bobby thinks players should be indentured servants

[PlayerRep]

by PlayerRep » Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:14 pm

The big team taking the transfer should compensate the little team.

Since your such a big believer in capitalism can you explain why companies with 10,000 employees, who hire someone working for a company with a hundred employees, don't compensate the little company? Or is that too tough a question for you?

I see that you don't recognize subtle humor. You really are an idiot.

 

[Cuervohola]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Agreed - but if they're able to do it - good for them. Who wouldn't want to compete with (and against) the best?

I don't want the Griz to compete against the best. I want the patsy easy road like the NDSU Heated Hillbillies. *Sarc*

 

[Paytonlives]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

Making FCS scholarships 4 years would decrease the opportunity for younger and more deserving players, including walk-ons. Why would you favor keeping a scholarship with a low performer, instead of giving it to a more deserving player?

True, but its always seemed really unfair that a player signs with a team and then the coach walks away without penalty after breaking his contract. While, the player has to sit a year if he doesnt break a one year scholarship contract.

What I'm trying to say is that players and coaches should have the same rules... whatever rules they are.

 

[grizindabox]

True, but its always seemed really unfair that a player signs with a team and then the coach walks away without penalty after breaking his contract. While, the player has to sit a year if he doesnt break a one year scholarship contract.

What I'm trying to say is that players and coaches should have the same rules... whatever rules they are.

And I will say that you are wrong, players and coaches should not have the same rules...it is an apples to oranges comparison. I will also reiterate that no player should expect a coach to be there in 4 years, because of the averages. But maybe, just maybe, they should have rules closer to the other students, ya know.

 

[PlayerRep]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

Making FCS scholarships 4 years would decrease the opportunity for younger and more deserving players, including walk-ons. Why would you favor keeping a scholarship with a low performer, instead of giving it to a more deserving player?

True, but its always seemed really unfair that a player signs with a team and then the coach walks away without penalty after breaking his contract. While, the player has to sit a year if he doesnt break a one year scholarship contract.

What I'm trying to say is that players and coaches should have the same rules... whatever rules they are.

I see what you are saying, but don't agree that coaches and players should have the same rules. They are not the same "job" or same "roles". Management and workers don't have the same rules. Professional players and coaches don't have the same rules. Owners and coaches don't have the same rules.

 

[indian-outlaw]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

Making FCS scholarships 4 years would decrease the opportunity for younger and more deserving players, including walk-ons. Why would you favor keeping a scholarship with a low performer, instead of giving it to a more deserving player?

True, but its always seemed really unfair that a player signs with a team and then the coach walks away without penalty after breaking his contract. While, the player has to sit a year if he doesnt break a one year scholarship contract.

What I'm trying to say is that players and coaches should have the same rules... whatever rules they are.

I see what you are saying, but don't agree that coaches and players should have the same rules. They are not the same "job" or same "roles". Management and workers don't have the same rules. Professional players and coaches don't have the same rules. Owners and coaches don't have the same rules.

You're handle is playerRep. Don't you think players they should have similar rights as the coaches as far as the scholarship contract? As I understand it, players can have their scholarship pulled any year but they do not have the right to take their services somewhere else that might appreciate their hard work more.

 

[Paytonlives]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

Making FCS scholarships 4 years would decrease the opportunity for younger and more deserving players, including walk-ons. Why would you favor keeping a scholarship with a low performer, instead of giving it to a more deserving player?

True, but its always seemed really unfair that a player signs with a team and then the coach walks away without penalty after breaking his contract. While, the player has to sit a year if he doesnt break a one year scholarship contract.

What I'm trying to say is that players and coaches should have the same rules... whatever rules they are.

I see what you are saying, but don't agree that coaches and players should have the same rules. They are not the same "job" or same "roles". Management and workers don't have the same rules. Professional players and coaches don't have the same rules. Owners and coaches don't have the same rules.

Would change to a "similar rules" to the comment same rules.
I think the NCAA has let far too much BS go on with coaches moving to other institutions.