BB RECRUITING Crump
- Thread starter SpaceRaider
- Start date
Glad Crump’s on board.
Wait, UNCA’s AD released Crump to follow McDevitt to MT after he signed? Why didn’t he restrict Crump? I thought that’s the kind of thing only gutless AD’s like Massero did? /SI
Wait, UNCA’s AD released Crump to follow McDevitt to MT after he signed? Why didn’t he restrict Crump? I thought that’s the kind of thing only gutless AD’s like Massero did? /SI
MT is not on UNCA's future schedules. Ole Miss is on MT's future schedule.
You're comparing apples to orange, although in my perfect world a coach would not poach players he had recruited to his previous school unless the previous school's roster was full.
You're comparing apples to orange, although in my perfect world a coach would not poach players he had recruited to his previous school unless the previous school's roster was full.
We will just have to disagree- I don’t think a school should Ever limit a kid going to school the kid/family thinks is best for them.
And it appears UNCA gave Crump a full release, to include future opponents- so not apples to oranges.
I can't speak for By5, but I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you. If a coach leaves due to success you can be assured he is typically going to go to a school better resourced than the one he is leaving. As such Ole Miss doesn't need any additional benefits afforded to them (such as MT fronting all the money spent recruiting the players) just so they can sign there. Same for Asheville to MT scenario. Though I would certainly argue MT is in a boat much similar to Asheville than the yacht Ole Miss gets to cruise in. That said, I can even swallow that even as bad as it may taste but to allow someone to go to a place that in just a few months is going to be in a position to beat us is not ok.
In my opinion, a "kid" as you call him should honor his John Hancock. As I've stated before Kermit's name was no where on the Letter of Intent. The student-athlete signs with the school not the coach. If they don't understand that then as an adult (not a kid) these young men have their first learning opportunity on dealing with contracts - you know things that happen in the real world. However, I'm not such a hard ass that I miss the "concern" here. I would never force a kid to play for MT in this situation, but every school MT included has every right in the world and should exercise that right to restrict a small number of spots where that young man should be precluded from attending if it potentially represents a detrimental outcome to the university. In this instance, limiting him to a known opponent is warranted and acceptable. There is no reason why we should help Ole Miss out or for that matter allow a signee the opportunity go a hundred miles up the road to our rival.
As for Crump, I don't know if had any restrictions or not. What are you basing that on? But since MT is not playing Asheville this year and we are not in the same conference you're right it's not apples to oranges. It's bananas to kumquats.
Intriguing prospect. Also interesting that we're getting a signee from Michigan. Have we ever had a player from Michigan? Closest I can think of would be Darnell Harris from Wisconsin, but he came by way of junior college in Florida.
I guess barring defections over the summer, this sets our roster for next year. Hoping that Scurry gets his waiver to be eligible this year.
I guess barring defections over the summer, this sets our roster for next year. Hoping that Scurry gets his waiver to be eligible this year.
If we have I can't recall. I don't think we have out of high school. Maybe somewhere a juco had roots in Michigan, but again I can't recall of one.
Where was Bruce Massey from? Thought he was from that area somewhere.
Also, I’m getting lost as to what we have coming in, what we have that’s eligible and such. At some point cloud someone possibly do some kind of breakdown?
Thanks! I know one has to sit out so I wasn’t sure if he was one of the three scholarships that opened up.
We know that C.J. Jones (6-5 transfer from Arkansas) has to sit out next year. Apparently there is at least a reasonable chance that Reggie Scurry (6-5 transfer from Missouri State) will be eligible this coming season, but that is not certain.
Jones has two years remaining after he sits out this year. Scurry has one year remaining, either to be played in this upcoming season or the 19-20 season.
Crump will be a true freshman.
So we have...
Returning contributors:
Donovan Sims
Antwain Johnson
Karl Gamble
Tyrik Dixon
David Simmons
James Hawthorne
Expected Impact newcomers
Antonio Green (transfer that sat last season)
Reggie Scurry (if eligible)
Other returning players
Therren Shelton-Szmidt
T.J. Massenburg (2018 redshirt)
Davion Thomas
Other Newcomers
Anthony Crump (true freshman)
C.J. Jones (ineligible in 18-19)
Walkons
Chase Miller
Michael Van Hooser
Will Slatten
On paper, it definitely looks like a thin front line unless we get real breakout years from some combination of Gamble, Hawthorne, Massenburg, and Thomas. We have some exciting small ball possibilities with Sims, Dixon, Green, Johnson, and Simmons. We may have to win some games that way.
