• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

"Athletic looting"?...Brand

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bucklion

Bucklion

Throwback
Staff member
Former Premier League Champ
I read in the Trib today that Captain Brand has stated vehemently that transfers from hurrican-ravaged schools will still have to sit out a year before they can play somewhere else in football, basketball, or hockey (?). He referred to this as "preventing athletic looting".

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. Personally, I think that in a situation where the player has zero control of the circumstances surrounding his ability to play, why in the hell should they have to sit? Why should a senior have to stay in school a year longer when he could transfer, contribute on special teams, and graduate, if that's what they want to do? How is it their fault? And who the hell knows when they can play football at Tulane or So Miss again???

I also think it's a shitty choice of words, but then again, anyone who reads a 10 minute laundry list of violation for a "ZERO tolerance" policy doesn't exactly inspire confidence, anyway.
 
Maybe they could let anyone with 2 or less years of eligibility left (counting this year) transfer if they want to, but everyone else would have to sit out a year. That would limit the number of player that could be "looted". I think it would be best if they would just transfer the whole team to another school for as long as it takes to rebuild the schools so that they can stay together, and continue their education.
 
Upvote 0
When I heard about this on the radio during the morning drive-in to work, the background story wehnt thus:

A team (Tulane?) had several players from the Basketball program that wanted to transfer wholesale to another school. This is what prompted Brand's actions.
 
Upvote 0
It's not so much that I have a problem with the intent of Brand's decision, but I think it's far too blanket when it isn't a universal thing. I agree with the above that they could make decisions based on the number of years of eligibility left....and they could also potentially limit the number of players that any one program could take, too.

In terms of getting back to normal, what if that is a year? or 2 years? A lot of athletes come from poor(er) families, and need to be either on scholarship or out supporting themelves and/or their family...I just want to have what's best for them done too....especially seniors.
 
Upvote 0
This is a very tough call. You are balancing the best short term interests of individuals against the best long term interests of the schools. To tell a kid he just has to suffer the consequences of the storm with everyone else when there is an alternative seems harsh. To tell a school that is struggling to maintain some semblance of an athletic program (just imagine how recruiting is giong) that you are goig to bend the rules to cause them further damage is also harsh.

If these kids are still getting the education they bargained for in exchange for a scholarship I would lean toward siding with Brand.
 
Upvote 0
Just acting as the devil's advocate-
What if your son was cut from a scholarship because one of these men that chose to go to Tulane is now choosing to leave Tulane and attend his school?
I'm not stating my opinion because it is a very sticky circumstance. I am only inciting conversation.
 
Upvote 0
Mr. Incredible said:
Just acting as the devil's advocate-
What if your son was cut from a scholarship because one of these men that chose to go to Tulane is now choosing to leave Tulane and attend his school?
I'm not stating my opinion because it is a very sticky circumstance. I am only inciting conversation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you can be cut from a scholarship.

I think this is horrible. Some of these kids have absolutely no records of even being in school. I think that if they can pass a college entrance exam and are of a legal age 18-19 I think they should be allowed into school.

You can only feel bad for these kids and pray that they don't get the shaft b/c they have already recieved enough bad luck.
 
Upvote 0
What the NCAA should do is:

1. Prevent the transfers to protect the school's program.

2. Grant another year of eligibility (call it a "K-shirt" or whatever) to all the players.

3. Allow the players to continue to recieve full scholarships during their K-shirt without affecting eligibility.

This prevents the schools affected by Katrina from having their cupboards raided while protecting the eligibility and academics of the players.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
What the NCAA should do is:

1. Prevent the transfers to protect the school's program.

2. Grant another year of eligibility (call it a "K-shirt" or whatever) to all the players.

3. Allow the players to continue to recieve full scholarships during their K-shirt without affecting eligibility.

This prevents the schools affected by Katrina from having their cupboards raided while protecting the eligibility and academics of the players.
Click to expand...

While I agree that this would be a good idea, I just don't understand why if a kid wants to play this year, he will not be allowed. It is the same as a kid going to a private school. They come and raid the public schools.

Also what about the seniors that are trying to showcase their skills so they can go to school the next year. Do they have to waste a year and sit around.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top