Do not understand
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
Agreed. But the other way around is the loophole. If the athlete makes contact, they can talk to you, let you visit, even offer you.
Then we agree to disagree. We are taking different deductive paths. I believe Vassar's silence is bound by the terms of an NU scholarship and he is smart enough to not risk it. I also think that if we can land Moore, Barry or another 2016, then something will change. The source of that scholarship may lend more circumstantial evidence to the position advanced by you or me. So, let's root for Moore or Barry committing.
btw, as further evidence, an anecdote (edited for Jersey) . I returned to NU in the mid-2000's to obtain another undergrad degree and became buddies with another FB player in my program. That is how I started on this board. When this LB opted to leave the program before Spring practice, he was on financial aid after that quarter and ultimately dropped out of school. His roommate was expected to be the starting LT for Fitz before melting down at Kenosha. (I always believed the LB's lifestyle was the main influence leading to this demise.) His money was pulled by winter quarter - though he had strong family support and continued on to graduation. NU did not offer any sympathy money. There was no, 'use the schollie until something better comes along.' NU aggressively revoked the LT's schollie as quickly as possible.
If you really believe that Vassar is retaining his scholarship due to the kindness of NU, then you are quite naive. It does not happen that way at NU. He holds it because NU cannot or is afraid to challenge it administratively - or did and lost.
Last edited:
No! Not until you have a release from the AD. You can contact them, but there will be no discussion about visits or aid until you have been released from your scholarship. My point is you had to have been granted a release in order for NU to offer you a scholarship. Otherwise, NU could get in trouble with the NCAA.
I think you're confusing the transfer process with contact with boosters in the recruiting process. There, a booster can talk to you all he or she wants at a given interaction so long as you initiate contact. Otherwise, contact is supposed to be accidental and limited to normal exchange of greetings. I assume combine and camp situations are regarded as the athlete initiating contact by signing up for the combine or camp, knowing coaches will be present.
I hesitate even to wade into this discussion, which is wholly speculative as no one on this board appears to know enough to draw the conclusions some are drawing. But I feel compelled to raise one point of clarification and one question:
1. I have seen many posts on this issue in recent weeks that imply only NU made an announcement about Vassar's transfer. In fact, Vassar himself tweeted a statement about the transfer decision at the time. (See below.) That tweet was certainly worded carefully, and is open to interpretation, but it clearly acknowledges that he was committed to transferring.http://www.insidenu.com/2015/3/30/8286677/johnnie-vassar-to-transfer-from-northwestern
2. In your post above, you say "CCC fvcked up not pursuing the release when Vassar agreed to go." What exactly do you mean by this? What procedural step under NCAA processes could and should CCC have taken that he did not?
a) Gee, you think maybe something has changed? Would you like the page on the NCAA site that discusses the "permission to contact?" (Edit: Thank you HawkCat.)
Are we talking about yet another case what you "think" it is or "should be," instead of reality?
b) If you're going to stand by your supposed brilliance and our stupidity, at least read what is on the screen.
What so insulted you about the lawyer scenario, especially considering I typed, "I'm not saying this is what happened at all with Vassar ... I can see the possibility (as much as any of these factless scenarios)?"
How exactly does that offend you into insults?
Last edited:
I'm telling ya - I opened up the dialogue, I came to Evanston to work out over holidays and I received an offer and admission - and I have no recollection of signing anything at my original school. I also made visits to those other schools on my way drive home that summer. Maybe something has changed, maybe revenue v non-revenue sports - but that was my experience.
Or I often use my phone and Siri isn't my best buddy. No - I wasn't an English major and thank you for the correction. Search enough, you will find plenty more but I blame much of it on technology
1. I have asked about this as I don't tweet. It is a weird format, unlike others I have seen pasted. And someone else said there was nothing on the Vassar twitter account - makes me wonder were this came from. But I admittedly know nothing about twitter.
2. Glades and I are debating whether there is a closing out form - in my day, schollies were one year contracts. Regardless, in the boiler plate language, there are responsibilities including participation in practices, trainers room, media events, etc. Failure to participate is grounds for revocation. Therefore, assuming there is no paperwork formally rescinding the scholarship upon announcement of intent to transfer, CCC could definitely have pursued the administrative procedure to revoke for failure to appear for the various team functions - unless CCC simply banned him from the team regardless of transfer intent and without any rules broken. I think one of these two scenarios occurred and was the mistake. Again assuming no formal transfer document rescinding the scholarship, CCC should have made sure the scholarship would free up one way or another.
Coincidentally, this begins as an NU administrative hearing process before a board of students and faculty. The matter can be appealed within the university and then appealed to the NCAA. My guess, again many years since I signed my agreements, is that this is an agreed process precluding litigation until exhausted.
I forgot about this. It's tough to wrap one's head around Creaning with something like this out there.
Something not brought up in these recent marathon threads speculating on the Vasser situation is that Collins said publicly he did not have the scholly to use.