From where I sit today, my goals for next season are probably a top 4 finish in the regular season and be playing our best ball at the end of the year to give us a puncher's chance in the tournament.
I should have never made the original comment. I know better.
I get the whole competitive point of view. I get it, I just disagree with a school being able to limit where a kid transfers to. If a kid wants to transfer, they should be able to transfer anywhere with no restrictions, especially if they never actually played for the school. If we don’t like it, how bout we beat them on the court/field instead of taking what I consider a chicken s<%}| way because we are afraid to play against them. I have always thought it was a coward move when ANY school limits a player leaving like this. Just my opinion. We are not going to agree, so no point either of us posting about it again. I won’t respond and I’m not going to read another novel about a 17 yrs old being mean that need to honor their contract to a school when a coach making millions off their sweat can bolt for more money or leave the program trashed in NCAA violations so the kids college experience is screwed & the kid gets to make nothing off their jersey sales. Oh well.
I am glad Crump is coming to MT.
I'm curious then to know what you think the point of signing a letter of intent is for. Or signing day. Or transfer rules. I mean why don't we just allow P5 programs the right to just recruit any of our good players and just take them whenever they decide it fits their need. Middle of the season? No problem. Just take Giddy off our team and put him at Tenn because the Vols need a three point shooter. You may think that sounds preposterous (at least I hope) but your opinion isn't that far away.
And it's not just a competitive deal. I donate to the BRAA. My money goes to cover the scholarships of these players. There is a bigger picture here and if I'm going to donate money to MT my expectation is that they protect their investments. Allowing a signee that we've expended an immense amount of effort to recruit only to see him go to a rival or opponent is not a good policy. Don't restrict these guys from bailing if they want. That's fine. I understand it. They should be allowed to leave if they want. But since it is already at our expense no double whammies please. I don't even care if these guys go to Vandy or Belmont so long as those teams aren't on our schedule the next couple of years.
As an UNCA alum it doesn't bother me one bit to see Crump or any these kids (Teague- Baylor ; Baehre- Clemson) go elsewhere- they have to live their lives as they best see fit.. yes my team is affected but the players shift around every 4 -5 years anyways so the attachment is natural but fleeting.. I have always had confidence in the coaches to rebound, recruit, develop, and replace players who have left via graduation, transfers, academic reasons, etc..
As a comparison- UNCA lost 2 of 3 recruits and 4 current players with the coaching change and doesn't have near the recruiting funds that MTSU does- you guys will be just fine compared to a low-major like UNCA.. Crump has an almost 2-year long relationship with CNM/staff and your other recruits that left had I'm sure lots of time in with CKD/staff- you just can't replicate that quickly..
I wonder how some of you feel when schools don't renew player's scholarships? What if the kid is a recruiting miss, not good enough, and they just need to move down a level? I'm sure some folks here are ok with those guys transferring despite the resources expended.. Like it or not these are 1-year contracts and commitments.. as for the NLI for a player who hasn't even registered for classes or doesn't want to be on your campus- let them leave and have confidence in your staff to move on as well..
As a former college athlete things were different 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago and at a fundamental level I know I have a stick it out/honor your commitment to the team/school mentality- but....this is just the current climate in travel ball/youth league/grade school/high school/ prep school/college/amateur/ professional athletics- at every level you have kids who move or get moved from team to team- by the time they get to college you think suddenly they should just stick it out when so many haven't ever been on the same/similar team for more than 1-2 years? Especially when the coach you knew is gone before you even arrive? That's just not realistic.. then you want some frivolous penalty/restrictions placed on an 18 year old just to make yourself feel better for some perceived slight? The random thing in all this is the 4-game Ole Miss contract- take that out of the scheduling piece and none of you are all that mad from what I gather- just take it for the coincidence that it is & move on..my guess is none of you came out of your pocket directly for any recruiting expenses.. I expect pettiness from women and children, not grown men.. but maybe that's just me.
I say good for Crump- glad to see him land at MTSU and stay with CNM & company.......
As a comparison- UNCA lost 2 of 3 recruits and 4 current players with the coaching change and doesn't have near the recruiting funds that MTSU does- you guys will be just fine compared to a low-major like UNCA.. Crump has an almost 2-year long relationship with CNM/staff and your other recruits that left had I'm sure lots of time in with CKD/staff- you just can't replicate that quickly..
