OT: Coach Hypocrisy--Grad Transfers (SIAP)
I'm not sure how I feel about the grad transfer rule one way or the other, but in the midst of all that's going on with coaches leaving programs days after signing day, this article contains an exceptional level of hypocritical BS:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12314026/rob-ash-montana…
February 12th, 2015 at 7:25 AM ^
Yeah, that's really shitty. That QB has played well enough to earn a one-year shot at a much bigger, more prestigious, more competitive, and higher profile school, and his coach is actively lobbying to prevent players from taking those kinds of opportunities. You'd think a coach with his players' best interests at heart would support things like grad transfer opportunities like this one. And it's not like the kid used his school to promote himself - he's leaving for his fifth year, it's not like a one-and-out situation.
How many kids use grad transfers to move up from FCS to FBS, anyways?
In general, I like the grad transfer rule. I have to imagine that the vast majority of people who use it are not high profile football players looking at it as "free agency," but actual student athletes looking to get some of their grad degrees paid for. And even if it is football "free agency," it's players earning leverage and personal freedom via earning their college degrees - I'm ok with that trade off.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:54 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 12th, 2015 at 8:05 AM ^
Oh! I see.
In that case, feel free to disregard that first paragraph. But my general sentiment that grad transfers are positive things still stands.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:14 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 12th, 2015 at 8:22 AM ^
Not really supportive. He did ban him from the weight room, which I can totally understand given that Oregon and EWU play during week 1.
February 12th, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^
It's really unfortunate he'll be playing his former team, and has to be stressful for the coach. I think the grad transfer is good, the players/students have given 4 years and graduated. If they can have a better situation good. It sucks for their previous team and coach but I think they need to understand, "Hey goodluck on the higher stage, hope you make it", or "Hey that power 5 graduate degree is probably more prestigious and will help you land a job".
February 12th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^
Don't think you want to disparage degrees at non-FBS schools. You think Kentucky has a better Marine Biology program than Cal Poly or Portland State? That Oklahoma has better advanced finance or political science studies that William & Mary or Univ of Delaware? That the optometry degree at Northeastern State in OK is less than at Georgia, (pssst. UGa doesn't even have one!)
Let's not get painting with too wide a brush here or putting on the rose coloured specs. This transfer (as will ALL but a very minute minority) is all about giving the kid a shot at a higher level of football and maybe improving his potential in the NFL draft. (or in reverse or same level school a shot at potentially increased time as a starter for someone that has been passed over.)There is nothing wrong with that and I hope it works out for the kid and it opens more doors for him. The grad transfer rule is good and allows new opportunities for the kids. Sure truth be told most of FCS schools will lose some of the best to FBS schools; while FBS will lose kids that didn't develop as expected, were buried, or had other "problems" to FCS. However not much can be done about that without hurting the potential benefit for the kids. (I believe I remember reading Adams was very mildly pursued out of HS with just 2 offers to FCS schools.)
I agree with the OP that it does smack of hypocrisy, because he wouldn't care a lick if his AD thought "we put in all this time training you and you left to seek a more prestigious coaching job"
February 12th, 2015 at 7:25 AM ^
The rule encourages guys to graduate. I don't understand what "problems" offset that benefit.
It's ESPN---the mouthpiece of the establishment.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:26 AM ^
The kid graduates after 4 years and, like any other college graduate, is free to go to graduate school anywhere he wants to go to pursue his post graduate degree, but how dare he want to play football at a different university. Don't you know that when you signed the LOI that we own you?
February 12th, 2015 at 8:09 AM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
Coaches are free to decide who they want to give 5th years to. If their is a hot recruit the coach wants, no one bats an eye when the coach says no to a 5th year that isn't up to par.
I don't see any difference when a player makes the same decision about grad school, even if it is a athletic decision more than a academic one.
February 12th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
but I thought the original rule stipulated that the school he currently attends does not have a post graduate program that the school he is transferring to has.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:31 AM ^
The up side of the grad transfer rule is it encourages under grads to graduate to earn the privilege to transfer to seek educational opportunities. So if a few student athletes take advantage of it for other than academic reasons, Russell Wilson, so be it. They have fulfilled their original obligation to the school. Remember coaches have to approve a fifth year for those redshirt in their freshmen year.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:33 AM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 7:36 AM ^
Maye he should gauranee all his players 5 year scolly's and never take a pay incrase to move to another coaching gig.! Bet he would not like his worst players sticking around all the time.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:44 AM ^
I smell a "Worst Person in the World!" cameo coming.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:52 AM ^
Wow. The kid gave you 4 great years, did all he was asked in his 4 year commitment, and wants to go to the bigs of CFB for his last year. Hardly a farm system. What if Oregon offered the coach X million to come coach there? Will he turn it down since it's not supposed to be a farm system?
