Two Intereting Tidbits from Myles Brand

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:45 pm

#1 - Would have been nice. While Steven McGee has definitely impressed me, it would have been nice to have Mcneal one more year. He had his shirt burned his freshman year in the OU game. Slocum made the decision he wanted a win to try to save his job rather than being able to keep the kid 5 years.

#2 - I don't like this rule change. Basketball and football are the moneymakers. It was bad enouigh not knowing if you would be able to keep your star basketball player from going pro. Well, with the 20 yr. old rule in place in the NBA, you can keep the kids for at least 1 year, maybe 2.

Same for football. You know you're getting the kid 3 years and unless he is just an absolute STUD, you will keep him 4-5 years. The college game is great the way it is. If you allow kids to move from school to school with no penalty, it will be one step closer to the NFL. Next thing you know, you're going to have star players holding the universities hostage and threatening transfer if they aren't getting the PT they want.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:14 pm

Indy is dead on w/ point #2. Kids would definitely hold University's and HC's hostage.

I dont really have a problem w/ Rule #1. If a kid is good, he will leave after 3 anyway, but for those guys who arent pro material, it gives them another year in college. Some of our greatest records will be broken though. Some white kid from UConn will end posting 5 straight 1000 yd season and will go down as the all-time leading rusher.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:01 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:I thought McNeal participated in a game prior to the OU game.

Participated in, yes. However, from what I remember, he was still a redshirt going into the OU game. Due to the amount he played in that game, from what I understand, pushed him over the redshirt threshold. After the game, Slocum was questioned about it and he said something in the nature of "I told Reggie earlier in the year that if I needed to burn his redshirt I would".

I'll look for an article backing it up.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:14 pm

http://assets.bengals.com/assets/default/mcneal_bio.pdf

PDF file but about halfway down 1st page:

Expecting to redshirt in 2002, Texas A&M decided to activate Reggie for 8 games. He came off the bench vs. Oklahoma to earn National Player of the Week Honors after throwing for 4 touchdowns....

The OU game was #10 on the season. As a redshirt, he could only be activated for 7 at most I beleive. OU was #8.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:21 pm

Yeah, cracker. :D

I mean, whatevah. I don't like the idea of allowing guys to transfer without any penalties. I also don't like the 5 to play 5 thing. Basically, I don't really like either of the penalties. It sounds to me like they're catering to the ATHLETE-students, and not the STUDENT-athletes. That's never a good thing.

If you do everything "the right way," you should have a 5th year in which you're basically taking some dipshit, blowoff, jackoff class like Ballroom Dancing and playing football anyway. It's the players that blow class off rather than take it seriously that usually need the 5th year anyway. The players that, much like myself, are taking the bare minimum to remain a full-time student. 12 per instead of 15. Nothng wrong with that, but, if you're an athlete doing it, I don't think that you should be rewarded. I mean, you're already getting your school paid for. What do you want now? An extra year to NOT take it seriously?

I DO, however, love the grad school transfer rules. THOSE are good things.

the_ouskull

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:27 pm

Well, I do not know the RULE. I just remember a lot of hub-bub about his redshirt being burned and Slocum knew it was being burned without discussing it with McNeal.

I don't know the standard in college sports. I would THINK that the HC would allow the player to decide if he wants to lose a year of eligibility or not. The Aggies were not going anywhere that year. The decision should have been McNeal's. I can't find the link, but I do know it was made by Slocum and I guess that game #10 was it, the OU game.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:59 pm

They're sitting out from playing ball though, not from going to class. (Well, the ones that redshirt anyway...)

Basically, what I DON'T want to see happen is a bunch of guys that would have left school without their degree -- because they don't care about it; they only cared about playing ball -- stick around and get to play ball for another year and "fall" into a degree as a result... You know what I mean?

Also, the year that they USUALLY sit out is the first one, not the last one. Frankly, most of these guys NEED to sit out that first year to find out what college is all about. To most of them, it's about playing ball. not class and graduation. By sitting out their first year, they learn, first-hand, and, in some cases, the hard way, what college is REALLY all about. It's not about football, it's about school. I'd have probably graduated in 3 1/2 years if they'd have paired me with a motivated senior my freshman year of college. Instead, I paired myself with other NMS slackers, a few Skulls, and some Miller Lite.

I just really don't like the idea of a guy that doesn't want to be there for school in the first place getting a degree just because he got a 5th year of eligibility while there are smart kids failing out because they don't have the benefit of tutors, note-takers, and the most comprehensive test files library on campus for 5 years. College should be about more than just showing up for class M-F, and then putting on the helmet on Saturdays. I think that, by giving these guys 5 years of playing instead of just 4, we'd be taking a step in that direction.

Don't get me wrong, I can be swayed... I'm just saying what I currently see with it.

the_ouskull

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:25 pm

If there is no sit out policy for transfers, what prevents schools from recruiting other schools players?

Harvdog · Post by **Harvdog** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:06 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:If there is no sit out policy for transfers, what prevents schools from recruiting other schools players?
What's to stop them now?

Oh, yeah, because it's illegal for a coach to contact a player who hasn't been released from his school.

Not that that has ever applied to Dan Monson, Eddie Sutton, or Rick Barnes.

WAAAAAAAAA. Damion James asked for a release from his scholarship and was not contact by the school until it was granted. It's not like Rick was on the phone 700 times with him during non recruiting hours.

Get me an aticle to back that up. Otherwise that is just sour grapes because you know the OU basketball team is going to suck and your best recruit from last year left and went to Texas.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:48 pm

We'll be fine without him. It's the principle.

the_ouskull

Harvdog · Post by **Harvdog** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:14 pm

the_ouskull wrote:We'll be fine without him. It's the principle.

the_ouskull

Now you know how we feel about Adrian Peterson

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:54 pm

Move it to the college basketball forum. As for the rule changes I would personally love it if all our guys had a chance to play 5 in a row. Hell I know Derek Johnson would have stayed all 5 if he could have. Same goes for Quintin Jammer sloan Thomas, BJ Johnson, Cory Redding, and a bunch others.

As for the transfer rule, I don't really care for it unless they only do it for two cases.

1. School gets put on some kind of disciplinary action.
2. There is a head coaching change.

And even then they should only get a 1 year window.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:47 pm

As for the transfer rule, I don't really care for it unless they only do it for two cases.

1. School gets put on some kind of disciplinary action.
2. There is a head coaching change.

And even then they should only get a 1 year window.

I agree whole-heartedly.

the_ouskull