I wonder how some of you feel when schools don't renew player's scholarships? What if the kid is a recruiting miss, not good enough, and they just need to move down a level? I'm sure some folks here are ok with those guys transferring despite the resources expended.. Like it or not these are 1-year contracts and commitments.. as for the NLI for a player who hasn't even registered for classes or doesn't want to be on your campus- let them leave and have confidence in your staff to move on as well..
As a former college athlete things were different 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago and at a fundamental level I know I have a stick it out/honor your commitment to the team/school mentality- but....this is just the current climate in travel ball/youth league/grade school/high school/ prep school/college/amateur/ professional athletics- at every level you have kids who move or get moved from team to team- by the time they get to college you think suddenly they should just stick it out when so many haven't ever been on the same/similar team for more than 1-2 years? Especially when the coach you knew is gone before you even arrive? That's just not realistic.. then you want some frivolous penalty/restrictions placed on an 18 year old just to make yourself feel better for some perceived slight? The random thing in all this is the 4-game Ole Miss contract- take that out of the scheduling piece and none of you are all that mad from what I gather- just take it for the coincidence that it is & move on..my guess is none of you came out of your pocket directly for any recruiting expenses.. I expect pettiness from women and children, not grown men.. but maybe that's just me.
I say good for Crump- glad to see him land at MTSU and stay with CNM & company.......
Obviously, Kermit's situation was complicated by the fact that Ole Miss is on our schedule next year. But I would also be just as disturbed perhaps more so if any of the three signees ended up at UAB, wkcc, or Marshall. I wonder, kingaling, if your stance would be the same if any of your signees decided to go to Winthrop instead? You still good watching one of your signees bringing it twice a year against you? Would you be good watching Crump drop 30 on your beloved Asheville program in a Big South conference title game destroying your NCAA tournament hopes?
I respect your coming over here and giving us info on what to expect out of McDevitt. I also commend your loyalty to your school, your ability to accept your school's place in college athletics (something with which I clearly have a problem), and also your cogent argument defending your opinion on college athletes' rights as it refers to transfers.
My disagreement is with your statement that none of the funds expended for the recruiting of our released signees came (directly) out of our pockets. You are aware that funds are fungible. I would argue that some of the dollars (perhaps just pennies) the previous staff used to recruit these players did come from my pockets since for 30 +/- years I have been a season ticket holder (more than just men's BkB), I have on many occasions bought additional tickets for guests, I have never refused to give a gift for an athletic dept. fundraiser, and have been a BRAA member since inception.
I am not upset at releasing the recruits, I realize they signed with the coach and not the school in reality, if not legally. Clearly, you don't want players who don't want to be at your school. My problem is releasing players to any school in-conference or on future schedules. That still leaves 95+ % of the D-1 schools for a player to transfer to if a commonly accepted restricted release is given. Regardless of whether or not the player is following a coach I don't want to see a player MT had recruited, signed, and fans had looked forward to seeing in a Blue Raider uniform playing against MT during the regular season. I am considering dropping my support next year since I feel so strongly that fans have been greatly disrespected by this blanket release.
I had an emotional investment in these players when their signing was hyped, when I followed their senior high school years closely, and when I anticipated their stepping on the floor of Murphy Center. And yes, I had a few cents invested also.
We had that happen in a guy named Phillip Williams that CNM recruited, verbally committed to UNCA, and then was 'tampered' with by Gregg Marshall & company and signed with Winthrop- I enjoyed having him lose 6 of 10 matchups against UNCA.. yes I hated him for being on the team I despise- but I would not have wanted him forced into to playing somewhere he didn't prefer.. it's one thing to root for or against the kids it's yet another to restrict the kids preference and life choice..
I guess as a competitor- if you're not with me then you're against me when we line up to play.. but off the court I shouldn't get in the way of your decisions- go be happy and if we play each other let the best team win.. you only hate your ex-girlfriend when you're single- find happiness with someone else and move on..
Last edited:
Ha. Ha. Only if that girlfriend doesn't create havoc with my next one and undermine that relationship. See that's the point and the problem with allowing them to go in conference or to an opponent.
Fair points and I have similar feelings about cutting off my own financial support regarding the coaching hire made here at UNCA and our ignorant AD but I digress as it has nothing to do with the player decisions..
