2015 College Football Chatter

Cowboysrock55 · Dec 31, 2015

skidadl said:
I just don't get it. Do you not understand that the year lost has nothing to do with Tech? His dad continues to go on record to say that Kliff is a scoundrel and jerk for taking his little baby's year away? The mediua ran with it but it has NOTHING to do with Kliff. It is a conference rule. The national media runs wioth the story and pounds Kliff and Tech over and over when NOBODY in Lubbock defended it. Not the paper, not Kliff and not the school. It is infuriating to hear the talking head keep perpetuating a damn lie. Baker took his own year away.

And clearly you haven't researched why the rules are in place. Out of fairness you cannot walk-on to a one program and then walk-on to another team a year later without consequences. If you do that the haves immediately have an advantage over the have-nots. Could a kid who can't pay tuition do the same thing? Nope. Looks like you didn't think that one through but the conference rules makers did. There is no such thing as free agency in college football.

Two issues. First of all I have thought it all the way through. So a school doesn't commit to the player in any way what so ever but the player should be punished if he wants to go somewhere else that provides him a better opportunity (Take this away from your hatred for the player and his specific situation). NCAA Rule, Big 12 Rule, Kliff Kingsbury rule, it doesn't matter. It's a shitty rule that exploits the student athlete.

The second issue I have is that it states right in your article that Kliff Kingsbury refused to sign off on the transfer.

Rev · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Two issues. First of all I have thought it all the way through. So a school doesn't commit to the player in any way what so ever but the player should be punished if he wants to go somewhere else that provides him a better opportunity (Take this away from your hatred for the player and his specific situation). NCAA Rule, Big 12 Rule, Kliff Kingsbury rule, it doesn't matter. It's a shitty rule that exploits the student athlete.

The second issue I have is that it states right in your article that Kliff Kingsbury refused to sign off on the transfer.

Its a rule thats in place by the NCAA and not something that Tech did to him that Mayfield claims. Thats the issue.

skidadl · Dec 31, 2015

Two issues. First of all I have thought it all the way through. So a school doesn't commit to the player in any way what so ever but the player should be punished if he wants to go somewhere else that provides him a better opportunity (Take this away from your hatred for the player and his specific situation). NCAA Rule, Big 12 Rule, Kliff Kingsbury rule, it doesn't matter. It's a shitty rule that exploits the student athlete.

Well the rail against the NCAA and the Big 12. Are you so dense that you are not understanding that Bakey and daddy KNOWINGLY lied to the media about meanie head Kliffy taking away his year? Do you get it that Kliff has nothing to do with that? I don't get how you would defend lying and an inept media perpetuating a lie? You're all good with that?

The second issue I have is that it states right in your article that Kliff Kingsbury refused to sign off on the transfer.

Right. Release to communicate with ANY conference team. You need a release to do that. I'm not sure if you're aware but college football is competitive. That has nothing to do with losing a year. Every single team in the country does this. You don't help a conference foe. Ever. It is called competition. Use the rules to compete. Most teams go beyond the rules. Do you want Tech to just be like, "well, he was our starting QB but he's a swell guy so lets just help him get to a team that hurts us..."

The issue you're missing is that the little dork lied and continued to do so on purpose. I don't get hows you can back that.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
I'm sorry, articles like this make me laugh. So the walk on shouldn't try to keep the extra eligibility? I don't see why a non scholarship player shouldn't complain in his situation.

Yeah the fact remains he was not on scholarship, so why would the transfer rule apply to him, that is a legitimate beef.

None of the article disproves the fact of that.

Cowboysrock55 · Dec 31, 2015

skidadl said:
Right. Release to communicate with ANY conference team. You need a release to do that. I'm not sure if you're aware but college football is competitive. That has nothing to do with losing a year. Every single team in the country does this. You don't help a conference foe. Ever. It is called competition. Use the rules to compete. Most teams go beyond the rules. Do you want Tech to just be like, "well, he was our starting QB but he's a swell guy so lets just help him get to a team that hurts us..."

Not true at all. See Iowa with Jake Rudock. But that's because some head coaches realize that these are student athletes and not professional athletes. I get that caring about the kid is becoming more of a rarity in college athletics but it shouldn't be. I would think you would understand that.

Also no need for name calling. It's probably the name calling that makes yourself and the writer of that article look so bad. Makes it appear as though you have an more of an axe to grind instead of actual facts.

Rev · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Not true at all. See Iowa with Jake Rudock. But that's because some head coaches realize that these are student athletes and not professional athletes. I get that caring about the kid is becoming more of a rarity in college athletics but it shouldn't be. I would think you would understand that.

Also no need for name calling. It's probably the name calling that makes yourself and the writer of that article look so bad. Makes it appear as though you have an more of an axe to grind instead of actual facts.

It does happen from time to time but extremely rare. Hard to put a percentage on it but almost all require you to go out of conference.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Not true at all. See Iowa with Jake Rudock. But that's because some head coaches realize that these are student athletes and not professional athletes. I get that caring about the kid is becoming more of a rarity in college athletics but it shouldn't be. I would think you would understand that.

