Oregon is at it again.

[SeattleBobcat]

Whelp, Just so you Boys don't feel left out, Dakota Prukop will visit Oregon this weekend about a possible graduate transfer.

http://skylinesportsmt.com/prukop-will-go-on-official-visit-to-oregon-this-weekend/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, apparently the BSC is just a farm league for Oregon or something... You'd think they could recruit better.

 

[FormerEag]

Unreal. This rule is ridiculous. hno:

 

[EWU98]

You think they could either recruit better or develop their own players better...so sad!

 

[eaglesfootball]

disgusting. Shame on Helfrich and Oregon.

 

[GoldenEagle]

Pathetic.

 

[360Eag]

Two years in a row of Oregon not being able to recruit or coach up a QB.

 

[clawman1]

Two years in a row of Oregon not being able to recruit or coach up a QB.

They are recruiting... in the Big Sky!
If not for Adams, Oregon would be sh#t this year. When I have watched them play Adams is continually waving to the sideline to get the play in quicker. I do not know if the problem in Helfrich or Frost but their play calling looks disorganized.
IMO Helfrich will not be there long.

 

[kalm]

Two years in a row of Oregon not being able to recruit or coach up a QB.

They are recruiting... in the Big Sky!
If not for Adams, Oregon would be sh#t this year. When I have watched them play Adams is continually waving to the sideline to get the play in quicker. I do not know if the problem in Helfrich or Frost but their play calling looks disorganized.
IMO Helfrich will not be there long.

Frost took the Central Florida job.

 

[EAGLEFUZZ]

But the difference is kitty cats are not playing Oregon game one next year.

 

[EdubU10]

But the difference is kitty cats are not playing Oregon game one next year.

True, but still shitty for the Bobcats as he was one of their only bright spots. Really proves the point that Oregon is not confident in what they have for QBs/QB development.

 

[Seattle Eagle]

Whelp, Just so you Boys don't feel left out, Dakota Prukop will visit Oregon this weekend about a possible graduate transfer.

http://skylinesportsmt.com/prukop-will-go-on-official-visit-to-oregon-this-weekend/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, apparently the BSC is just a farm league for Oregon or something... You'd think they could recruit better.

Sorry to hear that. I do not care for the recruiting practices of Phil Knight U.

 

[nwray1]

Regarding the graduate transfer rule, wasn't there a requirement that the new institution offer a masters degree program that the old institution lacked? Seems like MSU must have a grad program for Prukop in economics available.

 

[Obzerver]

Someone here can correct me if wrong...to get accepted into certain masters programs all you need is a graduate degree. So he could pick a masters program in beerology at Oregon with an econ degree if MSU does not have a beerology masters program.

 

[clawman1]

My understanding is seldom do these transfers graduate in the Masters they were supposedly transfer to acquire. Does it affect the programs overall graduation success rate?

 

[air045]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

 

[EWURanger]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

He is certainly within his rights to seek options outside of MSU; he will graduate this winter and the rule is what it is. That said, if you think this rule is good for Division I athletics, well ok. I do not, and there are already many examples of its misuse in basketball and football. Despite whatever "is best" for the player (subjective, BTW), the rule is not being used as it was originally intended, and should be looked at. All one needs to do is look at the % of students-athletes that use this rule and actually go on to earn a graduate degree (it is alarmly low). If the NCAA wants to allow a farm system within Division I athletics, then fine. But just call it what it is, and don't give me this BS about earning a graduate degree.

I also think there's something to be said for a program doing things the right way. If Oregon wants to continue to rely on "one and done" QB's to sustain their program, then ok. I do not think it's the correct approach; nor do I think it's what's best for these programs, the players involved, or college football. P5 programs should not be able to pluck the best players from the FCS ranks carte blanche. Oregon did not recruit Vernon Adams or Dakota Prukop out of HS, nor develop them to the point they are at now.

Feel free to disagree, but there is a certain injustice to the whole situation, and in my opinion Oregon shows poor taste in doing this a second time. Why isn't Oregon, a program with unlimited resources, able to recruit and develop their own players? That blows my mind.

Without VA, Oregon's season probably looks a lot different. They didn't even start winning until he got healthy. That speaks volumes about what they're doing in Eugene.

