Angelique on Patterson Transfer

Submitted by k.o.k.Law on April 19th, 2018 at 11:04 AM

The Angel on Shea and transfer rules in general.

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/2018/04/18/michigan-ce…

 

Jay BilAS Chips in:

“I’m probably more on the philosophical side,” Bilas said. “As you know, the NCAA falls all over themselves to say athletes are students first and they happen to be athletes. They are not employees. If that’s true, then there should be no restriction to where they go and receive aide immediately. Any transfer restrictions are equipped with what essentially is a non-compete element in a contract.

 

Extensive quotes from Grant Newsome:

 

“It’s completely unfair to punish student-athletes who have not been involved or not known about these recruiting violations and have to stay while the coach gets a fat (television) analyst job or another high-profile coaching job. You shouldn’t be putting kids in this position where he has to go out and hire a lawyer and be under that financial burden along with the emotional burden of playing out this fight in the pseudo legal situation that’s not even an issue.

Comments

Blue1972

April 19th, 2018 at 11:11 AM ^

Whether or not Grant ever plays another down for us, he clearly has the tools to make an impact on society.

Reading the entire article reveals his level of understanding  far surpasses the vast majority of people his age and older.

TTT

April 19th, 2018 at 11:14 AM ^

“I’m probably more on the philosophical side” is the most Jay Bilas quote ever. Guy is convinced of his own genius. 

LSAClassOf2000

April 19th, 2018 at 11:17 AM ^

Each passing quote from Newsome, here and some of his discussions on Twitter and elsewhere about some of the realities of being a student-athlete versus the "official message" of the NCAA, if you will....well, even if he does not play any more football in his life, he is bound to make an extremely valuable contirbute somewhere. 

Also, Bilas is right - the NCAA tries so hard to emphasize that student-athletes are not employees, yet a fair number of us on this board probably have some analogous terms and restrictions around our employment and we're not student-athletes. I'd enjoy hearing Emmert's explanation one day....not. 

1VaBlue1

April 19th, 2018 at 11:47 AM ^

I've always wondered if those two hotties have ever regretted being immortalized in that picture...

I mean, in the context we believe it to be - recruiting violations where Ole Miss paid them, the world clearly believes them to be hookers.  Maybe they were?  Probably not, but they were also (probably) put up to that pic through some booster program (or soroity house, or some such thing).  Maybe they just really loved him?  But I kinda doubt that...

1408

April 19th, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^

Those girls probably had no idea who he was, have no idea this photo exists and are likely married to (pick one): (a) a mortgage banker, (b) a lowish seven figures cotton/oil/agriculture heir, or (c) a personal injury attorney.  Persons (a) through (c) possess the frat shag, a dad bod, still park their Land Rover at the KA House on gamedays and live ten minutes away from the Country Club of Jackson.

lhglrkwg

April 19th, 2018 at 12:00 PM ^

Ole Miss - a program with essentially no past or present history of any significance - suddenly starts getting a bunch of out of state 4 and 5 stars to play there almost overnight. It's not like they hired a huge name coach either. They got Hugh Freeze. Former high school coach who did well at Arkansas State for a single season.

The cheating was so obvious that it had to be either extraordinary dumb or extraordinarily bold (i.e. the NCAA will never catch us). Given how this has unfolded, I think it's obvious that it was just dumb

1408

April 19th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^

You're pretty far off.  They are recruiting well again right now again so it wasn't just a Freeze thing.  It's in the SEC West, Oxford is an unbelievable place, the culture is football obsessed, the girls are ridiculous and it's a pretty awesome community.  It's also stuck in the 1860's so I am always a little surprised that so many recruits overlook that.  Would be a huge deterrent for me.

Kevin13

April 19th, 2018 at 1:57 PM ^

I remember them recuiting Treadwell. If I remember correctly they offered him like Mid January and he set up a visit there. UM was supposedly the leader for him and rumors were he was a silent commit to UM.  Then two weeks before signing day he's offerend visits Ole Miss. As soon as he was offered UM just stopped recruiting him I remember talk about it that there was no sense in recruiting him anymore because he was going to Ole Miss.

Sure enough he goes for a visit and commits that weekend to them.  But, nothing funny going on there.

enzo

April 19th, 2018 at 11:35 AM ^

about all this that never gets discussed here.  Everyone was scratching their head's wondering how Ole Miss was getting all these top recruits.  Patterson was a 5 star recruit, one of the top 3 QB's to come out of high school, why did he go to Ole Miss?  They were paying all these other 5 stars and not him? The Qb? 

This is the thing that worries me. 

Blue_42

April 19th, 2018 at 11:52 AM ^

I don't know if he was paid or not. But you already answered your own question of why he'd want to go to Ole Miss. 

They were amassing lot of talents.  And like most all top recruits they want to be a part of a great recruiting class and have talented weapons around them.

edit: and they hired his brother

The transfer w…

April 19th, 2018 at 11:53 AM ^

He was the crown Jewel of an recruiting class that was admittedly pulled in with illegal tactics. He also helped them recruit other players. If it weren't Michigan he were transferring to, I would just assume that he was paid AND his brother was hired so he would sign with Ole Miss. ** I'm not implying that players who look to capitalize on their talents are bad people.** Anyway, yes I have thought about this scenario.

Whole Milk

April 19th, 2018 at 12:08 PM ^

They took a different approach for Patterson from my understanding. He was always going to go where his brother was hired. The family didn't need money, and that recruiting tactic had no issues at the time. Someone can obviously correct me if I'm wrong. 

lilpenny1316

April 19th, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^

I agree with Newsome that we need the one-year rule or else it would be a free-for-all.  But kids should be granted immediate eligibility if a school is hit with sanctions that will expire before their eligibility.  These kids get four years to play college sports.  That's not a lot of time.  They should be afforded every opportunity to go to bowl games or the NCAA tournament in the short time they have on campus. 

If I was a freshman or sophomore, I would be made at even a one-year postseason ban.  I would want every opportunity possible to play in the postseason.

I Just Blue Myself

April 19th, 2018 at 12:44 PM ^

The postseason isn't guaranteed by any school, nor the NCAA. Occassionally a school turns down a bowl game they are eligible for. Should those players be allowed to transfer and have immediate eligibility as well? And sometimes schools ban themselves, and the NCAA doesn't impose any sanctions on top of the self-imposed sanctions. Should those players have immediately eligibility? 

It seems as if I'm fighting for Patterson not to play, and that's not my intent. I think players should be able to profit off their fame, and I agree that players in Patterson's situation should be allowed immediate eligibility. But basing it on the ability to play in a bowl game...I don't know if that's a great argument.

XiX

April 19th, 2018 at 1:03 PM ^

The basic result of major transgressions is the loss of post-season play. So, while I understand your point, whether a school bans itself or the NCAA does is immaterial. The fact that a school committed the kind of infractions that would lead to a post-season ban in a subsequent year should allow kids who choose to transfer the right to play immediately.

I'd like to add the caveat that kids who were involved in those infractions should be excluded from that transfer provision if they maintain their eligibility, though. Anyway, I know some have said that this (immedite elligibility) could cause a mass exodus and crater a program but I think that might discourage some of the mess that happens.

I'm not that crazy to think it will do much but still...