|
|
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/s...ansfer/432272/
Defensive tackle OJ Smith from Bossier City Airline will transfer after 3 years of standing around on the sidelines at Alabama. There should be a standard template article (maybe there already is one) with the player and school left blank to mass produce these 'P5 transfer request' articles.
I'm curious as to where Jack Abraham thinks he can transfer that is better than the situation he had going at LaTech.
Have you considered those Dogs?
Will he not have to transfer to a FCS or D2 school to have a year of eligibility left?Originally Posted by DogsWin
Saban must have given him a release.
It says 3 years of standing on the sideline, so he would be a RS Jr this year with two years left. If he goes FCS he can play 2. If he goes FBS he has to sit out 1 year and will have one remaining.
Are we trying to sign this young man?
It appears this was such a waste of potential talent and future development for this young man. I am always puzzled when young men go to a big stage like Alabama and then be content to sit the bench for so long (sometimes their entire college career) when they could be a starter at so many other schools. I sometimes wonder if the collateral (those hidden from the NCAA) benefits they get do not stimulate them to stay even while not getting to play. I wish him the best wherever he goes.
Maybe the rules should be changed so that the schools can't mothball talent such as this person. Perhaps the rules should stipulate that if a player hasn't accumulated X numbers of minutes of playing time after two years, then they are free to transfer to another school with no layout and no loss of any eligibility. This would put these kids on a par with jucos coming in after two years.
I can understand some small reasoning being that they can claim they were on "so and so" team, and being at Alabama, he would have received the SEC champ, national champ, and Bowl championship rings. It just depends if you can be content with that, or if you actually are passionate about playing
This was the reason they lowered or instituted a limit on the number of scholarships. It must have been over 25 or 30 years ago. It may seem high now but it used to be unlimited and the larger schools did just that. They would sign all the top recruits to keep them from going somewhere else (including other big schools or rivals).
It was never about forcing schools to stop stock piling talent. The reductions were about forcing schools to have more money avialable to give to women athletes.
Until 1973 it was unlimited
Then it was 101 until 1978
Then it was 95 until 1985 when it became 85.
Yea, I'm sure there are "benefits" associated with being on those teams beyond prestige.
This article has some back ground on the scholarship reductions.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/sp...d-seasons.html
It was never about anything other than Title IX.
Anytime you have a great player like OJ Smith was in high school, there's a little bit of ego involved. They think they can go anywhere and play. Some of them are able to. Some of them aren't. But try telling an 18-year-old who has always been the best player on the field AND has high recruiting rankings that he can't work his way onto the field somewhere.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