 

[air045]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

He is certainly within his rights to seek options outside of MSU; he will graduate this winter and the rule is what it is. That said, if you think this rule is good for Division I athletics, well ok. I do not, and there are already many examples of its misuse in basketball and football. Despite whatever "is best" for the player (subjective, BTW), the rule is not being used as it was originally intended, and should be looked at. All one needs to do is look at the % of students-athletes that use this rule and actually go on to earn a graduate degree (it is alarmly low). If the NCAA wants to allow a farm system within Division I athletics, then fine. But just call it what it is, and don't give me this BS about earning a graduate degree.

I also think there's something to be said for a program doing things the right way. If Oregon wants to continue to rely on "one and done" QB's to sustain their program, then ok. I do not think it's the correct approach; nor do I think it's what's best for these programs, the players involved, or college football. P5 programs should not be able to pluck the best players from the FCS ranks carte blanche. Oregon did not recruit Vernon Adams or Dakota Prukop out of HS, nor develop them to the point they are at now.

Feel free to disagree, but there is a certain injustice to the whole situation, and in my opinion Oregon shows poor taste in doing this a second time. Why isn't Oregon, a program with unlimited resources, able to recruit and develop their own players? That blows my mind.

Without VA, Oregon's season probably looks a lot different. They didn't even start winning until he got healthy. That speaks volumes about what they're doing in Eugene.

NCAA has had their one-sided rules and time it stops. Programs have options not renew college athletes every year. Why is that right? Or when a new coach come in and decide not to renew scholarships or coaches break rules and players are left to deal with the aftermath- why are those situations right? I think the NCAA has turned into a proverbial "pimp" of college athletes. Every rule is set up to limit athletes and generate more revenue to pay coaches. I'm OK with it- if they just keep it real and stop acting like they're not. IN the end, the player get an education and HOPEFULLY, other programs get funded. In the end, the rule is about "winning" and if that's the case- it's time the college athlete gets a "win".

I would agree to get rid of the rule if the NCAA made ALL D1 scholarships 5 years and not renewed each year. Ask the ADs of the Big Sky "when are they ready to make scholarships 5 years?" all you will get is a squirm and "hum and ha" with finality of a political non-answer- Until that happens they have new ground to stand on-IMO

 

[KHB_Eagle4Life]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

He is certainly within his rights to seek options outside of MSU; he will graduate this winter and the rule is what it is. That said, if you think this rule is good for Division I athletics, well ok. I do not, and there are already many examples of its misuse in basketball and football. Despite whatever "is best" for the player (subjective, BTW), the rule is not being used as it was originally intended, and should be looked at. All one needs to do is look at the % of students-athletes that use this rule and actually go on to earn a graduate degree (it is alarmly low). If the NCAA wants to allow a farm system within Division I athletics, then fine. But just call it what it is, and don't give me this BS about earning a graduate degree.

I also think there's something to be said for a program doing things the right way. If Oregon wants to continue to rely on "one and done" QB's to sustain their program, then ok. I do not think it's the correct approach; nor do I think it's what's best for these programs, the players involved, or college football. P5 programs should not be able to pluck the best players from the FCS ranks carte blanche. Oregon did not recruit Vernon Adams or Dakota Prukop out of HS, nor develop them to the point they are at now.

Feel free to disagree, but there is a certain injustice to the whole situation, and in my opinion Oregon shows poor taste in doing this a second time. Why isn't Oregon, a program with unlimited resources, able to recruit and develop their own players? That blows my mind.

Without VA, Oregon's season probably looks a lot different. They didn't even start winning until he got healthy. That speaks volumes about what they're doing in Eugene.

I couldn't agree with you more. Poor taste-- you nailed it! The issue is simple-- the rule is intended for academics, not athletics. What masters degree is Vernon going to earn, again? This rule needs a major revision, especially if Prukop does attend Oregon.

 

[360Eag]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

He is certainly within his rights to seek options outside of MSU; he will graduate this winter and the rule is what it is. That said, if you think this rule is good for Division I athletics, well ok. I do not, and there are already many examples of its misuse in basketball and football. Despite whatever "is best" for the player (subjective, BTW), the rule is not being used as it was originally intended, and should be looked at. All one needs to do is look at the % of students-athletes that use this rule and actually go on to earn a graduate degree (it is alarmly low). If the NCAA wants to allow a farm system within Division I athletics, then fine. But just call it what it is, and don't give me this BS about earning a graduate degree.

