Jump to content

Asa Martin (update transferring)


aubiefifty

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

can’t let go of the fact that in SEC football, a mom is contacting the coach about playing time instead of the player, especially in mid-season. That’s equally ridiculous

tumblr_mmlv3m0Gkz1r1fq7do5_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 826
  • Created
  • Last Reply
38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I don't think it is unusual at all for parents and coaches to have an open line of communication. Especially at Auburn. I think that's a huge part of our recruiting pitch, actually. And we don't know that Asa didn't talk to the staff first.

JMO...but if he had done so his momma would have told the media about...she has been plenty forthcoming about how she sees things....

.But...he was not playing and he has moved on with his life yet  some AU people won't let it go....why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO...but if he had done so his momma would have told the media about...she has been plenty forthcoming about how she sees things....

.But...he was not playing and he has moved on with his life yet  some AU people won't let it go....why is that?

I dunno. What's your reason for still talking about it?

My reason is that it's an ongoing conversation and there are obviously still some unexplored aspects to it, such as whether or not parents should communicating with coaches about these things. And, as always, there is a conversation to be had about how things are reported. For example, you are assuming that everything Martin's mom told reporters was published. There also seems to be an assumption that the reporters actually asked her if Asa had already gone to the coaches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And, as always, there is a conversation to be had about how things are reported. For example, you are assuming that everything Martin's mom told reporters was published. 

Good point. Given that Al.com likes to paint a negative picture about Auburn, who can be surprised if other particulars of the conversation was withheld?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I dunno. What's your reason for still talking about it?

My reason is that it's an ongoing conversation and there are obviously still some unexplored aspects to it, such as whether or not parents should communicating with coaches about these things. And, as always, there is a conversation to be had about how things are reported. For example, you are assuming that everything Martin's mom told reporters was published. There also seems to be an assumption that the reporters actually asked her if Asa had already gone to the coaches. 

My reason...?  It's still a topic of conversation here and I don't like the direction most comments take....so I respond.

Otherwise, I think my assumption is pretty good....considering the source of the article, if there was anyway to make AU look bad in the process, the writer would have probably done so.     For example, if mom had talked with Gus, you can bet your boots that the writer would have said that and not just "an Auburn coach".     

You raise a good point about "parental communication" ... I thought that ended in middle school but obviously I'm wrong about that.  This is my own view, but at age 20 or so, I would not want my mother engaged in my business but who knows?   Either way, with Asa going to Miami, which is about as far away from Auburn as you can get and still be in the eastern half of the US, I thinking his mother will be less involved.

Just from some cases I've observed over the years it seems that parents probably do more harm than good when they get involved with coaches on behalf of a child. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my understanding of the current transfer rules, I don't see that either Fields or Martin have a valid basis for waiving the requirement to sit out a year.  An isolated racist comment or incompetence in implementation of the new redshirt rule don't have anything to do with player hardship or a family situation that warrants waiving the sit-out requirement.  Fields (and other minority players) might have a case if he could provide evidence that racism was a prevalent part of the culture at UGA and that he was being mistreated as a result of that.    

Both of these cases seem to be more an issue of sour grapes that things didn't unfold the way the respective players wanted them to. 

 

It's a different debate as to whether the  rules for transfer should be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

My reason...?  It's still a topic of conversation here and I don't like the direction most comments take....so I respond.

So then you've answered your own question. 

Quote

Otherwise, I think my assumption is pretty good....considering the source of the article, if there was anyway to make AU look bad in the process, the writer would have probably done so.     For example, if mom had talked with Gus, you can bet your boots that the writer would have said that and not just "an Auburn coach".     

The mom said very specifically that she did not want to name the coach currently on staff. Did you read her quotes? Your assumption is specious. 

Quote

You raise a good point about "parental communication" ... I thought that ended in middle school but obviously I'm wrong about that.  This is my own view, but at age 20 or so, I would not want my mother engaged in my business but who knows?  

