• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

McDowell back in the portal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably gonna be an unpopular opinion, but I would be excited to see him back in Missoula. I've heard the story about him asking to come back and BH saying "no". I think sometimes it can be a good thing to welcome somebody back, especially in light of the comments re: him getting bad advice, etc. We're not discussing a backup punter here. What has it been? Three months? Just act like he never left. 🤷‍♂️
Agreed, I loved what he showed us last season, and would whole-heartedly welcome him back.

It's too bad that Bobby would never let that happen, though, but I also 100% see where coach Hauck is coming from in that regard.
 
Probably gonna be an unpopular opinion, but I would be excited to see him back in Missoula. I've heard the story about him asking to come back and BH saying "no". I think sometimes it can be a good thing to welcome somebody back, especially in light of the comments re: him getting bad advice, etc. We're not discussing a backup punter here. What has it been? Three months? Just act like he never left. 🤷‍♂️
I agree...UNPOPULAR!
I don't think 'welcoming him back,' three months after he 'boinked' your sister, is appropriate here, regardless of the 'bad advice' he got. 'Act like he never left'? NO!
 
Probably gonna be an unpopular opinion, but I would be excited to see him back in Missoula. I've heard the story about him asking to come back and BH saying "no". I think sometimes it can be a good thing to welcome somebody back, especially in light of the comments re: him getting bad advice, etc. We're not discussing a backup punter here. What has it been? Three months? Just act like he never left. 🤷‍♂️
Sure, and give him the #37 too
 
I agree...UNPOPULAR!
I don't think 'welcoming him back,' three months after he 'boinked' your sister, is appropriate here, regardless of the 'bad advice' he got. 'Act like he never left'? NO!
I get the mindset that players have to be 1000% committed to the program, blah, blah. But then, we always talk about how the CFB landscape has changed, etc. Maybe it's time to try to stop acting like it's 25 years ago and actually doing what coaches always talk about: Putting the best team on the field they can in any given year. You can have 60 super committed guys from rural Montana, but you can't grit and hard-nose your way to a championship without talent at QB. Sit him on the bench for all I care, but I think it would be kind of dumb NOT to want an additional capable QB on the roster.

We loved him when he transferred here the first time . . .
 
Seems like it took the Temple fans and media by surprise. The talk was that he was in competition with the Rutgers drop down, and a lot of their fans sound like they were excited about him.

There also seemed to be surprise in the reporting out of Temple that he wasn't on the field Saturday. It sounds pretty sudden, and not due to being told he would be competing for the job.

As for the talk about bringing him back, I'm all for it. Bring in all the talent you can, and make the decisions about how to put the best product on the field. The hard part is that we probably don't have a scholarship open for him, so I assume it would be a non-starter.
 
One-time transfer rule is not in effect now, due to the December lawsuit (Battle et al).

"Under current NCAA rules, an athlete is permitted to transfer once without the penalty, allowing them to play immediately at their new school. Those transferring more than once need a waiver to play immediately.

That policy is at the center of a lawsuit brought by seven state attorney generals against the NCAA. During a hearing in West Virginia on Dec. 13, a judge ruled against the NCAA, granting plaintiffs a 14-day restraining order that lifted the association’s transfer rules and made it possible for athletes who are transferring a second time or more to play immediately without waivers.

Two days after the ruling, the NCAA agreed to extend the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that allows multi-time transfers to play immediately through the end of this academic year, which normally concludes in June.

At first thought to impact only winter and spring athletes this academic year, the guidance from the NCAA now includes fall athletes who transfer during this academic year. For instance, football players who are transferring for a second time and enter the portal this fall are eligible to compete immediately at their new school in fall 2024.

Schools in two separate conferences received clarity from the NCAA on Friday on the matter, they tell Yahoo Sports.

Yahoo Sports obtained the guidance sent to member schools in question-and-answer form. Bylaw 14.5.5.1, referenced in the Q&A, is the bylaw that requires an athlete transferring for a second time or more to sit a year before being eligible at his or her new school.

Question No. 3: Does the preliminary injunction enjoin the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 14.5.5.1, as it relates to an undergraduate fall-sport student-athlete who transfers midyear (spring 2024), seeking confirmation of the student-athlete’s participation opportunity for the fall 2024 season?

Answer: It is not certain at this time whether the preliminary injunction will remain in effect during the 2024-25 season; however, as long as the undergraduate student-athlete transfers to another Division I institution during the 2023-24 academic year, the student-athlete will not be subject to Bylaw 14.5.5.1 during the 2024-25 academic year. The student-athlete would still be subject to any academic eligibility standards required for competition that may be developed or modified for the 2024-25 academic year.”

 
One-time transfer rule is not in effect now, due to the December lawsuit (Battle et al).

"Under current NCAA rules, an athlete is permitted to transfer once without the penalty, allowing them to play immediately at their new school. Those transferring more than once need a waiver to play immediately.

That policy is at the center of a lawsuit brought by seven state attorney generals against the NCAA. During a hearing in West Virginia on Dec. 13, a judge ruled against the NCAA, granting plaintiffs a 14-day restraining order that lifted the association’s transfer rules and made it possible for athletes who are transferring a second time or more to play immediately without waivers.

Two days after the ruling, the NCAA agreed to extend the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that allows multi-time transfers to play immediately through the end of this academic year, which normally concludes in June.

