B10 denies Brust's waiver

There is risk in everything you do in life.

Iowa has done everything they could from their end, released Brust, ok'ed the waiver from their end, etc... I know there was some miscommunication between the parties, but it's tough to put this one on Iowa. Whatever happens, happens, but like I said there's risk in everything you do. When that letter was signed, there were always built-in risks.
 
You can make a good case either way. However, I think this is a good rule. Kids (people in general) need to learn to live up to their commitments and understand that if they do commit to something - exactly what that means and what the ramifications are if they do not live up to their commitment that they made. You could argue that he committed to Lickliter rather than the University but to me we need to move past this me me me mentality. I was recruited to play college football back in the early 80's and the college I committed to made a coaching change prior to my arrival - I stayed committed to the school but ended up giving up football and paid my own way after I was hit by a mack truck offensive lineman from Nebraska. We all have choices that we make in life and its not like this kid cant play college ball with a free education somewhere but due to his lack of due diligence - his choices have been reduced by 10 schools if he doesnt want to pay his own way.
 
Spank...good points. I understand kids sign because they like the coaches, but if ANY parents let them fall for this trap, then they are extremely naive. Facts are facts and there is a pretty high probability that coaching changes are going to happen for almost all schools, whether it is the head coach or assistants. To think that this isn't a strong possibility is naive.

I'm sure many of us have taken a job and were hired by someone who we thought would be our boss for many, many years. Only to see our boss being fired 2 years later and a new person takes over. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not. Often, we have signed non-compete agreements and just because the new job is a jerk doesn't mean we can rip-up the non-compete and run to our competitor.

Guess what? In life there are rules. Some of them you don't like, but it's the way it is. That's the case for Brust now. If Ben didn't like the Big 10 rule, then he should have never signed with a Big 10 school. If I don't like the non-compete clause in my contract, I should have never signed it. But, once I did then I have to live with it and deal with the consequences.
 
2boys said:
Spank...good points. I understand kids sign because they like the coaches, but if ANY parents let them fall for this trap, then they are extremely naive. Facts are facts and there is a pretty high probability that coaching changes are going to happen for almost all schools, whether it is the head coach or assistants. To think that this isn't a strong possibility is naive.

I'm sure many of us have taken a job and were hired by someone who we thought would be our boss for many, many years. Only to see our boss being fired 2 years later and a new person takes over. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not. Often, we have signed non-compete agreements and just because the new job is a jerk doesn't mean we can rip-up the non-compete and run to our competitor.

Guess what? In life there are rules. Some of them you don't like, but it's the way it is. That's the case for Brust now. If Ben didn't like the Big 10 rule, then he should have never signed with a Big 10 school. If I don't like the non-compete clause in my contract, I should have never signed it. But, once I did then I have to live with it and deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...
+1
 
This whole thing comes down to tampering. The Big10 doesn't want its schools to mess with another programs recruits once they are signed. This has nothing to do with Brust or Larson or Iowa or Wisky. It's a great rule that prevents potential conflicts between the institutions.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
This whole thing comes down to tampering. The Big10 doesn't want its schools to mess with another programs recruits once they are signed. This has nothing to do with Brust or Larson or Iowa or Wisky. It's a great rule that prevents potential conflicts between the institutions.
Click to expand...


BINGO!!!
 
You all make good arguments. There are definitely always risks in life. I don't think I would count Ben Brust being unable to go to Wisconsin is some great injustice. I just understand why he would be upset. In terms of the no-compete clause argument (a good argument), you would be upset if your boss waived the no compete when you were leaving the company, but then the government came in and vetoed it. And it very well may be for the best, but it would still be frustrating. And no, life isn't fair, but we are still allowed to get upset. Anyways, personally, I am worn out by the whole thing. Whatever happens, happens.
 
drew003 said:
That is a terrible and illogical argument. You also can't ball. If you could ball and help lure 13,000 fans to pay $25 tickets to come to Carver and cable advertisers to pay for commercials because of TV sets so that the University can make money, then you to could get a free education.

The kid is getting a free education no matter what, because he has some rare and in-demand skills. Thus the fact we offered him a "free education" has no bearing in whether this is "fair." The fact is the Big 10 is essentially telling an 18 year old he can't make the decision that is right for him. That I have a problem with. He is a victim of unforeseen circumstances, and now the kid can't play in the major conference that is close to home. I'm not saying there is not merit to the rule, but I feel for him and his situation.
Click to expand...

