Kiffin would like Brown at USC?

#26
#26
NeylandArmy said:
I admit ignorance, but don't we have to grant him a release that would allow that transfer. I thought I remembered DD saying something similar about the whole Douglas thing. There should be no circumstance that we would release players to USC.
Click to expand...

Florida State refused to release Brandon Warren to UT, but he still left. If Brown wants to go to USC badly enough, UT won't be able to stop him.
 
#27
#27
Brown should go hi heart is not at ut it was kiffen and we don't need someone here at ut that's not going to play the heart and give there all for ut football. The head c we have now is going to be here an is not worried about players that don't want to give there all for ut so I say don't let him back even if he wanted to come back we néed to take care of our players that are here now and that are working and giving the all or tenn football
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
If the kid truely wants to play for Kiffin and it doesnt effect our opponants, just release him. I dont see the big deal in releasing a player who wants to play for the coach that recruited him.

I know what Kiffin did to us, but seriously, let the kid do what is best for him imo.
 
#30
#30
buffaloblue said:
If the kid truely wants to play for Kiffin and it doesnt effect our opponants, just release him. I dont see the big deal in releasing a player who wants to play for the coach that recruited him.

I know what Kiffin did to us, but seriously, let the kid do what is best for him imo.
Click to expand...

This.
 
#32
#32
buffaloblue said:
If the kid truely wants to play for Kiffin and it doesnt effect our opponants, just release him. I dont see the big deal in releasing a player who wants to play for the coach that recruited him.

I know what Kiffin did to us, but seriously, let the kid do what is best for him imo.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would make sense to withhold a release if we were playing USC in the near future, but we aren't. I know a lot of people want to stick it to Kiffin, but it would backfire if he ended up at a school that we play.
 
#33
#33
I get what you guys are saying about granting him his release, but at the same time its not right for a former coach to just take a player with him when he leaves. Imagine if coaches did this more often when they left a program.
 
#34
#34
For better or for worse, the kid signed a letter of intent with The University of Tennessee, not a personal services contract with TCWSNBN.

He (and his "handler") knew the ramifications of signing the letter of intent when he signed it. There are no allegations of fraud in the inducement, or fraud after the fact; therefore, the contract signed by Brown is enforceable.

The only question is whether there are extenuating circumstances which would warrant UT releasing Brown from his obligation.

Brown went into this with his eyes wide open. Coaches leave universities constantly, and certainly there always existed the chance TCWSNBN would leave.

Why, then, does Brown want to leave? If its because a family member is ill (e.g. Tyler Smith), humanitarian reasons come into play.

But, if his reason is only "the coach left"; well, that's tough. Contrary to popular belief, just because a coach leaves, that doesn't mean a kid should be able to leave, too. If you don't like that coaches can leave and kids cannot, contact the NCAA and have the language of all letters-of-intent changed. The language is there for a reason--to stop coaches, who lost out on a recruit, from continuing to recruit a kid after he has signed.

The rule is in place in order to stop coaches exactly like TCWSNBN. If we release Brown to USC, we are defeating the very reason that the rule exists.

If justice demands that we release him, we release him. BUT, we do it at OUR pleasure, and not due to any "right" that Brown has. Thus, a release to USC would be a move to bring even more chaos into the recruiting process.

A poster said that no matter what we do, Brown can end up at USC anyway. That may be true. However, that does not mean we are obligated to facilitate that move.
 
#35
#35
Poole will make vol fans forget about Brown and this Neal kid is really a very good football player
 
#40
#40
Voltillyafall said:
For better or for worse, the kid signed a letter of intent with The University of Tennessee, not a personal services contract with TCWSNBN.

He (and his "handler") knew the ramifications of signing the letter of intent when he signed it. There are no allegations of fraud in the inducement, or fraud after the fact; therefore, the contract signed by Brown is enforceable.

The only question is whether there are extenuating circumstances which would warrant UT releasing Brown from his obligation.

Brown went into this with his eyes wide open. Coaches leave universities constantly, and certainly there always existed the chance TCWSNBN would leave.

Why, then, does Brown want to leave? If its because a family member is ill (e.g. Tyler Smith), humanitarian reasons come into play.

But, if his reason is only "the coach left"; well, that's tough. Contrary to popular belief, just because a coach leaves, that doesn't mean a kid should be able to leave, too. If you don't like that coaches can leave and kids cannot, contact the NCAA and have the language of all letters-of-intent changed. The language is there for a reason--to stop coaches, who lost out on a recruit, from continuing to recruit a kid after he has signed.

