Former Michigan OL Dan Samuelson Latest Victim of Awful NCAA Rules
This was posted yesterday by Jake Butt. Is there a worse American sports institution than the NCAA? I'm specifying American because FIFA seems to take the cake internationally.
Posted by a former teammate. Can the NCAA get anything right? Probably not. Common sense? Zero. pic.twitter.com/IK1ZT8rFev
— jake butt (@JBooty_88) December 7, 2016
December 8th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
Where did I mention anything about rewards? If it's not a penalty, then what does the opposite of a penalty mean? It doesn't matter. Rewards, penalties, they're irrelevant to what I'm discussing.
Listen, it would be great if everyone could take a trip to the Bahamas and it didn't cost anybody anything! Sign me up for that. But in the real world, there are costs and consequences and rules and regulations and restrictions, and this falls in that category. Sure, he busted his butt in practice, just like hundreds or thousands of other guys have done without the chance to travel or go to a bowl game. He made his choice to transfer and to play football in the NCAA. Suck it up, help the team go to a bowl game next year, and move on.
December 8th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^
At least that is a better argument than that foolish financial one you were making.
December 8th, 2016 at 2:18 PM ^
"He made his choice to play football in the NCAA" -- what a loaded statement. We al lknow the NCAA has a defacto monopoly on college football and by proxy entering the NFL.
I sincerely do not remember your stance on compensating players, but I'm guessing you are against it as this is pretty much the "don't like it then don't play" argument that is so commonly used against paying players.
December 8th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^
I'm mainly against paying players because non-revenue sports and Title IX make it infeasible.
December 8th, 2016 at 3:26 PM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^
Yes, but he's not like the other players on the team. He WAS like the other players on Michigan's team. But he transferred. Now he's a slightly different type of member of Eastern Michigan's team. That's fine. I don't begrudge him transferring. I wasn't a big fan of him as a player coming out of high school, and it opened up a scholarship. I have nothing against the guy.
But transferring has its consequences. It doesn't have anything to do with what went on beforehand or what will happen in 2017. Right now he's a "special case," and this is the collateral damage.
In my opinion, my being a coach factors in because it's a good lesson for young people. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every choice, there are positive and negative consequences. This is a choice he made. Right now he's paying his dues. And next year (and beyond) he'll presumably reap the benefits of his choice.
If it were an easier choice that had no negative repercussions, then as discussed elsewhere in this thread, players would be bouncing from school to school and team to team willy-nilly.
December 8th, 2016 at 5:20 PM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^
It also isn't a rule that applies to freshman so it seemingly exists to punish transfers. There is also zero reason for it.
December 8th, 2016 at 11:46 AM ^
"There is zero reason for it."
And yet I have given you several in this thread. Just because you disagree with the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 1:08 PM ^
What you mean to say is that you have zero ability to comprehend the reasons the college presidents limited the eligibility for athletes to travel to bowl games.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^
So there are reasons, but you don't like the reasons. Got it.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 2:56 PM ^
I think transfers should be discouraged, yes. And there have to be consequences in order to do so.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:07 AM ^
Meh.
I have a lot of problems with the NCAA, but this isn't really one of them. First of all, he can't play in the game, so he doesn't need to travel, get food, get housing, etc. Second, he chose to play football as part of the NCAA, and these are the rules in place for that organization. Third, coaches leave all the time, yes, but usually for promotions; if players are allowed to leave and play immediately, it opens up a whole host of issues when it comes to competition, improper recruitments, organization, etc., and you're talking about 85+ people per team instead of 10.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:16 AM ^
Is there a viable alternative to playing in the NCAA if you want to make it to the NFL? Serious question.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:21 AM ^
Realistically, no, although there have been sprinters, rugby players, etc. who have made it to the NFL. But if you don't want to do what it takes to get to the NFL, then choose a different profession. In order to get a law degree, you have to take law courses and take the bar exam. If I'm not willing to put in the time/effort to study for and take those things, then I shouldn't try to become a lawyer. The same goes for doctors, teachers, electricians, etc. You have to do residencies, student teaching, apprenticeships, etc.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^
Unqualified doctors/lawyers/electricians could cause serious harm to themselves or their clients (not the case in professional sports).
The same thing is not universal for teachers--most public systems probably do, but many are looking to get rid of those restrictions (don't want to start a political debate about the effectiveness of credentialed teachers--similar arguments could even be made for the 3 mentioned above).
You are creating a false dichotomy: either play football for the monopolistic NFL where wealthy owners make millions on your work after subjecting yourself to (for many players) an unfair NCAA, or don't play football. In reality, the NFL could allow players to be drafted at 18 (or 16 even) and take more of the risk on themselves like the NHL and MLB do, the NCAA could have a set rate and pay players 50-100 bucks an hour in addition to scholarships, their could be a viable competing league or development league, or any number of possibilities instead of the current state of NCAAF/NFL.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^
I disagree with your first paragraph. An unqualified offensive lineman could get his QB paralyzed/concussed/broken legged. An unqualified position player might cost his coach and teammates thousands or millions of dollars if he doesn't do his job well enough for them to keep their jobs.
As for the NFL, that's not really the discussion here. The NFL has age/qualification restrictions, just like a lot of professions. The NCAA exists in part to bridge the gap between high school and that professional level of employment. You can argue against the NFL if you want, but bowl game restrictions for transferring players are a couple steps removed from the NFL equation.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
"An unqualified offensive lineman could get his QB paralyzed/concussed/broken legged. "
See Browns, Cleveland.
December 8th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^
The are no age restrictions on the CFL. A player can go play there and then try to get drafted by the NCAA, if he can find a CFL team which thinks he is good enough, and if he doesn't think CFL coaching will hurt his chances.
