Jump to content

Asa Martin (update transferring)


aubiefifty

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Linayus said:

Or next year's RB class could surpass him too. You and I don't know that. The coaches don't know that. He doesn't know that. If HE thinks the current RB grouping for next year will continue to play ahead of him, he's making the right choice to move on now. He can still find somewhere to play for 3 years. How many RBs these days actually play more than 2-3 years at the college level anyway?

True.  All sorts of things are possible.  And perhaps, he lacks confidence he will compete.  But that's speculation.

But I am referring to the fact he burned a year of eligibility this year for no good reason.  And that's on the Auburn coaching staff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 826
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, homersapien said:

True.  All sorts of things are possible.  And perhaps, he lacks confidence he will compete.  But that's speculation.

But I am referring to the fact he burned a year of eligibility this year for no good reason.  And that's on the Auburn coaching staff.

 

On that, we both agree. It was a horrible oversight and just made worse by not coming out and apologizing for telling them he'd be red shirted and then committing this blunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I think I have seen a player upset because he got more playing time. Redshirts do not mean much of anything now days. Any players worth much is only at a school 3 years anyway.  I believe he was transferring no matter what, especially if he has received less playing time and redshirted. We have done him a favor by not burning his redshirt. He can now transfer and sit out without losing a year of eligibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 80Tiger said:

First time I think I have seen a player upset because he got more playing time. Redshirts do not mean much of anything now days. Any players worth much is only at a school 3 years anyway.  I believe he was transferring no matter what, especially if he has received less playing time and redshirted. We have done him a favor by not burning his redshirt. He can now transfer and sit out without losing a year of eligibility.

I'm sorry, but how have you completely missed what actually happened?

We did burn his redshirt and now he lost an entire year of eligibility because he literally played one more snap than was allowed. He didn't "get more playing time". He wasn't used at all. That's the whole point. They "redshirted" him except they didn't even know that he was already over the limit. We did him the exact opposite of a favor. We literally cost this dude a year of his football career without using him in any meaningful way and without furthering his development, all out of sheer incompetence and stupidity. 

Unless, of course, the staff ever care to address it and offer a different version of the story. 

Edit: @80Tiger, I owe you an apology. I went in too hard here and didn't even have my ducks completely in a row. I'm sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm sorry, but how have you completely missed what actually happened?

We did burn his redshirt and now he lost an entire year of eligibility because he literally played one more snap than was allowed. He didn't "get more playing time". He wasn't used at all. That's the whole point. They "redshirted" him except they didn't even know that he was already over the limit. We did him the exact opposite of a favor. We literally cost this dude a year of his football career without using him in any meaningful way and without furthering his development, all out of sheer incompetence and stupidity. 

Unless, of course, the staff ever care to address it and offer a different version of the story. 

I think he meant that it would not have mattered whether he redshirted or not if he is transferring. He has 4 to play 3 now. Same if he redshirted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

 

Unless, of course, the staff ever care to address it and offer a different version of the story. 

I kinda picture Gus setting in waffle house reading the Sunday paper and reading the headline "redshirt wasted"

 

and

 

thinking to himself well ain't this some ####.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lutzcammed said:

I kinda picture Gus setting in waffle house reading the Sunday paper and reading the headline "redshirt wasted"

 

and

 

thinking to himself well ain't this some ####.

and get's flagged 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alexava said:

I think he meant that it would not have mattered whether he redshirted or not if he is transferring. He has 4 to play 3 now. Same if he redshirted. 

He said we did Martin "a favor by not burning his redshirt". Under no circumstances whatsoever did we do Martin any favors because we most certainly burned his redshirt. And in this case, we might as well have literally burned it, because we did not use it for anything meaningful of productive whatsoever. 

As for the transfer rule, I don't believe you're correct. Had he actually redshirted this season, then he would have had 4 to play 4. Now he's got 4 to play 3. We stole a year of this kid's college career and flushed it down the toilet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lutzcammed said:

I kinda picture Gus setting in waffle house reading the Sunday paper and reading the headline "redshirt wasted"

and

thinking to himself well ain't this some ####.

"Oh well. We'll let Chip jump on one more grenade."

*shovels some hashbrowns into his face*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

He said we did Martin "a favor by not burning his redshirt". Under no circumstances whatsoever did we do Martin any favors because we most certainly burned his redshirt. And in this case, we might as well have literally burned it, because we did not use it for anything meaningful of productive whatsoever. 

As for the transfer rule, I don't believe you're correct. Had he actually redshirted this season, then he would have had 4 to play 4. Now he's got 4 to play 3. We stole a year of this kid's college career and flushed it down the toilet. 

Don’t think this is correct unless the following is incorrect:

For example: Let's say a sophomore wide receiver who played as a true freshman is not pleased with his playing time in Year 2. Taking advantage of the new rule, he could choose to transfer after four games and preserve his second season of eligibility. In addition to sitting out the remaining games that season, he must take a year-in-residence the following season, meaning he will not be able to use his second year of eligibility until his fourth year of college by the time he is cleared. The following season, he will use his third year of eligibility in his fifth and final year, meaning his clock will run out before he can use the year of eligibility he preserved by leaving his school after four games in Year 2. And all of this is assuming the player never gets injured at his new school and is forced to take a medical redshirt.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/new-redshirt-rule-has-its-complications-including-a-potential-consequence-for-undergraduates/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

He said we did Martin "a favor by not burning his redshirt". Under no circumstances whatsoever did we do Martin any favors because we most certainly burned his redshirt. And in this case, we might as well have literally burned it, because we did not use it for anything meaningful of productive whatsoever. 

As for the transfer rule, I don't believe you're correct. Had he actually redshirted this season, then he would have had 4 to play 4. Now he's got 4 to play 3. We stole a year of this kid's college career and flushed it down the toilet. 

No. If he transfers he has to sit a year. Making it 3 to play 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard recently that his redshirt blunder isn’t as bad as it sounds. Supposedly one of the games in question he was only put in for 1 special teams play and that play resulted in a dead ball penalty. Coaches pulled him immediately and thought it didn’t count against him because the play never started but the NCAA counted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

He said we did Martin "a favor by not burning his redshirt". Under no circumstances whatsoever did we do Martin any favors because we most certainly burned his redshirt. And in this case, we might as well have literally burned it, because we did not use it for anything meaningful of productive whatsoever. 

As for the transfer rule, I don't believe you're correct. Had he actually redshirted this season, then he would have had 4 to play 4. Now he's got 4 to play 3. We stole a year of this kid's college career and flushed it down the toilet. 

Look, to be technically correct, they did not burn his redshirt, they wasted one year of eligibility (his freshman year). He can still take/use his redshirt this season when he has to sit out a year anyways in transfer rule. Then he has 3 years left to play (I.e. 4 to play 3).  Works out the exact same for him if he was transferring due to his spot way down on the depth chart rather than if he was actually redshirted this year.  If he had redshirted, he would also have 4 to play 3.  At least that is my take and what I think 80tiger was saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SphyNxXx said:

I heard recently that his redshirt blunder isn’t as bad as it sounds. Supposedly one of the games in question he was only put in for 1 special teams play and that play resulted in a dead ball penalty. Coaches pulled him immediately and thought it didn’t count against him because the play never started but the NCAA counted it.

Only problem is that, according to his mom, they still claimed they were redshirting him even after she pointed it out to them and then just never acknowledged the blunder. And it's scary that the kid's mom knew this and they didn't. And it sucks that they would be so careless as to use a kid who they were even considering a redshirt on for one play... this play:

Quote

During that 34-3 win against Arkansas on Sept. 22, Martin took the field late in the first half after the Tigers took over at the Razorbacks' 9-yard line with 3:08 to go following a partially blocked punt by Jordyn Peters. On first down, Auburn went shotgun with a split backfield -- Boobee Whitlow lined up to the right of Jarrett Stidham and Martin to the left. Martin then motioned out to the right, but before Auburn could snap the ball, a delay of game was called.

The penalty backed Auburn up 5 yards, and on the ensuing first-down play, Martin was back on the sideline and did not see the field for the remainder of the game.

The next and last time he saw the field was the Liberty game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, alexava said:

No. If he transfers he has to sit a year. Making it 3 to play 4. 

 

5 minutes ago, jw 4 au said:

Look, to be technically correct, they did not burn his redshirt, they wasted one year of eligibility (his freshman year). He can still take/use his redshirt this season when he has to sit out a year anyways in transfer rule. Then he has 3 years left to play (I.e. 4 to play 3).  Works out the exact same for him if he was transferring due to his spot way down on the depth chart rather than if he was actually redshirted this year.  If he had redshirted, he would also have 4 to play 3.  At least that is my take and what I think 80tiger was saying.  

I stand corrected on the rule, but it's still ridiculous to say that we did this guy any favors. You're right, we wasted a year of his eligibility. Instead of playing 4 quality seasons, he's going to hopefully play 3 and whatever you want to call this bad joke we'll be wrapping up soon. Also, we kept him from making an informed decision 2 months ago like NCM and Harris did. Those guys have had their name in a database since September, if I'm not mistaken. Harris already has a top 5. Martin's just getting started. Might not make a huge difference but, again, it doesn't matter because it shouldn't have happened this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I'm sorry, but how have you completely missed what actually happened?

We did burn his redshirt and now he lost an entire year of eligibility because he literally played one more snap than was allowed. He didn't "get more playing time". He wasn't used at all. That's the whole point. They "redshirted" him except they didn't even know that he was already over the limit. We did him the exact opposite of a favor. We literally cost this dude a year of his football career without using him in any meaningful way and without furthering his development, all out of sheer incompetence and stupidity. 

Unless, of course, the staff ever care to address it and offer a different version of the story. 

I am completely aware of what happened. And figured you would respond since you are one of the ones that has all knowledge concerning what goes on at AU. By the fact that he played in 5 games instead of 4 games means he played more; so he got more playing time.  Do you really think he was staying if he was redshirted? I don't, he was not satisfied with his playing time and the talent that was in front of him. By not redshirting him, he can now transfer without losing any more eligibility. He will sit out a year as a redshirt. He will still have 3 years remaining after he transfers. Guess what, that is the exact amount of time he would have left he had stayed. He hasn't lost anything except the opportunity to play college football for five years. If he was here for 5 years do you really think he would have been a contributor in year 5?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 80Tiger said:

By the fact that he played in 5 games instead of 4 games means he played more; so he got more playing time. 

No, one play that was blown dead before it even completed does not qualify as more playing time. I did make a mistake, though. After the coaches knew they'd screwed up, they gave him 10 carries against Liberty. Not a single other rep in a single other game. He would have been better off redshirting and initiating the transfer process months ago.

Quote

Do you really think he was staying if he was redshirted?

It's entirely possible. At least he might have had faith that our staff had a clue.

Quote

By not redshirting him, he can now transfer without losing any more eligibility. He will sit out a year as a redshirt. He will still have 3 years remaining after he transfers.

So, as I was corrected, he has 4 to play 3 no matter what. This might have been net neutral in terms of eligibility, but they did not help him whatsoever.

Quote

If he was here for 5 years do you really think he would have been a contributor in year 5?

Yes, I think he would have been a contributor and quite possibly the best RB on the team. He was one of the gems of his recruiting class and I don't believe his lack of playing time here to be a talent issue. Gus's doghouse is spacious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, jw 4 au said:

Look, to be technically correct, they did not burn his redshirt, they wasted one year of eligibility (his freshman year). He can still take/use his redshirt this season when he has to sit out a year anyways in transfer rule. Then he has 3 years left to play (I.e. 4 to play 3).  Works out the exact same for him if he was transferring due to his spot way down on the depth chart rather than if he was actually redshirted this year.  If he had redshirted, he would also have 4 to play 3.  At least that is my take and what I think 80tiger was saying.  

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... but what I am understanding you to say is not correct.
 

There is no such thing as a REDSHIRT.  It's a term used in the media.  What it means is a year you are not playing.

You always and only have 5 years to play 4.  (of course unless you get a time clock extension which has been given out a bit more lately than in years past).

In ASA's case. 

This year he played 5 games... so 1 of his 4 Play years is gone and 1 of his 5 Time clock years is gone.  Currently,  as it stand he has 4 Year left to play 3.  Now, if he transfer he has to sit a year in residence taking a year off his time clock... at the end of that year he will have 3 years left to play 3.

Also, there is no such thing as a medical redshirt.  It's called a Medical Waiver that would give you a year back on the "Play" side.  You still would only have 5 years time clock, so if you had previously sat a year out you'd need to get a extension on your 5 year clock too.  In recent years the NCAA has been much better at granting that "6th" year IF you lost 2 year to injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article said Broussard was eligible to join another FBS team in January after he completes his one semester of Juco. Notice that he didn’t wait until after the fourth game to transfer. I guess he transferred in time in the fall to have one (fall) juco semester under his belt.

Maybe disgruntled upperclassmen athletes should transfer to juco sooner than tbe fourth game if it isn’t going to work out... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The article said Broussard was eligible to join another FBS team in January after he completes his one semester of Juco. Notice that he didn’t wait until after the fourth game to transfer. I guess he transferred in time in the fall to have one (fall) juco semester under his belt. 

I guess theoretically Asa could get himself eligible next fall semester. Maybe disgruntled athletes should transfer to juco sooner than tbe fourth game if it isn’t going to work out... 

I don't believe that would work for most FR as they are bound to the NLI they sign for a full academic year... unless the school is willing to release them from the NLI.

Which will be interesting in ASA's case.  Technically, he has to finish out the academic year and wouldn't be able to transfer until Summer if Auburn doesn't release him from the NLI he signed.  

Also, I think it maybe a bit difficult for a FR to carry enough credits forward to be able to actually graduate JC in one quarter... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bathel said:

I don't believe that would work for most FR as they are bound to the NLI they sign for a full academic year... unless the school is willing to release them from the NLI.

Which will be interesting in ASA's case.  Technically, he has to finish out the academic year and wouldn't be able to transfer until Summer if Auburn doesn't release him from the NLI he signed.  

Yeah, I figured out it would be more tricky for Asa. I remembered reading he would also need an associates degree if wanted to go 4-2-4 route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

Yeah, I figured out it would be more tricky for Asa. I remembered reading he would also need an associates degree if wanted to go 4-2-4 route. 

In ASA's case, even if he could graduate JC... he'd be require to sit one calendar year.... so he still wouldn't qualify next year.

4-2-4 transfer rules:

 

4-2-4 transfers in Division I must meet the following academic requirements to be eligible to compete immediately after transferring to the second four-year school:

  • Complete an average of 12 hours of transferable degree credit per term of full-time attendance at the junior college;
  • Earn at least a 2.000 GPA in those transferable courses;
  • Have at least one calendar year elapse since leaving the original four-year school; and
  • Graduate from the junior college.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bathel said:

In ASA's case, even if he could graduate JC... he'd be require to sit one calendar year.... so he still wouldn't qualify next year.

4-2-4 transfer rules:

 

4-2-4 transfers in Division I must meet the following academic requirements to be eligible to compete immediately after transferring to the second four-year school:

  • Complete an average of 12 hours of transferable degree credit per term of full-time attendance at the junior college;
  • Earn at least a 2.000 GPA in those transferable courses;
  • Have at least one calendar year elapse since leaving the original four-year school; and
  • Graduate from the junior college.

Right.

So, among other requirements, a calendar year has to pass from Broussard’s departure date at Auburn before he is eligible to play. Certainly not an easy fix for an upper classman, but not as bad as the one year in residence rule. If Broussard left in September, theoretically he’d be eligible next September. 

I don’t remember seeing CC’s on our former TE’s top five list. Hope he knows what he’s doing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...