• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Stan Drayton (Head Coach, Temple Owls)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BUCKYLE said:
It's shady. Period. Everyone wants to rag on the "drama queens" that wait til after signing day. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hardly fair to the player to sign a binding contract just a day before the coach unbinds his. Commit to the school is easier said than done when it's all about relationships and schemes.

In Weber's case, he felt he couldn't trust Michigan's staff, then this happens. I'm sure it will work out for him in the end, but you hate to see it happen. Drayton at least owes Weber a call...

Or a draft pick in 4 years.
 
Upvote 0
Indeed I feel like their should be an out clause in LOI especially for cases like this. Even if it isn't intentional misleading in the case of already agreeing but not announcing it till after the class is secured these types of decisions effect kids lives and they should be able to weigh them before they go school. The only reason I could see for people to argue against an out clause is what about the kids that are already playing their it effects their lives as well. Should they also have the ability to transfer somewhere no penalty if a coach leaves?
 
Upvote 0
I don't think it's shitty or shady. Who's to say he wasn't offered the job today, or even interviewed today for that matter, & accepted immediately? There's also no guarantee he would be here for Weber's entire four years either. Weber committed to The Ohio State University, not Stan Drayton. Coach got an opportunity to better himself & took it. I can't fault the guy for that.

When you have as much success as Ohio State has had, there's going to be turnover with the coaching staff. Best of luck, Coach!
 
Upvote 0
dragurd said:
Indeed I feel like their should be an out clause in LOI especially for cases like this. Even if it isn't intentional misleading in the case of already agreeing but not announcing it till after the class is secured these types of decisions effect kids lives and they should be able to weigh them before they go school. The only reason I could see for people to argue against an out clause is what about the kids that are already playing their it effects their lives as well. Should they also have the ability to transfer somewhere no penalty if a coach leaves?
Click to expand...
So does half of the class get to tear up their loi if Herman leaves after signing day?

Not even going to touch the open season hypothetical for the 30+ offensive backups already enrolled.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
So does half of the class get to tear up their loi if Herman leaves after signing day?

Not even going to touch the open season hypothetical for the 30+ offensive backups already enrolled.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I said their is an argument against it and I don't think there is a perfect answer fr everyone but as it is now you have situations where people have taken jobs and don't announce they have taken jobs till after NLOID and that's shitty. Not saying this is one of those situations but still it'd be nice to have some way for the kids to protect themselves against that but as you said what about people already on the team. Do they get to transfer too just cause a coach leaves and it may not even be related to the coach leaving(playing time)? I'm not sure there is a good answer other then maybe penalize schools for knowingly taking advantage of recruits like that? But even if that is the route I sure wouldn't want the current NCAA as the enforcers.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Anyone thinking that the staff owes it to a recruit to let him know that his potential position coach is interviewing for a job is full of it. What if the interview falls through or the coach doesn't get selected for the job? It's really no one's business other than the coach going for the interview.
Click to expand...

I don't think they owe it know they are interviewing only once they get the job they should be obligated to let recruits know. And maybe give recruits some protection for a situation just like this where their man position coach leaves right after NLOID. It''s messy and no solution in going to please everyone but it feels wrong to force a recruit to keep a commit when the coach that was recruiting them leaves before they even have a single practice.
 
Upvote 0
dragurd said:
I don't think they owe it know they are interviewing only once they get the job they should be obligated to let recruits know. And maybe give recruits some protection for a situation just like this where their man position coach leaves right after NLOID. It''s messy and no solution in going to please everyone but it feels wrong to force a recruit to keep a commit when the coach that was recruiting them leaves before they even have a single practice.
Click to expand...
Protection? From what? As pointed out earlier, there's no guarantee the position coach will stay on staff for the entire time that the recruit is there. What's the difference if the coach leaves a day later, a month later, a year, or after a couple years?

If we're going to play that game, we shouldn't let recruits leave before their four years are up.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top