Gilbert Arrested

Lorewarn said:
Poor behavior and judgment come from your brain, where your mental faculties are, and if they're 'poor' in quality, with synonyms such as deficient and defective, then... you see where this is going.
Click to expand...
I see what you're trying to do.  I certainly don't agree with what you're getting at.  It's very similar to saying "it's science".  Because something is a decision which uses the brain doesn't by default equate to mental illness.  That would essentially mean every poor decision is mental illness.

There are poor behaviors that we all witness over and over again daily that are not mental illness.  They are learned.  If you grow up around violence, disrespect, lying and cheating your entire life there's a good possibility that is all you know.  Replicating those behaviors is not a mental illness, it's exhibiting the behaviors that are a part of your development.  You often see it when some of these folks are faced with adversity.  If you are challenged and you choose to fight (physically or violence) or take a path of something like substance abuse, that doesn't mean you're mentally ill.  You could be, but it's more likely a behavior that you've developed.  Also, these behaviors are very difficult to change.  It becomes more explainable when they are classified as an "illness".

 
RedDenver said:
What a silly take. Regular college students are allowed to do it. Why should the athletes be any different?
Click to expand...
They should be allowed to switch schools, but also should not be eligible to play right away beyond the first transfer.  This phenomena of shopping around for playing time is absurd and needs to stop.

 
gobiggergoredder said:
I see what you're trying to do.  I certainly don't agree with what you're getting at.  It's very similar to saying "it's science".  Because something is a decision which uses the brain doesn't by default equate to mental illness.  That would essentially mean every poor decision is mental illness.

There are poor behaviors that we all witness over and over again daily that are not mental illness.  They are learned.  If you grow up around violence, disrespect, lying and cheating your entire life there's a good possibility that is all you know.  Replicating those behaviors is not a mental illness, it's exhibiting the behaviors that are a part of your development.  You often see it when some of these folks are faced with adversity.  If you are challenged and you choose to fight (physically or violence) or take a path of something like substance abuse, that doesn't mean you're mentally ill.  You could be, but it's more likely a behavior that you've developed.  Also, these behaviors are very difficult to change.  It becomes more explainable when they are classified as an "illness".
Click to expand...




You switched the language from mental health to mental illness. That's a key distinction.

My diet is unhealthy but I'm not ill. Brain is the same way. If you've learned poor judgment and habits and perspective on life from your environment, that doesn't necessarily mean you're ill but it absolutely means you can be a lot healthier...mentally :)

 
Lorewarn said:
You switched the language from mental health to mental illness. That's a key distinction.

My diet is unhealthy but I'm not ill. Brain is the same way. If you've learned poor judgment and habits and perspective on life from your environment, that doesn't necessarily mean you're ill but it absolutely means you can be a lot healthier...mentally :)
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less if "illness" or "health" is used.  It'll just turn into a battle of what each of us thinks it means.  I have to assume that if you're asking for a waiver due to mental health/illness it is because of something that has been clinically diagnosed.  Bipolar for example.

It would probably be better said "behavior" vs "condition".  What is becoming more prevalent is that people think behavior=condition.

This isn't an IQ test:  Cheeseburger is to heart disease as growing up with no father is to schizophrenia.  Not really that simple.  

 
To those of you that are against players being able to transfer and play, after the first "free" transfer, can you explain why?

Why are you against people having the freedom of movement to create new chances and opportunity?  

I have personally never heard a good reason against letting kids transfer and play.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
To those of you that are against players being able to transfer and play, after the first "free" transfer, can you explain why?

Why are you against people having the freedom of movement to create new chances and opportunity?  

I have personally never heard a good reason against letting kids transfer and play.
Click to expand...


The colleges (collectively, the NCAA) own the teams, stadiums, schools, dorms, etc., so they should be able to collectively call the shots. In no way is the current system good for the universities, the teams, the individual player-students, the coaches, or the respective sports they play. The current system is untenable and will be adjusted (my guess is after this season). The only winners as things currently are, are those who crave chaos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
To those of you that are against players being able to transfer and play, after the first "free" transfer, can you explain why?

Why are you against people having the freedom of movement to create new chances and opportunity?  

I have personally never heard a good reason against letting kids transfer and play.
Click to expand...