Also no need for name calling. It's probably the name calling that makes yourself and the writer of that article look so bad. Makes it appear as though you have an more of an axe to grind instead of actual facts.

Oh snap.

So a coach can override this rule if they choose?

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

Rev said:
It does happen from time to time but extremely rare. Hard to put a percentage on it but almost all require you to go out of conference.

So Kliff did have a part in this?

Don't know just asking?

skidadl · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Not true at all. See Iowa with Jake Rudock. But that's because some head coaches realize that these are student athletes and not professional athletes. I get that caring about the kid is becoming more of a rarity in college athletics but it shouldn't be. I would think you would understand that.

Also no need for name calling. It's probably the name calling that makes yourself and the writer of that article look so bad. Makes it appear as though you have an more of an axe to grind instead of actual facts.

I apologize about the name calling. I just get really annoyed when brats lie, play the sympathy card based on that lie and then have people defend them. I wish I could tell the stories about how this entire family has used their money and daddy to get their way with stuff since middle school and athletics. I won't though because that's a little desperate. No question I want to though.

Just to be sure, you know that they lied on purpose to the media and got sympathy over it? Are you OK with using that as a tool to win? You don't seem to be addressing that part at all.

Cotton · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
Oh snap.

So a coach can override this rule if they choose?

Iowa isn't in the Big 12.

Cowboysrock55 · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
So Kliff did have a part in this?

Don't know just asking?

Here is my understanding and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The NCAA has a rule that you have to sit out a year by transferring (From one FBS school to another FBS school). That is universal. However the Big 12 specifically has a rule that says if you transfer from one Big 12 school to another that you lose a year of eligibility. That is the rule in which Mayfield appealed and it appears as though Kliff had the ability to waive that rule.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

Iamtdg said:
Iowa isn't in the Big 12.

They were saying it's a NCAA rule.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Here is my understanding and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The NCAA has a rule that you have to sit out a year by transferring (From one FBS school to another FBS school). That is universal. However the Big 12 specifically has a rule that says if you transfer from one Big 12 school to another that you lose a year of eligibility. That is the rule in which Mayfield appealed and it appears as though Kliff had the ability to waive that rule.

Yeah that's what I was wondering.

Cotton · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
They were saying it's a NCAA rule.

Conference rule.

skidadl · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
So Kliff did have a part in this?

Don't know just asking?

he didn't release him to communicate to OU por any other Big12 team. thart doesn't change the outcome of any of this though. Pretty common practice.

Matter of fact Stoops defended OSU for not releasing a player to a conference team the year before.

Guess what though, Baker made it to OU and is starting now.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

skidadl said:
I apologize about the name calling. I just get really annoyed when brats lie, play the sympathy card based on that lie and then have people defend them. I wish I could tell the stories about how this entire family has used their money and daddy to get their way with stuff since middle school and athletics. I won't though because that's a little desperate. No question I want to though.

Just to be sure, you know that they lied on purpose to the media and got sympathy over it? Are you OK with using that as a tool to win? You don't seem to be addressing that part at all.

This happens all the time by athletes and coaches, I don't really see how this is so outlandish.

Cowboysrock55 · Dec 31, 2015

skidadl said:
Just to be sure, you know that they lied on purpose to the media and got sympathy over it? Are you OK with using that as a tool to win? You don't seem to be addressing that part at all.

I guess I'm not seeing what he purposely lied about. Kliff did do everything he could to prevent the transfer. If you're talking about the scholly and weather he was actually offered one, I'm not sure who to believe on that issue.

Jiggyfly · Dec 31, 2015

skidadl said:
he didn't release him to communicate to OU por any other Big12 team. thart doesn't change the outcome of any of this though. Pretty common practice.

Matter of fact Stoops defended OSU for not releasing a player to a conference team the year before.

Guess what though, Baker made it to OU and is starting now.

So Baker has a reason to be upset, he was restricted by Kingsbury.

Not taking a side here but Kingsbury did restrict the player and he was not on scholarship.

That was his right but any player would be pissed.

Rev · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
So Kliff did have a part in this?

Don't know just asking?

It has always been my understanding that its an NCAA rule that if you try to transfer in conference you have to sit out a year. Coaches can release that (I believe) but that is extremely rare and shouldnt be counted on. I could be wrong but I thought that has always been the case. Mayfield whining about Kliff not releasing him is stupid because it just doesnt happen that often. Whine to the NCAA about the rule and not try to drag someone through the mud just because you didnt get your way.

skidadl · Dec 31, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
So Baker has a reason to be upset, he was restricted by Kingsbury.

Not taking a side here but Kingsbury did restrict the player and he was not on scholarship.

That was his right but any player would be pissed.

Why is that? His lack of release had no change to his life. He's playing at OU and doing well. Nothing that Kliff did changed anything at all.

He was the QB of the team. Performed really poorly, was told he'd have to compete in the bowl game, got mad and left.

2015 College Football Chatter

Super Moderator

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun

El Presidente'

Banned

Super Moderator

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun

Banned

Banned

El Presidente'

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Super Moderator

Banned

Banned

One-armed Knife Sharpener

El Presidente'

Banned

Super Moderator

Banned

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun

El Presidente'