I don't discount the fact that some of your monies 'may' have indirectly gone towards recruiting- but again, as you stated eloquently the ath dept funds are fungible.. without direct knowledge of MTSU's revenue streams my guess is that football, basketball and other revenue producing sports hold their own and contribute downstream- the other fund raising (i.e. ticket sales, booster clubs, campaigns, etc) likely ends up in the coffers of non-revenue sports and activities that the Ath Dept funds.. point being you may have contributed 'pennies' but nothing that should cause anyone's panties to get in a bind over.. now, if you're one the boosters furnishing access to a plane/fuel for coaches to visit Georgia and escort a recruit to an advanced placement exam.. then go ahead and be mad at the world..
I would see the argument better if we were talking about any of the recruits going to a conference opponent- I'm not sure that I would completely back getting in the way of it but it resonates more than this Ole Miss coaching change/scheduling dynamic.
That's the thing with ex-girlfriends there's always initial drama in a breakup.. but how frivolous some of those feelings/drama become over time when you look back.
We were arguably 1 big OOC win away from getting at-large last year.
What if next year Ole Miss beats us, and we are 1 win away from another at-large, and Buffen drops 25 on us in that game?
Is that just some frivolous initial break up drama?
There's a lot at stake here. Thousands upon thousands of MT's recruiting budget was spent on getting those 3 kids to sign here. Allowing them to go to a future opponent, in-conference or not, is just not acceptable in my eyes and never will be. There's around 350 Division 1 b-ball schools. Taking away 20 of those options and leaving them another 330 choices seems like a fair trade off all things considered.
What if next year Ole Miss beats us, and we are 1 win away from another at-large, and Buffen drops 25 on us in that game?
Is that just some frivolous initial break up drama?
There's a lot at stake here. Thousands upon thousands of MT's recruiting budget was spent on getting those 3 kids to sign here. Allowing them to go to a future opponent, in-conference or not, is just not acceptable in my eyes and never will be. There's around 350 Division 1 b-ball schools. Taking away 20 of those options and leaving them another 330 choices seems like a fair trade off all things considered.
Wiley's statement is exactly how I feel about that situation. This is not a petty move to limit their options. That would have protected us from getting stabbed with our own knife. Buffen will have highlights vs us and CM will still be convinced that he did the right thing. It's spilt milk now.
I've stepped back from the ledge for now. I'm waiting until November to see what happens. Not very thrilled right now but we'll see.
I've stepped back from the ledge for now. I'm waiting until November to see what happens. Not very thrilled right now but we'll see.
What if, what if, what if- why not just consider the decision in real time and in a realistic way.. personally I say man up and just win as that is the root of the problem.. from the projections of how MTSU is likely to finish this year I think you all would be thrilled to be in an at-large convo regardless of how one game here or there plays out- bubble teams rarely have just one game that determines their fate- don't oversimplify the process out of convenience to attempt to make your point.. that said Ole Miss signed a 4 star kid similar to Buffen the next day that Buffen signed, my guess is you won't have to worry about him this year.. my other thought is he won't pass his admission exams to actually get in at Ole Miss but that's altogether different..
You all wanting to limit a kids future based on all these what-ifs that aren't likely to matter this year isn't a convincing argument- don't get me wrong, I understand your points and it certainly isn't unreasonable to make some limits (C-USA) but the bigger issue is why doesn't MTSU establish a release policy and apply it to all transfers/releases in all sports? If that release policy includes conference only or future opponents (IMHO I think is unnecessary)- then the stance has an equitable appearance and not a petty/personal tone.. it should be a way of doing business for MTSU and not some personal tone that signals 'I'm pissed so I'm going to take it out on an 18 year old basketball player because I want my way when I've probably made different decisions for other athletes, in other sports over the years'... etc..
My guess is your AD did this to help CNM and staff not deal with one more potential negative in recruiting by restricting these recruits' movement/choices given the coaching change.. like it or not it is the high road given the situation. Especially if the unconditional releases is in line with other releases granted by MTSU in other sports for other athletes.. has that decision to give these recruits unconditional releases different from how MTSU has handled things in the past? Surely some of you know how releases have occurred in the past.
You all wanting to limit a kids future based on all these what-ifs that aren't likely to matter this year isn't a convincing argument- don't get me wrong, I understand your points and it certainly isn't unreasonable to make some limits (C-USA) but the bigger issue is why doesn't MTSU establish a release policy and apply it to all transfers/releases in all sports? If that release policy includes conference only or future opponents (IMHO I think is unnecessary)- then the stance has an equitable appearance and not a petty/personal tone.. it should be a way of doing business for MTSU and not some personal tone that signals 'I'm pissed so I'm going to take it out on an 18 year old basketball player because I want my way when I've probably made different decisions for other athletes, in other sports over the years'... etc..
