Oregon is at it again.

[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

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?

Your argument is entirely one sided (as usual ). Often times, when players don't get renewed when a new coach take over has nothing to do with play- more about style (in many cases) You guys simply don't get it- Schollies are renewed EVERY YEAR!I If Big sky ADs don't like the rule- it's a simple change with a simple solution! Make scholarships 5 years or shut their traps and stop whining! It's simple- they can't have it both ways! I'm always for the player first!

 

[Obzerver]

air045, I don't think it's a simple change and a simple solution for awarding five year scholarships in Football. I would think for that to happen Title IX would come into play. FCS Football offers partial scholarships that can change from season to season..not sure how that would work. If you offer the 5 year in Football what about all the other sports EWU has to offer. Many of the Women/Men sports offer partial scholarships and there may be some uproar from all the other programs. Money may also come into play...would any changes cost more?

Believe me when I say players come first!

 

[air045]

air045, I don't think it's a simple change and a simple solution for awarding five year scholarships in Football. I would think for that to happen Title IX would come into play. FCS Football offers partial scholarships that can change from season to season..not sure how that would work. If you offer the 5 year in Football what about all the other sports EWU has to offer. Many of the Women/Men sports offer partial scholarships and there may be some uproar from all the other programs. Money may also come into play...would any changes cost more?

Believe me when I say players come first!

Ok, maybe "simple" was not the perfect word. Based on the way the rules are set up, it's an advantage (for a very small minority) for players. Remove the year to year renewal for full scholarships and make partials, upgradeable. I believe the answer is doable if the NCAA was interested in a win/win scenario. But the fact are they're only interested in what's best for them.

I think if a player out performs his contract and can play Pac12- more power to them and I wish them luck.

 

[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?

Your argument is entirely one sided (as usual ). Often times, when players don't get renewed when a new coach take over has nothing to do with play- more about style (in many cases) You guys simply don't get it- Schollies are renewed EVERY YEAR!I If Big sky ADs don't like the rule- it's a simple change with a simple solution! Make scholarships 5 years or shut their traps and stop whining! It's simple- they can't have it both ways! I'm always for the player first!

Well shit! You're always for the player? Thanks T.O.! :lol:

I'm for the player(s), team, and FCS.

Do players occasionally lose schollies under a new regime? I suppose, but often times? What's the percentage of talented players that get unfairly let go in these situations?

Outside of QB, what positions does that really apply to? If you're a good enough athlete, they'll find away to make it work. Or, as in the case with VA, they'll modify their scheme (he is not a durable duel threat like Mariotta).

Regardless, this risk occurs in the real world too. New ownership comes in and makes personnel changes. Happens all the time. Again, if you're valuable enough they'll find a way to keep you around. That's life.

 

[SeattleBobcat]

So, Oregon isn't the only culprit anymore, Dakota holds offers from Oregon, Texas, Michigan and Alabama... He will choose Monday.

I was surprised as hell when Oregon was even interested, but since the VA situation turned out to be a huge success for them, I have a feeling we will see a lot more of this.

 

[Obzerver]

Wonder if there's any great D2, D3 or NAIA Qb's out there graduating early with a year left of eligibility?

 

[sammamisheag]

Bad times in Bozeman

 

[GreatDayToBeAnEagle]

I wouldn't say that. In fact I'd say the opposite. Ash had that program stuck in neutral, but since he's been gone they've brought in a solid young coach who is already making big moves. Choate is going to be a fine coach in Bozeman and stealing Gregorak away from Montana is huge . Gregorak is a pretty damn good DC. Also the QB that MSU has coming in, Hoy, a kid from Texas like Mghee is supposed to be a stud . I think MSU is on track to be a force in teh Big Sky for the next few years. They always have good offensive weapons and now with a legitimate HC and DC I think they're just fine. Hell I'm a little envious of them for getting a big name and successful D Coordinator... I wish we would.

 

[MLEagle]

Even no this one is good for Eastern next year, I can't help but feeling anything but complete contempt for the University of Oregon. What a bunch of bully douches over there in Eugene!!!

 

[clawman1]

Even no this one is good for Eastern next year, I can't help but feeling anything but complete contempt for the University of Oregon. What a bunch of bully douches over there in Eugene!!!

I am as contemptuous of U of O as you are because they "did it to us" but the real problem is the rule itself. I think it was created with good intention but is grossly abused. It is my understanding that rarely if ever does a player that transfers to another school to earn a graduate level degree actually graduate. The benefactor of the transfer should be held accountable if the incoming player does not earn a degree.

 

[EWU98]

Totally agree there should be some type of stipulation attached. Isn't McBroom for the basketball team in the t same boat?

 

[Rjones61]

I am pretty torn on this issue. I do not think it is right for the University of Oregon to recruit into the Big Sky Conference. However, the players of the Big Sky owe their school nothing. If anything, our schools owe the players, whom are paying to play football and make the school money.

Oregon having recruiting powers is what's wrong in this situation. Just like in high school, the FBS power to recruit needs to be more limited. They can't be reaching out to the players they want to recruit. The players need to be reaching out to FBS school if they wish to leave. JMHO.

