Started By
Message
re: Saban on transfer rule
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:40 pm to ATLdawg25
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:40 pm to ATLdawg25
quote:
Would Cam or Marshall's offenses been serious enough to prohibit them from transferring? Seems like there would need to be some sort of violence or serious theft or something.
My guess is both of them would have been able to appeal and go through the review process and transfer to Auburn anyways.
Neither of those two's offenses were really serious enough to warrant being included in the transfer rule IMO...
Both were serious enough to warrant their dismissal from their previous team(not sure if Cam was even dismissed from UF or he transferred) but not enough to not be given a second chance to learn from youthful mistakes...
Most of these kids have been coddled & told how awesome they are for so long that a reality check(getting in trouble)& having to go to a podunk JUCO can show them that they're not bulletproof & help them reassess their goals & help set them on the right path...
Don't get me wrong... frick Cam & Nick...
... but both were nowhere near not deserving another chance...This post was edited on 6/4/15 at 12:42 pm
0
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:46 pm to AU24
somebody had to say it...might as well be him.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:47 pm to NGATiger
quote:
Would Mettenswag have been able to transfer under the rule?
That would be a case where clarification was needed.
My guess is that he would have been initially blocked, but there will be some kind of appeal process that he would have had a good chance at winning.
The question I would have is who places the serious misconduct distinction on the athlete. Is it automatic based on the offense, or is it at the discretion of the previous coach?
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:48 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
or is it at the discretion of the previous coach?
that would be a disaster.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:54 pm to AU24
Cheap shots from Saban are expected
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:54 pm to AU24
quote:
"Saban wants more clarity on SEC "serious misconduct" rule. "Cam Newton and Nick Marshall were good for the SEC."
I am outraged that we would make this statement. We all know Cam Newton and Nick Marshall were not good for the SEC.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:55 pm to AU24
If Saban really brought up Cam and Marshall, it seems like he is just trying to distract people from the fact the rule was proposed and passed because of thugs he was taking. Everything I have read about the rule makes it pretty clear guys like Cam and Marshsll wouldn't fall under it
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:56 pm to auburnphan23
quote:
If Saban really brought up Cam and Marshall, it seems like he is just trying to distract people from the fact the rule was proposed and passed because of thugs he was taking. Everything I have read about the rule makes it pretty clear guys like Cam and Marshall wouldn't fall under it
I agree with phan....the world is over
Posted on 6/4/15 at 12:59 pm to AU24
saban says something that is readily apparent to even the simplest person, gets disagreement from rantards. saban says sky is blue and you shouldnt eat your own crap, rantards so no it isnt and then chow down.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:01 pm to narddogg81
quote:
saban says something that is readily apparent to even the simplest person, gets disagreement from rantards. saban says sky is blue and you shouldnt eat your own crap, rantards so no it isnt and then chow down.
Maybe he should run for president...
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:10 pm to piggidyphish
quote:
Maybe he should run for president...
I think the Tea Tards are too obsessed with Obama and Hillary to ask them to overreact to everything Saban says too.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:23 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
at the discretion of the REC
That's why Saban just needs to shut the frick up and sit down. It will be handled.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:24 pm to AU24
quote:
Cam Newton and Nick Marshall were good for the SEC
Sick burn, IMO.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:26 pm to AU24
Nice link. And Mett was good for the conference, too.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:30 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
He knows Cam and Marshall wouldn't fall under this rule.
If you know that for a fact then the rule doesn't need clarity. My guess is you have no idea how they define "serious misconduct" and neither does anybody else.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:34 pm to Aman
quote:
If you know that for a fact then the rule doesn't need clarity. My guess is you have no idea how they define "serious misconduct" and neither does anybody else.
The fact that the johnathan taylor saga propelled this rule into existence should give you a pretty good idea of what it is geared towards.
Cam allegedly stole a laptop (did he even get kicked off the team?) and Marshall took money from a teammate's locker. If you think that those offenses exist in the same nebulous cloud of "misconduct" as Taylor's offense, then I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:34 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Actually, he's absolutely right. There needs to be more clarity.
You're not Saban-bashing?
Oh, that's going to cost you popularity points here on the Rant.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:36 pm to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
Nick Marshall were good for the SEC."
Meh.....I've seen much better
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:38 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
He knows Cam and Marshall wouldn't fall under this rule. What a prick Saban is for even using them.
Now you're just being hypersensitive. If anything, he paid a complement to them but I guess Saban is evil and an arse to you so no other way for you to take it.
Posted on 6/4/15 at 1:40 pm to ATLdawg25
quote:
nebulous cloud of "misconduct"
The fact that the cloud is nebulous is the issue.
The problem is that you're implying a sense of interpretation, but the rule is so vague that the interpretation could all over the place. "Serious misconduct" could mean different things for different people. If someone had a family member killed by someone driving under the influence, then simple drug possession could easily be seen as "serious."
Rules, especially ones like these, should be clarified. Is it of a violent only nature, or should non-violent offenses be included (like drug possession, etc)?
Just because one particular case is the launching pad for a rule, doesn't mean that it's the only influence or the only justifiable course. I mean, if I was the person you stole money from, wouldn't I consider it pretty serious?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News