- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
Briles Out
- Thread starter Bret44
- Start date
Kinda wonder what the thought process is in moving the DC to interim head coach, considering he's been there 5 years and responsible for the likes of Sam Ukwuachu, Shawn Oakman, Orion Stewart and perhaps even Tevin Elliot
I get you can't go down the offensive side with Briles' kid and son-in-law in the top spots. But man, hard to see much upgrade here...
I get you can't go down the offensive side with Briles' kid and son-in-law in the top spots. But man, hard to see much upgrade here...
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
It's a terrible idea.
I know it's inconvenient, but since this sounds like a staff issue, clear out everyone and deal with the inconvenience it creates for the football season. If you're going to do right, do right instead of this half-measure Baylor is doing.
Agreed. Seems most of the problems related to the FB team came from that side of the ball. I'd think DC is involved with everything regarding his players.
Listening to Mike and Mike this morning, very disappointed to hear that the kids who had nothing to do with this, will have no recourse is getting away from this dumpster fire of a program. Per the show, since it was Baylor firing Briles and not the result of NCAA action, any transfer will have to sit a year. Another case where coaches and administrators can come and go as they please, but the kids are stuck through no fault of their own.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
The NCAA could remedy that, and that's an action I would support. They could rule pretty quickly that Baylor players can transfer without having to sit. I question how many would, though. Look at Penn State. That's as disgusting of a situation as I can remember. The players had the opportunity to leave without having to sit, and they had less than 10 transfers/decommits. There's some solidarity involved, among the players, it appears. Look at the tweets of support for Briles that came out yesterday.
I'd go a step further. If the HC goes for any reason (fired, changed jobs, sanctions, whatever) players should be given an open door.
Kids sign to play for a coach. It's not their fault he/she leaves. And yet they're somehow still bound to the program where the staff isn't?
Imagine if you signed to play with Hoiberg and he got replaced by an Alford.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
I think that's very reasonable. It ought to be the rule universally. if the coach is fired or leaves, the players can transfer without restriction. That only seems fair to me.
I could go for that if a school fires a coach. But if a coach voluntarily leaves/bolts for another job, it doesn't really seem fair to the school to let the players transfer without restriction. A school's program could be decimated for something they have no control over.
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
I'd be fine with eliminating transfer restrictions completely, to be honest. But, if a coach is allowed to leave without penalty, it only seems logical that his players ought to be able to as well.
But the player has control over it?
I'm not really all that on board with paying collegiate players. But they shouldn't exactly indentured servants either. If the circumstances of the conditions for which they signed on change - most notably the person who has an extreme amount of control over their day to day lives - they should be given the opportunity to change that circumstance.
Agree. It would create chaos. Over 20% of coaching staffs turn over every year. There would be wild poaching of every team's best players. Imagine the rebuilding at places like Iowa State if we lost even just our 10-15 best players after last year. The following recruiting classes could not catch up- it would put lower level teams in Kansas mode every time they changed coaches.
Penn State comparison is different. Less than 10 guys transferred, but they still knew they'd be competitive, playing at a school with huge tradition playing in front of 100,000 fans every game (even though they harbored pedophiles).
What difference would there be? Either way, my whole point was that you just can't lift all restrictions when a coach turns over.
Well the contention was that a kid should be able to leave if the coach was fired, but not departing on his own terms.
I could go for that if a school fires a coach.
If Briles decided to get out while the getting was good (lol) and simply resigned, the situation at Baylor would effectively be the same. Only under that circumstance the players are stuck being locked into playing at Baylor.
I just don't agree that these coaches/staffs/admins can come and go and there's no loyalty to the players. But when something completely out of the control of the player happens, somehow we're supposed to demand commitment from them?
And do I care if there's upheaval at a program because of it? Honestly no. The school can't keep it's own house in order for whatever reason - that's on them. Most have millions of dollars to play with. Some kid should be on the hook to maintain continuity for another 2-4 years? Not their problem, IMO. And yes I realize the full implications of that for ISU in the past year +
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
What if the rule went the other way? Hold the coach to the same standard as the student athlete? If a coach wants to leave for another job at an NCAA school, the coach has to sit out a year. Maybe he's able to recruit, and take part in practices, but not allowed to participate on game day? It sounds pretty ludicrous, but it's the same standard that student athletes are held to.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,748
- 33,772
- 113
If it's in their contract, they might have a financial penalty, but not every coach has that, nor are they required.
That would destroy many programs. Look at ISU, if CMC is the right hire and makes the program into something, then moves on taking players with him, then you are back to starting over. You would put more power in the hands of the coaches and their pay would go even higher. A school would not be hiring a coach, but a team.
Don't disagree. I guess it's just too bad. I'd like something that is better as well. But I just can't get behind this idea that schools get what they want, coaches get what they want, and players are effectively screwed no matter what.
Maybe players should get a little more back to choosing where they want to be, where they want to go to school rather than it being all about the coaches.