My guess is your AD did this to help CNM and staff not deal with one more potential negative in recruiting by restricting these recruits' movement/choices given the coaching change.. like it or not it is the high road given the situation. Especially if the unconditional releases is in line with other releases granted by MTSU in other sports for other athletes.. has that decision to give these recruits unconditional releases different from how MTSU has handled things in the past? Surely some of you know how releases have occurred in the past.
I said I was not going to respond about our specific transfers, but you ask fair, questions. Sorry for the long write, but tried to answer everything you asked or brought up.
1. What's the purpose of a letter of intent? I look at it much like putting earnst money down on a house. If something major doesn't change (e.g. coaching change or major NCAA sancations for athletes, something unexpected in the home inspection or a failure of the current home owner to fix an agreed open repair), then the player is going to sign scholarship papers and you are buying a house. If a major change didn't occur in either case, you lose a year of eligibility if you try to get out of the NLI or you lose your earnest money.
2. Signing day has always seemed silly to me. I think you should be able to sign a NLI at any time, and if a player signs a NLI with your school, then the school must provide a scholarship for the player. The fact the NCAA allows schools to oversign players on NLIs is awful. I think it is cruel that schools can have players sign a NLI, then ask them to greyshirt because they don't have enough available scholarships. If the kid doesn't like it, sorry, we will restrict your transfer. That's absolute crap.
3. I believe in the transfer rules. Under the rules, schools can give unrestricted releases from the NLI if the coach leaves or is fired. I found it interesting that the NLI data shows that when a coach leaves, a clear majority of kids receive a full release from the NLI. So it appears Massaro granting the full release is in line with the majority. It appears the NCAA is moving toward rules that completely stop restricting players in cases like we had, so this may soon be a moot point.
4. Since scholarships are currently 1 year at a time, if a coach leaves or is fired, if you have a family hardship, if you complete your degree, or if your sport is placed on major NCAA probation that limits your postseason (and you are not involved in the sancations), then I think a student should be allowed to transfer at the end of the scholarship year unrestricted, if they are meeting their academic standings. All these qualifers would be the same for releasing a player from the NLI (except graduating of course).
5. I get you are more emotionally invested because you and/or others dontate to the BRAA or follow recruiting closely. I don't do either - I stopped donating to the BRAA (we donate on the academic side to our alma maters) and I never got really invested in recruiting. I have seen too many 4/5 star signees never step on my the field/court to get too excited about recruiting classes. And I just find it odd that grown men follow HS kids on facebook/twitter closely that they dont really know. I guess each to their own. Either way, I don't have the extra emotions that factor in to my outlook on this.
6. I guess I have a different approach to a player backing out of a NLI and wanting to go to a team we will play. If you back out of my school/team, then I want to schedule you and kick your butt.
How fun would it be if we beat Ole Miss with CKD and company? And if we lose to that team this year (remember Ole Miss was an SEC bottom feeder last year), we need to get better - that's on the current staff.
I loved watching Mississippi State beat Baylor in the NIT and having a chance to rub Mario Kegler's face into the fact he transferred from MSU to Baylor. I am so looking forward to Sept 29th and watching Dan Mullen bring Florida into Scott Field with a less talented Gator team.
I think that was all your points. You may disagree, but granting the full release is in line with a majority in the same situation, I want a chance to play and beat CKD and these guys, and I don't have the extra emotions ties associated with $$$ or closely following recruiting.
78, you have one significant flaw in your response to my post. You inaccurately make a presumption that my perspective is based on emotion. When it comes to competition, business acumen and ensuring MT's best interests are considered first and foremost emotion has no place. Only logic and reasoning.
In those three categories I'm unable to identify a single advantage to not restricting our signees to schools that we are in direct competition with.
Thanks.
P.S. You also based some of your view/opinions on what you wish the rules were not as they actually are (e.g. NLI signing parameters).
In those three categories I'm unable to identify a single advantage to not restricting our signees to schools that we are in direct competition with.
Thanks.
P.S. You also based some of your view/opinions on what you wish the rules were not as they actually are (e.g. NLI signing parameters).