I also think there's something to be said for a program doing things the right way. If Oregon wants to continue to rely on "one and done" QB's to sustain their program, then ok. I do not think it's the correct approach; nor do I think it's what's best for these programs, the players involved, or college football. P5 programs should not be able to pluck the best players from the FCS ranks carte blanche. Oregon did not recruit Vernon Adams or Dakota Prukop out of HS, nor develop them to the point they are at now.

Feel free to disagree, but there is a certain injustice to the whole situation, and in my opinion Oregon shows poor taste in doing this a second time. Why isn't Oregon, a program with unlimited resources, able to recruit and develop their own players? That blows my mind.

Without VA, Oregon's season probably looks a lot different. They didn't even start winning until he got healthy. That speaks volumes about what they're doing in Eugene.

I couldn't agree with you more. Poor taste-- you nailed it! The issue is simple-- the rule is intended for academics, not athletics. What masters degree is Vernon going to earn, again? This rule needs a major revision, especially if Prukop does attend Oregon.

Agreed. While this issue came into the spotlight due to Vernon, it happened the previous year to Gardner-Webb. Their star defender, Shaq Riddick, transferred to West Virginia. Guess what? He even said the purpose was to improve his draft stock. This rule has pretty much zilch to do with these guys getting a Master's degree.

 

[kalm]

Whether you like it or think it's fair it's his option. If schools can do "what's best for the program" at all times. Why do we think the player cannot? He fulfilled his obligations, per the current rule structure, so he has every right IMO. I hope he does "what's best" for HIM. Just keeping it real.

He is certainly within his rights to seek options outside of MSU; he will graduate this winter and the rule is what it is. That said, if you think this rule is good for Division I athletics, well ok. I do not, and there are already many examples of its misuse in basketball and football. Despite whatever "is best" for the player (subjective, BTW), the rule is not being used as it was originally intended, and should be looked at. All one needs to do is look at the % of students-athletes that use this rule and actually go on to earn a graduate degree (it is alarmly low). If the NCAA wants to allow a farm system within Division I athletics, then fine. But just call it what it is, and don't give me this BS about earning a graduate degree.

I also think there's something to be said for a program doing things the right way. If Oregon wants to continue to rely on "one and done" QB's to sustain their program, then ok. I do not think it's the correct approach; nor do I think it's what's best for these programs, the players involved, or college football. P5 programs should not be able to pluck the best players from the FCS ranks carte blanche. Oregon did not recruit Vernon Adams or Dakota Prukop out of HS, nor develop them to the point they are at now.

Feel free to disagree, but there is a certain injustice to the whole situation, and in my opinion Oregon shows poor taste in doing this a second time. Why isn't Oregon, a program with unlimited resources, able to recruit and develop their own players? That blows my mind.

Without VA, Oregon's season probably looks a lot different. They didn't even start winning until he got healthy. That speaks volumes about what they're doing in Eugene.

NCAA has had their one-sided rules and time it stops. Programs have options not renew college athletes every year. Why is that right? Or when a new coach come in and decide not to renew scholarships or coaches break rules and players are left to deal with the aftermath- why are those situations right? I think the NCAA has turned into a proverbial "pimp" of college athletes. Every rule is set up to limit athletes and generate more revenue to pay coaches. I'm OK with it- if they just keep it real and stop acting like they're not. IN the end, the player get an education and HOPEFULLY, other programs get funded. In the end, the rule is about "winning" and if that's the case- it's time the college athlete gets a "win".

I would agree to get rid of the rule if the NCAA made ALL D1 scholarships 5 years and not renewed each year. Ask the ADs of the Big Sky "when are they ready to make scholarships 5 years?" all you will get is a squirm and "hum and ha" with finality of a political non-answer- Until that happens they have new ground to stand on-IMO

The contractual agreement is for the player to perform at a certain level. If he fails, why should the school be forced to continue paying his scholarship?

Also, in keeping with the employment/free market theme, perhaps schools should be able to adopt non-competing clauses in the their scholarship agreements?