Mo Hurst undecided about playing in the Outback bowl

Submitted by Bo Schemheckler on December 7th, 2017 at 1:38 PM

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

Comments

mgowill

December 7th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^

Jake Butt went from 1st or 2nd round to 5th. Thanks Orange Bowl. I don’t think that Hurst is doing anything wrong here. The next man up is fine because South Carolina is pretty terrible at offense. The disappointment this year was certainly not Mo Hurst or the defense. I think you’re kind of being a dick. But you’re entitled to your opinion.

1464

December 7th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^

I think we both realize it doesn't matter if you make an idiot of yourself as an anonymous internet troll.
But based on how you have decided to spend your limited time on this earth, mocking someone you don't even know, I can only imagine what stupid shit you do in real life to make people realize that you're not worth knowing.

1464

December 7th, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^

I love the ninja ban that makes it look like were piling on an innocent pedestrian... Anyway, whoever that shithead was, you should do more than ban his account and email. Figure out how to do more to make sure he can't visit the page.

Marvin

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.

LSAClassOf2000

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. 

 

samsoccer7

December 7th, 2017 at 1:41 PM ^

I hate to say it but he should sit out. It’s an exhibition game. Sadly with the playoff now these bowl games seem to lose importance with each year. Go for it Mo and thanks for everything...

bluebyyou

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?"

 

Blue_in_Cleveland

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.

Alton

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.

Alton

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.

 

bluebyyou

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.

 

Alton

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.