Saban article is revealing.....

[VOLINVONORE]

Regardless of all the riddle I don't see the issue with a kid earning a degree, graduating, and transferring to another school. It's done in basketball every single year with little to no adversity from the university itself let alone the head coach.

If you agree to terms and hold up your end of the agreement at the end of the day you did what you were supposed to do and should have the right to move on elsewhere. That being said, if in your initial scholarship, or whatever college players sign these days, there is some kind of non transfer clause to a conference opponent then that should be held as part of the agreement.

I don't know Jack **** I just was raised that way

Saban will be Saban. He wants his cake and wants to eat it too.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

It's a little complicated.

About 6-8 years ago, the NCAA changed its rule book so that schools could begin to offer multi-year scholarships. All the way up to 4 years (5 with redshirt).

So it's an option everywhere.

But most schools don't use that option. Instead, there's usually an unwritten commitment between the players and their programs: you stay in good standing, keep your grades up, no big disciplinary issues, represent the university well, keep dedicated to the team, and we'll keep renewing your scholarship all the way through school.

And they do. You never hear about schools dumping players without cause, just because they didn't (for instance) ever make the two-deep.

In fact, just the opposite--most schools usually find ways to continue to pay for a young man's education even if he gets a career-ending injury and can't play any more. They may shift away from one of the 85 allowed football scholarships, but find another way to keep paying him to finish up.

So no, there aren't many formal 4-year scholarships these days (there are some; just not many). But there are a lot of year-by-year deals that feel almost just as if they were for the full ride.

I actually have some experience with this since my wife who was playing softball at UGA had her scholly basically taken after playing 2 years for them. The new coach Lou Harris came in and did not resign the entire sophmore class. As explained to them they were yearly contracts. Now this could have changed since that happened. I will also state that my wife now has a hatred for all things UGA. As they did not offer the first time to help any of them find alternate schools. All is good though she played for Marty McDaniel the pitching coach for UT currently at Armstrong Atlantic. And is now a proud UT fan.

 

[UT-Rex]

I remember the WR from Bowling Green (Dieter) who was a grad transfer to Alabama in 2016. Saban was aware of him and how good he was because of his film against us from 2015.

Saban wants every edge he can get, whether he needs it or not doesn't matter. That means double standards with some hypocrisy thrown in once in a while as well... You can get away with being a jerk when you are the best college football coach ever.

The better analogy would be the last time Alabama took a graduate transfer from Tennessee or any school in the SEC without the player sitting out a year. This is a rule that the conference put into place.

Saban has already admitted "that there are cases where that [transfer] may be a viable option if it's for academic reasons" --

well, the Commissioner has been given authority to review these cases, and what higher "academic reason" can there be, than "Graduation" // that the Player has (will have) graduated ??

Do you disagree, that graduation (in 3 years) is academic in nature?

He'll have his academic degree in-hand.

And a degree in the hand is worth 2 in the bushes -- that is, Saban should be happy, and content, that he's graduated a player (in 3 years); now pat him on the back and let him move on to complete his eligibility (and if that's at Aub, so be it; and other details may surface during the case-review we're unfamiliar with at the moment).

 

[TNnative]

A better analogy would be to compare this to the times Bama players have been in trouble with the law. Saban believes in second chances and doing what's best for the players, and I am okay with that, but this kid is a graduate and to my knowledge, has never been trouble. It's obvious he isn't going to start or he wouldn't be wanting to leave, so why not do what's best for the kid and allow him to pursue his career and education at the college of his choice? Rules are rules, but Saban allowed Maurice Smith to transfer. Why is Kennedy any different?

I thought Saban fought Smith transferring to Georgia until Sankey ruled in Smith's favor. So, Kennedy isn't any different.He has to fight for his transfer just like Smith.

 

[bamawriter]

I thought Saban fought Smith transferring to Georgia until Sankey ruled in Smith's favor. So, Kennedy isn't any different.He has to fight for his transfer just like Smith.

Sankey didn't rule in Smith's favor. His appeal was never heard. Saban ultimately backed off before it ever got to that point.

 

[savannahfan]

When a person graduates from a school, regardless of the status of their being a sports, academic, or any other kind of scholarship student, their responsibility to the school is over. The same goes for the school as it relates to the student.
As to the real world, some employment contracts do have clauses pertaining to a period of time after a person leaves the company.
I do not think this could or should work in an college sports environment. It works in pro sports because it is a business arraignment between the parties.
As far as that goes, how does a minor enter into a contract? You say their parents sign the contract on behalf of their child. To a degree is this not servitude?

Fire away...

 

[Evergrenevol]

I actually have some experience with this since my wife who was playing softball at UGA had her scholly basically taken after playing 2 years for them. The new coach Lou Harris came in and did not resign the entire sophmore class. As explained to them they were yearly contracts. Now this could have changed since that happened. I will also state that my wife now has a hatred for all things UGA. As they did not offer the first time to help any of them find alternate schools. All is good though she played for Marty McDaniel the pitching coach for UT currently at Armstrong Atlantic. And is now a proud UT fan.

If I’m not mistaken, the same thing happened to the Tennessee women’s track team. New coach came in and cleaned house.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I actually have some experience with this since my wife who was playing softball at UGA had her scholly basically taken after playing 2 years for them. The new coach Lou Harris came in and did not resign the entire sophmore class. As explained to them they were yearly contracts. Now this could have changed since that happened. I will also state that my wife now has a hatred for all things UGA. As they did not offer the first time to help any of them find alternate schools. All is good though she played for Marty McDaniel the pitching coach for UT currently at Armstrong Atlantic. And is now a proud UT fan.

Wow, that sucks, Andy. That coach is a real dirtbag. Just the opposite of what college coaches should be (and what the vast majority are): focused on the young men and women first.

Glad it worked out for your wife. Go Vols!


p.s. I say that realizing women's softball (and plenty of other collegiate sports) aren't big $$-winners, and don't have a lot of other options beyond their athletic scholarships [unlike the football coach, who can always find some spare money laying around to cover a former player's tuition & books]. I get that, I do. Still, a good coach has gotta be able to figure out ways to balance the needs of the student-athletes with the needs of team development.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Sankey didn't rule in Smith's favor. His appeal was never heard. Saban ultimately backed off before it ever got to that point.

Not true. The SEC is the only agent that can approve an exception to its own policies. Saban can't do that on the league's behalf; he has no authority outside of Tuscaloosa. Even if he says, "okay by me," it still requires an exception be approved by the conference.

So, in fact, Sankey DID rule in Smith's favor by approving the exception. Saban just (possibly) made the decision a little easier for Sankey, by removing his objection.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

Wow, that sucks, Andy. That coach is a real dirtbag. Just the opposite of what college coaches should be (and what the vast majority are): focused on the young men and women first.

Glad it worked out for your wife. Go Vols!


p.s. I say that realizing women's softball (and plenty of other collegiate sports) aren't big $$-winners, and they don't have a lot of other options beyond the athletic scholarships authorized for them. [unlike the football coach, who can always find some money around to cover a kid's tuition & books even after he's no longer earning a football scholarship]. I get that, I do. Still, a good coach has gotta be able to figure out ways to balance the needs of the student-athletes with the needs of team development.

On a side note Marty is a great guy and she loved playing for him. Kinda funny she ended up in the hall of fame for Armstrong. So honestly the move probably helped her more than hurt.

 

[bamawriter]

Not true. The SEC is the only agent that can approve an exception to its own policies. Saban can't do that on the league's behalf; he has no authority outside of Tuscaloosa. Even if he says, "okay by me," it still requires an exception be approved by the conference.

So, in fact, Sankey DID rule in Smith's favor by approving the exception. Saban just (possibly) made the decision a little easier for Sankey, by removing his objection.

"I thought Saban fought Smith transferring to Georgia until Sankey ruled in Smith's favor."

That would suggest that Saban fought the transfer until Sankey stepped in. That isn't the case.

The SEC rule doesn't allow transfers (grad or otherwise) within the conference without a release from the current school. From there, the SEC does little more than approve a waiver of the rule. I suppose it is possible that a coach could dig his heels in and not provide a release, and that the league could overrule that decision. I don't recall a situation in which that has happened.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

"I thought Saban fought Smith transferring to Georgia until Sankey ruled in Smith's favor."

That would suggest that Saban fought the transfer until Sankey stepped in. That isn't the case.

The SEC rule doesn't allow transfers (grad or otherwise) within the conference without a release from the current school. From there, the SEC does little more than approve a waiver of the rule. I suppose it is possible that a coach could dig his heels in and not provide a release, and that the league could overrule that decision. I don't recall a situation in which that has happened.

Argue it all you want, friend. You said the appeal was never heard, and you said that Sankey never ruled in the young man's favor, when in fact both happened.

And you're trying to paint it as if Sankey was just following Saban's lead. The opposite seems more likely: Saban gave way because he saw where Sankey was likely headed.

In fact, it would not surprise me one little bitty bit to find out that Sankey called Saban at some point during the case and said, "Look Nick, this isn't going to go the way you want. I'm calling you now to give you a chance to save face by changing your mind before I rule on it."

 

[bamawriter]

Argue it all you want, friend. You said the appeal was never heard, and you said that Sankey never ruled in the young man's favor, when in fact both happened.

An appeal of Saban's decision was never heard. By the time it reached the SEC, Saban's decision was what the kid wanted.

And you're trying to paint it as if Sankey was just following Saban's lead. The opposite seems more likely: Saban gave way because he saw where Sankey was likely headed.

Probably. Which is absurd on both ends: Saban for blocking it in the first place, and Sankey for making it clear that he didn't want to enforce the SEC's own rule.

Again, I disagree with the rule and think it should be trashed. But I also don't understand why the SEC commissioner would be making it clear that he's not going to enforce the rule, so the schools should operate under the assumption that he isn't going to do his job.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

An appeal of Saban's decision was never heard. By the time it reached the SEC, Saban's decision was what the kid wanted.



Probably. Which is absurd on both ends: Saban for blocking it in the first place, and Sankey for making it clear that he didn't want to enforce the SEC's own rule.

Again, I disagree with the rule and think it should be trashed. But I also don't understand why the SEC commissioner would be making it clear that he's not going to enforce the rule, so the schools should operate under the assumption that he isn't going to do his job.

Saban wasn't the decision-maker. That would be Sankey. Saban merely sat in opposition to the request (until just before Sankey decided). So it was never an appeal of any Saban decision; it was an appeal of the SEC rule. And that certainly did happen.

As for Sankey's position not making sense to you, it makes perfect sense to me. He has literally said this: each case is unique, and should be considered on its own merits.

That position is not in disagreement with the existing rule book. It's like a light switch. You say, "we'll decide whether to have the lights on based on conditions." So it really doesn't matter whether the light switch begins in the "off" position (current SEC rule) or the "on" position, you're still deciding on a case-by-case basis.


p.s. Thinking about that last bit a little more. It's interesting. So right now, the light switch defaults to the "off" position, putting the burden on the transfering graduate student/player to request an exception to policy.

But it would be possible to change the rule book so that it allows graduates to transfer freely within the conference, unless opposed by one of the schools involved (which would usually be the losing school). That would be the equivalent of the light switch being in the "on" position by default. And that would shift the burden from the player to the coach, who would have to take action to get the SEC involved.

Maybe that's the way we, the SEC, ought to go with this. It's worth considering.

 

[bamawriter]

Saban wasn't the decision-maker. That would be Sankey. Saban merely sat in opposition to the request (until just before Sankey decided). So it was never an appeal of any Saban decision; it was an appeal of the SEC rule. And that certainly did happen.

I think this is a misstatement of the order of events, or at least what the events were, in and of themselves. There is a difference between an appeal (which would have been what Smith would need to do had Saban not relented), and a request for a waiver (which is what happened after Saban granted Smith's release).

Saban didn't relent right before Sankey decided; Sankey decided right after Saban relented.

As for Sankey's position not making sense to you, it makes perfect sense to me. He has literally said this: each case is unique, and should be considered on its own merits. That position is not in disagreement with the existing rule book.

But, by rule, those exceptions still require a full release from the school to even be considered. No release means there is no waiver to grant. If Sankey was truly telling Saban that he would go over Saban's head if Saban didn't change his mind, then that's not following the rule. We don't really know that Sankey was going to do any such thing or, if he was planning to do so, when. If Sankey was going to let the kid appeal, he certainly took his sweet time.

 

[volboy81]

If he has graduated I don’t think little nicky has any say so as to where he can go. I’m sure he doesn’t think the rules apply to him, but they do....unless the sec office gets involved, then they go into their “give our precious crimson tide anything they want” mode

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I think this is a misstatement of the order of events, or at least what the events were, in and of themselves. There is a difference between an appeal (which would have been what Smith would need to do had Saban not relented), and a request for a waiver (which is what happened after Saban granted Smith's release).

Saban didn't relent right before Sankey decided; Sankey decided right after Saban relented.



But, by rule, those exceptions still require a full release from the school to even be considered. No release means there is no waiver to grant. If Sankey was truly telling Saban that he would go over Saban's head if Saban didn't change his mind, then that's not following the rule. We don't really know that Sankey was going to do any such thing or, if he was planning to do so, when. If Sankey was going to let the kid appeal, he certainly took his sweet time.

Bama, you are creating a syntax-based difference that doesn't exist in real life.

An SEC rule exists. The player wanted an exception to that rule. He appealed to the SEC for a waiver. You seem to be arguing that the appeal and the waiver request are two different animals. They're not.

