OT: Ryan Mallet has to sit out the 2008 season

Crazy Patriot Guy · May 2, 2008

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3378777

I understand that if he'd been declared eligible immediately, it could have started a problem of players wanting to transfer but I think it's ridiculous that he has to sit out the season. It's not just him, it's any case like his.

This isn't a player that committed to a team, didn't become the starter like he hoped and decided to go elsewhere. This is a player that was badly affected by a coaching change. What's he supposed to do, sit on the bench for three years? He would never have seen the field in the zone read offense.

I'm not saying players should be able to transfer and play immediately for any reason whatsoever but IMO a coaching change should definitely allow a player to transfer and not have to sit out.

I just think it's absolutely ridiculous that, for example, someone could accept the head coaching position at Baylor, sign a contract through the year 4759, then leave a year later because his dream job at Texas just opened. The NCAA doesn't care. As long as you settle the money situation with Baylor, more power to you, you're on the job as soon as your car can get there.

However, if you're a player whose college football career just took a drastic turn because of a coaching change, "No, you need to sit out a year before you can play again."

Am I the only one that finds this very unfair?

dryheat44 · May 16, 2008

Crazy Patriot Guy said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3378777

I understand that if he'd been declared eligible immediately, it could have started a problem of players wanting to transfer but I think it's ridiculous that he has to sit out the season. It's not just him, it's any case like his.

This isn't a player that committed to a team, didn't become the starter like he hoped and decided to go elsewhere. This is a player that was badly affected by a coaching change. What's he supposed to do, sit on the bench for three years? He would never have seen the field in the zone read offense.

I'm not saying players should be able to transfer and play immediately for any reason whatsoever but IMO a coaching change should definitely allow a player to transfer and not have to sit out.

I just think it's absolutely ridiculous that, for example, someone could accept the head coaching position at Baylor, sign a contract through the year 4759, then leave a year later because his dream job at Texas just opened. The NCAA doesn't care. As long as you settle the money situation with Baylor, more power to you, you're on the job as soon as your car can get there.

However, if you're a player whose college football career just took a drastic turn because of a coaching change, "No, you need to sit out a year before you can play again."

Am I the only one that finds this very unfair?

I agree 100% that there's an unfair double-standard between coaches and players breaking commitments. However, a player doesn't have to sit out a year. He could have gone 1-AA and play immediately. Flacco just got drafted in the first round under similar circumstances. Instead of going to Arkansas, he should've looked at Delaware, UMass (especially with Whipple at QB coach), Wisconsin-Whitewater, Youngstown St, or wherever. NFL scouts know to look there.

I think with Rodriguez coming in, the days of Michigan glory are going on hiatus. He's going to lose all the premium pro prospects to OSU, MSU, Illinois, and even the MAC schools. And he's not going to be able to recruit thugs and felons.

patchick · May 16, 2008

This is one of those situations where the status quo is unacceptable...but I can't think what a better alternative is.

Imagine what would happen if you said that scholarship players were all free to transfer if their coach left. Imagine you're an AD. Your coach just unceremoniously skipped town, and now every other coach in the country is allowed to come shop freely from your roster! But you, of course, can't recruit their players. You just have to sit back and watch your entire program get decimated. If things go really badly, you'll hardly be able to field a team the following year.

And how does any team ever fire a lousy coach, if they know this will be the result? And imagine contract renegotiations...the coach has them over a barrel, if they stand to lose their players by losing their coach.

You can't just open the floodgates. Maybe there's a middle ground, but I'm not sure what it is.

Clonamery · May 16, 2008

patchick said:
This is one of those situations where the status quo is unacceptable...but I can't think what a better alternative is.

Imagine what would happen if you said that scholarship players were all free to transfer if their coach left. Imagine you're an AD. Your coach just unceremoniously skipped town, and now every other coach in the country is allowed to come shop freely from your roster! But you, of course, can't recruit their players. You just have to sit back and watch your entire program get decimated. If things go really badly, you'll hardly be able to field a team the following year.

And how does any team ever fire a lousy coach, if they know this will be the result? And imagine contract renegotiations...the coach has them over a barrel, if they stand to lose their players by losing their coach.

You can't just open the floodgates. Maybe there's a middle ground, but I'm not sure what it is.

Point taken....in the NFL, does every player become a free agent when a coach is fired?

I'm all for anarchy but not in sports.

mmasterkillah · May 16, 2008

These KIDS choose where they decide to go to school based on the men who are going to be leading them in their paths for success.

If the man responsible for them coming then leaves, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and play immediately. Mallet would NOT have an opportunity to play based on the coaching changes. It is not his fault, and it is sad that he wastes a year waiting to play.

