I know this is sorta OT, but since news has been slightly slow around here and the article mentions what Kelly did to Cincinnati I thought I'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

Skinner and Chad (GameTime21 ?) interviewed Doyel on their radio show last night. They made a few comments on how much of a horrible person Kelly really is behind closed doors. I guess ND has finally sold their soul to the devil to be relevent again.

Nothing golden about Kelly playing hard ball with waffling recruit
Gregg Doyel
National Columnist
The system is broken, and not by accident. It's broken on purpose. The system allows coaches like Brian Kelly to switch schools as they please -- and for more money -- but players who want to switch schools are at the mercy of those same coaches. Because the system sucks.

But Notre Dame doesn't have to follow the system. Notre Dame, leader that it considers itself among institutions of higher learning, could refuse to follow along. It could allow the system to work for an 18-year-old high school senior, but it won't. Notre Dame is playing hard ball with five-star recruit Eddie Vanderdoes, which means Notre Dame is part of the problem.

Irish recruit wants out Vanderdoes to enroll at UCLA So it's not just the system that sucks. For playing along with the system, Notre Dame sucks too.

Visceral language, right? You offended?

Be offended. Know what offends me? That a school like Notre Dame, and a coach like Brian Kelly, would stick it to an 18-year-old kid like Eddie Vanderdoes.

True, he's an enormous kid. He's about 6-foot-3, 300 pounds. He looks like a man, and given that he's 18 years old, technically I guess he is a man. But he's 18. Just graduated high school. Still lives with his parents. He's a kid, is what he is. A kid faced with a bigger decision than most of us faced at such a young age, and a kid who clearly was overwhelmed by it all. He committed to Southern California. He signed with Notre Dame. He wants to attend UCLA. He's 18, you know?

Empathy would help, and while I don't expect it from many Notre Dame fans, I like to think the rest of you are capable of putting yourself in the shoes of a high school senior being pursued by famous men at famous college football programs, and the mind-blowing whir that must pass for a normal day when Lane Kiffin is calling you and Brian Kelly is texting you and Jim Mora Jr. is pulling into your driveway.

That's a problem we'd all like to have had in high school -- but wouldn't you also like to be given a break if you picked one school, a school 2,000 miles away, a school in a different climate, and then changed your mind? Wouldn't you like to be excused if you were Eddie Vanderdoes from Auburn, Calif., and you decided after signing with Notre Dame that you'd rather play for UCLA?

If that were me, I'd like that break. If it were my son, I'd like that break. And you know what? If it's Eddie Vanderdoes, who I wouldn't know if he knocked on my door, I'd like that break.

Because it's the right thing to do.

But this is the NCAA we're talking about, and it's college football we're talking about, and it's Brian Kelly and Notre Dame we're talking about, and the right thing doesn't always get done in those circles.

Kelly's a self-serving phony, is one way of saying it. He flirted with the Philadelphia Eagles after the BCS title game, which was his right. A person should have the freedom to pursue his options, and Brian Kelly exercised that freedom. He pursued the NFL. Then backed off.

But Eddie Vanderdoes cannot flirt with UCLA. Cannot pursue that option. Cannot decide to go to school there -- not if he expects to play football this season, or for the four years entitled to college athletes.

And this is where Brian Kelly is a complete phony. How can I say that? You wouldn't believe how easy it is for me to say that. See, on National Signing Day in 2012, Kelly had this to say about receiver Deontay Greenberry, who was committed to Notre Dame but signed instead with Houston:

"I used to have a saying [about situations like this one]," Kelly said on Feb. 1, 2012. "I'd rather play against him four times than have to have him with us four years if he's not the right kind of fit."

Not a bad saying (though after the comments appeared, Notre Dame's P.R. department implausibly claimed Kelly wasn't talking specifically about Greenberry). Hell, I like that saying -- and Kelly's right. If a player doesn't want to be on your campus, better to deal with him four times a year as an opponent than have to deal with him every day for four years.

Only, Kelly didn't do that with Vanderdoes. He's not going to have to "play against him four times" -- because he didn't release Vanderdoes from his National Letter-of-Intent. Vanderdoes can still go to UCLA this fall, but he can't play. Worse than that, much worse, this year will count as a year of eligibility, meaning he will have four years to play three seasons at UCLA starting in 2014.

Brian Kelly is screwing Eddie Vanderdoes, an 18-year-old who wanted to stay in his home state. Why? Because he can. Because the system sucks.

When Kelly was at Cincinnati -- I live in Cincinnati, not that it matters; Mark Dantonio of Michigan State left Cincinnati in 2006, and he's my favorite football coach -- he left for Notre Dame. And he didn't leave at a good time, either.

