Can someone explain the baker mayfield situation?

[froginaustin]

Sounds to me like Baker hit a situation his family couldn't manage to get fixed.
 
There's plenty of bad juju running around, for many of the actors in this story-- particularly the Mayfield family and the TTech coaching staff.  But not including the Oklahoma coaches.  If the press has it right, and Baker just showed up and walked on at OU, he was just a gift that dropped into OU's lap.
 
I suspect that Baker will have an opportunity to play his last year of eligibility somewhere nice, so he ain't hurt too bad.
 
The seeming harshness of the rule that cost Baker a year of B12 eligibility must be aimed at preventing players from shopping themselves around after their initial recruitment, and at preventing relatively high-profile programs like OU from recruiting from (or using as farm league programs) not-so-high-profile programs like most of the B12 (certainly including TTech).

 

[Dogfrog]

If he wasn't such a doosh people might be willing to cut him some slack.

 

[Volare]

If he wasn't such a doosh people might be willing to cut him some slack.

 
Saw the [ profanity ] at a Ranger game in Arlington a month or so ago. Was wearing a custom Rangers jersey with his name on the back. "Look at me!"

 

[Ghost of Tobys Business College]

Going from one team in the conference to another team in the conference without penalty seems like a good way to send in double agent freshmen to spend a year learning another team's secrets and then playing for the rival right after that. 
 

 

[Pharm Frog]

Going from one team in the conference to another team in the conference without penalty seems like a good way to send in double agent freshmen to spend a year learning another team's secrets and then playing for the rival right after that. 
 

 
Bingo

 

[Ghost of Tobys Business College]

Be interested to see how BM does without Sterling this year, especially now that everybody has a full season of tape on him and can see what happened in the Playoff last year.

 

[TechAdvisor]

TLR Kliff Kingsbury refused to give the kid a scholarship

So you believe the Mayfield's over Kingsbury, why?  Do Baker and his father seem like honorable trustworthy people?  Did you forget they also attacked Patterson and drug his name through the media?
 
 

refused to grant the kid a transfer forcing him to lose an additional year of Big 12 eligibility.

That's a Big 12 rule.  Kingsbury doesn't have the power to force a kid to lose a year of eligibility or release him to gain it back.  The ONLY thing Kingsbury could have done was restrict Mayfield from being put on scholarship at a Big 12 school the following year.  Kingsbury initially did that but then backed off and allowed the scholarship.  
 
Mayfield could have gone to 120+ other FBS programs and not lost a year of eligibility.  

 

[froginaustin]

Why shouldn't we believe the Mayfields over Kingsbury, to the extent their stories aren't the same?

 

[Prince of Purpoole]

They would have called it "The Mayfield Rule" forever. Talk about boutique legislation. How often would a non scholarship (football) athlete transfer and see any legitimate playing time?

 

[MAcFroggy]

So you believe the Mayfield's over Kingsbury, why?  Do Baker and his father seem like honorable trustworthy people?  Did you forget they also attacked Patterson and drug his name through the media?
 

 
If he had a scholarship he would have, you know, actually been on scholarship.

 

[nwlafrog]

Bump for BM's douchebaggery

 

[BoondocksFrog]

If he wasn't such a doosh people might be willing to cut him some slack.

 
He is honestly so insignificant, there is really no reason to pump his ego by talking about him.

 

[TechAdvisor]

Why shouldn't we believe the Mayfields over Kingsbury, to the extent their stories aren't the same?

Logically, which story makes more sense?
 
Story #1: Texas Tech had a ton of excess scholarships lying around and Kingsbury simply refused to give one to Mayfield out of spite because he's a "scoundrel" (via Mr. Mayfield)
 
Story #2: "Baker showed up in August, Texas Tech didn't have any available scholarships until the start of Spring semester in January, Texas Tech was not going to take away a scholarship from a kid who earned it in the middle of November to give it to someone else.  Kingsbury promised to place Mayfield on scholarship once one was available in two months".

 

[Punter1]

It's really pretty silly to think he had a case to begin with. Walk-ons are part of them team as much as scholarship guys. Shut up and dance Baker

They are...but I do see Baker's point. Back when he was at Tech and before we all knew Baker was a dbag we mostly all took his side when Kiff was jerking him around.

Walkons are part of the team yes...but I do think some rules should not have to apply to them...just like graduate transfers.

 

[Pharm Frog]

I would no problem with the rule being changed going forward but not applied retroactively if that's what the conference wants.

 

[froginaustin]

Logically, which story makes more sense?
 
Story #1: Texas Tech had a ton of excess scholarships lying around and Kingsbury simply refused to give one to Mayfield out of spite because he's a "scoundrel" (via Mr. Mayfield)
 
Story #2: "Baker showed up in August, Texas Tech didn't have any available scholarships until the start of Spring semester in January, Texas Tech was not going to take away a scholarship from a kid who earned it in the middle of November to give it to someone else.  Kingsbury promised to place Mayfield on scholarship once one was available in two months".

 
Story #1 is the Mayfields'?   Or a fair summary of their story?
 
Story #2 is Kingsbury's?  Or a fair summary?
 
 
 
Really?

 

[TechAdvisor]

 
Story #1 is the Mayfields'?   Or a fair summary of their story? 
 
Story #2 is Kingsbury's?  Or a fair summary?
 
 
 
Really?

 
Story #1 is a summary of the Mayfield's claim that Kingsbury refused to put Mayfield on scholarship because Kingsbury is a "scoundrel".
 
Story #2 is that Kingsbury said Mayfield was going on scholarship at the start of the spring semester and Kingsbury stated that "Baker and his father were well aware of the situation about the scholarship"
 
One of them is clearly lying.  It's just a question of which story makes more sense.  What would be Kingsbury's motivation for withholding an available scholarship?  What would he have to gain by doing that?  
 
What do the Mayfield's have to gain by lying?  Potentially, a lot.  Quite a few people believe their lie and have sided with Mayfield, trashing Kingsbury.  

 

[Pharm Frog]

Quite a few people believe their lie and have sided with Mayfield, trashing Kingsbury.  

 
While I have no idea and don't really care who is lying, belief in the Mayfield story seems strongest in Oklahoma and certain areas around Austin.

 

[Tom Brown]

Basically he was a popsicle to most teams in the B12 including calling out GP for not recruiting him. So he now can EAD

Summers'

 

[MAcFroggy]

Re-vote possible.
 
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15905428/big-12-reconsidering-rule-change-involving-transfers-walk-ons
 
"Sources said part of the new language being discussed would allow a walk-on's school to offer a scholarship to keep him. If the walk-on then still elected to transfer within the conference, the player would face the league's transfer eligibility restrictions."  -  This seems like a pretty fair solution/compromise on the issue.