CBS Mock Draft has Cross going 5th overall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson

But he's selfish for letting his team down in the Memphis Bowl...*

---

Whether he's 1st, 5th, or 205th, yes he's still selfish for bailing out on his team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dak Holliday

Of course they are, but the farther society drifts away from the truth the more they will hate those that speak it. I just wish he weren?t so publicly vocal.

---

I'll go along with the vocal part. But we hired the KING of vocal. Asking Leach not to publicly vocal is like asking a dog who likes killing chickens to stop killing chickens. He doesn't know what the 17 your talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/...ed-in-round-1/

Also, Coral the 1st QB taken and in the top 10 over Pickett

Hard for me to see Burks being the 3rd WR taken- but we'll see

---

Burns reminds me of Alston Jeffrey. Doesn?t look especially explosive. Uses body well though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schddog72

Whether he's 1st, 5th, or 205th, yes he's still selfish for bailing out on his team.

---

Bullshit. Kind of like coaches who bail on ?the team??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

The chances of severe injury are so minuscule loyalty to your team weighs a ton heavier. Sitting out your final game of your collegiate year unless a NY6? Naw. Hell Naw. Leach is correct. What's next; just skip the egg bowl too?

---

If it was your kid and you weren?t rich you?d have a different take. And 17 these coaches! They are as much of the problem as anything. If I have any SEC coach, Riley, etc calling me selfish:?.they can get 17d. Those dudes are all making generational money that most of us can never get close to, regardless of job.

The universities and coaches made this bed. Lie in it.

Mullen gets $12mill NOT to 17ing work. What risk does he, Leach, or any other coach in this league have?! None, other than pride/ego!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

I've said this before and have to say it again.

Most of us grew up fans of Miss State- going to games, listening on the radio...etc. Wearing the maroon and white with love.

Most of these players view college as a necessary stop on their way to the NFL. They feel the way about the NFL the way we do about college. Cross has achieved his goal- use his college time to get to The League. It's about getting paid- not playing in a meaningless bowl game thats for the fans and Seniors that have no chance to play again.

---

It?s his decision and I respect it. But I would play. You couldn?t keep me off the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPMT

Mullen gets $12mill NOT to 17ing work. What risk does he, Leach, or any other coach in this league have?! None, other than pride/ego!

---

Imagine being so bad at your job that they pay you not to show up and work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPMT

If it was your kid and you weren?t rich you?d have a different take. And 17 these coaches! They are as much of the problem as anything. If I have any SEC coach, Riley, etc calling me selfish:?.they can get 17d. Those dudes are all making generational money that most of us can never get close to, regardless of job.

The universities and coaches made this bed. Lie in it.

Mullen gets $12mill NOT to 17ing work. What risk does he, Leach, or any other coach in this league have?! None, other than pride/ego!

---

Another comparison taken out of context is this comparing what coaches are making to what college football players get. If people would actually sit down and think about it that line of thinking is full of holes. Riley, Leach, or really any coach at the college and nfl level put in years of time and money to get where they're at. Crying foul that teenagers aren't making what the coaches make is like working as a cashier at Walmart and demanding to get CEO pay. You think Leach was making life changing money at 21,22, or even 25 years old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt3467

Another comparison taken out of context is this comparing what coaches are making to what college football players get. If people would actually sit down and think about it that line of thinking is full of holes. Riley, Leach, or really any coach at the college and nfl level put in years of time and money to get where they're at. Crying foul that teenagers aren't making what the coaches make is like working as a cashier at Walmart and demanding to get CEO pay. You think Leach was making life changing money at 21,22, or even 25 years old?

---

Repped

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt3467

Another comparison taken out of context is this comparing what coaches are making to what college football players get. If people would actually sit down and think about it that line of thinking is full of holes. Riley, Leach, or really any coach at the college and nfl level put in years of time and money to get where they're at. Crying foul that teenagers aren't making what the coaches make is like working as a cashier at Walmart and demanding to get CEO pay. You think Leach was making life changing money at 21,22, or even 25 years old?

