Wiggins, UGA Transfer To UL, Transferring Again
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
Surprised he has eligiblity left but he was in our 13 class, it just seems like its been longer ago.
Interesting. UL fans ragged on him off and on throughout his time there. They also claimed he was in the doghouse or kicked off the team. Yeast may be needed sooner than later.
I never thought much of him as a player, when he signed with us I didn't think much of his ability, when he left I wasn't disappointed, so its not a surprise to me Louisville didn't think much of him either. He is a small slow CB who was surrounded by the best players his coach in HS could recruit. I am glad he got his degree, but his football career is coming to a close.
The defense's fundamentals and techniques degressed under Grantham during his 3 years there, their talent level dropped, just like it did when he was at UGA 3 years. When Pruitt arrived he said we only had a couple of P5 level players on the defensive side of the ball, its why none of Granthams recruits started or played any snaps for us last year and why we started 5 soph, 4 Jr and 1 frosh and one SR, a grad transfer. So whoever they hired will help their defense getter better fundamentally.
Last edited:
K Time, I am shocked that you are so cynical, no doubt this fine young scholar athlete is well on his day to a doctorate in engineering, or since he is heading to MSU, possibly veterinary science.
This rule is so bad, hell, even in the NFL, you have to sign a contract guaranteeing your obligation to a team for a period of years, all this does is create a mini pool of free agents every year for colleges. And perpetuate the stereotype of vagabond athletes going from school to school . . .
I support the grad-transfer rule, even when it is clearly a fiction. In fact, I think it crap that the player needs to find a graduate program not offered by their undergrad school. They got their degree and they retain eligibility. Let them go and play without sitting out.
In all fairness, the contract much like the scholarship is subject to the team not cutting him. I don't think the grad transfer rule is all that bad, a kid who gets passed on the depth chart by a younger player never gets a chance to see the field. If he has put in the work to get his degree in 4 years and is still looking to actually play why shouldn't he be allowed to transfer without suffering a penalty? Obviously he isn't going to hurt the team he is leaving because he isn't going to be seeing the field, both parties have fulfilled their obligations, school helped him get a degree and he was on the team 4 years. It helps both schools, opens up a spot on the roster for an extra signee, and helps fill a spot of need on the new team for a year. I see it as everyone wins.
I don't think that's required any longer. They can transfer wherever they want after getting their undergrad degree.
FWIW, I thought the kid played fairly well...when he played. Injury and doghouse issues limited him to just 8 games last year. He actually started only once. Grump was apparently dead on about this young man's "coachability".
I have no problem with the grad transfer rule. If a kid gets it done in 3 years, more power to him. This underscores student in student-athlete and does not happen enough to have a dramatic impact.
I do not have the patience to go thru the NCAA by-laws but I think(?) the basic transfer rule has been changed (or a change is being discussed) to allow a regular transfer to "regain" his lost residency year if he graduates and but has only played 3 seasons in 5 years, something like the medical redshirt thing.
I find it hard to have a problem with any "eligibility extension" that is earned through academics. Yes, I know, there are soooo many soft degree programs out there now. But a degree in something is still better than nothing. JMO
Peace
All the UNC basketball players and a lot of the football players got "degrees", who are now involved in a rather nasty academic fraud case at Chapel Hill. The grad transfer rule just lends itself to free agency and academic abuse, IMO.
As long as scholarships are given on a yearly basis and not for the duration of the students stay at the school, I think the kid should be able to transfer to any school he wants just like any other normal student.
Dave
Coach Cal agrees with me, FWIW:
http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/kentucky-sports/uk-basketball-men/article139803428.html
His direct quote:
“I just can’t imagine we can’t come up with a solution that you have to sit out,” Calipari said Saturday. “If you transfer, you sit out. It’s just what it is. I mean, whether you graduated or not, you sit out. From what I understand, there are programs that have the names of all the kids that have a chance of transferring and playing right away. ‘Who can we grab out of that?’ Come on.”
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/sports/coll...tball-men/article139803428.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/kentucky-sports/uk-basketball-men/article139803428.html
His direct quote:
“I just can’t imagine we can’t come up with a solution that you have to sit out,” Calipari said Saturday. “If you transfer, you sit out. It’s just what it is. I mean, whether you graduated or not, you sit out. From what I understand, there are programs that have the names of all the kids that have a chance of transferring and playing right away. ‘Who can we grab out of that?’ Come on.”
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/sports/coll...tball-men/article139803428.html#storylink=cpy
Oh no! I disagree with Cal! Look at it through a students eyes who is not guaranteed a scholarship the following year. It is a yearly basis renewal. I do not like a free agent network that is developing with the grads...but I cannot fault a kid wanting to better his situation when the system is already set up against him.
Dave
Dave
Signed,
Every coach that's ever left a school under contract and didn't "sit out" for a year to start coaching at their new school"..
Cal isn't always right, he is and has been paid multi millions of dollars per year for quite sometime, he is one of the top people in the world at his chosen profession, UK is happy to have him. He will probably never have to be concerned with a grad transfer, why would one want to come to UK to play BB? Other schools can't contact these kids, they could have a list of who might be considering it, but they can't go out recruiting them like they do HS kids. Why would any coach want to keep a kid who isn't going to play for him from going somewhere he could actually play? Kid is probably the wrong term to use here, these guys are all over 20 and very likely 21 and are considered adults by any measure. Their scholarships, or contracts, are for 1 year, but we want to hold them to a higher standard than a coach who leaves in the middle of a multi year contract without having to sit out a year. Just a buyout that the coach isn't paying. How does Cal feel about that?
I think kids on one year scholarships should be allowed to transfer without sitting out no matter what. If you want to lock them in to the university, lock the university in to them and make scholarships guaranteed for at least 4 years, then let teams and kids both decide for themselves year 5 if they want to part ways with no penalty.