A lot of parents continue to advocate on their children's behalf throughout their college careers and even beyond and that is a good thing at least as often as it is bad. Remember that these players are navigating both school and football and they are being pulled in a lot of different directions by a lot of self-interested adults who have decades of experience in getting kids to do what they, the adults, want them to do and not necessarily what is in the kid's best interest. Add to that that they spent a significant amount of their high school experience in weight rooms and at practice and on road trips and at camps. They don't have time to have the normal high school experience and they are in fact often shepherded through all of it as their advocates- family, coaches and high school faculty- try to give them their best possible chance at success at the college level. 

Quote

Just from some cases I've observed over the years it seems that parents probably do more harm than good when they get involved with coaches on behalf of a child. JMO.

How many cases is that?

You consistently find ways to displace blame from the coaches onto the players. (And their families, evidently.) This is no exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

 

You consistently find ways to displace blame from the coaches onto the players. (And their families, evidently.) This is no exception. 

Could be.....but that's the way I see it....and some folks (perhaps including you) see the coaches as always in the wrong and are quick to assume the worst about them. 

My experience is that parents will defend their kids no matter what.  I'm a parent so I understand.....but that also make me just not accept what a parent or student says at face value....especially when it comes to shifting blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Both of these cases seem to be more an issue of sour grapes that things didn't unfold the way the respective players wanted them to. 

 Nailed it.

In both cases, these players are better off because they didn't redshirt. They got to see some actual competition before they redshirt next year. NCAA rules give every new player five years to play four. These guys will have three years to play three after they sit out their transfer year and that would have been the case regardless.

Example: 

What actually happened: A. Martin played last year, sits out his transfer year and has three years to play three at Miami.

Had he redshirted: A. Martin redshirts last year, sits out his transfer year and has three years to play three at Miami.

The only difference is he got some more playing time under his belt. Remember, even after this situation came to light, Martin was given 10 carries for 44 yards against Liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Could be.....but that's the way I see it....and some folks (perhaps including you) see the coaches as always in the wrong and are quick to assume the worst about them. 

You and a couple others keep saying this while ignoring the praise that you claim "we" never offer. Pretty sure you've even acknowledged posts of mine in just the last couple days in which I did the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And if you're going to get it wrong about me, you're probably wrong about others, too. 

Quote

My experience is that parents will defend their kids no matter what.  I'm a parent so I understand.....but that also make me just not accept what a parent or student says at face value....especially when it comes to shifting blame.

But you'll gladly accept what the coaches say at face value, because college football coaches are so notorious for their honesty and integrity. Not that Gus even specifically denied Asa's family's version of what happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Both of these cases seem to be more an issue of sour grapes that things didn't unfold the way the respective players wanted them to. 

They might as well try to preserve a year of eligibility. Not necessarily sour grapes. Especially in Martin's case. Even in Gus's vague non-denial, he admitted that the staff made a mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

They might as well try to preserve a year of eligibility. Not necessarily sour grapes. Especially in Martin's case. Even in Gus's vague non-denial, he admitted that the staff made a mistake. 

He only preserves a year of eligibility if he stays at Auburn, which was unlikely given that he was running 5th string. Since he transferred, he didn't lose anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the NCAA allows BOTH of these guys to play immediately, screw any precedent it sets for future athletes.  There are too many rules, and restrictions as it is - let the kids PLAY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, keesler said:

I hope the NCAA allows BOTH of these guys to play immediately, screw any precedent it sets for future athletes.  There are too many rules, and restrictions as it is - let the kids PLAY!

Apparently you like "Damn the consequences" moves. Granting waivers because someone is unhappy about their position on the team opens Pandora's box. As noted above, it would be the death-knell for weaker teams, as every time they get a good player some top-ten outfit will pirate him away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Apparently you like "Damn the consequences" moves. Granting waivers because someone is unhappy about their position on the team opens Pandora's box. As noted above, it would be the death-knell for weaker teams, as every time they get a good player some top-ten outfit will pirate him away.

Why do you assume that a player who is getting quality reps and putting up numbers at a smaller program is going to transfer to a different situation that might not give him the same chance at success? 

Why do you assume that blue blood programs are going to mine lesser programs for talent when they have their pick of blue chip high school guys with full eligibility remaining? 