---

You're missing the point here. Kids have an opportunity to make generational money (similar to the coaches) for which they've invested years of time and money. You think coaches are the only one's who put in 10-15 years to get here? Some of these players have been playing football since they were 8-9 years old. It's THIER risk to take or not take. And no matter how miniscule someone might say the risk is, it exists. For every kid that plays and doesn't get hurt, there are others who do. Put it like this...if someone says, "Here's a guaranteed 10M, now...you can choose to speed down the highway in your car with some friends you may or may not see again. If you have an accident (even if it's not fatal), you lose all the money. Or, you can stay put in this hotel room for 3 days...and you keep it all." Which are you choosing

Meanwhile, coaches, who also signed contracts to coach at their respective schools, are leaving faster than snow can melt in the desert. Kelly left while a CFB bowl was still possible for crying out loud. So we're allowing freedoms to coaches, yet wanting to shame the players into playing. And why are some only mad at the players declaring for the draft? Why not call out the transfers too...it's no different. At the end of the day, accept that some players involved in college football are taking their cues from the adults in treating it like a business. Because that's exactly what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawggrad08

You're missing the point here. Kids have an opportunity to make generational money (similar to the coaches) for which they've invested years of time and money. You think coaches are the only one's who put in 10-15 years to get here? Some of these players have been playing football since they were 8-9 years old. It's THIER risk to take or not take. And no matter how miniscule someone might say the risk is, it exists. For every kid that plays and doesn't get hurt, there are others who do. Put it like this...if someone says, "Here's a guaranteed 10M, now...you can choose to speed down the highway in your car with some friends you may or may not see again. If you have an accident (even if it's not fatal), you lose all the money. Or, you can stay put in this hotel room for 3 days...and you keep it all." Which are you choosing

Meanwhile, coaches, who also signed contracts to coach at their respective schools, are leaving faster than snow can melt in the desert. Kelly left while a CFB bowl was still possible for crying out loud. So we're allowing freedoms to coaches, yet wanting to shame the players into playing. And why are some only mad at the players declaring for the draft? Why not call out the transfers too...it's no different. At the end of the day, accept that some players involved in college football are taking their cues from the adults in treating it like a business. Because that's exactly what it is.

---

17 this. Most coaches are old enough to be the players' DADDY. play your last game and support your team youngster.

There's a simple solution that would make everyone happy.

School should set up an "NIL" Insurance policy for the kid projected to go in the first round that pays out generational money in the event of an injury etc. IANAL, but Leach is, so he could be out in front of this.

Set that up and pay for it on the condition the kid plays and also emphasize that anything can happen (see: Malik Heath wreck) to mess it up off the field as well and protect against that. Several people have taking these insurance deals (Sam Bradford was the first that came to my mind.) Someone with better connections get on it before I email John directly.

Anybody besides Cross sitting out?

Emerson? I haven't heard.

I don't like Corral , but Corral is a gamer and he wouldn't sit out any game unless an injury prevented him from doing so. Not all players look at it from that perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KOdawg1

Based on your intellect that you've displayed with your posts, I'm cool with that

---

Without contracts, our society as we know it would not exist, we would be a 3rd world country like Afghanistan and other God forsaken hell holes.

You apparently do NOT know that the legal institution of contracts are based in the morality of promise, under which individuals incur obligations freely by invoking each other's trust and good faith. It is a means for two or more parties (people or institutions/companies) to impose on themselves obligations where none existed before. Obligations of the contract are the basis of a civilized society (without a civilized society, there is no sports - where is the collegiate soccer/football team in Afghanistan?). Throughout the greater part of our history, our constitutional law and politics have proceeded on these same principles. The validity of a moral, like that of a mathematical truth, does not depend on fashion or favor or today's politically shifting atmosphere.

National Letters of Intent (NLI) are a contract where the university declares that the individual will receive either full or partial money or its equivalent that pays for the cost of education. In return the individual, student athlete, promises to engage in a sports activity in return. I have seen "some" NLIs and they are written with enough holes to drive a MAC truck through. I agree they suck as a legal agreement, but regardless, the intent is still there. The university provides a service (education - something of value) to the individual in return for participation is a sport (something of value in return).

For those that want to ignore the intent of the NLI and look for ways to take advantage of the poor wording for their advantage is deplorable. I guess that is the world we live in; a world where one's word is not to be trusted or relied upon. It's all about ME!

So if you think living up to your end of the agreement is lame and no one does it anymore, then go ahead and hate all you want. These people are getting a benefit at anothers expense. That is not the intent of a contract - it is equal benefits for all parties.

All I can say to the student athlete is to MAN UP - the university did, in fact they go over and above the call of duty with special facilities dedicated to them and the free tutors and other perks and considerations not related to getting an education.

Flame on -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

Without contracts, our society as we know it would not exist, we would be a 3rd world country like Afghanistan and other God forsaken hell holes.

You apparently do NOT know that the legal institution of contracts are based in the morality of promise, under which individuals incur obligations freely by invoking each other's trust and good faith. It is a means for two or more parties (people or institutions/companies) to impose on themselves obligations where none existed before. Obligations of the contract are the basis of a civilized society (without a civilized society, there is no sports - where is the collegiate soccer/football team in Afghanistan?). Throughout the greater part of our history, our constitutional law and politics have proceeded on these same principles. The validity of a moral, like that of a mathematical truth, does not depend on fashion or favor or today's politically shifting atmosphere.