He didn't leave, for example, in June.

Kelly left Cincinnati in December 2009. After Cincinnati had gone 12-0 in the regular season, but before the Bearcats played Florida in the Sugar Bowl. Cincinnati had a shot at perfection, at magic, but Kelly was gone. Why? Because he could. Because the system let him. Because Notre Dame was a better job and who cares if Cincinnati was in the middle of its season?

Brian Kelly didn't care.

Now Eddie Vanderdoes would like to play this season at UCLA. He told Notre Dame in June. That gives Kelly time to find another defensive lineman, if he feels he needs one for the 2013 season. Will that lineman be as good as Vanderdoes? Of course not. Vanderdoes is considered the best recruit at his position in the country.

Not the point. Point is, Kelly thought it was fine to leave Cincinnati between games, but he doesn't think it's fine for Eddie Vanderdoes to leave Notre Dame before he even reports to Notre Dame. So Vanderdoes can't play in 2013 for UCLA. And he loses the year of eligibility.

Kelly wins, but only because of a broken system that rewards craven men like himself, and punishes confused kids like Eddie Vanderdoes.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ng-recruit

Eh, I don't really fault Kelly here. The rules are in place for a reason. The kid signed an LOI so he should have to sit out a season unless he has a hardship. And he clearly doesn't. The line about Kelly having plenty of time to find a new DL for next season is odd too. Surely a CFB writer knows signing day was months ago and you can't just go out and find a new DL any time you want.

Players should not have any restrictions that are not placed on coaches.

This is one of the more harshly worded editorials I've ever seen.

Yeah, the rules are in place for a reason, but like Doyle says, the system is broken. Perhaps I'm biased here, but Kelly is being a douche about this.

what are the reasons for the national communists forcing a student athlete to sit out a year if he or she wants to transfer?

(06-11-2013 10:18 AM)Racinejake Wrote:  Eh, I don't really fault Kelly here. The rules are in place for a reason. The kid signed an LOI so he should have to sit out a season unless he has a hardship. And he clearly doesn't. The line about Kelly having plenty of time to find a new DL for next season is odd too. Surely a CFB writer knows signing day was months ago and you can't just go out and find a new DL any time you want.

Yep. Vanderdoes signed an LOI and wants out before he's even stepped foot on ND's campus. Same thing is happening with an FSU recruit who now wants to attend USC. If you don't know where you want to go, it's simple: don't sign an LOI.

It would be different if there was a legitimate issue (ie family member health), as most coaches would let a recruit out of his LOI. However, changing your mind isn't one of them.

Every single college coach is going to stand behind Kelly and Fisher on this issue. They don't want to have to worry if a chunk of their signing class is going to change their minds two months after signing day and not be able to do anything about it because releasing players has become the standard.

(06-11-2013 11:02 AM)Lush Wrote:  what are the reasons for the national communists forcing a student athlete to sit out a year if he or she wants to transfer?

I think they want to avoid a free agency type of situation where players can switch schools at the drop of a hat on an annual basis. Where if you're Ohio State and you need a RB, you just start calling RBs at other schools to try to get them to come to Columbus. The system is definitely not perfect, but I believe there does need to be some sort of framework.

(06-11-2013 11:04 AM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:18 AM)Racinejake Wrote:  Eh, I don't really fault Kelly here. The rules are in place for a reason. The kid signed an LOI so he should have to sit out a season unless he has a hardship. And he clearly doesn't. The line about Kelly having plenty of time to find a new DL for next season is odd too. Surely a CFB writer knows signing day was months ago and you can't just go out and find a new DL any time you want.

Yep. Vanderdoes signed an LOI and wants out before he's even stepped foot on ND's campus. Same thing is happening with an FSU recruit who now wants to attend USC. If you don't know where you want to go, it's simple: don't sign an LOI.

It would be different if there was a legitimate issue (ie family member health), as most coaches would let a recruit out of his LOI. However, changing your mind isn't one of them.

Every single college coach is going to stand behind Kelly and Fisher on this issue. They don't want to have to worry if a chunk of their signing class is going to change their minds two months after signing day and not be able to do anything about it because releasing players has become the standard.

Of course the coaches will stand behind it....because they are all self serving and in it solely for themselves. Like the players Kelly recruited to UC telling them he would be their coach. That's the whole point, there is a double standard where coaches...grown men making millions over a contract....are free to ditch their contract....but 17-18 year old kids can't change their mind? Maybe BK should have had to sit out a year from coaching. The transfer rules are set up to protect schools and their competitive ability. But do music majors on scholarship have to sit out a year if they want to transfer?

