Mo Hurst undecided about playing in the Outback bowl
Baumgardner just tweeted that Mo Hurst isnt sure if he will play in the bowl game and will discuss it with his family before making a final decision. I, for one, will not blame him one bit if he chooses to sit out. The man has given everything to this university and Jake Butt showed how that can backfire last year. Go make your millions Mo!
https://twitter.com/nickbaumgardner/status/938835026422231041
One other interesting tidbit is his quote on the potential transfers: "In football it's best not to let your feelings get hurt. The best players will play, that's how it goes".
https://twitter.com/nickbaumgardner/status/938836517069508611
December 7th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^
but can't blame him after last year's #butthurt
December 7th, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^
He deserves a little extra security. And we have good depth of studs at the position.
Mo, go get the $
Next man up, go get the W
December 7th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:51 PM ^
He's done everything he could for this program. Him coming back this season I'm sure helped develop the other DL guys more than any of us can imagine.
Sit this one out and be a first round lock.
December 7th, 2017 at 2:56 PM ^
He has done a lot, but it's just not true that he's done "everything he could for this program". He could play in his final bowl game. Then, he would have done "everything" he could.
December 7th, 2017 at 3:21 PM ^
But c'mon.
December 7th, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^
Let Mone and Soloman step up. Jim did say that the bowl game should be treated like the next year...let the youngins play. We're not going for a natty here
December 7th, 2017 at 5:34 PM ^
I get that, I really do. To me, it still feels like letting your team down.
December 7th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^
Just one last sack for old time's sake . . .
December 7th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
I am totally for him dressing, and marching up and down that sideline rubbing his tummy with joy at every outstanding play his 'mates make while beating down those SEC 'cocks
December 7th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^
How is this account allowed to exist? Its sole purpose is to openly mock an individual and it even includes his picture. If there was ever an example of cyber bullying, this is it
December 7th, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
Leave mean joe alone!
December 7th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^
Is that really his picture? If so, this is both inappropriate and hilarious. It's hilarippropriate...
December 7th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
but I can see it on the app. Another mock account created today. I don't get it, why waste your time?
December 7th, 2017 at 2:20 PM ^
Does anyone think you're funny? I'm not sure they do. Maybe use that as your guide.
[directed at apparently deleted WD imposter]
December 7th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 6:18 PM ^
to see what the hell was going on here.
December 7th, 2017 at 2:23 PM ^
This comment and this poster have apparently been banned. I don't care what it was about. But why would anyone do this sort of thing -- create a fake account just to draw negative attention to themselves on a sports discussion board? It seems to be happening a lot on this site.
December 7th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
last night that when you posted it was "your last post". So....see ya....
December 7th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
still want you banned though!
December 7th, 2017 at 2:02 PM ^
jacknut not been sent to Bolivia? Mods, what are you doing!
December 7th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^
The deed has been done as it was brought to my attention on Twitter.
Keep in mind that I read a statistical sampling of things (which fits much better into a meeting-filled lifestyle), not the entire board. Probably a terrible thing to admit, but there it is.
December 7th, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:57 PM ^
Ohh Gawd, are you telling me that I read more of this place at work than a moderator does? Yeesh...
December 7th, 2017 at 3:20 PM ^
Elect 1VaBlue1 for moderator. He can go to work, get his job to pay him to work on the message board. Everybody wins, except for his current employer.
December 7th, 2017 at 5:53 PM ^
You must be a Flight Controller.
December 7th, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 4:33 PM ^
Seems rather fishy. I wonder who Julian really is.
December 7th, 2017 at 6:21 PM ^
Which is the unofficial language of Botswana, "Julien" roughly translates to "of a golden hue" or "Maizen" if you will.
December 7th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
Agreed. He has a lot to lose and nothing to gain. I very much hope the next time I see him suit up is in the NFL.
December 7th, 2017 at 2:06 PM ^
If you can justify shutting things down for a bowl game, isn't the logical next step shutting things down during the regular season, particularly when the only thing left is a bowl game with no chance of a conference championship/NC?
While I understand the risk of injury may not be something a player wishes to undertake, an awful lot of money in terms of a scholarship, training facilities, coaching, etc. is spent per year on every player (by most accounts, 100-200K plus the cost of the scholarship).
Doesn't sitting the bowl game out fly in the face of "The Team, the Team. the Team?"
December 7th, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^
December 7th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^
If the NCAA let people be paid what they're worth, then most men's sports and nearly all women's sports would be pay to play (ie they have a negative net worth to the university). I don't oppose that, just saying it will never happen.
December 7th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^
You are conflating two issues. Isn't the question basically about a contract between a university and a player? The player agrees to do what is necessary to perform on the football field and the university agrees to educate and train the player. Not playing is a breach of the agreement.
December 7th, 2017 at 3:47 PM ^
As far as I know, there is no such agreement between the player and the University. The player does not agree to do anything other than attend the University in exchange for a scholarship.
To quote the NCAA manual, Section 2.9 (I do this in an lower post as well): "Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation..."
In other words, he's a volunteer. There is no contract between Mr. Hurst and the University, and so the University has no claim on his labor.
December 7th, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^
I have seen agreements signed by student athletes, although not one from Michigan. Each side has clearly delineated obligations.
December 7th, 2017 at 6:06 PM ^
I tried to find an "NCAA contract" sample online but failed (other than the LOI, which obviously doesn't apply to Hurst because it expires after one year). Does the agreement include a promise by the player to play in every game? Or every game when determined by medical staff to be healthy enough to play?
I'm guessing it doesn't. Why? Because the NCAA is very, very good at one thing: winning court cases involving the amateurism question. If the player is performing labor in exchange for compensation, he is an employee, right? And as such, would become subject to all kinds of labor laws that obviously don't apply.
So the NCAA and the University of Michigan would have to state quite adamantly in court that Mr. Hurst is playing football for his own benefit, and not in exchange for anything that was given to him--including a scholarship. This is the foundation that the NCAA's conception of amateurism rests on, and if that foundation breaks, the whole structure falls apart.
December 7th, 2017 at 7:09 PM ^
Here is a link to a sample athletic-aid agreement.
https://www.athleticscholarships.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Example…
Note this language:
My financial aid will not be increased, reduced, or canceled during the period of the award on the basis of my athletic ability, performance or contribution to my team’s success; because of an injury or illness that prevents me from participating in athletics; or for any other athletic reason.
Consider the language I bolded.
"...contribution to my team's success..." would probably pertain to whether a player sees time on the field or not, but there seems to be no out for simply deciding not to participate.
The school could always add language that recites damages should a player decide not to play in a game. I have to believe, that unless there is something in the NCAA rulebook to the contrary, the university has a fair amount of latitude.
December 7th, 2017 at 8:09 PM ^
Interesting: "I am aware that the amount of this aid may be immediately reduced or canceled during the term of this award if: I voluntarily withdraw from the sport for personal reasons prior to the first competition in my sport."
So it seems it's entirely legitimate to withdraw from the sport for personal reasons after the first competition in the sport, and the scholarship can't be pulled for that term.
A tangent: what if, instead of playing the (non-playoff) bowls in December & January, we played them in August? Think about it--August 25, 2018, the Outback Bowl between Michigan and South Carolina. I would honestly pay a lot more to see that game than I would pay to see the game in January.
December 7th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
Double Post
December 7th, 2017 at 4:26 PM ^
Triple Post