I've always thought that scholarships across the board, for all sports, should be treated as guaranteed contracts between the school and the athlete for a minimum of 2 years, with early outs for the school in regards to athletes not meeting academic requirements as students, and early outs for athletes for extenuating life circumstances (death of close family member, etc). Scholarship athletes get paid a % of revenue pulled in by the NCAA and are allowed NIL opportunities through the university. After two years, if the athlete wants to transfer, no harm no foul, and if the university doesn't want to extend the scholarship for the rest of the athlete's eligibility, no harm no foul on their part. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
To those of you that are against players being able to transfer and play, after the first "free" transfer, can you explain why?

Why are you against people having the freedom of movement to create new chances and opportunity?  

I have personally never heard a good reason against letting kids transfer and play.
Click to expand...
Gundy has been pretty forward on his thoughts.

 
Cdog923 said:
I've always thought that scholarships across the board, for all sports, should be treated as guaranteed contracts between the school and the athlete for a minimum of 2 years, with early outs for the school in regards to athletes not meeting academic requirements as students, and early outs for athletes for extenuating life circumstances (death of close family member, etc). Scholarship athletes get paid a % of revenue pulled in by the NCAA and are allowed NIL opportunities through the university. After two years, if the athlete wants to transfer, no harm no foul, and if the university doesn't want to extend the scholarship for the rest of the athlete's eligibility, no harm no foul on their part. 
Click to expand...


Assuming you're giving the university an out after two years for not meeting academic requirements, or quitting the team, or being kicked-off with cause; then I agree completely with your sentiments here.

 
gobiggergoredder said:
I couldn't care less if "illness" or "health" is used.  It'll just turn into a battle of what each of us thinks it means.  I have to assume that if you're asking for a waiver due to mental health/illness it is because of something that has been clinically diagnosed.  Bipolar for example.

It would probably be better said "behavior" vs "condition".  What is becoming more prevalent is that people think behavior=condition.

This isn't an IQ test:  Cheeseburger is to heart disease as growing up with no father is to schizophrenia.  Not really that simple.  
Click to expand...


I disagree with you but that's fine.

In this case, in terms of him asking for a waiver due to mental health issues, you and I don't know what that entails and if it is or is not something diagnosed as an illness. In terms of how absolutely stupid he was in the events of robbing this vape store and the way in which he did it, all I am saying is that that behavior is a clear sign of not being very healthy mentally, whether it's something clinically defined or just a general lack of good discernment and decision making.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
To those of you that are against players being able to transfer and play, after the first "free" transfer, can you explain why?

Why are you against people having the freedom of movement to create new chances and opportunity?  

I have personally never heard a good reason against letting kids transfer and play.
Click to expand...
The issue is with repeated transfers and the obvious "shopping" for playing time. 

A single transfer seems reasonable but what is being done now is purely based on instant gratification and essentially eliminates the ideals of team, institution, and community.  The current system promotes and reward ideas and strategies that are counter to the values that used to be associated with scholastic athletics.

If kids want a "free for all" then they should be able to have that, but not associated with universities.  Collegiate athletics should continue to require and emphasize academics to improve the lives of student athletes far beyond their time on the field/court.

 
307husker said:
The issue is with repeated transfers and the obvious "shopping" for playing time. 

A single transfer seems reasonable but what is being done now is purely based on instant gratification and essentially eliminates the ideals of team, institution, and community.  The current system promotes and reward ideas and strategies that are counter to the values that used to be associated with scholastic athletics.

If kids want a "free for all" then they should be able to have that, but not associated with universities.  Collegiate athletics should continue to require and emphasize academics to improve the lives of student athletes far beyond their time on the field/court.
Click to expand...
This…

People claim this should be no different than a normal student. 
 

A scholarship athlete is very different than the average undergrad. They are more like grad school students where the program has invested in them in many ways. It’s very difficult for a person in a doctorate program where they are involved with research and that funding to just transfer multiple times to different programs.  
 

A professional athlete can’t just move to wherever team they want…whenever they want. There are rules and guidelines within the sport. Those help improve the sport and experience for everyone.

Nobody can convince me that Gilbert is better off now than if he would have stayed at LSU or maybe even Georgia and worked to compete for playing time. 

 
So, basically no one has reasons other than "I don't like it"

I don't "like it" either but I do like freedom and choice and opportunity.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top