Antwaun Jackson & Marlon Character Transferring (Merged)

[DAG 33,964]

7 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Sounds like they are indeed looking to follow Muschamp and TWill.

"A former four-star prospect and top 50 recruit in 2016, Jackson in interested in transferring to South Carolina, which he said was "at the top" of his list because of his relationship with Gamecocks coach Will Muschamp and defensive coordinator Travaris Robinson from when they recruited him to Auburn.

"I wouldn't be surprised if they gave me a call (if he's released)," Jackson told The State. "They (Auburn) don't want me in the SEC at all, not even the SEC East."

Jackson, who has not returned multiple messages from AL.com, told the State he is unsure where he'll go if his appeal is denied, but he'd consider a season of junior college or elsewhere in the ACC, Big 10 of Big XII.

"My question was: Why are they blocking Ohio State for no reason?" Jackson said. "They just put Ohio State on there for no reason. My question to them is why are they blocking me from a Big Ten school when they don't have anything to do with Big Ten schools? Why didn't they block me from Michigan or Indiana or any other Big Ten school? Why would they do that immediately?"

The State claims South Carolina could also be an option for Character, who has not spoken publicly on the matter and not returned multiple messages from AL.com."

Link

I have no problem with the blocks. Thoughts?

That is the way the cookie crumbles. I don't feel too bad for him.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't understand Ohio st but doubt Ohio st wants our rejected anyway. Blocking transfer to sec schools is pretty standard. 

[C'viewTiger 242]

The only reason I could guess on OSU is we may face them in a post season game. But like was said earlier, that's the way it works.

[alexava 6,973]

3 minutes ago, AU04ever said:

The only reason I could guess on OSU is we may face them in a post season game. But like was said earlier, that's the way it works.

Maybe Gus don't like Meyer?

[ellitor 33,080]

26 minutes ago, milehighfan said:

Since both were redshirted at Auburn wouldn't they lose a year if, when they do transfer?

at least a year at the D1 level yes.

[ellitor 33,080]

33 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Sounds like they are indeed looking to follow Muschamp and TWill.

"A former four-star prospect and top 50 recruit in 2016, Jackson in interested in transferring to South Carolina, which he said was "at the top" of his list because of his relationship with Gamecocks coach Will Muschamp and defensive coordinator Travaris Robinson from when they recruited him to Auburn.

"I wouldn't be surprised if they gave me a call (if he's released)," Jackson told The State. "They (Auburn) don't want me in the SEC at all, not even the SEC East."

Jackson, who has not returned multiple messages from AL.com, told the State he is unsure where he'll go if his appeal is denied, but he'd consider a season of junior college or elsewhere in the ACC, Big 10 of Big XII.

"My question was: Why are they blocking Ohio State for no reason?" Jackson said. "They just put Ohio State on there for no reason. My question to them is why are they blocking me from a Big Ten school when they don't have anything to do with Big Ten schools? Why didn't they block me from Michigan or Indiana or any other Big Ten school? Why would they do that immediately?"

The State claims South Carolina could also be an option for Character, who has not spoken publicly on the matter and not returned multiple messages from AL.com."

Link

I have no problem with the blocks. Thoughts?

They can get around this easily by finishing what would be an Associates' at a juco in a semester or 2. Once they have a juco degree they can go anywhere they want.

[ellitor 33,080]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

I don't understand Ohio st but doubt Ohio st wants our rejected anyway.

They wanted Antuan badly.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I might be the only SEC fan who does, but I like Urban Meyer. I'd love to have him as Auburn's head coach.

[cole256 17,042]

4 hours ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Sounds like they are indeed looking to follow Muschamp and TWill.

"A former four-star prospect and top 50 recruit in 2016, Jackson in interested in transferring to South Carolina, which he said was "at the top" of his list because of his relationship with Gamecocks coach Will Muschamp and defensive coordinator Travaris Robinson from when they recruited him to Auburn.

"I wouldn't be surprised if they gave me a call (if he's released)," Jackson told The State. "They (Auburn) don't want me in the SEC at all, not even the SEC East."

Jackson, who has not returned multiple messages from AL.com, told the State he is unsure where he'll go if his appeal is denied, but he'd consider a season of junior college or elsewhere in the ACC, Big 10 of Big XII.

"My question was: Why are they blocking Ohio State for no reason?" Jackson said. "They just put Ohio State on there for no reason. My question to them is why are they blocking me from a Big Ten school when they don't have anything to do with Big Ten schools? Why didn't they block me from Michigan or Indiana or any other Big Ten school? Why would they do that immediately?"

The State claims South Carolina could also be an option for Character, who has not spoken publicly on the matter and not returned multiple messages from AL.com."

Link

I have no problem with the blocks. Thoughts?

This is why during the recruiting process you take your time and you don't let the outside influence you, when they start attacking your character because you don't sign with their school when they want you to, because at the end of the day nobody cares about you but you. 

[bigbird 60,460]

10 minutes ago, cole256 said:

This is why during the recruiting process you take your time and you don't let the outside influence you, when they start attacking your character because you don't sign with their school when they want you to, because at the end of the day nobody cares about you but you. 

Its also why you commit to a school and not a coach

[DAG 33,964]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

Its also why you commit to a school and not a coach

Right? Maybe actually finish your COMITTMENT, then you wouldn't have to worry about who you can and can't play with. I know, I know, personal accountability. Who cares about that?!

and yes I know the other side of the argument. "Well, coaches get to leave whenever they want". Maybe so, but you know the risk and benefits whenever you sign on the dotted line. Blame Muschamp for jetting away.

[ellitor 33,080]

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Right? Maybe actually finish your COMITTMENT, then you wouldn't have to worry about who you can and can't play. I know , I know , personal accountability . Who cares about that?!

and yes I know the other side of the argument . Well coached get to leave whenever they want . Maybe so, but you know the risk and benefits whenever you sign on the dotted line . Blame muschamp for jetting away.

[gr82be 14,422]

Once again these types of things are real life experiences that they are going to deal with sooner or later. I see no difference in blocking a player from going to another conference school than a no compete agreement that many employers have...you're free to leave but you can't go to work for one of our competitors. Plain and simple. They don't want you giving away confidential information. Auburn is 100% on target here. 

[Gowebb11 9,313]

22 minutes ago, gr82be said:

Once again these types of things are real life experiences that they are going to deal with sooner or later. I see no difference in blocking a player from going to another conference school than a no compete agreement that many employers have...you're free to leave but you can't go to work for one of our competitors. Plain and simple. They don't want you giving away confidential information. Auburn is 100% on target here. 

Yes, but they aren't employees. They are students. I look at this very differently than I used to. They should have the right to transfer to any school that will accept them and college football shouldn't override our freedoms as citizens. Losing a year of eligibility is sufficient restriction. 

[gr82be 14,422]

39 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Yes, but they aren't employees. They are students. I look at this very differently than I used to. They should have the right to transfer to any school that will accept them and college football shouldn't override our freedoms as citizens. Losing a year of eligibility is sufficient restriction. 

But they are being paid the cost of an education so yes, in a sense they are employees. 

[DAG 33,964]

55 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Yes, but they aren't employees. They are students. I look at this very differently than I used to. They should have the right to transfer to any school that will accept them and college football shouldn't override our freedoms as citizens. Losing a year of eligibility is sufficient restriction. 

they are student-ATHLETES.  Huge difference.  He also can transfer to any school he wants. He just has to go the JUCO route then he can transfer. Freedom as citizens? Really? Read the FINE PRINT of the binding contract that you sign. Even as a student, you couldn't sign off on a loan, then a year later, decide Well, I want to see my other options and expect no consequences. That is part of the problem.  Anyhow, he has an appeal scheduled. 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

 I agree with the schools making it harder to transfer out. These young men made a commitment to AU to play football for 4 years and get an education in the mean time. They should be encouraged to stick to their commitments. The harder it is to transfer out, the more inclined they will be to stay.

[Gowebb11 9,313]

14 minutes ago, DAG said:

they are student-ATHLETES.  Huge difference.  He also can transfer to any school he wants. He just has to go the JUCO route then he can transfer. Freedom as citizens? Really? Read the FINE PRINT of the binding contract that you sign. Even as a student, you couldn't sign off on a loan, then a year later, decide Well, I want to see my other options and expect no consequences. That is part of the problem.  Anyhow, he has an appeal scheduled. 