February 12th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
I guarantee if that guy was offered the head coaching position at Oregon, he'd be out the door of Montana State the next day.
The young man graduated from school in 4 years - something many regular students can't manage. He's not a slave to EWU. He went there for his undergrad and graduated. The hypocrisy amongst the suits of college sports is nauseating.
February 12th, 2015 at 7:56 AM ^
This coach sucks. The NCAA sucks. People, in general, who try to control the destiny of others and mask it behind something other than their own selfishness, definitely suck.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:03 AM ^
If a DIV 1 scholarship was guaranteed for 5 years (assuming redshirt - 4 if not) then I could go along with not allowing a grad transfer. But that's obviously not the case. Coaches can't have their cake and eat it too. Many coaches take advantage of not having to extend an eligible 5th year scholarship. The other side of that is a kid being able to transfer for that 5th year.
I don't know anything about this coach but I doubt he'd have an issue with a kid that was not extended a 5th year, transfering and playing right away.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:06 AM ^
I'm a little sympathetic to the Eastern Washington coach because their first game is Oregon next season. You can't let the kid use your facilities in an effort to get better when he is playing against you in your first game next year. I agree with most of the comments that the NCAA is a joke as a whole, but the circumstances involving Eastern Washington are kind of unique.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:13 AM ^
Why not?
He's not just "using their facilities", he played for them, set records, and graduated. He gave as good as he got.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:33 AM ^
I don't disagree with you at all. I would argue he probably gave more than he got. However, you can't let the kid use your facilities when he will be trying to destroy you next season. If Oregon wasn't on the schedule I would argue this is sour grapes, but when they are the opponent it is different. I genuinely feel bad for the kid because I would do exactly what he is doing if I was in his situation, but I can't fault the coach for restricting his access to the team and facilities since he is now the opponent.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:13 AM ^
From the coach's perspective, losing guys to the grad transfer has to be hurtful. You identify guys in high school, develop them for three or four years, and then watch them go play for another school - not take a job and move up in the world, but go play football for someone else. And let's be honest - most of these grad transfers are NOT taking place because of the Master's programs available.
I'm not saying it's right to lobby to change the rule, but these things are hurtful.
It's like your girl traded you for someone who's better looking and makes more money. Is it the right move for her? Quite possibly. Did you have a great time together? Sure. But now she's found somebody else (who's superior to you, at least in some ways), and it hurts to get dumped.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:24 AM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 8:27 AM ^
I think that's the difficult part to hash out. For example, Thomas Rawls was mostly buried on the bench, so it's understandable that he wants to go to CMU and be a lead back.
On the other hand, Vernon Adams - or Wayne Lyons - is not buried on the bench. So that's where your analogy reaches shaky ground.
February 12th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
wasn't a marginal contributor at NC State. He redshirted his freshman year and then started the next 3 years and was quite good. He was named first team All-ACC at least one of those years. The big issue as far as I remember was NC State's coach wanted Wilson to focus on football but Wilson wanted to continue playing minor league baseball in the summer months.
February 12th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
Mundy was the marginal contributor. Wilson was a multi-year starter. And you are correct that his leaving NCST was around playing baseball during the summer before his senior year.
My point was that Wilson had an exceptionally successful year at Wisconsin. I believe that they won the B1G and the Rose Bowl. My argument with regards to Wilson was that this level of success at Wisconsin allowed him to move up the draft boards significantly. And as a higher drafted QB, he has a far greater opportunity to win playing time versus a guy taken as a flier in the later rounds. I do realize that the "he had more success at UW than he would have had at NCST" argument is impossible to prove with data and is therefore soft.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:29 AM ^
So this basically boils down to hurt feelings?
February 12th, 2015 at 8:54 AM ^
Well, I think it's partly because they're missing out on good football players, but that can logically be explained away (the best football players are improving their chances of furthering their career opportunities by playing at the best football schools). But I do think hurt feelings is a part of it.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:59 AM ^
I can understand your point about hurt feelings. Yes, the coach and his staff identified the player in high school, and spent four years of time and effort getting this young man (and others) to his current playing level. But now that he's at that higher level, he ups and leaves for another school, possibly one that's bigger and more prestigious. Watching that kid shine on somebody else's stage - yeah, that's got to sting.
