mooseman

April 10th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^

Essentially saying Patterson doesn't have a case and it would open up a Pandora's box of transfers because of precident. Then he doubles down on the stupid and throws in "how do we know Michigan contacting Patterson was on the up and up?"

 

Multiple transfers, endless recruiting, dogs and cats living together

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 35491

EGD

April 10th, 2018 at 1:06 PM ^

Okay. Say Patterson wins his appeal, and next year some player wants to transfer without sitting because his coach supposedly promised him something (playing time, a starting position, whatever) and didn't deliver. Does the NCAA then have to determine whether such a promise was made, what the terms were, etc.? If not, aren't we letting coaches lie to recruits? I don't think tge Pandora's Box angle here is insignificant.

Joined: 09/16/2009

MGoPoints: 35199

Arb lover

April 10th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^

There's no precident if there isn't an actual violation of NCAA regulations that is being covered up. I doubt you have an issue with schools being able to hold on to recruits who have been lied to about recruiting or other NCAA violations by the gaining school. 

Joined: 11/26/2017

MGoPoints: 6915

DrMantisToboggan

April 10th, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^

The standard is one of "egregiousness". If Shea's case establishes the "egregious" standard, I am certain that a kid being promised more playing time than he received would not meet that standard. Ole Miss deceived players about the nature of the allegations against the program they were signing up to play for. The NCAA has rules on the books allowing players to transfer if the sanctions against their school are severe enough. There are no rules on the books allowing you to transfer if your PT doesn't meet a certain level. I don't think this would open a pandora's box for petty claims, the standard is still a high one that requires pretty exceptional circumstances.

Joined: 11/26/2014

MGoPoints: 74183

sum1valiant

April 10th, 2018 at 1:32 PM ^

I'll bite. If the institution/coach knowingly deceives a player in order to obtain their commitment, and the student athlete can prove the deception (as is the case here), then yes, the NCAA should intervene. In Pattersons case, all the leg work/investigating is already done for them and served on a silver platter. All the NCAA has to do is read and stamp it. Particularly regarding your playing time proposal, a coach shouldnt be able to promise Johnny recruit that he will be the starting quarterback next fall, knowing full well that he has a star starting quarterback and the recruit has no shot at starting.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 13025

1464

April 10th, 2018 at 1:34 PM ^

Yes, because other rules aren't ruled on subjectively... also, these kids are free labor.  If they want to go to another school because of playing time, WHAT IS THE FUCKING HARM?!?!?!

Schools should be able to block any school that is on the schedule for the duration of that players eligibility, due to playbook stuff.  Outside of that, schools can suck a fat bag of dicks.  A fat DIRTY bag of dicks.

EDIT:  Did the comment I replied to get nuked?

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

LSAClassOf2000

April 10th, 2018 at 2:23 PM ^

“If I didn’t know better, I would have thought Ole Miss hired Pinocchio to write its response to Michigan’s waiver request,” Mars said Monday night.

You mean it isn't common knowledge that Pinocchio is the exclusive provider of responses to waivers in the SEC?

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130610