Lovett To FSU...

[ZedFedder]

I think Pickering is up to the challenge.

[dantheman4248]

Yea he can be his manager. Fact remains he will be a NFL player.

NFL is more than talent. Have to have insane work ethic, not be a distraction, etc.

His talent isn't enough to overcome some of those shortcomings. Make no mistake that leaving over this tweet is something that owners/gm's/coaches will remember come draft time and will take him from fringe NFL guy to why even both rostering him. Not worth the headache. Michael Sam is a prime example of this and his "character issues" weren't even something egregious. Kaepernick is another. (Not downplaying their character, just saying that for the NFL they're labeled as distractions and that's another obstacle they must overcome to be worth it to a team.)

[TUSK]

Man... I never thought I'd feel sorry for FSU....

Wha?

https://www.jacksonville.com/sports/...fsu-qb-deondre

Caveat: if that's "too soon" for ya, I'll come to your crib and set it afire... well, as soon as you city folk get over that CoronaShit...

[FISHDAWG]

He's a NFL talent. I don't like losing those. We don't have enough talent for it not to hurt. He's gone now so someone will have to step up but acting like losing him won't hurt is naive.

there is a point of diminishing return ... hate to lose the talent but glad a potential locker room issue may have been averted ... a disgruntled player is usually contagious to a certain extent

[StateDawg44]

To refresh:

Want to make a ban bet?

If he gets immediate eligibility, then I'll take a break for a month & if he doesn't you take a break for month.

You in?

I think Fields getting eligible was pretty weak by the NCAA & this fall WAAAYY below that. I think he sits

Actually, I know I said I don't care about making this bet in my other post in another one of your threads. I'll go and edit that out so that there isn't any sort of confusion.

But YES. Let's do this. Mark it for the record.

No posting for you for a month if he DOES get immediate eligibility as long as he goes to a D1 school.

No posting for me for a month if he DOES NOT get immediate eligibility as long as he goes to a D1 school.

Sounds good.

You're on!

The ban bet is on if Lovett gets immediate eligibility based on Leach's comments.

Wait, the NCAA never even said the reason Fields got immediate eligibility is because of the racist fan screaming at them did they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

This post comes across as the equivalent of fine print like you will flake on the bet if it's not announced that the reason he left is because of Leach's comment.

It's either he is granted immediate eligibility at a D1 school or he isn't.

Ok. we'll go black & white. Eligible or not eligible it is

Is that a racist comment!!!**


Deal.

Let Pipedream be our witness.

------

Where we are at now:

At least we won't have to play against him (not that it would matter)

Hopefully he's not eligible unless that 1 free transfer rule passes(if the 1 free transfer rule passes, my ban bet is off due to unfair and unforeseen circumstances)

Moving further from home and basically used a nothing burger as his out.

[Tweet2]1249812233464483841[/tweet2]

So, in other words, you are already trying to find a way to welch on your bet?

We did not agree to that. You even laid the original bet out and didn't include any of that. Now after we agree you are adding some loop-hole for you to get out of it? That's about what I figured.

When betting on sports, star players get hurt all the time. Do you get to call your local bookie up and say, "But the QB got hurt first play of the game and he forgives your bet?" No need to answer that question.

Look at the transfer rule as an injured star player or as you call it an "unforeseen circumstance"

You made the bet and then tried to add some fine print before. Now after the bet is made you are trying again.

A bet is a bet. And we laid it out very clearly and you agreed to it a second time even.

Next time don't write a check that your ass can't cash if you aren't going to play the game.

[ShotgunDawg]

To refresh:














------

Where we are at now:





So, in other words, you are already trying to find a way to welch on your bet?

We did not agree to that. You even laid the original bet out and didn't include any of that. Now after we agree you are adding some loop-hole for you to get out of it? That's about what I figured.

When betting on sports, star players get hurt all the time. Do you get to call your local bookie up and say, "But the QB got hurt first play of the game and he forgives your bet?" No need to answer that question.

Look at the transfer rule as an injured star player or as you call it an "unforeseen circumstance"

You made the bet and then tried to add some fine print before. Now after the bet is made you are trying again.

A bet is a bet. And we laid it out very clearly and you agreed to it a second time even.

Next time don't write a check that your ass can't cash if you aren't going to play the game.

We'll need an arbitrator on this.

I'm perfectly willing to fulfill the bet provided new legislation doesn't completely nullify the premise in which the bet was made.

That legislation passing just kind of destroys the entire point of the bet.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

I'm trying to figure out the racium behind that tweet. Is it the hangman's noose? If so that is reaching and really assinie.

I'm not saying there is. But he's clearly already won in the court of public opinion. Or at least media opinion.

[confucius say]

Neither. Not like it matters that rule is passing in another month.

Nah, I think A lot of schools still oppose immediate eligibility. Otherwise, there'd not even be a need for this new one free transfer legislation.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Nah, I think A lot of schools still oppose immediate eligibility. Otherwise, there'd not even be a need for this new one free transfer legislation.

