Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfan
This is some weak sauce Bug. You're better than this.
|
I'm not nearly as broke up about the Yankoff thing as Bug is. Yankoff wasn't going to change our season. DTR was mostly healthy and Burton was okay (if not great) as a fill in when he was out.
That said, for someone talking about epic rants, did y'all look at how you responded lol?
Naw, truth is in the middle. First off, Coach Pete is basically a good dude. I haven't heard otherwise. He is certainly closer to a solid human being, IMO, than most any other college football head coach.
The NCAA by its own rules is officially the one that can okay immediate eligibility. But in practice it and the conference are chill with it if the prior university is. That does come down on CP. He could have made that call, but he didn't. Was it spite? Competitive advantage versus a conference opponent? Him holding to his values about what commitments mean? Or getting back at a system where transferring is so common? It could have been any of these things. Best that he just owns it, whatever his reasons.
And as for the Eason thing, I think it's reasonable to be upset that the staff which recruited you chose to accept a transfer at your position after you were already signed. And I think CP could have acknowledged that while he was in the right to accept a major talent at a position of extreme importance AND within his rights to deny the transfer of Yankoff on principle, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have considered the kid's side of things, given a situation mostly out of Yankoff's control.
Like I said before, it really matters little. Yankoff wasn't turning UCLA into a winning football program this season, unless he also happens to be college football's best inside linebacker. So anyone (you or Bug) getting heated about it one way or another is really quite silly.