At first thought to impact only winter and spring athletes this academic year, the guidance from the NCAA now includes fall athletes who transfer during this academic year. For instance, football players who are transferring for a second time and enter the portal this fall are eligible to compete immediately at their new school in fall 2024.

Schools in two separate conferences received clarity from the NCAA on Friday on the matter, they tell Yahoo Sports.

Yahoo Sports obtained the guidance sent to member schools in question-and-answer form. Bylaw 14.5.5.1, referenced in the Q&A, is the bylaw that requires an athlete transferring for a second time or more to sit a year before being eligible at his or her new school.

Question No. 3: Does the preliminary injunction enjoin the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 14.5.5.1, as it relates to an undergraduate fall-sport student-athlete who transfers midyear (spring 2024), seeking confirmation of the student-athlete’s participation opportunity for the fall 2024 season?

Answer: It is not certain at this time whether the preliminary injunction will remain in effect during the 2024-25 season; however, as long as the undergraduate student-athlete transfers to another Division I institution during the 2023-24 academic year, the student-athlete will not be subject to Bylaw 14.5.5.1 during the 2024-25 academic year. The student-athlete would still be subject to any academic eligibility standards required for competition that may be developed or modified for the 2024-25 academic year.”

Hasn't the NCAA just suspended their transfer eligibility rules entirely at this point?

 
Sure, and give him the #37 too
If he was South Dakota State's QB last season and wanted to transfer to UM this season, would you be against it because it would show you that he has "commitment issues"? Personally, I would never turn down a QB who led us to a NC appearance. That's just me, though.

All I'm trying to say is that we bitch about there being no "commitment" anymore, accept that as fact, and then shun people who have adapted to the current landscape when we haven't. That's no way to advance a program in my view.

We have to think differently. Would an NFL team shun a successful QB who signed elsewhere when his contract was up, but then wanted to get traded back? No. That would be bad business. Get the best team you can.
 
If he was South Dakota State's QB last season and wanted to transfer to UM this season, would you be against it because it would show you that he has "commitment issues"? Personally, I would never turn down a QB who led us to a NC appearance. That's just me, though.

All I'm trying to say is that we bitch about there being no "commitment" anymore, accept that as fact, and then shun people who have adapted to the current landscape when we haven't. That's no way to advance a program in my view.

We have to think differently. Would an NFL team shun a successful QB who signed elsewhere when his contract was up, but then wanted to get traded back? No. That would be bad business. Get the best team you can.
I don't think using the NFL as analogy will go over well with most of the people complaining about Clifton, just a hunch lol
 
I don't think using the NFL as analogy will go over well with most of the people complaining about Clifton, just a hunch lol
Probably right, lol. Sorry for the rants, but I honestly feel like there is opportunity in the CFB chaos right now. Saying that it's too different, etc. instead of doing something about it is simple failure to adapt in my opinion. It's like refusing to wear a jacket when it's freezing today because it was 70 degrees and sunny yesterday.
 
If he was South Dakota State's QB last season and wanted to transfer to UM this season, would you be against it because it would show you that he has "commitment issues"? Personally, I would never turn down a QB who led us to a NC appearance. That's just me, though.

All I'm trying to say is that we bitch about there being no "commitment" anymore, accept that as fact, and then shun people who have adapted to the current landscape when we haven't. That's no way to advance a program in my view.

We have to think differently. Would an NFL team shun a successful QB who signed elsewhere when his contract was up, but then wanted to get traded back? No. That would be bad business. Get the best team you can.
He hasn't made a commitment to any of the 4 schools he has already attended.
He knew what was at UM and decided to leave anyhow.
 
Probably right, lol. Sorry for the rants, but I honestly feel like there is opportunity in the CFB chaos right now. Saying that it's too different, etc. instead of doing something about it is simple failure to adapt in my opinion. It's like refusing to wear a jacket when it's freezing today because it was 70 degrees and sunny yesterday.
Nah, don't be sorry for the rants. Its a reasonable point, and one that many people need to hear. We can all be in our bubble and pretend that Missoula gets all the best talent all the time, but its just not true. He is a QB that has shown he can start at the FCS playoff level and win games. Unless there is some massive issue in the locker room with him that we don't know about, I think you are entirely right that you put the best on the field.

It is also really easy to complain about kids not being committed enough, while the truth is that if the kid wasn't performing, they would eventually lose their scholarship and be told they should seek other opportunities. So "commitment" really isn't fair to ask of the kids when Universities have them on one year deals.
 
He hasn't made a commitment to any of the 4 schools he has already attended.
He knew what was at UM and decided to leave anyhow.
Ok. Well, if I may, he seemed pretty damned committed last season when he led us to our first NC appearance in over a decade. I wouldn't mind seeing that again. Our schools don't commit to a player for more than one year, so why do we expect the player to go above that? It would be great if we had 100 players who bled maroon, but it's not reality. I'm all for having Montana 'Til I Die guys on the team, but when it comes to QB, I don't care if he's just using our program as a platform as long as we win.
 
No pity here. Yes, it's unfortunate that Clifton chose to leave UM Football. Allowing players to jump in and out of the portal is nonsense.

You lose a starter two months before spring practice, you get a replacement and move on. You don't welcome that lack of commitment into your team culture and you sure don't start making concessions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top