Schools don't typically oppose it but the NCAA weren't just giving get out of jail free cards to everybody. The kids still needed somewhat legit reasons to get immediately eligible.

[ShotgunDawg]

Schools don't typically oppose it but the NCAA weren't just giving get out of jail free cards to everybody. The kids still needed somewhat legit reasons to get immediately eligible.

"legitimate reasons" are what he lacks.

Particularly when moving further away from home

[confucius say]

Schools don't typically oppose it but the NCAA weren't just giving get out of jail free cards to everybody. The kids still needed somewhat legit reasons to get immediately eligible.

Did saban end up caving on that kid that transferred to Georgia a year or so ago? Tusk?

[Jarius]

I believe he should be eligible immediately simply because I believe that everyone should get 1 free transfer. Their coaches can leave at the drop of the hat but they are forced to sit out a year if they find a better opportunity? That is BS. If he uses the ridiculous idea that the joke was racist to get eligible then whatever. It wasn't racist and anyone that thinks it was is an idiot, but he should be eligible for other reasons and none of that should matter.

[ShotgunDawg]

Did saban end up caving on that kid that transferred to Georgia a year or so ago? Tusk?

That had nothing to do with eligibility. That was due to Saban actually blocking the kid's ability to transfer to UGA, which I don't believe is legal anymore.

[ShotgunDawg]

I believe he should be eligible immediately simply because I believe that everyone should get 1 free transfer. Their coaches can leave at the drop of the hat but they are forced to sit out a year if they find a better opportunity?

I understand your opinion & logically it makes some sense.

However, I am extremely against this rule passing as in practice it will give more power to the players & take away from the coaches & that is a BAD thing. It's reduces the ability of the coaching staff to develop accountability, work ethic, responsibility, etc.

While I understand the logic of what you're saying, in practice it will have a negative effect on college athletics & most of all it will hurt the lives of the majority of players

[Jarius]

I understand your opinion & logically it makes some sense.

However, I am extremely against this rule passing as in practice it will give more power to the players & take away from the coaches & that is a BAD thing. It's reduces the ability of the coaching staff to develop accountability, work ethic, responsibility, etc.

While I understand the logic of what you're saying, in practice it will have a negative effect on college athletics & most of all it will hurt the lives of the majority of players

I get that as well. I also think it will be bad for MSU, but overall I think it's better for the athlete even with what you mentioned.

[maroonmania]

I believe he should be eligible immediately simply because I believe that everyone should get 1 free transfer. Their coaches can leave at the drop of the hat but they are forced to sit out a year if they find a better opportunity? That is BS. If he uses the ridiculous idea that the joke was racist to get eligible then whatever. It wasn't racist and anyone that thinks it was is an idiot, but he should be eligible for other reasons and none of that should matter.

What I would like to see is players that have a reason to transfer due to lack of playing time to be able to transfer with immediate eligibility (say maybe participated in less than a certain percentage of snaps in football or time in basketball or innings in baseball). Those student athletes have a real legitimate reason to want to transfer. A guy that is a star at one school and then you allow him to immediately transfer somewhere else would seem to set up a lot of potential back room deals where elite programs with 'networks' can snatch away players from lesser programs when they want them. Heck, NFL coaches can change jobs and be hired away as well, but after NFL players sign contracts with teams I don't see the NFL letting every player essentially be a free agent again at the end of the next season to see if they can now get a better deal somewhere else. I mean I don't have an issue with the guys that transferred off our basketball team this year due to lack of playing time and would have no issue if they were immediately eligible, but we lost Newman and Kegler so they could get better 'deals' somewhere else and that is WITH sitting out a year. I'm just a little leary of things getting into total chaos if everybody can transfer with out sitting out. Everyone has the option to transfer now they just have to sit out the year which actually doesn't even cost them a year of eligibility if they haven't already redshirted.

[BiscuitEater]

Why December 5th?

What happened then?

No early Christmas gift

[ShotgunDawg]

I get that as well. I also think it will be bad for MSU, but overall I think it's better for the athlete even with what you mentioned.

I disagree.

Would we occasionally lose a player to Bama or LSU? Maybe.

But I think we'd gain far more from Louisiana Tech, USM, UAB, Troy, Memphis, ect. than we'd lose. It would actually help build depth & put a more complete roster on the field every year.

I know everyone thinks of the worst case scenario as it pertains to MSU, but I actually think it would be better for MSU.

That being said, I don't like the intangible problems it would create, most of which being that we'd have less coachable players.

[ShotgunDawg]

What I would like to see is players that have a reason to transfer due to lack of playing time to be able to transfer with immediate eligibility (say maybe participated in less than a certain percentage of snaps in football or time in basketball or innings in baseball)..

This is the correct answer & the one that would create the best situation for schools & the player.

Hopefully, the smart people can figure out how to accomplish this.

Maybe a rule that states, if you are not an announced starter in at least 4 games, you can transfer without sitting out a year

[TUSK]

It was an existing SEC rule that Saban was enforcing.