|
|
Post by beaverology on Jan 3, 2024 13:35:52 GMT -8
We hardly knew you Anthony.
Was an Oregon duck in 2022, then transferred to Indiana in 2023. Committed to OSU on Dec 18, now has decommitted and looking elsewhere.
Hope it works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 3, 2024 13:38:51 GMT -8
Programs are not at liberty to state, and players certainly will not, but in some cases portal transfers might not meet the academic requirements by schools they commit to. Not saying this is the case, but it is not always $ or not wanting to be there. Also seems to be a lot of young talent at his position.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 3, 2024 13:38:55 GMT -8
Was an Oregon duck, then transferred to Indiana. Committed to OSU Dec 18, now has decommitted and looking elsewhere. Yeah. I heard about this a couple days ago but couldn't find anything to confirm. Just part of the deal for OSU nowadays. Too bad. He had the potential to thrive in Bray's defense. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 3, 2024 13:41:30 GMT -8
Programs are not at liberty to state, and players certainly will not, but in some cases portal transfers might not meet the academic requirements by schools they commit to. Not saying this is the case, but it is not always $ or not wanting to be there. Also seems to be a lot of young talent at his position. If you're not saying this is the case, why are you bringing it up on an Anthony Jones thread? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 3, 2024 13:51:35 GMT -8
Programs are not at liberty to state, and players certainly will not, but in some cases portal transfers might not meet the academic requirements by schools they commit to. Not saying this is the case, but it is not always $ or not wanting to be there. Also seems to be a lot of young talent at his position. If you're not saying this is the case, why are you bringing it up on an Anthony Jones thread? Lol... because it's a reason for any portal decommitment. Which he is, and the first mentioned?? So, besides just $ there are other possibilities. This particular one I've never seen broached here. But, thanks for asking. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 3, 2024 13:56:30 GMT -8
If you're not saying this is the case, why are you bringing it up on an Anthony Jones thread? Lol... because it's a reason for any portal decommitment. Which he is, and the first mentioned?? So, besides just $ there are other possibilities. This particular one I've never seen broached here. But, thanks for asking. Pretty sure it wasn't the case here. Maybe an unknown future and the breakup of the Pac-12 has something to do with some of the portal losses and recruit decommits as well. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 3, 2024 14:11:00 GMT -8
Lol... because it's a reason for any portal decommitment. Which he is, and the first mentioned?? So, besides just $ there are other possibilities. This particular one I've never seen broached here. But, thanks for asking. Pretty sure it wasn't the case here. Maybe an unknown future and the breakup of the Pac-12 has something to do with some of the portal losses and recruit decommits as well. Uh, he only committed to us 17/18 days ago. Things were pretty unknown and the Pac-12 had already broken up then. He could have just changed his mind because he got a better offer, also the academic credit situation is a potential possibility as well. Transferring between quarter and semester systems and academic progress issues when transferring has hung up many transfers over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 3, 2024 14:57:47 GMT -8
Pretty sure it wasn't the case here. Maybe an unknown future and the breakup of the Pac-12 has something to do with some of the portal losses and recruit decommits as well. Uh, he only committed to us 17/18 days ago. Things were pretty unknown and the Pac-12 had already broken up then. He could have just changed his mind because he got a better offer, also the academic credit situation is a potential possibility as well. Transferring between quarter and semester systems and academic progress issues when transferring has hung up many transfers over the years. Yeah, I'm not saying I know why he decommitted. My comment about the unkown future and the breakup of the Pac-12 being reasons for some of the portal losses was in response to rgeorge saying that money wasn't the only reason for the losses and that there are other possibilies. I thought Jones/OSU recruiters would know going in about whether or not there was going to be a problem with the quarter or semester difference, but now that I think about it, it very well could crop up after he committed. It's too bad no matter what the reason is, though. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 3, 2024 15:29:47 GMT -8
Uh, he only committed to us 17/18 days ago. Things were pretty unknown and the Pac-12 had already broken up then. He could have just changed his mind because he got a better offer, also the academic credit situation is a potential possibility as well. Transferring between quarter and semester systems and academic progress issues when transferring has hung up many transfers over the years. Yeah, I'm not saying I know why he decommitted. My comment about the unkown future and the breakup of the Pac-12 being reasons for some of the portal losses was in response to rgeorge saying that money wasn't the only reason for the losses and that there are other possibilies. I thought Jones/OSU recruiters would know going in about whether or not there was going to be a problem with the quarter or semester difference, but now that I think about it, it very well could crop up after he committed. It's too bad no matter what the reason is, though. Well, sadly OSU has a long history of losing guys that don’t qualify, so it’s hard for me to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jan 4, 2024 11:44:46 GMT -8
Now that players are essentially employees, can we get rid of the "academic" charade now???
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 4, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -8
Now that players are essentially employees, can we get rid of the "academic" charade now??? Actually they are no where close to employees. NIL organizations and $ come from entities outside the university. The student-athlete still must maintain academic standards of the university and AD. NIL and academic standards are exclusive of one another and only one determines a player's actual eligibility... even their "transferability". And, the average NIL deal is reported to be somewhere north of $5k per athlete for about 98% of D1 athletes. Not even a taxable some in most cases. As of now it is still very much "student-athlete" centered. When you see that there is absolutely ZERO academic requirements and ALL athletes make a living wage we can talk employees. But, then again, it would no longer be "college" athletics and universities would divest themselves of such programs in that they may make money but they have zero control in the players, coaches, etc. and their "antics". |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 4, 2024 11:54:54 GMT -8
Well, no doubt he's quick around the edge. Spun around the edge of Eugene, quickly made it to Indiana, rushed around the edge there, back to Oregon State where he quickly moved around the edge of Corvallis to parts unknown. Dude must be dizzy!