National Letters of Intent (NLI) are a contract where the university declares that the individual will receive either full or partial money or its equivalent that pays for the cost of education. In return the individual, student athlete, promises to engage in a sports activity in return. I have seen "some" NLIs and they are written with enough holes to drive a MAC truck through. I agree they suck as a legal agreement, but regardless, the intent is still there. The university provides a service (education - something of value) to the individual in return for participation is a sport (something of value in return).

For those that want to ignore the intent of the NLI and look for ways to take advantage of the poor wording for their advantage is deplorable. I guess that is the world we live in; a world where one's word is not to be trusted or relied upon. It's all about ME!

So if you think living up to your end of the agreement is lame and no one does it anymore, then go ahead and hate all you want. These people are getting a benefit at anothers expense. That is not the intent of a contract - it is equal benefits for all parties.

All I can say to the student athlete is to MAN UP - the university did, in fact they go over and above the call of duty with special facilities dedicated to them and the free tutors and other perks and considerations not related to getting an education.

Flame on -

---

And yet coaches can come to a player and say "you aren't going to play. You don't fit in our plans for the future. If you want to continue to play football, we will help find you a landing spot. We hear USM is looking for XXX positions in the portal." They can do this any time, and while they can't "take" your scholarship anymore, the writing is on the wall. None of this is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. Ultimately, players want to play and the 1 free transfer rule allows that to happen. Opting out of a meaningless bowl is akin to that as well - and is part of this relationship between players and programs no longer being a one-way street.

Just look at the players we have lost - the vast majority of them have dropped to G5 or FCS. If you think those guys just left a P5 program on their own accord, I've got some beachfront property in Chunky you might be interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

And yet coaches can come to a player and say "you aren't going to play. You don't fit in our plans for the future. If you want to continue to play football, we will help find you a landing spot. We hear USM is looking for XXX positions in the portal." They can do this any time, and while they can't "take" your scholarship anymore, the writing is on the wall. None of this is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. Ultimately, players want to play and the 1 free transfer rule allows that to happen. Opting out of a meaningless bowl is akin to that as well - and is part of this relationship between players and programs no longer being a one-way street.

Just look at the players we have lost - the vast majority of them have dropped to G5 or FCS. If you think those guys just left a P5 program on their own accord, I've got some beachfront property in Chunky you might be interested in.

---

NLI gives the college the option to not renew schollies, right? Player cop-opt outs are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

NLI gives the college the option to not renew schollies, right? Player cop-opt outs are not.

---

So it's ok for management to do what they want, but labor "has" to because of some mythical one sided "loyalty"? That type of thinking is why the NCAA was blown up by the NIL rulings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

So it's ok for management to do what they want, but labor "has" to because of some mythical one sided "loyalty"? That type of thinking is why the NCAA was blown up by the NIL rulings.

---

Football schollies are life changing opportunities. "Labor" is NOT getting screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

Football schollies are life changing opportunities. "Labor" is NOT getting screwed.

---

If you are performing services for compensation, you are by definition labor. Doesn't matter what service is or the compensation is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

If you are performing services for compensation, you are by definition labor. Doesn't matter what service is or the compensation is.

---

Definition doesn't matter. Without the schollie, you don't cash in. Play the final damn game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

Definition doesn't matter. Without the schollie, you don't cash in. Play the final damn game.

---

^^^^^This all day!! Tried to repp, have to spread it around more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

^^^^^This all day!! Tried to repp, have to spread it around more.

---

I covered him on the rep for you ... that's exactly the way I see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

And yet coaches can come to a player and say "you aren't going to play. You don't fit in our plans for the future. If you want to continue to play football, we will help find you a landing spot. We hear USM is looking for XXX positions in the portal." They can do this any time, and while they can't "take" your scholarship anymore, the writing is on the wall. None of this is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. Ultimately, players want to play and the 1 free transfer rule allows that to happen. Opting out of a meaningless bowl is akin to that as well - and is part of this relationship between players and programs no longer being a one-way street.

Just look at the players we have lost - the vast majority of them have dropped to G5 or FCS. If you think those guys just left a P5 program on their own accord, I've got some beachfront property in Chunky you might be interested in.

---

NLIs do not guarantee the individual will be a 1st string player, 2nd string or you will ride the bench and never participate in live competition. It is the individuals athleticism and knowledge of the sport (does he get it mentally) that mainly determines if they play and how much. Yes there are exceptions that an individuals skills do not match the coaches expectations for the position the individual want to play. If a NLI guaranteed playing time, I think there would be fewer NLIs (too big a gamble for mid-tier players) and teams would rely more on walk-ons! Only the 5-stars would get NLIs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FISHDAWG

I covered him on the rep for you ... that's exactly the way I see it

---

Thank you FishDawg!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

Definition doesn't matter. Without the schollie, you don't cash in. Play the final damn game.