Does the reality of coaches like Gus already doing this all the time bother you as much as the possibility of players also doing it on occasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Apparently you like "Damn the consequences" moves. Granting waivers because someone is unhappy about their position on the team opens Pandora's box. As noted above, it would be the death-knell for weaker teams, as every time they get a good player some top-ten outfit will pirate him away.

Gus' annual scavenger hunt in the Juco/GT ranks has done nothing but help Auburn.  He's always looking for a band-aid type player to plug a hole on his own roster. 

So yes, Damn the Consequences if it makes the pirating easier for our crew to fill AU's needs faster.  Auburn is a top 15 outfit, they pull top 10 ranked talent consistently and yet fail to finish in the top 10 at the end of the season more times than not lately. 

I'm all for an easier path to immediate talent if it's there for the plucking.  College football (specifically SEC) is cut throat - I'm ready for Auburn to wield their blade.🗡️

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

They might as well try to preserve a year of eligibility. Not necessarily sour grapes. Especially in Martin's case. Even in Gus's vague non-denial, he admitted that the staff made a mistake. 

I agree that staff made a mistake, and it's hard to fathom how such a mistake could be made at a top-flight collegiate football program.  Nevertheless, I don't see that Asa has much of a case to justify having his post-transfer sit-out year waived..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, triangletiger said:

I agree that staff made a mistake, and it's hard to fathom how such a mistake could be made at a top-flight collegiate football program.  Nevertheless, I don't see that Asa has much of a case to justify having his post-transfer sit-out year waived..  

I'm not sure that he has much of a case, either, but he might as well give it a shot if there's major benefit to it. If I'm not mistaken, it's not anything that would penalize Auburn so I doubt it's sour grapes or any other emotional reason. (Not that he doesn't have negative emotions about the way he was used.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the transfer rule.  I think if the sit-out rule were eliminated, college football would probably look a lot more like college basketball on a much bigger scale.  It would be pretty dizzying to try to keep up with what a team is going to look like from year to year.  It seems that high school players in basketball tend to be more ready to play at the college level than in football (at least at some positions in football like OL and QB), so it would be interesting to so how it would unfold.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm not sure that he has much of a case, either, but he might as well give it a shot if there's major benefit to it. If I'm not mistaken, it's not anything that would penalize Auburn so I doubt it's sour grapes or any other emotional reason. (Not that he doesn't have negative emotions about the way he was used.)

The sour grapes is related to why he's transferring, not why he's applying for waiver of having to sit out.  Agree that there's no harm in him trying to get it waived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Apparently you like "Damn the consequences" moves. Granting waivers because someone is unhappy about their position on the team opens Pandora's box. As noted above, it would be the death-knell for weaker teams, as every time they get a good player some top-ten outfit will pirate him away.

I agree, it would be terrible to let good players on bad teams improve their draft stock.  Oh wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, triangletiger said:

The sour grapes is related to why he's transferring, not why he's applying for waiver of having to sit out.  Agree that there's no harm in him trying to get it waived.

I'm sure there are sour grapes, and for good reason. But I personally don't think that's the driving force behind his transfer. Dude came in with meaningful NFL potential and he's still trying to save his career. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keesler said:

Gus' annual scavenger hunt in the Juco/GT ranks has done nothing but help Auburn.  He's always looking for a band-aid type player to plug a hole on his own roster. 

So yes, Damn the Consequences if it makes the pirating easier for our crew to fill AU's needs faster.  Auburn is a top 15 outfit, they pull top 10 ranked talent consistently and yet fail to finish in the top 10 at the end of the season more times than not lately. 

I'm all for an easier path to immediate talent if it's there for the plucking.  College football (specifically SEC) is cut throat - I'm ready for Auburn to wield their blade.🗡️

 

 

How are the coaches supposed to recruit other players when they’re too  busy recruiting all of their own? Your ideals are so idealistic that HS’s wouldn’t even consider them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Freak said:

I agree, it would be terrible to let good players on bad teams improve their draft stock.  Oh wait...

I hope I never see you complaining about parity in CFB. That will be all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...