I'm not a lawyer and don't profess to know contract law. Have you seen the fine print of his binding contract, because I haven't. If the scholarship papers these kids sign clearly define the transfer rules and restrictions and he signed them, then restricting him is correct and legal. My guess is the restrictions aren't clearly defined or it would be an open and shut case and transfers never are. My premise is that as a student athlete, he has to lose a year of eligibility and I agree with that. Beyond that, I don't see how a coach can legally restrict his school choices. Once AU is not paying his bills, what dominion do they have over him?  As for your student loan analogy, that helps make my point. When you take a student loan, you sign a clearly defined legally binding contract stating the specific terms of repayment.  

[DAG 33,964]

28 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I'm not a lawyer and don't profess to know contract law. Have you seen the fine print of his binding contract, because I haven't. If the scholarship papers these kids sign clearly define the transfer rules and restrictions and he signed them, then restricting him is correct and legal. My guess is the restrictions aren't clearly defined or it would be an open and shut case and transfers never are. My premise is that as a student athlete, he has to lose a year of eligibility and I agree with that. Beyond that, I don't see how a coach can legally restrict his school choices. Once AU is not paying his bills, what dominion do they have over him?  As for your student loan analogy, that helps make my point. When you take a student loan, you sign a clearly defined legally binding contract stating the specific terms of repayment.  

You know you can do the exact same appeal that this kid is doing for a student loan, correct? There are plenty of people, who sign DEFINED legal documents and still make appeals. Do not know how on earth that helps make your point. AND he can transfer to USCe, he just will have to either walk on or go the JUCO route first.

[Gowebb11 9,313]

46 minutes ago, gr82be said:

But they are being paid the cost of an education so yes, in a sense they are employees. 

The employee thing is at the root of this issue. Some say they are and some say not. That's a legal issue way over my head. My son is on scholarship at an SEC school and we don't consider him an employee of that school. We know that while they are paying his tuition he has to play by their rules and fulfill his obligations. If they stop paying his way, they have no more say in his life's journey once he is not a student there. Likewise for our player, AU paid his education expenses for the year he was there and he was obligated to fulfill all requirements of his scholarship. Now they aren't paying his bills, so they have no say on if or where he goes to college.  That's my opinion. I understand it's not a popular one. I have no idea what scholarship contracts for student athletes look like so restricting his choice of schools may be perfectly legal. If that's the case, so be it. If it is not the case, it should be.  This transfer issue pops up every year at almost every school, which leads me to believe there needs to be better contracts. 

Either way, I hate that we lost a talented player. 

[DAG 33,964]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/bill-snyder-defends-blocking-transfer-from-35-schools-says-wr-failed-drug-tests/

Some of you guys would hate Bill Snyder.

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

2 hours ago, gr82be said:

Once again these types of things are real life experiences that they are going to deal with sooner or later. I see no difference in blocking a player from going to another conference school than a no compete agreement that many employers have...you're free to leave but you can't go to work for one of our competitors. Plain and simple. They don't want you giving away confidential information. Auburn is 100% on target here. 

While only a small corner of this overall discussion, ^this^ strategic objective is logically not met ...

2 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Yes, but they aren't employees. They are students. I look at this very differently than I used to. They should have the right to transfer to any school that will accept them and college football shouldn't override our freedoms as citizens. Losing a year of eligibility is sufficient restriction. 

...by ^this^ one.

[lutzcammed 469]

Bye!!!

[milehighfan 1,240]

On 6/1/2017 at 4:18 PM, ellitor said:

at least a year at the D1 level yes.

Thanks for the info, E.

[TAYLORKEETON 789]

Read where his appeal was denied. Serious question. Why will we not let him go wherever he wants? I get, you don't want the kid to go to a rival school in our conference, but if the kid wants to go there let him, IMO. Are we afraid that we'll play the team he goes to & he drastically has an impact on the outcome? Does anybody with any insight to these kind of things have an opinion?