But as you said, let's be honest: the coach has to know that his program isn't the biggest stage in the country. He'd have to be completely naive to think that his superior players won't have an eye on one of those other stages, where the crowds are bigger and the attention is greater. Yes, it's no fun to think of your school as the "minor leagues' - but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes, that exactly what it is.
And I have to say that the girlfriend analogy isn't a perfect fit. Yes, the pain in getting dumped is similar. But when she becomes your girlfriend, she doesn't have to sign an NLI. And if she wants to leave you, she doesn't have to sit out a year before she starts dating somebody else.
February 12th, 2015 at 9:08 AM ^
But isn't this analogous to a coach not extending a scholarship to an eligible 5th year player?
Coaches are big boys making big money - if this is "hurtful" to them, then they're just a bit too much of the sensitive flower.
...but I don't think it's "hurtful" to them. I think it's all about wins and losses, and if the player wasn't going to help them win games they wouldn't give a tinker's damn about getting dumped.
February 12th, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^
It is somewhat analogous to not extending a fifth year, but keep in mind that not getting a fifth year means "You're not getting the job done." A kid taking a grad transfer like Vernon Adams is saying, "You've done such a good job helping me become a good football player, I want to leave you for a better team."
February 12th, 2015 at 11:53 AM ^
Exactly.
It isn't about feelings - it's purely about wins and losses.
A 5th year guy who isn't getting the job done doesn't get a scholarship - not hurtful to coach
A 5th year guy who isn't getting the job done grad transfers - not hurtful to coach
A 5th year guy who is getting the job done grad transfers - "OOOh my feewings are hurt".
Sorry - don't buy it. It's the coach choosing what is best for himself over what is best for the player.
February 12th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
I disagree. I don't think it's "purely about wins and losses." You're oversimplifying it and twisting it to make it fit your argument.
And I'm not saying that wins/losses have nothing to do with it. They clearly do. What I'm saying is that when you're a coach and you work hard to recruit and develop players, it's frustrating to watch them up and leave for a better opportunity.
I don't think the polar opposite is a fifth year guy not being renewed. It's just not the same. Being a college athlete is essentially a job, and those athletes are being paid (with free tuition and other things, though actually paying players is not something I want to get into here). If you're not doing your job at an acceptable level and you have earned your degree, then I really don't see a problem with shaking a guy's hand and saying, "Thanks for everything you've done." I don't think that's overtly hurtful, because most guys (think about Bellomy, Rawls, etc.) realize that they're either going to be bit players or completely buried on the bench.
However, as I said above, a guy transferring to another school like Vernon Adams is basically saying, "You've done your job TOO WELL and now I'm too good for your program."
Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But from the coach's perspective, it has to be frustrating.
February 12th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^
Being a college athlete is essentially a job, and those athletes are being paid (with free tuition and other things, though actually paying players is not something I want to get into here).
Yes - and when you boss at your job is unhappy about you leaving for better opportunities, it's because they're placing their concerns over yours. It's the coach placing his desires over those of the player.
...and if it about acceptable performance and is a job, why are we talking about "feelings"?
As for "not doing the job at an acceptable level", most 5th year handshakes are replaced by an incoming recruit that will contribute even less in that one year. It's pretty much analogous to the 50 year old doctor dumping his wife for a trophy wife. It's generally a trade for POTENTIAL not performance.
a guy transferring to another school like Vernon Adams is basically saying, "You've done your job TOO WELL and now I'm too good for your program."
Seems like a lot of hubris to me. It's just as much Vernon Adams saying "I've done my job well and now I'm good enough to qualify for better opportunities than your program."
It reminds of a book I read recently regarding good vs. bad management techniques:
"Unfortunately, some managers want nothing to do with career development because they're afraid employees will develop to the point where they will surpass, replace, or leave them.
Smart managers, however, know that workers who are looking ahead in their careers are strong employees who raise the level of the entire team"
February 12th, 2015 at 4:31 PM ^
I don't really feel the need to argue this any further. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the coach. What I'm doing is offering the context from a coach's perspective.
February 12th, 2015 at 5:39 PM ^
I understand that - I'm just pointing out that the coaches perspective is based on his own best interest and his teams best interest, not the best interest of an individual player.
The coaches perspective is selfish and hypocritical.
February 12th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 2:21 PM ^
you are recruited by a handful of coaches. One you take a large liking to and love their coaching style. He promises to be your coach for 5 years only to leave to a better opportunity after only 1.