Whether Saban supported or opposed the request, he had no direct role in it. Because the player was a graduate, I don't think he needed his first school to "grant a release." Saban was just giving his opinion in hopes of influencing Sankey's decision. It didn't work, and at the last minute he reversed his position, probably to save face.


p.s. Looking into the SEC and NCAA rule books, it seems there's a lot of complexity that we're skirting over here. Administrative rules about what agents in particular are required and able to exercise what actions, and so on. It may even be the case that the player is never able to address the NCAA or SEC directly, but has to act through one of the schools involved. It all gets a bit murky, and I'm not sure we really want to dive down that rabbit hole. But we can if you wish. We'll need flashlights. Lacking that, we'll just have to live with the fact that both your and my responses are, to some degree, approximations of what really happens in cases like these.

 

[stevenrich2003]

Thanks for sharing. It does kinda open your eyes about little saban.

Wants it to work for him both ways.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

I remember the WR from Bowling Green (Dieter) who was a grad transfer to Alabama in 2016. Saban was aware of him and how good he was because of his film against us from 2015.

Saban wants every edge he can get, whether he needs it or not doesn't matter. That means double standards with some hypocrisy thrown in once in a while as well... You can get away with being a jerk when you are the best college football coach ever.

Which Saban spews horse "sheet." Horse "sheet" is horse"sheet" whether excreted by a Falabella or a Shire. Only the pile size is different but they both smell the same.

 

[bamawriter]

Bama, you are creating a syntax-based difference that doesn't exist in real life.

An SEC rule exists. The player wanted an exception to that rule. He appealed to the SEC for a waiver. You seem to be arguing that the appeal and the waiver request are two different animals. They're not.

There is a difference between "requesting a waiver", and an "appeal." These things are drafted by lawyers, and they reflect legal terminology. You request a waiver from a rule, bylaw, or requirement; you appeal a ruling or decision that has already been made.

Whether Saban supported or opposed the request, he had no direct role in it. Because the player was a graduate, I don't think he needed his first school to "grant a release."

That's incorrect. Even the NCAA rule on grad transfers requires a release from the school. The rule simply allows a grad to play immediately rather than sitting out:

Link

Student-athletes who have graduated are subject to the same release requirements as undergraduates and must have at least one year of eligibility remaining... If the student-athlete wishes to pursue a degree program not offered at the original institution, he or she is eligible for a waiver to compete immediately at the new school.

...Conditional releases are based on institutional or conference policies.

Saban was just giving his opinion in hopes of influencing Sankey's decision. It didn't work, and at the last minute he reversed his position, probably to save face.

Again, incorrect. Smith could not play at UGA immediately without Bama's release.

p.s. Looking into the SEC and NCAA rule books, it seems there's a lot of complexity that we're skirting over here. Administrative rules about what agents in particular are required and able to exercise what actions, and so on. It may even be the case that the player is never able to address the NCAA or SEC directly, but has to act through one of the schools involved. It all gets a bit murky, and I'm not sure we really want to dive down that rabbit hole. But we can if you wish. We'll need flashlights. Lacking that, we'll just have to live with the fact that both your and my responses are, to some degree, approximations of what really happens in cases like these.

Yeah, that's a discussion for another day. I have all kinds of issues with the BS that kids have to jump thru in order to act in their own best interest.

Again, I'm not on Saban's side on this thing. He should have let Smith go from the beginning. I'm only pointing out that Saban was acting completely within NCAA and SEC rules.

 

[RollerVol]

Where is the revealing part?

that Saban is two-faced and wants everything his way...

GBO!

 

[GetEmVols]

The better analogy would be the last time Alabama took a graduate transfer from Tennessee or any school in the SEC without the player sitting out a year. This is a rule that the conference put into place.

That is only if they haven’t graduated. If they graduate they can and should play instantly.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

There is a difference between "requesting a waiver", and an "appeal." These things are drafted by lawyers, and they reflect legal terminology. You request a waiver from a rule, bylaw, or requirement; you appeal a ruling or decision that has already been made.

That's incorrect. Even the NCAA rule on grad transfers requires a release from the school. The rule simply allows a grad to play immediately rather than sitting out:

Link

Again, incorrect. Smith could not play at UGA immediately without Bama's release.

Yeah, that's a discussion for another day. I have all kinds of issues with the BS that kids have to jump thru in order to act in their own best interest.

Again, I'm not on Saban's side on this thing. He should have let Smith go from the beginning. I'm only pointing out that Saban was acting completely within NCAA and SEC rules.

You could absolutely be right on each of these points. The more I look at these rule books, the more confusing it gets.

No idea how a college student-athlete navigates all this bs without a team of lawyers by his side. Lord help him (or her) if the university opposes whatever it is he (she) wants to do.