NUCat, it's standard practice for any organization to run a press release by any person mentioned in that release. It's a basic CYA step.
a. I have openly stated from the beginning that I have zero inside info. I am large deducing except where I have stated I have personal experience. My experience here dates back half as long ago as glades and in a non revenue arena. Have things changed? Um, I signed two one year deals. I believe they are now four year deals. I suspect there have been other changes. All I can offer is my experience. Unlike Va, citing mysterious sources, I am open with what I went through, to my best recollection, and what I am deducing.
before b., let me help provide the rest of your excerpt: "I'm not saying this is what happened at all with Vassar. But there is obviously an agreement needed by both sides. I can completely see the possibility (as much as any of these other factless scenarios) of Vassar saying he would leave, Collins agreeing, Vassar changing his mind, Collins not letting him back on the court, a phone call from Vassar's lawyer and NU takes the conservative approach and let's him stay in school." - Sec112
b. Having retired from the practice 10 years ago and moved into business, I largely left because lawyers had earned their crappy reputation, by and large, IMHO and I got sick of everybody I knew referring to me as their lawyer. (The latter really played no role - but was a real annoyance.) Since then, it has only gotten worse. Everybody thinks they have or need a lawyer. You talk about a phone call from some 18 year kid's lawyer. A kid with zero NBA potential. A kid not born into Charlie Hall wealth or celebrity. A kid, whose only claim to fame is a scholarship from just about the only D1 school to never dance and he wasn't a headlining prospect there either. So, again, how exactly does this 18 year have a lawyer on retainer to make calls threatening something to scare NU (with an army of lawyers and a law school, oh, and a pile of money taller than Vassar)?
That all said, my apologies if I came across terse. Though, I felt you were a bit biting in your tone originally. I think something about the heat and the kitchen is relevant here. Anyway, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I generally enjoy most of your posts. I would suggest to IGNORE me, or respond with the same tone and camaraderie that you expect. I will try harder to oblige.
Maybe Glades or one of the FB players around here can offer, but in my sport, we didn't approve, or see, anything until in was in print. Now, the stuff related to my sport was mostly results, awards, etc. But not once did I ever get a preview of a press release at NU.
On these two points:
1. To me, the format looked more like a text than a tweet. Maybe the reporter just used the wrong term. Regardless, it is clear the communication came from Vassar.
2. Sounds like you don't know whether any procedure actually existed for CCC to have terminated the scholarship immediately upon the announcement of intent to transfer. You just assume CCC must have "fvcked up." This seems to be the recurring theme here.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is no such procedure for this scenario. Has anyone ever heard of a situation before where a player announced a decision to transfer and, a few months later, changed his mind and tried to stay on the team? An unusual situation, for sure.
Let me take you back to the story of the LT - need a name, I have dropped enough clues I hope. He walked away before fall and the administrative process had revoked his scholarship before winter quarter. Virginia claims CCC was miffed about Vassar failing to participate in summer workouts. I would guess between March and August, there is at least one sanctioned bball event - and that Vassar's absence would be grounds for administrative relief.
You can insinuate with Va that I do not like CCC. You are wrong, but entitled to your opinion. However, no one has explained why Vassar holds the schollie. I have provided two verifiable, revenue sport athletes that lost theirs. Why Vassar? What makes him so special? Why not Turner? Hate me and my posts, but be honest. How do you explain the scholarship in contrast to those examples where the scholarship was taken away?
I might be wrong. But I have advanced a sound, logical argument. Instead of pot shots, advance another and let's test it. Why are you all so adverse to the Socratic Method?
It's been explained several times. You just refuse to believe it. That's your prerogative, I guess, but you're not going to get something that satisfies you better.
So, let me get this straight. You challenge my admittedly INCREDIBLY "factless" scenario ... again. Then in the next sentence you offer the classic non-apology apology about "coming across terse." Yes, it must all be my perception. My feelings are hurt. Cute.
You're right. I'm done with you. This is where I catch the plane off Fantasy Island. As you've demonstrated time and again you have no interest in any responsibility for what you write or the facts as they stand ... in 2015 and 2016 - not in the 90s ... not when Mike Turner left. All different scenarios.
Aren't you glad you asked?
I'm pretty sure he posted a screenshot of what he typed on his phone, looks like it is using the "notes" section on his phone. That is one way to get around the character limits on TWTR. Though it was kind of a sloppy job, if one was posting something like that publicly you would think he might take a few seconds to crop out the ancillary stuff at top and bottom and make it look cleaner.
For all the bantering and posturing, why aren't more of you calling on Lou for a story. Are you still convinced the source of the scholarship seemingly available is not newsworthy? Do you still feel there is insufficient interest for Lou to seek some answers about Vassar from the administration? Even a story saying the admin refuses to speak on the matter seems newsworthy. But Lou has stayed silent on these threads while remaining visible on the site and offering plenty of fluff.
Forget me and my theories. Every recent thread has devolved towards this discussion. Use it as a membership drive. I'll pony up for a membership to read a substantive story on point. Maybe a little focus towards your media rep, especially for paying members, might be in order.
Forget me and my theories. Every recent thread has devolved towards this discussion. Use it as a membership drive. I'll pony up for a membership to read a substantive story on point. Maybe a little focus towards your media rep, especially for paying members, might be in order.