If coaches change than players should be eligible to transfer and play ASAP.

zarakotas5 · May 17, 2008

mmasterkillah said:
These KIDS choose where they decide to go to school based on the men who are going to be leading them in their paths for success.

If the man responsible for them coming then leaves, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and play immediately. Mallet would NOT have an opportunity to play based on the coaching changes. It is not his fault, and it is sad that he wastes a year waiting to play.

If coaches change than players should be eligible to transfer and play ASAP.

The player should still be expected to do some due diligence, too. Carr was rumored to be leaving for up to two years, and it was widely accepted that he wouldn't fulfill Mallet's tenure.

I agree it's a bummer if a coach flies the coop unexpectedly, etc., but Mallet could have easily seen this coming. If it's Rodriguez he specifically has a problem with, then that's on Mallet. Go I-AA, or sit out a year. Either option won't hurt him if he's committed.

patchick · May 17, 2008

mmasterkillah said:
These KIDS choose where they decide to go to school based on the men who are going to be leading them in their paths for success.

If the man responsible for them coming then leaves, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and play immediately. Mallet would NOT have an opportunity to play based on the coaching changes. It is not his fault, and it is sad that he wastes a year waiting to play.

If coaches change than players should be eligible to transfer and play ASAP.

I agree that the current system seems unfair to the players, but once again, you can't just open the floodgates -- you have to replace it with something that makes sense. It's also plenty unfair to a university for them to have paid their coach, given scholarships to a bunch of athletes, then stand to have their entire program picked clean because a rival swoops in and steals their coach. The potential for abuse is enormous.

Any creative proposals, anybody?

tobias funke · May 18, 2008

Yeah, shoot those disloyal ***** so they stop breeding.

Crazy Patriot Guy · May 19, 2008

patchick said:
I agree that the current system seems unfair to the players, but once again, you can't just open the floodgates -- you have to replace it with something that makes sense. It's also plenty unfair to a university for them to have paid their coach, given scholarships to a bunch of athletes, then stand to have their entire program picked clean because a rival swoops in and steals their coach. The potential for abuse is enormous.

Any creative proposals, anybody?

I can see your point about a team being picked apart by opposing teams looking for the chance to add players. I'll admit, as much as I want to come up with a great idea to make it work, I can't think of anything.

It doesn't make it work entirely but one easy rule would be you can't follow a coach. Perhaps you could make it that only freshmen (last recruiting class of the former coach) could transfer and play immediately. I do wonder about how many juniors and seniors would be quick to change teams because of a new coach. QB is really the one position that a new coach's philosophy could affect you to the point you don't play again. How many star LBs going into their senior year would want to transfer because the new coach uses a 3-4 instead of a 4-3? The coach will find a way to get them to make an impact.

I know none of that is really great but it's the best I can come up with right now. It's tougher than I originally thought. Like you said, it's not a great situation but what's a better solution?

patchick · May 22, 2008

Crazy Patriot Guy said:
It doesn't make it work entirely but one easy rule would be you can't follow a coach. Perhaps you could make it that only freshmen (last recruiting class of the former coach) could transfer and play immediately.

This pair of suggestions makes a lot of sense to me. No player can reasonably expect that the coach who recruited him is certain to be around 4 or 5 years later, whereas the kids who just signed are really getting the bait and switch. Here's another wrinkle:

- No transferring within conference, to reduce the temptation for rival teams to take away players just to harm an opponent (rather than offering real opportunity to the player).

kas · May 22, 2008

I always thought the rule should be that if a coach resigns, he should be unable to coach for any other school for the duration of that contract. Always seemed pretty straight forward to me...

Crazy Patriot Guy · May 23, 2008

patchick said:
This pair of suggestions makes a lot of sense to me. No player can reasonably expect that the coach who recruited him is certain to be around 4 or 5 years later, whereas the kids who just signed are really getting the bait and switch. Here's another wrinkle:

- No transferring within conference, to reduce the temptation for rival teams to take away players just to harm an opponent (rather than offering real opportunity to the player).

I was thinking that also but didn't say it. You might have to take that a step further though and perhaps make it where the player can't transfer to a team that is already on the schedule during the remainder of his career. Most colleges have their schedules set for at least 3 to 4 years ahead of time so I don't think that would be a big problem.

That would prevent the tampering of a rivalry such as Florida-Florida State or others that are fixtures on the schedule each year but don't play in conference.

OT: Ryan Mallet has to sit out the 2008 season

Crazy Patriot Guy

In the Starting Line-Up

dryheat44

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

patchick

Moderatrix

Clonamery

PatsFans.com Supporter

mmasterkillah

On the Game Day Roster

zarakotas5

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

patchick

Moderatrix

tobias funke

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Crazy Patriot Guy

In the Starting Line-Up

patchick

Moderatrix

kas

Practice Squad Player

Crazy Patriot Guy

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads