The writer's argument about Bryant's ring is half-baked.
by rockmcd (2019-08-15 13:09:42)

In reply to: Solid takedown of Dabo (link)  posted by elterrible

Post Reply Return to Cartier Field

He cited 3 examples from MLB teams and 1 example from an NFL team. If he's going to claim "decades of precedent" then he should have provided at least one example of a college team that provided a ring to a player who dropped out of school during the season. Is there a precedent for this? I don't know.

When he writes "Swinney purposefully kept a ring from Bryant" that implies that Bryant was singled out. Again, what is the precedent for players who dropped out of school before the season ended, both at Clemson and at other schools? If the precedent is that other players in that situation did not get rings either, then what Swinney did was normal and to give Bryant a ring would have been purposefully generous. I have no idea what the precedent is, and the writer did nothing to illuminate it.

He later states "Bryant — who had graduated from college and therefore could sit out the rest of the season and have one more year of eligibility in 2019 for another team — left the team and transferred to Missouri.... If Bryant wanted to showcase his skills for the NFL, he had to leave Clemson.... For this, Swinney has banished him. Maybe if he’d hung around and cleaned the jocks..." Everybody understands Bryant's incentive to transfer AFTER the season ended, but the key difference is that Bryant transferred BEFORE the season ended. The writer fails to explain why sticking around as a 2nd stringer (or cleaning jocks, as he put it) for the remainder of the 2018 season would have hindered Bryant's ability to transfer to Missouri, and/or his NFL goals.

Of course, if you read the whole article, it becomes clear that the writer's main gripe is the NCAA's rules on amateurism. Fair enough.

Replies: