forums

Tate decision?

**** No personal information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement
KWConch said:
I think his approval will depend a lot on Fields approval.If they grant Fields a waiver because one idiot fan blurted out the “N” word gotta believe they’d have to give Tate his waiver with all the BS that went on at Taint with *** leaving and one of the coaches being canned ( but somewhat allowed to continue to coach for a while after it happened) for continued sexual abuse.

Seems like Martell’s case would have a lot more negatives than just having one drunk( or just idiotic) fan call you a bad word.

You know the NCAA is going to do whatever it can to help Taint so I like our chances especially since Tate’s family had gotten an attorney involved.

And if all else fails they can just have Riley show up in her pretty little bikini and strut a liitle bit to help them decide.
Click to expand...
I do agree that both will be ruled the same, but I think both cases are rather weak. I'm expecting both to be declined. If they are granted then both will be granted and the NCAA might as well just allow all transfers immediate eligibility for everyone. I could see granting immediate eligibility for anyone transferring out of their conference and who doesn't play their current school during the time of their eligibility and is not transferring because of disciplinary reasons. There is no reason to make kids sit out a year other than to control the talent pool and make coaches lives easier. The coaches make millions of dollars and have just about all of the control. Every scholarship granted is a 1 year renewable scholarship that be NOT renewed by the school or athletic department. So, kids should not be contractually obligated to sit out a year unless schools are willing to grant 4-year guaranteed scholarships.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
I do agree that both will be ruled the same, but I think both cases are rather weak. I'm expecting both to be declined. If they are granted then both will be granted and the NCAA might as well just allow all transfers immediate eligibility for everyone. I could see granting immediate eligibility for anyone transferring out of their conference and who doesn't play their current school during the time of their eligibility and is not transferring because of disciplinary reasons. There is no reason to make kids sit out a year other than to control the talent pool and make coaches lives easier. The coaches make millions of dollars and have just about all of the control. Every scholarship granted is a 1 year renewable scholarship that be NOT renewed by the school or athletic department. So, kids should not be contractually obligated to sit out a year unless schools are willing to grant 4-year guaranteed scholarships.
Click to expand...

I just don’t think the NCAA wants to be fighting 20 cases a year in court plus the fact that the NCAA already looks like sHT in the eyes of the CFB world.

But my contention is IF they allow Fields somewhat feeble waiver request then they have to allow Tate’s request because it is not only 3-4 times as strong as Fields but he’s the guy coming in to take Tate’s job.
Now IF they don’t allow Fields I don’t think they allow either even though they are based on totally different circumstances because OSU would go off in an uproar AND they aren’t about to give anything to Miami they aren’t giving to Taint.

Obviously this is just MY OPINION and not based on anything but my substantial gut feeling.
 
NCAA always takes forever. They dragged out Shea Patterson for Michigan. I’m thinking the same will happen for tate
 
These things take months to resolve and might not even be resolved prior to the season. What complicates things is the lack of precedent and the fact that he (likely) can't be given emergency injunctive relief to play this season while this is pending (think Ezekiel Elliott in the NFL last year) because if a ruling is handed down that says he must sit a year, what are they going to do, make him sit next year?
 
Said it before and I'll say it again... as much as I personally would love to have Martell eligible this season, I think the NCAA should deny both Martell and Fields waiver requests. Sets a bad precedent (if you're someone who doesn't want transferring in CFB to become basically wide spread free agency every season).
 
I think they will get these cases decided by the summer practices cause theres a lot depending on their decisions.You have teams like ours and Taint where you’re talking about the possible starting QB.

Usually I’d agree they’d drag their feet.In these cases I don’t think they can nor will.Again just my opinion.
 
KWConch said:
I just don’t think the NCAA wants to be fighting 20 cases a year in court plus the fact that the NCAA already looks like sHT in the eyes of the CFB world.

But my contention is IF they allow Fields somewhat feeble waiver request then they have to allow Tate’s request because it is not only 3-4 times as strong as Fields but he’s the guy coming in to take Tate’s job.
Now IF they don’t allow Fields I don’t think they allow either even though they are based on totally different circumstances because OSU would go off in an uproar AND they aren’t about to give anything to Miami they aren’t giving to Taint.

Obviously this is just MY OPINION and not based on anything but my substantial gut feeling.
Click to expand...
We'll just wait and see what happens. Both BS excuses IMO. You only have to ask one question to determine the validity of their request. If you were the starting QB at your previous school, would you be transferring?
 
Advertisement
If the ncaa truly cares about ratings/$$$ (and they do) then why the fvck wouldn’t they want Tate taking snaps opening weekend against UF on prime time.
 
Back
Top