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 4, 2024 12:00:58 GMT -8
Now that players are essentially employees, can we get rid of the "academic" charade now??? Actually they are no where close to employees. NIL organizations and $ come from entities outside the university. The student-athlete still must maintain academic standards of the university and AD. NIL and academic standards are exclusive of one another and only one determines a player's actual eligibility... even their "transferability". And, the average NIL deal is reported to be somewhere north of $5k per athlete for about 98% of D1 athletes. Not even a taxable some in most cases. As of now it is still very much "student-athlete" centered. When you see that there is absolutely ZERO academic requirements and ALL athletes make a living wage we can talk employees. But, then again, it would no longer be "college" athletics and universities would divest themselves of such programs in that they may make money but they have zero control in the players, coaches, etc. and their "antics". If Charlie Baker's proposal goes through, the NIL will be controlled by the schools. From Ross Dellenger: "Baker’s proposal, deemed as “Project Division I” and introduced last month, would permit schools to strike name, image and likeness (NIL) deals with athletes and offer them an unlimited amount of educationally related benefits. A third concept, perhaps viewed as the most radical, creates a new FBS subdivision requiring schools to deposit into a trust $30,000 per athlete for half of a school’s athletes." |
|
whocares
Freshman
Posts: 149 
Member is Online
|
Post by whocares on Jan 4, 2024 13:01:15 GMT -8
We need a new term to use instead of "commitment". Something more in keeping with today's world, like "preferred option for the time being".
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 4, 2024 13:02:05 GMT -8
Actually they are no where close to employees. NIL organizations and $ come from entities outside the university. The student-athlete still must maintain academic standards of the university and AD. NIL and academic standards are exclusive of one another and only one determines a player's actual eligibility... even their "transferability". And, the average NIL deal is reported to be somewhere north of $5k per athlete for about 98% of D1 athletes. Not even a taxable some in most cases. As of now it is still very much "student-athlete" centered. When you see that there is absolutely ZERO academic requirements and ALL athletes make a living wage we can talk employees. But, then again, it would no longer be "college" athletics and universities would divest themselves of such programs in that they may make money but they have zero control in the players, coaches, etc. and their "antics". If Charlie Baker's proposal goes through, the NIL will be controlled by the schools. From Ross Dellenger: "Baker’s proposal, deemed as “Project Division I” and introduced last month, would permit schools to strike name, image and likeness (NIL) deals with athletes and offer them an unlimited amount of educationally related benefits. A third concept, perhaps viewed as the most radical, creates a new FBS subdivision requiring schools to deposit into a trust $30,000 per athlete for half of a school’s athletes." Although details are sketchy, Baker's proposal is seen as only making the rich, richer. Most universities want zero to do with doling out more money, and do not have the money to give. The consensus among college leaders, "Where is the money going to come from to pay for this?". It is estimated it would cost small AD budget schools $5-8 million a year if this proposal came to fruition, and most would just opt out and be in even worse position than they are now. Large budget schools would be in the $12-16 million per year realm and again many AD are just breaking even even with the large TV monies being infused and still need University $ to make that happen. And the key word "permits". Which means it does not eliminate the current NIL organizations or schools not opting in to the program... or does it?? Many school leaders see this as a political ploy to begin more serious discussions. The dropping of such a bombshell well before getting the Congressional support it needs (Baker wants some anti-trust exemptions and protection from athletes being employees) seems to be Baker's way to energize discussion, but almost zero can be done without Congressional support. Hence, it will be a bunch of ever changing proposals for now. And, as with most administrators, anyone who thinks this is a positive step for the majority of D1 schools is mistaken. Having to come up with MORE money is the issue most AD already have. OSU for instance is in the $85 million range for it's overall budget with most of it's programs running in the red. Our current "outside NIL" funds are said to be almost $3 million between (2) organizations (estimates of the second varying). Where would OSU ever come up with a $15 million dollar pool (based on 500 D1 athletes) that must then be split based on Title IX (required since run by the school)?? The ridiculous part of this NIL "solution" (ok there are several reasons) is that NIL is based on a athlete's endorsement potential and the ability, not the right, to earn NIL money. This proposal now states EVERY D1 athlete receives NIL $ through the "pool", and it is equal, no matter the NIL "value" of an athlete. Hence, it is no longer NIL in the sense it was passed through the judicial system. It is now "equal wage for unequal value"... as not every athlete "earns the school money on the same level. NIL was based on schools making money on the name, image, and likeness of athletes and they deserved some of that. I disagree to some extent as the educational, medical, room, board, and extras are not calculated into that. But, under this proposal it in no way follows that guideline. I do not think Baker's proposal ever sees the light of day as it stands. If anything come close it will mean a new super division, NFL "minor league", with OSU being one of the many schools that opt out. The good news, not too many schools can "play & pay" at that level when it comes to funding every athlete in every sport. And there are only so many scholarships available at those schools that opt in. In the end it may be called and run differently, but not too much different than the current situation. However, conjecture over things that are so generalized at this time is a waste of time in many regards. But, whatever happens it appears the divide between the haves and have nots will only widen. |
|