---

That's the beauty of contracts. If you're working for any job you likely signed a contract. This is a free country. You can quit at any point and the company can stop providing compensation.

So a player wants to quit for the bowl game. The school can then not provide any further compensation. It's highly likely Cross isn't going to school next semester. Most don't.

You're basically arguing that because 1 overtime portion of this "contract" wasn't honored... that none of the work should be compensated. THAT is ridiculous and anti-capitalist and goes against our laws. Next you'll say that kids that opt out after their junior year should have to pay back the scholly because they didn't go four full years. Just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tater

That's the beauty of contracts. If you're working for any job you likely signed a contract. This is a free country. You can quit at any point and the company can stop providing compensation.

So a player wants to quit for the bowl game. The school can then not provide any further compensation. It's highly likely Cross isn't going to school next semester. Most don't.

You're basically arguing that because 1 overtime portion of this "contract" wasn't honored... that none of the work should be compensated. THAT is ridiculous and anti-capitalist and goes against our laws. Next you'll say that kids that opt out after their junior year should have to pay back the scholly because they didn't go four full years. Just silly.

---

Whose talking about STATE compensation? We're not negatively impacting his pocket book ,fining him or forcing him to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

Whose talking about STATE compensation? We're not negatively impacting his pocket book ,fining him or forcing him to play.

---

Negatively impacting his pocketbook would be revoking his scholarship back which is what is being thrown around. Or force them to play. I think it's an honorable thing to play, but completely understandable why certain people wouldn't. And the smart thing for the school would be to help alleviate their risk with insurance.

But if you don't think that's what's being argued then you might wanna re-read the ridiculous diatribe of the people supporting your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tater

Negatively impacting his pocketbook would be revoking his scholarship back which is what is being thrown around. Or force them to play. I think it's an honorable thing to play, but completely understandable why certain people wouldn't. And the smart thing for the school would be to help alleviate their risk with insurance.

But if you don't think that's what's being argued then you might wanna re-read the ridiculous diatribe of the people supporting your point.

---

I do not agree with making him pay or forcing him to play and most on our side on this don't either. He should respect the institution that got him here, his coaches and teammates; ESPECIALLY Will. Honor, Code , Loyalty. Are these things you can fathom? Can you handle the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLJWales

I do not agree with making him pay or forcing him to play and most on our side on this don't either. He should respect the institution that got him here, his coaches and teammates; ESPECIALLY Will. Honor, Code , Loyalty. Are these things you can fathom? Can you handle the truth?

---

You don?t want to force him to play, but you want to force him to think/feel like you do so that he does play. That?s an odd concept. It?s the basic principle that causes most of the genocide around the world.
If only these people thought exactly like I do, this would be utopia.
Yeah, but they don?t.
Well, we will force them to.
What if they resist?
Eh, kill ?em.

Now, I can agree that there is enough money in the system that we can provide a safety blanket insurance policy that encourages/allows athletes to participate with their teammates if so desired without fear of total loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dak Holliday

You don?t want to force him to play, but you want to force him to think/feel like you do so that he does play. That?s an odd concept. It?s the basic principle that causes most of the genocide around the world.
If only these people thought exactly like I do, this would be utopia.
Yeah, but they don?t.
Well, we will force them to.
What if they resist?
Eh, kill ?em.

Now, I can agree that there is enough money in the system that we can provide a safety blanket insurance policy that encourages/allows athletes to participate with their teammates if so desired without fear of total loss.

---

Who said anything about killing-em, that is a leftist strategy. All we want is for people to be honorable and do what they already agreed to do! Have some integrity! Man-up!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

Who said anything about killing-em, that is a leftist strategy. All we want is for people to be honorable and do what they already agreed to do! Have some integrity! Man-up!!

---

It?s not about killing them. It is about forcing them to hold your thoughts/beliefs which I equated to where that same thought process is present.
Encourage them to play. Empower them to play, but don?t try to force your way of thinking on them. They have parents for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dak Holliday

It?s not about killing them. It is about forcing them to hold your thoughts/beliefs which I equated to where that same thought process is present.
Encourage them to play. Empower them to play, but don?t try to force your way of thinking on them. They have parents for that.

---

They have the right to think and do as they very well damn please and I've got the right to disagree. Don't over complicate it.

Honor, Loyalty, Code, etc. don't pay the bills. Show me the money.