So, it is you creating the false dichotomy. it isn't "an unfair NCAA" or nothing.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
The CFL is not an NFL competitor in size or markets. It is pretty much NCAA/NFL path or nothing for any serious prospect. In a less restricted system guys like Peters/McCaffery/Peppers would likely already have a million or two in the bank by the time they play their first game. Instead the NFL organizations do not risk paying for developing players and the NCAA gets their labor at a non-market rate.
December 8th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 1:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^
That's just like your opinion, man....
And it's a very bad one :)
December 8th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
The CFL is an alternative to college football. Players who want to get paid right out of high school should go play for the CFL and try to make the NFL when they become eligable.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
playing professionally isn't a right. No one has to ensure that your path to doing so is "fair" either
December 8th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
There is none. I think this is more a problem of the NFL monopoly unfairly dictating that talented young players are not allowed to enter the draft until they meant certain criteria than the faullt of the NCAA (though who knows, I am sure they lobby the NFL behind the scenes).
Either way Samuelson's doesn't really have a choice (not that he was ever a professional caliber prospect nor is he making any money for EMU) in the matter. I don't see what is wrong with letting him go to the bowl game (not like people are transferring, sitting out a year, etc just to get a trip and $200 worth of bowl swag).
December 8th, 2016 at 10:30 AM ^
Samuelson doesn't have a choice about attending the bowl game, but he did when he chose Michigan and then chose to transfer. Choices have consequences, and this is one of them.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^
The consequences/choices are created by a shitty bureaucracy that he has no control over.
He could choose between:
Unfairly holding onto a scholarship at Michigan at the expense of his teammates when he clearly was not a Michigan-caliber player.
Taking the NCAA's raw deal on transfers (even though he is transferring to a school that poses no real threat to his prior program or any of their competitors), working hard on the scout team, and then in the low percentage chance that his efforts help EMU make a rare bowl game, not getting to participate/travel while his fellow teammates do.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:03 PM ^
He had a choice, he made it, and that's it. He doesn't have to deal with the NCAA at all, unless he wants an athletic scholarship.
December 8th, 2016 at 2:36 PM ^
That is so short-sighted. So just because NCAA has a monopoloy on those who wish to pursue a professional / semi-professional career in almost every sport means that all athletes should shut up and take what the NCAA is "gracious" enough to give out?
December 8th, 2016 at 10:18 AM ^
I think if he was allowed to practice all year by the NCAA he should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of a good season. Basically the NCAA is saying that you can be a tackling dummy for 6 months but you can't deprive some corporation of a hotel stay and swag bag. You are right this is a rule, but not sure who it protects if he was allowed to practice all year.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 10:27 AM ^
As I mentioned above, restricting travel for non-playing entities saves football programs from having to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for travel (airfare, buses, etc.), food, and lodging on something that is already a losing venture when it comes to finances. We're not talking about just Samuelson here; we're talking about other transfers, walk-ons, etc. All that money adds up, and EMU is still going to lose money on their bowl game even without taking a bunch of extra 300 lb. men.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^
don't get why so many people care. Care to guess how many players don't get to go to bowl games? What is the exact benefit of allowing this? Would you prefer to have college as some sort of free agency, where each year players can transfer if they don't get enough PT?
And let's say he can go to the bowl game...well what about the conf championship game? He didn't earn that as well by being a "tackling dummy" during his free education?
December 8th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
You literally can't disagree with everything I'm saying today, because some of the things I'm pointing to are facts (about bowl costs, travel costs, etc.). If you disagree with my opinion (and you obviously do), that's fine. But facts are facts.
December 8th, 2016 at 1:43 PM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 10:09 AM ^
AAU is a multi-million dollar pay-for-play scheme. The NCAA was formed in part because the AAU and college sports were so corrupt at the turn of the 20th century. Now AAU is like a farm system for the NCAA which is a farm system for the major sports.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2016 at 10:20 AM ^
December 8th, 2016 at 10:37 AM ^
Why is this ridiculous? Just calling it ridiculous doesn't make it so. The schools (who are the NCAA, after all) set regulations to limit their own costs by ruling that non-playing-eligable players cannot travel with the team. Why is that ridiculous?
December 8th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^
Did you read the kid's post in total? He makes a good case in my opinion and the comparison between the student athletes and coaches who move to a new school is spot on. We can agree to disagree that's okay!
December 8th, 2016 at 2:32 PM ^
I can agree that the kid is right without condemning those who disagree with the kid as "ridiculous."
I don't happen to agree with the kid in this narrow case, but I think the rules against transfer should be loosened to the point where this kid's complaint wouldn't be necessary.
I guess I am tired of the Hivemind when it comes to "the awful NCAA" and this case is just an example of the mindless NCAA bashing that ignore facts in favor of feelings. The NCAA can be wrong without being "awful" (title of thread) or "ridiculous' (post i was responding to), and, while you have been pretty mature about the discussion, many people here have not..
December 8th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^
This rule seems silly, but he's been there a year and a half and doesn't have 2 semesters completed? If there is a legitimate reason he wasn't taking classes, then sure.
December 8th, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^
He's only been there since the winter semester 2016. He left UM just a few weeks brfore clases started; I imagine he was too late to be able to register at Eastern for the fall 2015 semester (or couldn't afford it).
December 8th, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^
I'll be honest. I don't have a problem with this. The transfer rules are in place to prevent what would basically be "free agency" in college football. Maybe some think they're unfair to the players but I can't help but agree with the intent.
December 8th, 2016 at 2:47 PM ^
And what about the actual "free agency" that takes place among coaches?? You know... those adults that actually make millions and millions off of the free labor from college athletes.
December 9th, 2016 at 7:46 AM ^
The coaches aren't student athletes. They're working a job. Hence why they get paid to do it.