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct that you never mentioned the emotional part. It was a different poster that said, "I had an emotional investment in these players when their signing was hyped..." I combined your statement about money investment with the other posters comments. I stand by my belief that emotional attachment can cloud perspective (that's a motto in anything though - when a man gets emotional he tends to get stupid), but that should not have been directed in response to you.
Here is the major difference between our opinion, you said, "When it comes to competition, business acumen and ensuring MT's best interests are considered first and foremost..." I
I believe a student-athletes best interest should always come before an institution of higher learnings interests. Whether a decision has a negative impact on the university competitively by having to face the student athlete at a different school or financially because we wasted money on recruiting the student, I still believe colleges should put the interests of the student first. Because I believe MT should be student-centered, I do not believe we should take any punitive measures on students who attempt to do what's best for them when there is a major change in their situation, such as a coaching change. Even though the NLI is a contract with the school & not the coach, I believe the school should respect the student best interest when a coach leaves or is fired.
And you are right, I do not know all the rules and regulations of signing a NLI. What I do know - if you have signed a NLI, you may submit a release request form to the university and simultaneously submit a release request form to the NLI office. If the AD grants you a complete release, you may attend another university without penality of losing a season of competition. This is what Massaro did. It appears this is in line with what a majority of schools do in this same situation according to the article posted in the other thread.
You are absolutely correct, there are no advantages for MT from a business standpoint or competitive standpoint in granting a complete release. And the NLI is a contract with the university and not the coach. However, because it is this is a student-centered university (in our mission statement purposes), I strongly believe the university should put the student-atheletes interests first when something like a coaching change occurs.
As for the "student's best interests": Just where does "personal responsibility", keeping commitments even under duress, and tough love fit into the equation? Realizing my biases but I just don't think either limiting a young athletes' options to either a few less schools or requiring sitting out a year is unreasonable regardless of the circumstances.
Regardless, back to the original thread. I could be wrong but I don't think I have seen an official announcement of Crump's signing nor is he listed on VerbalCommits.com. Any information on the holdup? If Crump is not in the fold it could be that the new staff hasn't signed even one player we will sure will add to the roster next year.
Regardless, back to the original thread. I could be wrong but I don't think I have seen an official announcement of Crump's signing nor is he listed on VerbalCommits.com. Any information on the holdup? If Crump is not in the fold it could be that the new staff hasn't signed even one player we will sure will add to the roster next year.
I absolutely agree 100% with you on all these points if kid did something to change situation or just wanted to change their mind. In this case something happened, completely outside the control of the student athlete after signing the NLI.
It may my biases are being a parent and having been on the academic faculty side of D1 universities. I think about if my son was fortunate enough to be recruited as a D1 athlete. If he told me, "I want to play for that coach", signed a NLI, and then the coach leaves, I would hope the school would release my son so we could make the best decision for him given the change in circumstances. And because I would want the opportunity to re-evaluate for my son after a coaching change, I would think all should be given the same opportunity. Having a kid has definitely changed my perspective on a lot of things.
I am a parent also and my children got only small academic help getting through their undergrad and grad degrees. Perhaps my grandchildren will be fortunate enough to get an athletic scholarship (doubtful) but in any circumstance a full ride scholarship to play a game is nothing to complain about regardless of school or level of play.
I am trying to understand your admitted biases but from my point of view these athletes knew the rules when they committed and then signed with the school getting potentially a free education in the process. I have a hard time agreeing that the three available options are not acceptable: Playing for the school they signed with, transferring wherever they want and sitting out a red-shirt year, or in the case of the three in discussion who never enrolled, requesting a release with whatever limitations the releasing school (legally) places on the release. I just don't see the hardship. Regardless of which option the student/athlete chooses he still gets the opportunity to get a college degree on the cheap.
We are discussing a point which may soon become irrelevant should the powers that be relax the transfer rules. Of course, every change I have seen proposed does nothing to help so called %$&-major schools.
I am trying to understand your admitted biases but from my point of view these athletes knew the rules when they committed and then signed with the school getting potentially a free education in the process. I have a hard time agreeing that the three available options are not acceptable: Playing for the school they signed with, transferring wherever they want and sitting out a red-shirt year, or in the case of the three in discussion who never enrolled, requesting a release with whatever limitations the releasing school (legally) places on the release. I just don't see the hardship. Regardless of which option the student/athlete chooses he still gets the opportunity to get a college degree on the cheap.
We are discussing a point which may soon become irrelevant should the powers that be relax the transfer rules. Of course, every change I have seen proposed does nothing to help so called %$&-major schools.
