McDowell to the Portal

[HikeGlacier]

But that's my point Kem. This is saying that you're not committed to the program if you have opportunities in the portal. Is a coach not committed to the team if they have opportunities to coach somewhere else? What about coaches that throw their name in the ring, don't get the job and continue coaching their same team? Do you really believe these coaches are no longer committed? I don't think that's the case.

You have coaches on your current staff that will likely going to have opportunities at other schools. Do you automatically send them packing if they test the waters? That's not realistic because it happens to every school every year.

Coaching and playing may be two different things. But commitment is a two way street. It's equal. So if we're going to suggest players aren't committed to the team when they have portal opportunities, shouldn't we think the same thing when coaches have coaching opportunities? :?

Trying to compare the players to coaches is a fool's game. Apples and oranges. Is there a coach's portal? Coaches are in the midst of a career with future opportunities dependent on how their players perform. They can be fired at any time (unless at MSU), a possible career ender.

Actually, there is a coaches portal its just secretly run through their agent. And its rare that they can be fired while under contract and not get their money. A player can lose their scholarship and have no recourse. Coaches are getting a taste of their own medicine and they don't like it.

 

[Oldschoolhornet]

Players commit to schools, and schollie players sign letters of commitment and later scholarship scholarship papers.

Where do coaches commit to players or schools? Assistants at UM sign one-year contracts. Head coaches now sign longer contracts. They can leave early, but there are early-departure fees to pay. Players don't have to pay back scholarships or pay a fee if they leave early.

Although it can be both, players tend to commit to coaches not schools. No player makes a four-year commitment because every scholarship is a one-year renewable. I have never heard of an assistant coach who had to pay an exit fee for leaving early. If you want to compare coach and player commitments you should look at assistant coaching paradigms. They leave early all of the time without any penalty. If a head coach leaves the NCAA allows players portal options, not so with assistant coaches. There's absolutely no reason the players should be held to a higher standard of commitment than the coaches. Anyone who thinks there are players who don't have careers to advance and mouths to feed is completely out of touch.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

It's not about betrayal, it's about not having players around who are not committed to being there. It's also a bit of a barrier for players considering the portal. No coming back; it's the right position. Every player could be flirting with the portal if there was no risk, making it worse than it is. Commitment to the program is a key to team chemistry and winning.

But that's my point Kem. This is saying that you're not committed to the program if you have opportunities in the portal. Is a coach not committed to the team if they have opportunities to coach somewhere else? What about coaches that throw their name in the ring, don't get the job and continue coaching their same team? Do you really believe these coaches are no longer committed? I don't think that's the case.

You have coaches on your current staff that will likely going to have opportunities at other schools. Do you automatically send them packing if they test the waters? That's not realistic because it happens to every school every year.

Coaching and playing may be two different things. But commitment is a two way street. It's equal. So if we're going to suggest players aren't committed to the team when they have portal opportunities, shouldn't we think the same thing when coaches have coaching opportunities? :?

I think a lot of people are still making the mistake that these players are making decisions on schools because of the old school mentality that “it’s a family” or because “they care about the team”. There are def still players that make their decision based off that. But a vast majority are making their choices looking at it as a business decision. Now more than ever. It’s can I play here and get exposure to possibly play in the nfl or Canada. And can I get nil money. That’s the reality now. And yes most coaches do the same

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Like I’ve told my father. You’re better off just not worrying about any of this and enjoy each season to season. Look at the roster in the fall and get excited for those kids and that team. Up until then guys are just going to be coming and going in the modern era of college football.

 

[ilovethecats]

You’re missing my point Kem. I’m talking about the words commitment and betrayal. In those regards it’s no different at all between players and coaches. That’s a cop out in my view.

Coaches use the word commitment; they don't use the word betrayal. It was you that used that word. I'm not missing your point; I don't agree with it.

I only used the word betrayal after someone else did. Which I disagreed with. :thumb:

 

[MTbest]

A lot of comments about QB McDowell, the portal , covid extensions, NIH, combined have made the whole system/world of transfer a unique impact on teams. Cliff will go to his 5th school, how strange! One thing that may have been said already is: Kudo's to the Griz coaching team who have shaped this QB to be a good one, that's a lot of work, a lot of skill and expert experience!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I think this entire "lack of commitment" argument when a kid decides to transfer is a steaming pile of horse excrement.

 

[3-7-77]

Coaches use the word commitment; they don't use the word betrayal. It was you that used that word. I'm not missing your point; I don't agree with it.

I only used the word betrayal after someone else did. Which I disagreed with. :thumb:

ILTC, despite your scat roots, you are a good poster. But, you could have interjected the post you referred to and avoided the misunderstanding.

 

[mtgriz]

He’s still on the roster on GoGriz.com. Probably due to the admins taking some time off, but in the past when Young and Williams bailed they were off immediately.

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

I don't understand why people are surprised. I expected him to enter the portal.

I have my own opinion of him, it's not bad, but it's not good either. There will be strong competition for the starting position this coming year. I think fans are going to see a lot more of Ah Yat 2.0. Luke Flowers is on his way in. For now, Mollet is just another rumor.

He did a decent job for UM. He helped get the team to the National Championship. He did his job, sometimes really well, sometime not so good.

Big IF he goes to Nebraska, he will never see playing time there. Dylan Raiola will be the starter. Maybe he goes back to Texas. That's his home, and I wouldn't blame him for that. He will never play professionally. He is absolutely not NFL or CFL material. I don't think he would make it in the XFL either. Maybe he could play in the Indoor Football League, maybe.

This will be his fifth transfer; he has shown he has no loyalty to any school or program. That's a fact, not an opinion.

He did a "decent job for UM". Yeah, he got us to our first Natty in 14 years. I'd say that's a bit better than "decent".

So he did that all by his little 'ol self huh? He didn't have the assistance of Gillman, Bergen, Harris, Fontes, Ostmo, White, the hogs up front, the defense that stepped-up time after time when the offense faltered and fizzled due to not-so-great decisions.

Yeah, he did a decent job.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I think this entire "lack of commitment" argument when a kid decides to transfer is a steaming pile of horse excrement.

I don't care if a player transfers. Their decision. However, by definition, it shows a lack of commitment to a program/team.

When kids aren't playing, and just want to go somewhere where they can play, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not keen on players who are mostly out for themselves. Ones that are looking over the shoulders of teammates and coaches, looking to see if they can get more for themselves somewhere else. I am a team guy. With NIL possibilities, this type of thing is growing.

In business, I much preferred dedicated employees and partners. Ones who were committed for a reasonable period of time. Fine to move up or move on in business, but also best to show effort and dedication to your current job. Some lateral partners were also job-hoppers. Not just associates.

 

[AZGrizFan]

He did a "decent job for UM". Yeah, he got us to our first Natty in 14 years. I'd say that's a bit better than "decent".

So he did that all by his little 'ol self huh? He didn't have the assistance of Gillman, Bergen, Harris, Fontes, Ostmo, White, the hogs up front, the defense that stepped-up time after time when the offense faltered and fizzled due to not-so-great decisions.

Yeah, he did a decent job.

No, I never said that. But there wasn't another QB on THIS roster that was going to be able to do that, was there? Even with all that "assistance"...

 

[HikeGlacier]

I think this entire "lack of commitment" argument when a kid decides to transfer is a steaming pile of horse excrement.

I don't care if a player transfers. Their decision. However, by definition, it shows a lack of commitment to a program/team.

When kids aren't playing, and just want to go somewhere where they can play, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not keen on players who are mostly out for themselves. Ones that are looking over the shoulders of teammates and coaches, looking to see if they can get more for themselves somewhere else. I am a team guy. With NIL possibilities, this type of thing is growing.

In business, I much preferred dedicated employees and partners. Ones who were committed for a reasonable period of time. Fine to move up or move on in business, but also best to show effort and dedication to your current job. Some lateral partners were also job-hoppers. Not just associates.

Today is national quitters day too. Its fitting that the portal closes.

 

[BigRock]

I think this entire "lack of commitment" argument when a kid decides to transfer is a steaming pile of horse excrement.

I don't care if a player transfers. Their decision. However, by definition, it shows a lack of commitment to a program/team.

When kids aren't playing, and just want to go somewhere where they can play, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not keen on players who are mostly out for themselves. Ones that are looking over the shoulders of teammates and coaches, looking to see if they can get more for themselves somewhere else. I am a team guy. With NIL possibilities, this type of thing is growing.

In business, I much preferred dedicated employees and partners. Ones who were committed for a reasonable period of time. Fine to move up or move on in business, but also best to show effort and dedication to your current job. Some lateral partners were also job-hoppers. Not just associates.

So kids (or employees) are allowed to move on to a better personal situation that they prefer, and you totally don't care.
But if they move on to a better personal situation that they prefer and it inconveniences your favorite team (or your business), it's a moral failure.

And moral superiority is found in ignoring once-in-a-lifetime opportunities and enduring limiting fits. For whatever arbitrary length of time you decide, of course. (Even though the school only commits for one year at a time, and any corporation will drop you same day if it's profitable and they find a plausible excuse.)

It sounds like you're more of a blind loyalty / willful ignorance / systematic inequality guy than a team guy. As we learned this year, being a team player is empowering yourself and teammates to excel at your 1/11ths. It is not teenagers being held hostage and to a higher standard than grown men and half-billion dollar institutions.

 

[kemajic]

I don't care if a player transfers. Their decision. However, by definition, it shows a lack of commitment to a program/team.

When kids aren't playing, and just want to go somewhere where they can play, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not keen on players who are mostly out for themselves. Ones that are looking over the shoulders of teammates and coaches, looking to see if they can get more for themselves somewhere else. I am a team guy. With NIL possibilities, this type of thing is growing.

In business, I much preferred dedicated employees and partners. Ones who were committed for a reasonable period of time. Fine to move up or move on in business, but also best to show effort and dedication to your current job. Some lateral partners were also job-hoppers. Not just associates.

So kids (or employees) are allowed to move on to a better personal situation that they prefer, and you totally don't care.
But if they move on to a better personal situation that they prefer and it inconveniences your favorite team (or your business), it's a moral failure.

And moral superiority is found in ignoring once-in-a-lifetime opportunities and enduring limiting fits. For whatever arbitrary length of time you decide, of course. (Even though the school only commits for one year at a time, and any corporation will drop you same day if it's profitable and they find a plausible excuse.)

It sounds like you're more of a blind loyalty / willful ignorance / systematic inequality guy than a team guy. As we learned this year, being a team player is empowering yourself and teammates to excel at your 1/11ths. It is not teenagers being held hostage and to a higher standard than grown men and half-billion dollar institutions.

That's above my pay grade.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I don't care if a player transfers. Their decision. However, by definition, it shows a lack of commitment to a program/team.

When kids aren't playing, and just want to go somewhere where they can play, that's perfectly fine.

I'm not keen on players who are mostly out for themselves. Ones that are looking over the shoulders of teammates and coaches, looking to see if they can get more for themselves somewhere else. I am a team guy. With NIL possibilities, this type of thing is growing.

In business, I much preferred dedicated employees and partners. Ones who were committed for a reasonable period of time. Fine to move up or move on in business, but also best to show effort and dedication to your current job. Some lateral partners were also job-hoppers. Not just associates.

So kids (or employees) are allowed to move on to a better personal situation that they prefer, and you totally don't care.
But if they move on to a better personal situation that they prefer and it inconveniences your favorite team (or your business), it's a moral failure.

And moral superiority is found in ignoring once-in-a-lifetime opportunities and enduring limiting fits. For whatever arbitrary length of time you decide, of course. (Even though the school only commits for one year at a time, and any corporation will drop you same day if it's profitable and they find a plausible excuse.)

It sounds like you're more of a blind loyalty / willful ignorance / systematic inequality guy than a team guy. As we learned this year, being a team player is empowering yourself and teammates to excel at your 1/11ths. It is not teenagers being held hostage and to a higher standard than grown men and half-billion dollar institutions.

Do you understand what a team and teamwork are?

So your idea is to do your 1-11th and bolt to possible greener pastures the next season?

Do you think Bergen should leave and better himself or his situation? And Gubner should have left next year?

You must be a Dem.

You sound like a nut to me.

 

[Kadeezy]

TLDR: you guys will be fine - I’m sure you’ll land a suitable starting QB in the portal, like this dude.

https://247sports.com/player/william-haskell-46058471/

 

[Griz Addict]

So kids (or employees) are allowed to move on to a better personal situation that they prefer, and you totally don't care.
But if they move on to a better personal situation that they prefer and it inconveniences your favorite team (or your business), it's a moral failure.

And moral superiority is found in ignoring once-in-a-lifetime opportunities and enduring limiting fits. For whatever arbitrary length of time you decide, of course. (Even though the school only commits for one year at a time, and any corporation will drop you same day if it's profitable and they find a plausible excuse.)

It sounds like you're more of a blind loyalty / willful ignorance / systematic inequality guy than a team guy. As we learned this year, being a team player is empowering yourself and teammates to excel at your 1/11ths. It is not teenagers being held hostage and to a higher standard than grown men and half-billion dollar institutions.

Do you understand what a team and teamwork are?

So your idea is to do your 1-11th and bolt to possible greener pastures the next season?

Do you think Bergen should leave and better himself or his situation? And Gubner should have left next year?

You must be a Dem.

You sound like a nut to me.

Sorry, but, politics has nothing to do with that. I lean Dem and fully believe in being committed to your team and sticking it out. If you commit to something, finish it out. I do have the same standards for coaches as well though. You make a commitment to these kids, if you're going to leave at least give them a heads up a year early.

 

[Dillon]

Considering his undergrad major, Psychology, football and academics look to have forced him to make a choice. To paraphrase Yogi, he came to the fork in the road, and took it. Time will tell where he is heading. I hope it's the right choice for Him.

He took the fork in the road 4 times now...

Maybe he has a Phycological Problem! :lol: It is beyond me why he would want to bolt with the success he had here unless he got cold!

 

[mthoopsfan]

Do you understand what a team and teamwork are?

So your idea is to do your 1-11th and bolt to possible greener pastures the next season?

Do you think Bergen should leave and better himself or his situation? And Gubner should have left next year?

You must be a Dem.

You sound like a nut to me.

Sorry, but, politics has nothing to do with that. I lean Dem and fully believe in being committed to your team and sticking it out. If you commit to something, finish it out. I do have the same standards for coaches as well though. You make a commitment to these kids, if you're going to leave at least give them a heads up a year early.

I agree that politics has nothing to do with it, but the particular posters talked like a Dem. Completely different issue/question.

I don't think coaches make commitments to recruits that the coach will be there for the 4 years or a long time. Players know coaches leave. If a recruit asks a question and a coach lies, that's different.

Again, players and coaches are completely different situations. No one says a player has to stay at the same school, but, in most situations, a departing player is showing that he isn't committed to the team.