:twocents:

 

[clawman1]

I am pretty torn on this issue. I do not think it is right for the University of Oregon to recruit into the Big Sky Conference. However, the players of the Big Sky owe their school nothing. If anything, our schools owe the players, whom are paying to play football and make the school money.

Oregon having recruiting powers is what's wrong in this situation. Just like in high school, the FBS power to recruit needs to be more limited. They can't be reaching out to the players they want to recruit. The players need to be reaching out to FBS school if they wish to leave. JMHO.

:twocents:

Curious about your statement that schools are making money on the players. Is that a fact or speculation that schools make money from athletics? Remember title 9 requires equal sports for men and women. While some sports MAY make money not all do. And as you know we have to be equal and fair!

 

[sammamisheag]

He was gone regardless.

 

[Rjones61]

I am pretty torn on this issue. I do not think it is right for the University of Oregon to recruit into the Big Sky Conference. However, the players of the Big Sky owe their school nothing. If anything, our schools owe the players, whom are paying to play football and make the school money.

Oregon having recruiting powers is what's wrong in this situation. Just like in high school, the FBS power to recruit needs to be more limited. They can't be reaching out to the players they want to recruit. The players need to be reaching out to FBS school if they wish to leave. JMHO.

:twocents:

Curious about your statement that schools are making money on the players. Is that a fact or speculation that schools make money from athletics? Remember title 9 requires equal sports for men and women. While some sports MAY make money not all do. And as you know we have to be equal and fair!

This point is moot. Whether or not other sports are profitable is irrelevant. Football is profitable, MSU profits from football, MSU profited from Prukop. They gave him free ride in tuition, but he still had to pay cost of living, books, random fees, housing (dorm housing goes to the university's pocket), etc.

If MSU could put together a continually dominant football program, they would benefit immensely from a stronger influx of Montana students and donations.
Prukop doesn't owe anything to MSU. If he chooses to leave, he has every right and more to go. Oregon shouldn't be able to contact the students, but if the student finds a good fit and wants to go, I see no reason for him not to.

 

[FreeBird]

If after playing three years for a team a player leaves to enhance his chances of playing after college, you see that as disloyal?

Are players that leave a year early for the NFL disloyal too?

The motivation for both moves is to improve their chances to play at the next level.

There is no question that VA improved has opportunities for playing at the next level, by transferring. I think the same can be said for Prukop.

I fully support them in maximizing their opportunity to play at the next level.

Go Eags!

 

[kalm]

If after playing three years for a team a player leaves to enhance his chances of playing after college, you see that as disloyal?

Are players that leave a year early for the NFL disloyal too?

The motivation for both moves is to improve their chances to play at the next level.

There is no question that VA improved has opportunities for playing at the next level, by transferring. I think the same can be said for Prukop.

I fully support them in maximizing their opportunity to play at the next level.

Go Eags!

Can't begrudge him the decision at this point. But he also wouldn't be where he's at without EWU and our coaches. Hope he remembers that someday.

 

[FreeBird]

If after playing three years for a team a player leaves to enhance his chances of playing after college, you see that as disloyal?

Are players that leave a year early for the NFL disloyal too?

The motivation for both moves is to improve their chances to play at the next level.

There is no question that VA improved has opportunities for playing at the next level, by transferring. I think the same can be said for Prukop.

I fully support them in maximizing their opportunity to play at the next level.

Go Eags!

Can't begrudge him the decision at this point. But he also wouldn't be where he's at without EWU and our coaches. Hope he remembers that someday.

+1

There is no doubt without the excellent coaching he got at EWU, VA would not have the opportunities he has today.

 

[LDopaPDX]

The thing that sucks is that the NCAA rules always hurt schools like Eastern while benefitting teams like Oregon.

As for Mr Adams, you really saw the VA "dilemma" in bright lights tonight. When he's playing and healthy, he's poetry in motion. Oregon would have scored 60+ and run away with the game had he gone the whole sixty minutes. However, he gets hurt often and that means you better have alternatives. I can't imagine any NFL team is going to stick their nose out too far for a guy that has had three injuries in the last two years that have caused missed time. If his body can't handle college ball, it's going to be a nightmare in the NFL. With that said, I'm not sure this season at Oregon will benefit his draft stock because the talent was never a question, but the durability always has been and may be even more so now.

I suspect he'll be a late rounder to be projected as a backup "spark" type of bench QB; the kind you can script a few plays for a bring in situationally. It would be awfully hard for an NFL GM to commit multiple millions for a guy who almost certainly couldn't last a season.

 

[clawman1]

I can't begrudge any player for taking advantage of the rules as they are now. IMO it is the rule that is being abused. There should be some balance if a player wants to transfer elsewhere. If players using the graduate transfer rule what is the consequence to the benefactor school? Does Oregon "owe" EWU something to the coaching and development of VA? Eastern had four years of scholarship invested and lose out on the last and best year of a players college career.
Lots of arguments both ways but now there is not adequate balance in the rule.