Toggle sidebar

New entry into tbe portal. Someone who hasn't played in 9 years

M

MSUDAWGFAN

Active member
Apr 17, 2014
965
453
63
  • Haha
Reactions: dgsmith15, hatfieldms and patdog
mstateglfr

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
14,446
4,407
113
Sure, lets allow it. Why the 17 not at this point?
Her reasoning is no less insane than much of what has happened these last few years.
Lets retroactively approve people to have eligibility if they didnt use it all up before.

A Villanova player from 9 years ago is suing the NCAA and multiple conference for not being able to collect NIL money back then. Its an absurd claim, but at this point, I wouldnt be surprised to find out he somehow wins the case. Nothing makes sense anymore.

After playing at Northern Illinois, Janae Jackson transferred to Youngstown State for her senior year of college. If you're wondering how she would argue that her eligibility clock has not run out, it comes down to how many seasons she actually played in college.

In reality, Jackson had only actually played three seasons of college basketball, during her five years in college. Due to an injury sustained, and having to sit out one season due to the transfer rules that were in place during that time period in college basketball, she technically has another year of eligibility remaining.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17itdawg, ll Martain ll, MSUDAWGFAN and 1 other person
M

MSUDAWGFAN

Active member
Apr 17, 2014
965
453
63
mstateglfr said:
Sure, lets allow it. Why the 17 not at this point?
Her reasoning is no less insane than much of what has happened these last few years.
Lets retroactively approve people to have eligibility if they didnt use it all up before.

A Villanova player from 9 years ago is suing the NCAA and multiple conference for not being able to collect NIL money back then. Its an absurd claim, but at this point, I wouldnt be surprised to find out he somehow wins the case. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Click to expand...
Maybe we can get Dak back for a year after he is done with the NFL.**
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxwellSmart, ll Martain ll and mstateglfr
beachbumdawg

beachbumdawg

Active member
Nov 28, 2006
2,753
448
83
  • Haha
Reactions: MagnoliaHunter
J

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
13,144
3,518
113
mstateglfr said:
Sure, lets allow it. Why the 17 not at this point?
Click to expand...
I'm actually fine with this at this point. The stars being student athletes has been a pretense for a while, but there were always players that stuck around for 3 or 4 years and graduated and genuinely seemed to invest in the university. At this point? Just make it a true professional league. We'd actually get to know who players were if they signed for multiple years. We'd actually have a chance to compete by identifying underrated athletes and locking them down for 3 or 4 years at a time. If they could risk a rule where you had to be two years removed from an NFL or NBA roster once you signed (just to stop blue bloods from going crazy and poaching back up QBs and ****).
 
M

MSUDAWGFAN

Active member
Apr 17, 2014
965
453
63
johnson86-1 said:
I'm actually fine with this at this point. The stars being student athletes has been a pretense for a while, but there were always players that stuck around for 3 or 4 years and graduated and genuinely seemed to invest in the university. At this point? Just make it a true professional league. We'd actually get to know who players were if they signed for multiple years. We'd actually have a chance to compete by identifying underrated athletes and locking them down for 3 or 4 years at a time. If they could risk a rule where you had to be two years removed from an NFL or NBA roster once you signed (just to stop blue bloods from going crazy and poaching back up QBs and ****).
Click to expand...
Who said they would stick around for 3 or 4 years? They could still leave after one year, like they are doing now. Contracts for scholarships have always been on a year to year basis.
 
J

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
13,144
3,518
113
MSUDAWGFAN said:
Who said they would stick around for 3 or 4 years? They could still leave after one year, like they are doing now. Contracts for scholarships have always been on a year to year basis.
Click to expand...
I don't knkow if you've noticed, but there are lots of things that "have always been" in college sports that are no longer. Scholarships have generally been one year agreements because that was favorable to the school. Transfer/eligibility limitations generally made it undesirable for players to transfer, so it was almost like having a school option to renew a contract.

But there is no NCAA prohibition on multiple year agreements. There may be some NCAA rule that limits the ability of schools to put in transfer restrictions or buyouts in private contracts with the school. Not sure why that would be the one thing they decide to enforce, but I don't think it'd be hard to get schools to agree that they would like the option to have mutual contracts instead of the current situation.
 
M

MSUDAWGFAN

Active member
Apr 17, 2014
965
453
63
johnson86-1 said:
I don't knkow if you've noticed, but there are lots of things that "have always been" in college sports that are no longer. Scholarships have generally been one year agreements because that was favorable to the school. Transfer/eligibility limitations generally made it undesirable for players to transfer, so it was almost like having a school option to renew a contract.

But there is no NCAA prohibition on multiple year agreements. There may be some NCAA rule that limits the ability of schools to put in transfer restrictions or buyouts in private contracts with the school. Not sure why that would be the one thing they decide to enforce, but I don't think it'd be hard to get schools to agree that they would like the option to have mutual contracts instead of the current situation.
Click to expand...
Of course I have noticed. I guess it could happen, but I don't think most players would go for it. I am certain most players are going to want to go on a year to year basis so they can transfer out each year for more money and/or playing time. If the money gets too high, of course they'll sign for a multi year contract, but most teams aren't going to be able to pay what I think that's going to be.
 
J

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
13,144
3,518
113
MSUDAWGFAN said:
Of course I have noticed. I guess it could happen, but I don't think most players would go for it. I am certain most players are going to want to go on a year to year basis so they can transfer out each year for more money and/or playing time. If the money gets too high, of course they'll sign for a multi year contract, but most teams aren't going to be able to pay what I think that's going to be.
Click to expand...
The market would shift dramatically if you were no longer limited to players with college eligibility. When there is a universe of athletes outside of the NBA and NFL, the players will be worried about locking in payments, not increasing their pay each year. Certainly there will be some that want one year deals and the teams with money will probably be willing to play that game, but there universe of players compared to the number of spots is going to have a lot of players focused just on getting a paycheck locked up.
 
M

MSUDAWGFAN

Active member
Apr 17, 2014
965
453
63
thekimmer said:
Does Monta Ellis want to play for us?
Click to expand...
I don't know how they are today, but if they are even a decent size fraction as good as they were years ago, we should get Monta, Jonathan Bender, and Travis Outlaw to come. But I bet father time is still undefeated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom