Question Of The Day
As we mentioned in today's paper, USC is against the idea of granting Jamere Holland a release to fellow Pac-10 rival Oregon. http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_6684245
Do you think he should be allowed to transfer to the Ducks?
« Carswell Cleared | Main | Difference Of Philosophy »
As we mentioned in today's paper, USC is against the idea of granting Jamere Holland a release to fellow Pac-10 rival Oregon. http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_6684245
Do you think he should be allowed to transfer to the Ducks?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.insidesocal.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/17546
Comments
No. He should have to transfer to a MAC team.
Posted by: SCStrategies
|
August 22, 2007 11:02 AM
Further evidence that college football is more about business than anything else...
Posted by: The Franchise
|
August 22, 2007 11:08 AM
Yes, if Pete Carroll and USC like competition so much.
Furthermore, it's not like Holland will make a difference for the Ducks. He'll always be hurt and on the sidelines.
Posted by: Petingtong
|
August 22, 2007 11:09 AM
I say, let's let him transfer to UCLA. Then he can experience what the bottom-feeders' existence is really like.
Posted by: Ex-Sportswriter
|
August 22, 2007 11:13 AM
He wants to be the featured guy but has an attitude problem, misses or messes up his rehab schedule and is injury prone... And PC dismisses him. That sends a big message to other teams...
He should transfer to ASU. I hear the NCAA is setting up compliance offices outside the stadium. I'm sure steroids will help him get over his injuries...
Posted by: Clemdiggity
|
August 22, 2007 11:29 AM
Players shouldn't be allowed to transfer to schools within their conference in the same year. If they want to transfer in conference there should be a 2 year waiting period. You want to transfer so badly? Then go to another conference.
These kids have access to entire playbooks. They shouldn't be able to go to schools within the conference - schools USC will be playing this season. Go be injured at Florida or Boise St.
Posted by: Tyler
|
August 22, 2007 12:01 PM
Not if PC suspects tampering by Belotti's crew. Let the university committee overrule him if necessary, but if coaches are starting to poach instead of doing their own recruiting, you've got to cut that off at the head. Not that I'm upset about the departure. Darwinism does this to some kids.
Posted by: EloiPfeiffer
|
August 22, 2007 12:26 PM
Just because of his insider knowledge of the Trojan program, he should be blocked from any 'in conference' transfer unless it costs him a 2nd yr of elgibility.
Posted by: goliathtrojan
|
August 22, 2007 12:39 PM
No. Pete should never release a player to another in conference program... period.
Posted by: CrownoftheValley
|
August 22, 2007 01:06 PM
I agree with Tyler. If they have had access to the playbook then they shouldn't go to a school in dirrect competition/same conference.
Posted by: Trojan RAB
|
August 22, 2007 01:07 PM
All he will do is get hurt and stand on the sideline and bitch again, except this time in Oregon..
Posted by: USC1966
|
August 22, 2007 01:19 PM
Ditto what Tyler wrote.
Posted by: Rex Cramer
|
August 22, 2007 02:02 PM
I'll preface this by saying I would hold this position for a Bruin as well.
As long as tampering was not involved, allow him to go where ever he feels is best for him. When a kid is recruited, I am sure the coaches tell the family we will take care of your son, we care about him as much as a person as a baller.
If this is true, walk the walk, let him play where he chooses.
again, if tampering is involved, whole different story.
Posted by: Bruin57
|
August 22, 2007 02:34 PM
As far as I know it's a normal practice to grant a release to a player as long as he intends to transfer to a school out of conference that is not on the up coming out-of-conference schedule (tOSU, Notre Dame, etc) ...If he wants to be on the Oregon track team, Let Him , but no Football
Posted by: Giantandre
|
August 22, 2007 02:49 PM
I'll preface this by saying I would hold this position for a Bruin as well.
As long as tampering was not involved, allow him to go where ever he feels is best for him. When a kid is recruited, I am sure the coaches tell the family we will take care of your son, we care about him as much as a person as a baller.
If this is true, walk the walk, let him play where he chooses.
again, if tampering is involved, whole different story.
Posted by: Bruin57
|
August 22, 2007 02:53 PM
No he shouldn't be allowed to go in-conference.
"again, if tampering is involved, whole different story"
Using your reasoning, why should this matter? Why punish the kid for misdeeds of the other school. Why not just report it to the NCAA and "walk the walk, let him play where he chooses."
Posted by: methomps
|
August 22, 2007 04:13 PM
I'm sorry. The schools don't own these kids. If he were an employee of a company in California, a company would have to compensate him specifically for voluntarily signing a non-compete with no repercussions for not signing for the non-compete to be enforceable after employment. Companies that want enforceable non-competes (as opposed to baseless threats to hold over employees' heads) typically offer cash bonuses or stock options grants, and in any case the maximum employee liability is repaying the bonus or giving up the options grant. This non-compete stuff is bad public policy at any level, including football players on scholarships.
As to the playbook access... If PC thinks his playbook is so important that denying a transfer to any school is really about protecting the playbook and not about unwritten rules of the game, then he can't coach for shit, and we all know the latter is not true. Let him go and see how he feels about being on the other end of Taylor Mayes in 2008.
Posted by: BoscoH
|
August 22, 2007 05:21 PM
GOOD ARGUMENTS HERE ON BOTH SIDES---BUT I TEND TO VOTE NO---FOR THE REASONS THE NO VOTERS GAVE
Posted by: TIREBITER1
|
August 23, 2007 12:04 AM