The rule is in place in order to stop coaches exactly like TCWSNBN. If we release Brown to USC, we are defeating the very reason that the rule exists.

If justice demands that we release him, we release him. BUT, we do it at OUR pleasure, and not due to any "right" that Brown has. Thus, a release to USC would be a move to bring even more chaos into the recruiting process.

A poster said that no matter what we do, Brown can end up at USC anyway. That may be true. However, that does not mean we are obligated to facilitate that move.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it simply does not matter where he signed a letter of intent to play. A LOI is just that--a letter stating intent to attend said school. Scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis so things are less complicated when situations with transfer, quitting, etc. come up.

Simple fact of the matter is that schools will pretty much always release a player if they want to leave the school. Each release is handled on an individual basis, but most are not released to any school on the schedule for the duration of the player's time there. Tennessee wouldn't release Brown to any SEC school or any school on our schedule for the next 2-3 years. All that doesn't matter much though because Brown could still transfer to any school he wants, but if it is one of the schools restricted he has to pay his own tuition for the first year. After that, he is free to be put on scholarship. The first year he is ineligible as well, but can be used as a red-shirt year if the player has one available.

I don't understand why everyone says MH or CDD would be stupid to release him to USC or wherever. Who cares if he goes to USC? We don't play them. I don't see him going there anyway.

IF he in fact ends up leaving, just put the restriction on any team we play and move on. No big deal.
 
#41
#41
It's not stupid to say he shouldn't be allowed to go to USC. It's a bad message to the EE's and others if he were. If he wants it bad enough let kiff pay for a year of tuition instead of the normal house they buy recruits. Heck they should have the cash since I read on here they promoted O to avoid the buyout to UT. I thought BB was headed to K state anyway though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
ljeller said:
At the end of the day, it simply does not matter where he signed a letter of intent to play. A LOI is just that--a letter stating intent to attend said school. Scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis so things are less complicated when situations with transfer, quitting, etc. come up.

Simple fact of the matter is that schools will pretty much always release a player if they want to leave the school. Each release is handled on an individual basis, but most are not released to any school on the schedule for the duration of the player's time there. Tennessee wouldn't release Brown to any SEC school or any school on our schedule for the next 2-3 years. All that doesn't matter much though because Brown could still transfer to any school he wants, but if it is one of the schools restricted he has to pay his own tuition for the first year. After that, he is free to be put on scholarship. The first year he is ineligible as well, but can be used as a red-shirt year if the player has one available.

I don't understand why everyone says MH or CDD would be stupid to release him to USC or wherever. Who cares if he goes to USC? We don't play them. I don't see him going there anyway.

IF he in fact ends up leaving, just put the restriction on any team we play and move on. No big deal.
Click to expand...

Fine. Essentially nothing here inconsistent with my post.
 
#43
#43
DD4ME said:
It's not stupid to say he shouldn't be allowed to go to USC. It's a bad message to the EE's and others if he were. If he wants it bad enough let kiff pay for a year of tuition instead of the normal house they buy recruits. jmo
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If you are referring to my post, I wasn't saying it was stupid to say he shouldn't be released to USC. I just said I don't understand it because if that is where he REALLY wanted to go he could go regardless of being restricted from USC or not. How exactly is it a bad message to EE's and others if a player is released? If a player is unhappy, homesick, etc. and wants a change--it is THAT player's prerogative. It doesn't show a lack of control or softness or whatever to release a player. Why do anything different than how these situations are typically handled? IF it goes that far, release him with conditions...no transfer to a school in conference or on our schedule for a couple years. No big deal IMO.
 
#45
#45
SGMVols said:
I agree. It would make sense to withhold a release if we were playing USC in the near future, but we aren't. I know a lot of people want to stick it to Kiffin, but it would backfire if he ended up at a school that we play.
Click to expand...

If contact has been made by USC like Wolfe said, then we shouldn't release him to them.
 
#46
#46
According to UT sources Dooley will allow Bryce to transfer, to USC and BRown said scholarship is not necissary he could pay his own way if needed. just heard it on the radio.
I'm not joking either.
 
#48
#48
LA party scene 24/7 v. Knoxville, easy conference--BCS bowl guaranteed almost every year, tons of hot, top shelf chicks everywhere in LA---he's got a tough choice.
 
#49
#49
VolsRule said:
LA party scene 24/7 v. Knoxville, easy conference--BCS bowl guaranteed almost every year, tons of hot, top shelf chicks everywhere in LA---he's got a tough choice.
Click to expand...

But what about commitment, integrity, loyalty? Oh, nevermind...that's not something that is associated with college athletics anymore...:ermm: ie LK.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top