Scholarship is like a contract, that contract says you play one year of football, we will give you one year of education. You want kids staying for 4 years, give them a 4 year contract.
Scholarship is like a contract, that contract says you play one year of football, we will give you one year of education. You want kids staying for 4 years, give them a 4 year contract.
Cal said he hates the rule, but when he needed it, he used it. Since he does not use it, he does not like it. The kid graduated, why should he or she have to sit a year?
One class irrelevant to a major should not be the base of an academic rule that rewards folks.
Also, pretty lame to stigmatize an entire program shared by 170 schools for the indecency of 1 school.
in addition to the fact that coaches (who are the leaders of these young men) have the same contingencies within their "contracts", but you want to hold a (young) student-athlete to a higher standard than the men that are doing less grueling work? Yeah that sounds about right.
Lets make every rule to benefit only the coaches, administration, and fans and not the individuals actually putting their livelihood and health on the line during each and every practice and play.
And no, this does not marginalize or minimize the investment the school and others put in the player but it just allows them some of the same advantages.
To be oppose to someone having a freedom to choose without penalty their next step of life & professional journey after fulfilling their obligation of graduation is cynical and narcissistic behavior in my opinion.
One last point about the UNC (and yes it is wrong what they did and they should be punished severely for breaking the rules) but again regarding the devaluation of a persons degree based on one class. I went to college for a Computer Science degree, please explain the relevance of my degree to the Study of Mid-Evil History & the Chinese Dynasty have? And no I didn't commit fraud but it was barely attended or retained.
Last edited:
Respectfully, I just cannot see how the grad transfer rule could be considered "Academic abuse".
As for NC, I have long maintained the fraudulent course scandal is a matter of continuing eligibility rather than "impermissible benefits" as it is being considered. It seems very cut and dried to me - if a fraudulent course was necessary to gain eligibility or maintain NCAA "progress toward degree" requirements AND that player participated in a game (i.e., as an ineligible player), a win in such a game should be vacated. If he did not need the fraudulent course to gain or maintain eligibility, no harm, no foul as far as the NCAA is concerned. I'm sure the stumbling block in my interpretation is that it would impact a HUGE number of NC wins...and they don't want that.
Peace
It's not the huge number of wins that keeps NC safe, it's winning a title or two. If Memphis had won a title instead of Kansas, there would have been nothing done about Rose's eligibility, and NCAA would have strung up Kansas (or maybe not) over Darrell Arthur's eligibility. UNC has titles they deserve to vacate. Kansas has a title they need to vacate, your team has a title they need to vacate. That's not going to happen. NCAA doesn't want vacated titles. Syracuse vacated 106 but miraculously not the Melo title. Michigan vacated 113 but not the national title.
NCAA is gonna do whatever they can to keep taint off their championships.
As long as the coach is willing to also sit out a year when he decides to transfer, I am okay with that. Both the graduate student and the head basketball coach are college graduates and should be treated the same with regards to transfers.
That was a few days ago, its just my opinion, but if as kid has graduated and has eligibility left. If he is a backup, I think he should be able to transfer as a grad transfer without penalty. The school has fulfilled it's obligation to the guy/girl and they have fulfilled their obligation to the school by playing 3 years and most likely serving a RS. Kid wants to play, not watch. I just think its pretty low of the original school to want to keep him for emergency depth, even if he was getting to play some, why try to force a kid to stay who doesn't want to be there?
What about the ND QB that went to Fla State (or was it the other way around?). What about the 5th year WR from Bowling Green that went free agency to Alabama last year? Think he was going to sit on the bench at Bowling Green? For that matter, we sure could have used Patrick Towles after Barker got hurt last year. If you are talking about a sure backup that is not going to play at all, then I think you have a point, otherwise, it is a bad rule.
Unconscionability. Just gonna put this here and slide away.
Everyone, including Cal, who are attacking this rule are saying how unfair it is for the school and the coach, and not at all about what the situation is for the person directly effected, the athlete. Towles should not have been allowed to start for a P5 team and go to a bowl and leave out on a good note because "we sure could have used" him as an emergency contingency plan. Poor little ol UK. When Cal attacks this it's over coaches maybe losing a 6 or 7 figure job because a kid does what is best for himself. Oh, the heartbreak I feel for the poor unfortunate millionaires taking advantage of children.
NCAA is lucky to exist after the O'bannon lawsuit. If that action had taken a larger scope, one sided scholarships would have died then and there and we wouldn't be talking about how unfair it is to a university that a young man or woman is, after 4 years of a one sided contract, allowed to make a decision for themselves.
3 and gone. The kid played for at least three years (especially in the basketball situation where he was likely not RSed) and he GRADUATED. The coach of his school has benefitted greatly from his play and classroom work. As has the school. Why are coaches fussing about that kid's chance now to play for a P5 school and, in some instances, for a NC? Protecting small school coaches does not seem consistent with Cal's player's first mantra.
What about them? They had fullfilled their obligation to their schools, gotten their degrees from the schools. It amazes me people think a one year scholarship signed by someone who has very few life experiences should be more binding than a 10 year contract signed by a multi millionaire coach. You want the kid bound to a school and not be allowed to transfer without sitting out year, 2 if the first school doesn't release him, even after that 1 year scholarship is fulfilled by both parties. But you think its ok for a multi millionaire coach to be able to leave on a whim even if he is in the middle of a 10 year contract, one him and his professional agent both agreed to? Of course Cal and the rest of the coaches want things the way they are now.
I think the NCAA knows its a huge loss if they say no and someone sues it will be a huge loss for the NCAA and open doors for kids to transfer after 1 year with no penalty, which would cause complete chaos. So they choose to not contest it.
Similar threads