It sucks for the kid, in yours, it sucks for the coach. We all get it. But no one thought Brady Hoke was a bad guy for leaving his players in San Diego. Why should the players who aren't being paid millions be held to some higher moral standard than the coach.
February 12th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^
I'm not saying they should be held to a higher moral standard. I'm simply explaining why it must be frustrating for the coaches who are affected by this.
February 12th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^
but I guess I disagree. I'm sure it's disappointing to see a player move on to greener pastures, but just as you stated about 5th years not getting resigned because they aren't getting it done, I get the gist that the coach is more concerned about the fact that his team is not going to be as good as it could be, thus hurting HIS (the coaches) chance at landing a better job or getting a raise.
Coaches shouldn't get the benefit of treating their players like employees, and then getting hurt because of the fact that they developed those players and am sad to see them go. It's not that people can't understand why the coach is upset, it's the hypocrasy of not allowing a player to move on and claiming feelings in this case, and then making it a performance business case when he doesn't renew a 5th year.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:25 AM ^
The one loophole I would like to see closed is the one where programs are "graduating" players in 3 years so that they are free to transfer. It's a backdoor way for them to avoid the stigma of oversigning.
It's an issue in places like the SEC where the concept of actually taking classes and graduating is, um, left to creative interpretation. If you are not really taking classes (or somebody else is taking them for you), why not "graduate" you when it's convenient for the program?
So instead of de-facto cutting players by various means and creating a messy situation, programs are identifiying players they don't want anymore and offering to "graduate" them in 3 years so they are then free to transfer out. Hands washed clean.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:33 AM ^
Unscrupulous coaches push players they no longer want out the door regardless. Their not having to sit out a year may provide the coach a bit of cover, but it certainly benefits those players more. The bigger issue is what is expected of players for them to remain academically eligible. At some places, unfortunately, it may be little more than be good at your sport.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:42 AM ^
Interesting that the Big Sky commissioner says the perceived problem may be addressed when the rules are adjusted to make them more "student-athlete centric" ...
In truth, the grad-transfer rule is one of the few rules that is "student-athlete centric". If anything, it should be strengthened -- I wonder if that's what the BIg Sky is hinting at. I'd like to see it provide a full degree, accomodate NFL draft preparation, and allow the student to return to the grad program if they are not drafted.
As for the sentiment of the FCS coaches not wanting to be seen as a "farm system" or whatever for the FBS, I wonder if that coach would take a job at Oregon, if offered? As the OP suggests, there's an element of hypocrisy in there.
But it is a legitimate question, I think -- the best 5th-year players being harvested from the FCS to round out depth, and not just the FCS, also the MAC, Mountain West, and so on. I don't know how many actual, real-world examples there are of this, but it does seem like it could be increasing.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:47 AM ^
It goes both ways for lesser FBS conferences. For example Rawls to CMU.
FCS coaches enjoy an advantage in that FBS player can transfer to them without having to sit out, but their players have to sit a year if they go to an FBS school. Grad transfer rules are allowing some players more freedom and have cut into that advantage. That's what they don't like. Not only can their star QB leave, but players like Rawls can now go to the MAC, rather than to them.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:43 AM ^
...i really agree with the eastern washington coach here. i get that the players currently have the right to move on to another school, but there's no reason he has to let him prep at EWU. particularly since he's moving on to oregon, who they play on sept 5. "sure, kid, use our facilities and get better so you can help beat our brains in in a few months." no thanks.
related question: does the grad transfer rule still require that the new school offer a program not available at the previous school? i'm sure that oregon has programs that EWU does not, but that's probably not true in the case of big school to big school transfers, right? like,say...nc state to wisconsin, or stanford to michigan? or are these guys just comparing catalogs once they decide where to go? "oh, good - michigan offers a grad degree in ballroom dance, sounds good to me!"
i guess the whole thing just smacks of college football free agency, and it bugs me. i like that michigan generally doesn't go after junior college players. these guys seem just a tiny step above that.
i know that 'student athlete' is a sham, but i like to pretend otherwise when i can.
also, please remove yourself from my lawn.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:49 AM ^
I agree with you. I mean, when the rule requires that the new school has a program not offered at the current school, that strongly implies that the rule is intended to allow transfers made for the primary purpose of education. But, like you said, the primary purpose is always the sport; the education is just a means to that end.
If the NCAA wants to allow guys to transfer in order to get more playing time somewhere else, just let them transfer without penalty. That's probably the way I would write the rule. But don't tether it to a graduate degree requirement when it's never being used for that true purpose.
February 12th, 2015 at 8:50 AM ^