The system sucks, I think that you should be able to transfer anywhere you want as long as you're willing to sit out one year. Since he signed the LOI I think he should have to sit this season out. The only restriction I kind of get is someone not being allowed to transfer to another school on your schedule or another instate school. But I agree that if coaches have no restrictions on where they can go then players shouldn't either.

(06-11-2013 11:04 AM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:18 AM)Racinejake Wrote:  Eh, I don't really fault Kelly here. The rules are in place for a reason. The kid signed an LOI so he should have to sit out a season unless he has a hardship. And he clearly doesn't. The line about Kelly having plenty of time to find a new DL for next season is odd too. Surely a CFB writer knows signing day was months ago and you can't just go out and find a new DL any time you want.

Yep. Vanderdoes signed an LOI and wants out before he's even stepped foot on ND's campus. Same thing is happening with an FSU recruit who now wants to attend USC. If you don't know where you want to go, it's simple: don't sign an LOI.

It would be different if there was a legitimate issue (ie family member health), as most coaches would let a recruit out of his LOI. However, changing your mind isn't one of them.

Every single college coach is going to stand behind Kelly and Fisher on this issue. They don't want to have to worry if a chunk of their signing class is going to change their minds two months after signing day and not be able to do anything about it because releasing players has become the standard.

Considering the crap these recruits are fed from a number of different sources, I'd cut Vanderdoes some slack.

If coaches don't want players switching at the drop of a hat, I'd feel better about restrictive rules if the coaches were held to the same standard.

It's clear this rule is not in the best interest of the player.

(06-11-2013 12:08 PM)50Cent Wrote:  Of course the coaches will stand behind it....because they are all self serving and in it solely for themselves. Like the players Kelly recruited to UC telling them he would be their coach. That's the whole point, there is a double standard where coaches...grown men making millions over a contract....are free to ditch their contract....but 17-18 year old kids can't change their mind? Maybe BK should have had to sit out a year from coaching. The transfer rules are set up to protect schools and their competitive ability. But do music majors on scholarship have to sit out a year if they want to transfer?

When the coach pays a buyout, they're fulfilling their contractual obligation.

They have the opportunity to change their minds up until the point they sign the document. Like I said, if a prospect isn't 100% sure they want to attend a school, don't sign an LOI. When you enter into a contract, you're responsible for knowing the penalties of backing out.

(06-11-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  It's clear this rule is not in the best interest of the player.

Non-compete agreements aren't in the best interest of the employee.

Once enrolled, the transfer rule makes sense. Prior to enrollment, its crap. School has no skin in the game. No lodging, books, tuition, meal plan, tutors, etc.

This is punative. Nothing more. And Kelly is still a total d-bag.

It is a slippery slope. Teams don't worry about players/positions once they sign a LOI. But these are young kids and I can see them wanting to change their minds, especially if a coach leaves. But if you let kids go freely, it could really open the door to round robin. One kid leaves O$U and they start sniffing at another player that signed with Tennessee who leaves them, who then takes a guy from UC who then takes another player and so on (Until someone is hosed out of a key contributor that either does not fill the spot or grabs a lesser player. I actually think allowing players to leave freely would only further widen the gap between the haves and have nots). There needs to be something to discourage players from just leaving freely without a good reason (And force them to decide if the reason is worth it or not).

I'd thought, well maybe the kid gets an option. I move to the other school and sit out a year, but still have 4 years. Maybe I can play immediately, but lose a year of eligibility (That maybe could be earned back with good school work). Maybe they can play, but lose the ability to redshirt (Barring injury or something). Not sure what is the right course of action, but I do believe there needs to be some, even if the player is not in school yet.

This is like the real world. Your company is interviewing for a new position and they fill it with expectations the newcomer will start in 2 weeks. Two days before they start, they decide to take another position and your company is back to square one, except they could really be behind the eight ball if they needed that employee ASAP. It could be another month before someone is in that position.

A lot of valid criticisms in this thread, but I'm not sure I've heard a satisfying solution (not that I have one either). I get the urge to say "same rule for players as coaches" but how would that work? Should it also apply to assistant coaches? Should it apply to all sports? If you are really about "fairness" the answer kinda has to be "yes", right? So suppose we adopt the "sit out a year" rule for coaches and UC's coach retires or takes a job in the NFL/CFL/TV or whatever. Seems like the only viable option would be to hire a current assistant (although I'm not sure how he hires a full staff?). If we wanted a coach from another school, say CMU, we'd have to hire an interim (presumably from the current staff) for one year (pay him) and get the CMU coach to quit and sit out a year (and pay him presumably) before taking over. How do you recruit? Who does that help?

