THEY are Comparable in that the school tries to dictate the wheres and whens of the kid playing. There is no question as to circumstance, but the underlying situation is EXACTLY the same. School A is saying you can't go to school B under any circumstance with the transfer.

If the school won't play the player and then blocks the transfer the situation is different than a player simply wanting to break his scholarship.

No, it's not. I'm talking from the school's side of it. BOTH schools did the same thing in blocking the student's decision on where they want to go. The situations between Stone/Allen are different, but what the universities did/are doing are exactly the same.

Allen was not getting playing time and Stone was being dismissed. One was not playing, one was not going to get to play. Not a lot of difference, but different.

 

School's actions not different AT ALL. Both were dictating to a student/athlete who was not happy with their current situation.

 

"You can leave, but here is a list of where we WILL NOT let you go. Have a great life and don't let our door hit you on the way out!"

You're right, coaches should, and when they don't they often have to pay a penalty....

 

The problem with this argument is that the coach usually doesn't pay the penalty. The school or team he's going to usually takes care of that. That can't be said for some of these student athletes. If it wasn't for a football scholarship, then there's no way they could afford the tuition at a Div. I school.

No, it's not. I'm talking from the school's side of it. BOTH schools did the same thing in blocking the student's decision on where they want to go. The situations between Stone/Allen are different, but what the universities did/are doing are exactly the same.

Allen was not getting playing time and Stone was being dismissed. One was not playing, one was not going to get to play. Not a lot of difference, but different.

 

School's actions not different AT ALL. Both were dictating to a student/athlete who was not happy with their current situation.

 

"You can leave, but here is a list of where we WILL NOT let you go. Have a great life and don't let our door hit you on the way out!"

 

In reality they were saying you can leave, but if you go to these certain schools it will come out of your pocket next year. Also, the situation was mainly different in that Tubby was at UK, and had recruited all of those kids, not Slick Rick.

The problem with this argument is that the coach usually doesn't pay the penalty. The school or team he's going to usually takes care of that. That can't be said for some of these student athletes. If it wasn't for a football scholarship, then there's no way they could afford the tuition at a Div. I school.

 

But they could still GO TO college...I got money for school...but if not I certainly could've gotten a student loan, just like any of these kids.

It is a shame what jurich & company are doing to this kid and it will come back to bite them.

Petrino has told CURRENT Louisville football players that he would welcome them at Arkansas. I know this for a fact. Louisville is doing this for a reason.

I think I remember when we were discussing this about Legion that you guys in the know said it is not a four year ride, but a one year scholly that is renewed each year. If that is the case and this years scholly is up then he's not actually on scholarship as I understood it. Is that correct ?

And you know everything about it...

 

Sorry but I had to laugh at this post! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

 

Back to the thread. Let the kid go....move on!

I really don't get how schools can block transfers anyway. Will somebody fill me in?

 

Why can't I drop out of a school, enroll at any other one, sit out my year, and then play for the new school?

 

You can, you just can't do it on scholarship if the first school doesn't release you.

I think I remember when we were discussing this about Legion that you guys in the know said it is not a four year ride, but a one year scholly that is renewed each year. If that is the case and this years scholly is up then he's not actually on scholarship as I understood it. Is that correct ?

 

 

It is renewable on a year to year basis. But 99.9% of the time you will get it for 4 years unless you mess up.

So UL is the bad guy because UK messed and let Stone go.

 

If UL let Allen go to the Razorbacks every kid not happy would be jumping ship.

So UL is the bad guy because UK messed and let Stone go.

 

If UL let Allen go to the Razorbacks every kid not happy would be jumping ship.

 

I am asking this innocently cause I really do not know. How willing are kids, 2-3 years into their scholarship commitment willing to set out a year and transfer?

 

No person answered my question from earlier.... do other schools place the same restriction on student-athletes? For example, will WVU not allow any kids to now transfer to Michigan?

 

Also, if the kids are not happy and do not want to be there, do you really want them on your team?

Sorry but I had to laugh at this post! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

 

Back to the thread. Let the kid go....move on!

 

Real cool man, real cool...:thumb:

Real cool man, real cool...:thumb:

If you KNEW Rockpride, you'd know why it was funny...