There are not telling him that he can't make the right decision for him, they are telling him YOU ALREADY MADE A DECISION and decided to back out. There should be a consequence for that. Kids need to take responsibility. If his choices are to go to Iowa or not attend another big ten school, that is his choice. And it was his mistake for not knowing the rule before asking to be let out of his LOI.
 
This is certainly a tragedy. This poor 18 year old young man is going to get a free education some where, but won't get to play with the team he wants to, because of a decision that he made. Young and old people alike make decisions all the time without regard to consequenses, and claiming ignorance of the rules does not justify modification of those rules. Who among us has never made a decision that at the time seemed good, but the end result was not what we had hoped for due to unforseen circumstances. It is a part of life, and part of the growing process. I have every confidence that Ben will bounce back and be successful wherever he attends. It is just my opinion that he has burned his bridge as a Hawkeye. Many people would love to have him back, I am not one of them. However, since Ben and Fran will put as much stock in my opinion as they would the man in the moon, it is truely a moot point. If he does eventually become a Haweye, I will root for him. If he does not, then good luck to him, but blaming Gary Barta or the Iowa program for unforseen consequences is not very becoming.
 
It's not a dumb rule. Can't allow that stuff to go on within the conference. It will create too much bad blood. And even though programs are competing with one another, one also has to remember that conferences are competing with one another.
 
People forget this also puts Iowa in a bad situation scrambling for kids to fill the void of the 2 who left at the last minute. I think any rule that discourages this type of de committ is a good one.
 
ripvdub said:
Do you really want him if he really doesn't want to be here? There will be more PG's to sign along the way, especially in 2012. It might be a blessing in disguise if he doesnt go to Iowa.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is a common reaction when a recruit leaves, but real life isn't so black or white. What if his first choice is Iowa (with TL) his second choice is Wisconsin, and his third choice is Iowa (with FM)? Just because he might decide that he'd rather play for Wisconsin doesn't mean that he doesn't want to be at Iowa.
 
drew003 said:
That is a terrible and illogical argument. You also can't ball. If you could ball and help lure 13,000 fans to pay $25 tickets to come to Carver and cable advertisers to pay for commercials because of TV sets so that the University can make money, then you to could get a free education.

The kid is getting a free education no matter what, because he has some rare and in-demand skills. Thus the fact we offered him a "free education" has no bearing in whether this is "fair." The fact is the Big 10 is essentially telling an 18 year old he can't make the decision that is right for him. That I have a problem with. He is a victim of unforeseen circumstances, and now the kid can't play in the major conference that is close to home. I'm not saying there is not merit to the rule, but I feel for him and his situation.
Click to expand...

Actually, the kid CAN play at a major conference that is close to home...at the school he originally committed to. It's not like Iowa dropped its business school so now Brust will not be able to go to a school that has his major. Remember that these are STUDENT-athletes.

Iowa merely changed basketball coaches. The facilities are the same, the roster is essentially the same, etc. The only thing that is different is the coaches. And it's not like the coaches think Burst won't fit the new system. The new coaches want Burst.

Coaching changes happen all the time. The rule is in place to prevent tampering and the rule works. I don't feel sorry for Brust or his situation. His situation is that he can get a free education at hundreds of schools across the nation by playing basketball. There are only 10 schools he cannot attend for free. Ben will survive.
 
DaHawk56 said:
Actually, the kid CAN play at a major conference that is close to home...at the school he originally committed to. It's not like Iowa dropped its business school so now Brust will not be able to go to a school that has his major. Remember that these are STUDENT-athletes.

Iowa merely changed basketball coaches. The facilities are the same, the roster is essentially the same, etc. The only thing that is different is the coaches. And it's not like the coaches think Burst won't fit the new system. The new coaches want Burst.

Coaching changes happen all the time. The rule is in place to prevent tampering and the rule works. I don't feel sorry for Brust or his situation. His situation is that he can get a free education at hundreds of schools across the nation by playing basketball. There are only 10 schools he cannot attend for free. Ben will survive.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, except that it's 18 schools he can't attend for free if you count the Ivy League. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top