Talked to my guy today and unless something changes he is going to Otis...will be on schlorship and is fully qualified with three yrs left. Mama didn't want him at Utah st. .good luck to him and no hard feelings because he wanted to be a CAT, but the right people wouldn't go to bat for him
Lloyd Tubeman...last post FYI
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
Well it sucks he is going to your biggest rival, I think, but after all he went through at UK he probably needed a fresh start somewhere else.
Sad that we'll be facing him for 3 years. Just saw a video of him working out today and he is huge.
School/admins lack of support for his players will push Stoops out the door faster than anything, including wins/losses.
Not their fault UK turned their back on him...be mad at uk Administration from the very top.
Agree. Without even addressing Tubman's guilt or innocence, there is absolutely no way in the world a kangaroo court composed of students should have the authority to make this decision.
FWIW, there has been no buzz on the Louisville boards about Tubman for at least 3 weeks and the only buzz then was the UofL vs. Utah St "news". In that thread, Louisville's "recruiting guy" opined that if he was coming to UofL it would be initially as a walk on. I have no idea where UofL stands scholly-wise but they did take 1 post signing day player. CBP usually keeps 1 or 2 scholarships for end of spring transfers. I can understand why he feels "wronged" at UK but, given todays campus climate on such allegations, I think ANY university would have made the same decision.
Peace
Peace
Have you been paying attention at the goings-on at Tennessee?
Stoops and the university abandoned him. I don't blame him at all for going there
Not sure Stoops had a voice in that, If anything this is the type of thing that'll push Stoops out the door. School/admin not supporting a coach's player can't be tolerated by a coach.
If criminal charges were dropped then IMO he stays. If you plead or convicted then move on your way.
I may laugh myself to death! !! If this happened at Otis he dosen't walk probably if he's guilty
MB I think, that's why I said admin. The decision to dismiss him would've been above Stoops pay grade.
UL only keeps one or two scholarships open for transfers, who are you trying to kid. And there was never a doubt in my mind that he would have a full ride at Transfer U, too good of a prospect and he hasn't even been convicted of anything yet. I'm afraid UK will rue the day they kicked him out.
So, if the decision came from the top, who chose the board that ejected him, the same person?
Disgusting on many fronts, but on the other hand UK "might" have been sued if they readmitted him, right Fuzz? I still think that with all that has happened to him he might "try" to be celibate until he gets out of college-------but then he almost surely won't have any problems at UL, if he did rape someone and get her pregnant they probably would put the woman in jail for seducing him.
I don't see that Stoops or MB for that matter had a say. They don't set student behavior/action/penalty policies outside their teams. Yes, university did him wrong - as many u's are doing to men today. Down right discriminatory imo.
Corrected this.. should have been Mitch Barnhart or Mark Stoops had no say in this. .. sorry
If he goes to UL and had a scholly to Utah State, UL will have him on scholarship.
Wish LT nothing but the best...except for one game.
He should be wearing BLUE like he wanted.
He should be wearing BLUE like he wanted.
I hope he plays great, as long as the criminals lose.
I actually played the Criminals once, our flag football team went to the local state prison and played a team they put together, we won. Interesting experience, wouldn't want to be there that long though.
Right now it appears that UofL has given out 25 schollies for the 2016 class. If he were a D1 transfer he could come in under scholly IF the total count is not more than 85 when the fall semester starts. I have no idea what his recruitment/transfer status is. I think he went to JUCO after leaving UK but did not play (?). If so he has been out of ball since he played some ST snaps at UK in 2014. IOW, he may not be the "first day starter" some here think him to be. There are some provisions for what the NCAA calls a "4-2-4" transfer but I don't know how it affects the annual scholly limits. Regardless, I'm sure the 85 limit still applies. We'll see what happens but the 2016 class is arriving now.
As for his problem at UK, I think it has been made clear that Title IX implications go wayyyy beyond the gender equity in sports it was generally thought to be for the first 40 or so years it has been in effect. (passed in 1972). Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has made a point to emphasize those "freedom from sexual discrimination" components of the actFailure to comply at the institution level - which requires an on campus review process - can result in federal money being withheld. The upshot here is that every school is going to take an overly cautious (and self protective) approach with millions of federal dollars at stake.
Peace
So how does that not apply to UL then? If schools risk Title IX for something like this wouldn't it also affect the school he is transferring to?
And this is why UK football has always been in the doldrums. Any program that wants to win would have no problems at all accepting him.
You guys that point towards the basketball program that it's the one holding the FB back or the funding etc etc. It's this.
Otis has no qualms in taking a kid who has been proven innocent much less one who has had brushes with the law.
It's these type of kids who come in your program is the difference between your team being ranked preseason top 60 vs preseason top 15.
UL's recruiting classes have been very similar to ours as far as rankings go. The difference is the top talent transfers and a few coaches but that is closing now with new hires.
No. It's crazy. I won't pretend to be an expert on a very convoluted (IMO) subject. This is where the "conflict" between Title IX and statuary law comes in.
Title IX requires the institution to provide an environment free of sexual discrimination. It does not address legal prosecution. Because charges were filed at UK, UK felt compelled to expel Tubman for the duration of the accusers term at UK despite the fact there was no legal action taken in the matter. This is a a CYA move by UK that has been seen at numerous colleges in similar Title IX cases. Because there was no sustainable legal action against him the slate is clean at any other institution. That is a terrible explanation but it is the best I can do at the moment.
IMO, Title IX, while well intended, unfortunately can create a penalty (i.e., expulsion by the institution) for someone legally innocent of the allegation. The "mindset" at UK is that allowing Tubman to remain on campus would not be consistent with "providing a sexual discrimination free environment". HERE is a link that does a good job of summarizing Title IX basics.
Peace
It wasn't made up of students. The decision could have been changed by the dean of students, he passed. At any rate, your term is accurate, kangaroo court.
You want to see sexual discrimination... Be a man with children and going to :chairshot:divorce court and no matter what the circumstances for the divorce you're getting screwed... been there done that:chairshot::chairshot::grimace::joy: