wont be fair to some. The NCAA is always in a no win situation with what they do. I'm not saying they don't make blunders because they do.
The point is everyone is treated the same and that is the point of being fair, there is no weighing ones hardship over another. Nothing good can come from it.
Eagle Scout-Highest rank in BSA
Quote from BSA law and as an Eagle scout he should know this.
"OBEDIENT A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and Troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them"
The rules are the rules and Eagle scout to school thug are still asked equally to follow them.
There will never be peace or agreement as to what a hardship is or is not so I say be fair.
I don't mind the transfer portal...but I do have two issues.
1. It should have a window, not open all the time.
2. No waivers
Missed the point, my fault because I didn't explain further. The school never told anyone, nor did anyone ever think that the parking lot was included when students were told not to bring knifes to school. That's why in my post I said the school stated "technically" the parking lot was part of the school so "their hands were tied". All the rules stated was no knifes "in" school. Since he didn't bring the knife into the school, he felt he was following the rules.
Even West Point saw the farce in this ruling, and stated that the school was being stupid and they wouldn't hold it against the kid when they found out the circumstances (West Point came out with a statement after the story went public, since the boy was applying there).
I mean, you have to admin that something is wrong with a policy when a High School is more rigid than THE ARMY. LMAO
There was also a case where a 6 year old was suspended for 45 days for bringing a "weapon" to school. The weapon? A camping utensil that is a fork, spoon, and a knife. 45 days because a 6 year old wanted to use their new utensil for eating food. Again, completely asinine.
I got your point...
If you are not sure ask, better safe than sorry. Don't just assume.
My sons high school states school and school property, The high school I went to ages ago was school that was everywhere inside and out.
What West Point chose to do is on them, calling the schools policy stupid is childish, coming from a school that lives by strict policy. I have no issue with them vetting and making a sound judgment for their acceptance into the academy. That still does not take away from the schools rule that simply applies to everyone. And that is the point, the same rule for everyone.
I think you need to be as ridged as you need to be as long as you are applying it to everyone the same way.
Not saying I disagree that some rules can be asinine? Yes 45 days for a 6 year old is asinine. Yes I would not call that weapon but that's not my call and with the way things happen in schools today they set those rules as they see fit.
"but that's not my call and with the way things happen in schools today they set those rules as they see fit."
Exactly, which is why many schools are moving away from zero tolerance
And calling a policy that punishes kids with a hunting knife in the truck of their car the same as a kid who brings a machete into a classroom is... yes... stupid.
Just imagine if the actual law was like this: You stole $50, let's throw you in prison for two years with people who stole $100,000. Because hey, "stealing is stealing". Stupid? Of course... thank goodness the law realizes context and punishes accordingly, not one blanket sentence for "stealing"
Hyperbole? Sure, but you get my point. Of course, you see it different which is fine.
Bottoms line is sometimes life just ain’t fair and bad things can happen but if there’s a rule you have to sit 1 year if you transfer, the rules are the rules!
Bottom line is just about every instance of zero tolerance has failed, and multiple studies show it leads to more discontent... not less.
So basically going with this type of policy is inviting more problems than it's worth.
Also "life ain't fair" is not a good excuse to be purposefully unfair.
You are not being unfair... You are applying the same rule to everyone. That is as fair as it gets.
And having a separate rules for different individuals will lead to everyone wanting special treatment and constantly challenging and suing the NCAA like they do now. If you don't want the Justin Fields situation to keep going on then you need to just simply make everyone sit that year. Everyone is treated the same and fairly no ones situation is put above or below another.
No one is saying to "have separate rules for separate individuals", I am saying that at times a waiver can be a good thing in rare and very unique circumstances. That's very different than creating a whole seperate set of rules for others. Even the military does this, they have waivers. Somehow it's good enough for our military... but we won't dare use them for sports?
"You are not being unfair... You are applying the same rule to everyone. That is as fair as it gets."
No it isn't, that's EQUAL and not necessary fair. It assumes that everyone has the same exact circumstances:
Equal is applying the same rule that everyone gets a box. Fair is giving boxes to those who need them and not to those who don't. Just an example.
HR (human resources) likes zero tolerance as it minimizes their risk. If they make 'common sense' decissions they take risk.
The NCAA has little risk to worry about, what is the biggest risk for the NCAA? Public opinion when they don't let a big name, Fields, go to a big name, OSU, for a big reason racial intolerance claim. Every exception (precedent) weakens the rule. Slippery slope and soon you have to admit you have no rule, transfer portal, or you go to no exceptions.
HR (human resources) likes zero tolerance as it minimizes their risk. If they make 'common sense' decissions they take risk.
The NCAA has little risk to worry about, what is the biggest risk for the NCAA? Public opinion when they don't let a big name, Fields, go to a big name, OSU, for a big reason racial intolerance claim. Every exception (precedent) weakens the rule. Slippery slope and soon you have to admit you have no rule, transfer portal, or you go to no exceptions.
I don't accept the slippery slope argument, as waivers have existed in many forms for years without issue. The military for instance.
In almost all walks of life things are handled in shades of grey. I have no idea why people think this is where society needs to draw the line. LOL
I will leave you with some wise words: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" LMFAO 😂
