Brust Transfer Sparks Debate at League Meetings
- Thread starter DuffMan
- Start date
theboat
Well-Known Member
I didn't take it that way at all. Just describing the situation. Seemed pretty neutral to me.
homes
Well-Known Member
Agree, I didn't read that into the article at all. I did get the feeling that Weber is not a fan of what Wisconsin did. He lost Eric Gordon to Indiana a few years back, so he's probably sensitive to the issue. I don't think there was a LOI involved, but it was still Sampson coming in and plucking Gordon away from the Illini at the last minute.
One way out of this as potential mess for the BT in the future would be to limit the exception to the rule to the case where the coach has been fired (not left on his own volition) from the school. It would have been cleaner for the BT to not make any exceptions, but this is one line they could draw and justify in the future.
Here is where it could have been presented differently. Weber could have said this situation has spurred debate about whether or not there should be a clearer policy. We are all involved in the discussion and will forward recommendations.
By indicating that Iowa had started the discussion because they had got hurt by a player transfer it makes it seem more personal.
Now, that being said, understand that I study media framing so I might be a little too sensitive to these issues.
By indicating that Iowa had started the discussion because they had got hurt by a player transfer it makes it seem more personal.
Now, that being said, understand that I study media framing so I might be a little too sensitive to these issues.
DodgerHawki
Well-Known Member
Iowa handled it exactly as they should have. This was exactly the forum where it should have been brought up. Iowa has not ever bad-mouthed the player or the decision from the Big 10 in the public. But the coaches' meetings are things for exactly like this: ones that need to be discussed in a forum where ideas can be exchanged
Look at this line in particular.
"One, you want what’s best for the league and keep the best players in the league if possible. The other is when it really affects you and you lose a kid."
See the dichotomy that is set up there?
1) What is best for the league.
2) You are affected when YOU lose a kid.
The first is about the general welfare of the league, the second is about self-interest.
Seriously guys, there is some framing going on here. Even if Webber agrees that a more concrete policy needs to be implemented, there are some subtle shots being taken here.
"One, you want what’s best for the league and keep the best players in the league if possible. The other is when it really affects you and you lose a kid."
See the dichotomy that is set up there?
1) What is best for the league.
2) You are affected when YOU lose a kid.
The first is about the general welfare of the league, the second is about self-interest.
Seriously guys, there is some framing going on here. Even if Webber agrees that a more concrete policy needs to be implemented, there are some subtle shots being taken here.
Chicagohawkeye
Member
I guess I must of read something else, because that never crossed my mind.
Clearly,this debate was simply spurred by the coaches in the league who are ****** at Bo Ryan,imo. Iowa did exactly what was in the best interest of the recruit by releasing him. I see nothing here that indicates that Fran brought this topic up. Weber is still smarting over the Sampson raid on Gordon,and is legitmately concerned about all pretense of collegiality among league coaches degrading into an SEC football style chaos.
I suspect that at least 9 of those coaches are totally ****** that this academic committee chose to override a rule that kept coaches in check.
Now, pandora's box has been opened ,and just watch the scramble next november when Michigan fires DickRod...michigans highly rated signed football recruits,many from Ohio and the midwest,will be fair game for every Big Ten team now.
That committee is going to be voting many,many times in the near future.
The ''Brust Exception'' has now become the letter of the rule for these situations and we got a free-for -all on our hands.
Wisky broke ranks,and now anything goes,and I doubt the coaches are happy about it.
I suspect that at least 9 of those coaches are totally ****** that this academic committee chose to override a rule that kept coaches in check.
Now, pandora's box has been opened ,and just watch the scramble next november when Michigan fires DickRod...michigans highly rated signed football recruits,many from Ohio and the midwest,will be fair game for every Big Ten team now.
That committee is going to be voting many,many times in the near future.
The ''Brust Exception'' has now become the letter of the rule for these situations and we got a free-for -all on our hands.
Wisky broke ranks,and now anything goes,and I doubt the coaches are happy about it.
Weber is sore about Eric Gordon getting swiped by Sampson,and Gordon did not even sign a LOI. That is what he is talking about.
You parse way too much.
It is my job to parse and I do know that I can occasionally go too far with it. Just wish the Gazette could have put things more in context with respect to Webber. Because if you did not know about the Gordon situation, it would just seem as if Webber was talking about Iowa being hurt.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
I don't see how this makes Iowa look bad at all. I read the article three times over, and I have yet to see where it even mentions Iowa bringing this up, Iowa complaining, or Iowa being negative in any way. For someone to see that in this article is complete fabrication that isn't based on the text of the article.
I don't see the Pandora's Box here. If a coach gets fired I don't have a problem with a kid who's never enrolled getting the chance to open things back up. I guess I don't see the problem. It's not like Big 10 coaches are continuously getting fired.
eyekwah
Well-Known Member
I seem to recall that Brust family indicated they were not told by Gary Barta, when Iowa released him from the LOI, that he wasn't able to sign with another B10 University. Secondly there is nothing to prevent Mr Brust from playing for Wisconsin if he was willing to pay his own way, which obviously he wasn't hence the appeal.
I can understand with the coaching change why Mr Brust wanted to reconsider his choice. If his style of play does not fit then it would be best to find a more comfortable place. In the end the Big 10 needs to formulate a fair and reasonable solution in the event of a coaching change.
I can understand with the coaching change why Mr Brust wanted to reconsider his choice. If his style of play does not fit then it would be best to find a more comfortable place. In the end the Big 10 needs to formulate a fair and reasonable solution in the event of a coaching change.
Actually, you have a point. The article states the discussion is about Brust and Webber says the two teams involved had opinions and also he makes the comment about how it matters when it hurts you, in this case meaning Iowa.
But, he didn't say that Iowa brought the issue forth.
The more I look at it the more I really think my issue is with the way the blog is written. I would really like to hear a more comprehensive account of what went on.
When the league expands to 16, there will be a lot more coaching turnover. Just look at the Big East. The buried bottom feeders in a 16 team league often are on the hot seat, which will now mean that Big Ten coaches will be whispering in the signed recruits ears thruout the season.
This basically changes the landscape from a gentlemen's ''hands off'' agreement to a murky gray area that will raise the level of acrimony and negative recruiting in the league...but I guess maybe the drama will be good for ratings?
FreddyBrown
Moderator
I'd like to apologize for interrupting this thread to say the following:
Bo Ryan sucks.
Carry on.
Bo Ryan sucks.
Carry on.