On the other hand, if you want to give the players total freedom to transfer like coaches, it becomes the wild west in recruiting as RJake and others have noted. Now you "only" have to recruit high school kids to visit, to commit and to "sign" for the most part. Do we really want to replace "sign" with another few months of recruiting to actually follow through and attend and then another four years of recruiting to stay every day once they are here? But it doesn't stop there because you also have to recruit kids who chose and attend other schools (just to try to keep up with the Joneses). When do they actually coach? The little fish can't even focus on finding "hidden gems" and developing them because the big fish can just get them to transfer once they become good. OSU needs help on the OLine? Guess what, UC has an All Freshman All-American OT - let's recruit the hell out of him to transfer to OSU. If it's about fairness compared to coaches there aren't any restrictions either - send the private plane and wine and dine the players on visits just like the coaches. And fair is fair - it's not just football, or men's BB - every sport would have similar issues just on a different scale. It would be another huge advantage to the have's over the have nots.

Anybody think they've got a fair viable plan figured out????

No one holds a gun to the head of a player to sign a LOI. Also, as far as I know, there is no stipulation about a grace period between signing and enrolling, either. I understand making exceptions like if there's a family issue which crops up in the meantime, but that doesn't sound like the case here. Sounds more like he just changed his mind, maybe after continued contact with UCLA I would bet. I can't blame anyone for wanting to go live in Westwood rather than an armpit like South Bend, but he signed it so now he's got to live with it. Like Walter says, this ain't 'Nam Smokey, there are rules...

(06-11-2013 05:13 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  No one holds a gun to the head of a player to sign a LOI...

There's a few 5* recruits who teams will wait on, but the vast majority have a 4 year full scholarship being held ransom to sign that LOI. It's not a gun to the head, but from a practical standpoint, it's just about as compelling. It's fair to have deadlines and to face consequences for a decision, but I think the question is whether the consequences are fair relative to similar situations (e.g. a coach changing schools or an academic scholarship offer rather than athletic).

Why should athletes be treated differently than any other scholarship student such as engineers, musicians, mathematicians, etc.? The NCAA rules exist not to protect the interests of those who bring in the bacon for the schools and the NCAA. Rather, the rules exist solely to protect the revenue stream of the schools and the NCAA at the expense of the athletes.

(06-11-2013 07:46 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 05:13 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  No one holds a gun to the head of a player to sign a LOI...

There's a few 5* recruits who teams will wait on, but the vast majority have a 4 year full scholarship being held ransom to sign that LOI. It's not a gun to the head, but from a practical standpoint, it's just about as compelling. It's fair to have deadlines and to face consequences for a decision, but I think the question is whether the consequences are fair relative to similar situations (e.g. a coach changing schools or an academic scholarship offer rather than athletic).

Yep. These poor kids, being forced to decide where to accept a full ride scholarship, many including academic services the other students don't get. Must be tough...
But seriously, if he has his heart set on UCLA, can't he just pay his own way, like most college students must do, and just walk on? In other words, many HS seniors would be overjoyed to be offered the "ransom" of a full ride scholarship to ND and this dude is whining about it.

(06-12-2013 07:57 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 07:46 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 05:13 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  No one holds a gun to the head of a player to sign a LOI...

There's a few 5* recruits who teams will wait on, but the vast majority have a 4 year full scholarship being held ransom to sign that LOI. It's not a gun to the head, but from a practical standpoint, it's just about as compelling. It's fair to have deadlines and to face consequences for a decision, but I think the question is whether the consequences are fair relative to similar situations (e.g. a coach changing schools or an academic scholarship offer rather than athletic).

Yep. These poor kids, being forced to decide where to accept a full ride scholarship, many including academic services the other students don't get. Must be tough...
But seriously, if he has his heart set on UCLA, can't he just pay his own way, like most college students must do, and just walk on? In other words, many HS seniors would be overjoyed to be offered the "ransom" of a full ride scholarship to ND and this dude is whining about it.

Not sure whether he could just walk on for a year and still be able to play right away. Someone might know the answer. I guess I don't really get why it's such a hardship to have to sit out a year. I mean, the kid still gets a full ride scholarship and can practice with the team while he's sitting out. He just can't play in games. Doesn't seem like a huge punishment but enough to keep kids from jumping around willy nilly.

Not sure I buy the "he's only a kid, let him change his mind 20 times" argument, either. I'm sure he's got friends that have chosen to enlist in the Armed Forces.