Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#18,327
#18,327
volfaninpa said:
With the disappointing performances so far this season, it got me thinking what's the biggest UT upset of a highly ranked team you've seen or remember? I'm not talking Florida in 2001, when both teams were in the top 5 and there was a crazy spread on the game.

I'm not old enough to know about UT being Notre Dame is the late 70s. And I know that Auburn was #1 when UT beat them, but wasn't that the team that went and beat Miami in the Sugar Bowl?

So, what's the biggest UT upset win you've ever seen or ever?
Click to expand...
91 Notre Dame. 85 Auburn. 86 sugar bowl. 03 Miami. 01 Florida. 96 citrus bowl. 99 fiesta bowl.

No order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeGlasses731
#18,330
#18,330
BruinVol said:
I agree that’s the way it should be but that’s what is wrong with the system.

The school being left would then get hit with an APR deduction, also their graduate rate gets hurt AND the kid would no longer be eligible to play at the new school. So in this case both the school and player gets hurt.

It’s just a no win situation
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's a simple fix.

If hes in good academic standing when he leaves theres no reason why he shouldnt be eligible at the school taking him nor should the school he left take an apr hit. It's on the original school to keep him on track while hes there and the receiving school once hes enrolled there. It's a win/win/win for all 3 parties.

If this uneducated redneck can figure it, it ain't difficult.

I like responsibility for all involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols
#18,332
#18,332
BeecherVol said:
Not at all. It's a simple fix.

If hes in good academic standing when he leaves theres no reason why he shouldnt be eligible at the school taking him nor should the school he left take an apr hit. It's on the original school to keep him on track while hes there and the receiving school once hes enrolled there. It's a win/win/win for all 3 parties.

If this uneducated redneck can figure it, it ain't difficult.

I like responsibility for all involved.
Click to expand...


So you are saying the rule needs to be changed saying they don’t need to graduate?

If that’s your stance I can understand that. I am fine with one time transfers being eligible as long as they finish the year they start
 
#18,336
#18,336
BruinVol said:
So you are saying the rule needs to be changed saying they don’t need to graduate?

If that’s your stance I can understand that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
If they had already graduated with eligibility left it's a moot point. They can leave. The athlete and school both have upheld their end.

I'm referring to the kid that transfers before he graduates and still has eligibility left.
The responsibility of him graduating should then fall on the receiving school. His academic standing at his previous school falls on them. If hes not in good standing the receiving school is taking a risk.

I'm fine with repercussions as long as they result from choices.
 
#18,338
#18,338
BeecherVol said:
Absolutely.
If they had already graduated with eligibility left it's a moot point. They can leave. The athlete and school both have upheld their end.

I'm referring to the kid that transfers before he graduates and still has eligibility left.
The responsibility of him graduating should then fall on the receiving school. His academic standing at his previous school falls on them. If hes not in good standing the receiving school is taking a risk.

I'm fine with repercussions as long as they result from choices.
Click to expand...
Ok I can respect that
 
#18,344
#18,344
Maybe the team;s talent is worse than we can imagine. I set myself up for another disappointment and maybe just maybe its far worse than any of us know. I will be glad when Butch's players are all gone. Just trying to make sense of all this.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top