Fall Camp Position Battles - Quarterback

Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I swear this guy lives in a literal manifestation of Pleasantville from the Toby McGuire 90's flick

There's nothing wrong AT ALL about a college football player wanting to have the opportunity to actually PLAY college football, and if that pursuit leads them to transfer, that doesn't mean that they're a spoiled, entitled brat millenial.
Click to expand...
No kidding!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I swear this guy lives in a literal manifestation of Pleasantville from the Toby McGuire 90's flick

There's nothing wrong AT ALL about a college football player wanting to have the opportunity to actually PLAY college football, and if that pursuit leads them to transfer, that doesn't mean that they're a spoiled, entitled brat millenial.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite parts:

 
Players should go wherever they want. There's no sense in acting like an 18 y/o can't change his path when he realizes he's on the wrong one.

There should be no restriction on transfers, especially as long as scholarships are "renewable" by the university.

 
Enhance89 said:
I think it's very plausible O'Brien and Gebbia are both not on the roster within a few years anyways, particularly now that Lee has been granted two full years of eligibility. If Lee ends up being the starter for two years beginning in 2017, that means O'Brien would have two potential years as a starter and Gebbia three (assuming redshirts, that my math doesn't suck and no injuries.)

There are clearly a lot of ifs and unknowns with this scenario.
Click to expand...
Now I know he wasn't really playing with the same caliber of players as what Nebraska will give him. But Tanner Lee's stats at Tulane don't necessarily give me the indication that he is some kind of shoe in to start one game, let alone 2 years.

 
cm husker said:
Players should go wherever they want. There's no sense in acting like an 18 y/o can't change his path when he realizes he's on the wrong one.

There should be no restriction on transfers, especially as long as scholarships are "renewable" by the university.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that scholarships are not 'renewable' and are guaranteed for the full four years in most cases. If the player's signed letter of commitment is non binding, then why should the school's offer be binding whether the kid gives a dam or not. Players who take the ride without trying to make the squad are simply dead weight.

I don't feel the offer of a scholarship is a guaranty that you will be a starter - only that you are welcome to come and join the team and participate in whatever way the Coaches deem best for the team and program. That may be as a starting QB or as the scout team QB or somewhere else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
caveman99 said:
StPaulHusker said:
caveman99 said:
cm husker said:
An LOI is binding. The scholarship offer is nonbinding.

Why would a team want to force a kid to stay who wants to go?
Click to expand...
When does the B1G's new rule about guaranteed 4 year scholarships kick in? That changes the equation a bit IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes them binding, though.
Click to expand...
For the player or the university? It is for the university I thought.
Click to expand...
For the player

 
StPaulHusker said:
caveman99 said:
StPaulHusker said:
caveman99 said:
cm husker said:
An LOI is binding. The scholarship offer is nonbinding.

Why would a team want to force a kid to stay who wants to go?
Click to expand...
When does the B1G's new rule about guaranteed 4 year scholarships kick in? That changes the equation a bit IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes them binding, though.
Click to expand...
For the player or the university? It is for the university I thought.
Click to expand...
For the player
Click to expand...
That is what I thought. So under this set of circumstances where the University has to commit to the player, is it still unreasonable to have the current set of transfer restrictions on the players, i.e. having to sit out 1-2 years? I used to say that they should be able to freely transfer, but now with the 4 year guaranteed scholly I am not so sure. However I still have an issue with the ability for coaches to leave and Players not being given a special option to transfer without restriction under that scenario.

 
caveman99 said:
cm husker said:
An LOI is binding. The scholarship offer is nonbinding.

Why would a team want to force a kid to stay who wants to go?
Click to expand...
When does the B1G's new rule about guaranteed 4 year scholarships kick in? That changes the equation a bit IMO.
Click to expand...
It went into effect in 2015, I think (announced in 2014 or so, iirc).

I'm not sure that it really gives the players that much more protection or should act as a reason why a player who wants to move can't move.

But I take your point.

 
Why do so many of these threads this time of year always end up a discussion of fans thinking some player is upset and going to transfer unless he plays?

 
BigRedBuster said:
Why do so many of these threads this time of year always end up a discussion of fans thinking some player is upset and going to transfer unless he plays?
Click to expand...
Because they ARE going to transfer... ALL of them...

tumblr_inline_nea6gk0djS1r550fj.gif


 
BigRedBuster said:
Why do so many of these threads this time of year always end up a discussion of fans thinking some player is upset and going to transfer unless he plays?
Click to expand...
Because that's how things work more and more all over college football - especially at QB. See Cody Green and Johnny Stanton for recent Husker examples and numerous examples from around the country.

 
Back
Top