Derek Dooley denies Bryce Brown a release to play for Kansas State
Joe Schad with lots of new information here, with quotes from both Arthur Brown and Dooley. Apparently Dooley and Bryce did meet face to face on Saturday (which Dooley told him not to talk about), but Brown did not ask for a release then. He then texted his request for a release later in the week, a request Dooley has denied. Arthur Brown says he has personally asked Dooley to release his son since April.
The bottom line remains that Bryce isn't going to play for us anymore. The rest are odd details: his father has asked for four months, but Bryce can't do it face to face? And Dooley won't release him?
This story does once again confirm the notion that Dooley plays things close to the vest, having met with Brown on Saturday but denying it in the media. And again - there may be a lot to talk about here, but none of it changes the fact that Bryce Brown is no longer a Tennessee Vol.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really don't get the point of this.
Ever since he’s been here Dooley has said he does not expect Bryce Brown to be part of the team this upcoming season, so what is the point of not releasing him? Overall I am just really sick of hearing about this though, I wish everyone involved could just move on.
It's simple Cubs in the spring and summer, Vols in the fall and winter.
It's about having standards by which you evaluate the release to protect the program
Kids commit to a school, receive scholarship money, take the place of another kid who could contribute. When they back out of that commitment, there’s a cost to the school and there should be a cost to them. Getting a waiver isn’t a right, just as receiving grace isn’t an entitlement, but comes at the discretion of the school. I applaud Dooley for having standards and following a process as he evaluates each case.
But, I totally agree with you on the “sick of talking about BB” and Dooley’s been consistent the whole time -
The COEXIST bumper sticker is ridiculous. How are people supposed to get along when one side is flying planes into tall buildings or wearing sweater vests full of C4 and nails? The faiths are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Great Points
I had been in the “just release him already” camp, but now that I think about it, why should he get a release? Because he’s homesick? His handlers think KSU is a better situation? He did sign a contract for four years, and if Dooley wants to hold him to it, it’s his perogative. BB can go to junior college or, GASP, pay his own way at Kansas State.
by Zach Towery on Jul 31, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a Four Year Contract
Scholarships are renewed yearly. The university is under no obligation to renew it.
“One of the most interesting things about the scholarship process at the Division I and Division II levels that I think most people do not realize is that when you sign your Letter of Intent, it is not something that will certainly last four or five years. These scholarships are a contract that last year to year and the college actually has no obligation to renew them if they think that you can’t play.” Here
While they are not a 4-yr contract, the university tends to renew them - even if you can't play
Please note that Negedu, for example, was not cleared medically yet Bruce Pearl indicated that he would remain on scholarship for all four years (or until he received a degree, whichever came first).
Not every school handles it that way (see John Calipari…)
The COEXIST bumper sticker is ridiculous. How are people supposed to get along when one side is flying planes into tall buildings or wearing sweater vests full of C4 and nails? The faiths are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Awesome
We have 10 schollys open this season, I’m perfectly fine with using one in this manner. And, as far as we know, he’s only denying K-State. Probably the rest of the SEC, but Brown could still go see his buddy at U$C. I’m sure the fine journalists at Conquest Comicals would love that.
"I condone fun things" ~~ Cortland Finnegan
Hello ladies. Look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me.
Should've put this up top:
Dooley specifically mentions using the same criteria for all transfer requests (Stephens, Douglas, etc.)
1. Player’s investment in the program
2. Impact of player’s departure on the program
3. How the player handled the situation
Nick Stephens must’ve earned a lot of points in the first category. Brown – because I’m still not convinced we’re going to have some huge dropoff from him to Poole/Oku – apparently didn’t do well in any of them.
Exactly
Act like a man and you’ll come out ok in the end.
For instance, Douglas apparently wanted out of Knoxville to clear up his personal issues, hence the “8-hour drive” restriction.
Stephens was probably up front and Dooley cut him loose.
Lamaison I don’t think was, left campus, said he wouldn’t be back, and still has no release.
If we can learn anything from these situations, I think it’s that CDD will definitely teach these athletes some lessons in responsibility whether or not they’re needed.
"I condone fun things" ~~ Cortland Finnegan
Hello ladies. Look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me.
Should read
“although I’m not convinced…”
As in, perhaps Dooley was harder on Brown because of his talent
by Will Shelton on Jul 30, 2010 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not worried about a dropoff at all.
That’s not a slight to Brown; I just felt that Poole ran very well whenever he was given a chance – both under Kiffin and Clawphhhhbt……
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 30, 2010 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Sidenote
That’s who we should play instead of Montana: Bowling Green.
by Will Shelton on Jul 30, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
That would put fans into Neyland.
Capacity: 102,000ish.
Actual attendance: 283,078.
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 30, 2010 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Makes for a simple slogan:
Earn your scholarship, earn your release.
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 30, 2010 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
OOO, I like that one. +1
The COEXIST bumper sticker is ridiculous. How are people supposed to get along when one side is flying planes into tall buildings or wearing sweater vests full of C4 and nails? The faiths are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
I would have to imagine, though, that Dooley would consider extenuating circumstances.
If we ever play the role of Iowa to a football equivalent of Tyler Smith, I would sincerely hope that hypothetical guy would get the release.
;-)
Yeah
I don’t think Dooley would have a problem releasing someone like in the case of Tyler Smith or even Brandon Warren.
A petulant child with too many voices in his ear is one thing, a serious, documented family tragedy is another.
"I condone fun things" ~~ Cortland Finnegan
Hello ladies. Look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me.
Interesting.
This is clearly something not calculated to help recruit other kids or look good on TV, and I;m sure CDD knows that BB is never going to be a Vol. One can only assume that he is doing it because he thinks it will help BB in some way. How refreshing to see a coach do something purely for the benefit of the athlete, altho I’m sure the tone of national coverage will be “zomg whay is dooley such a jerk???!!!111eleven”.
I think it's a message to the remaining players as much as anything else.
A reinforcement of the action /consequence idea that he seems to be focused on. Basically, if you’re going to pout your way to leaving the program, don’t expect the program to make things any easier on you in the process. An analogy might be like trying to get a letter of recommendation from a former employee. It’s always easier to get one when you worked hard to the end and left a good impression.
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 31, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I'll be entirely honest here:
I don’t like all that I’ve heard from Dooley regarding this situation. I can understand wanting to “man up” or some such or “teach the kid a lesson” but, in the end, it’s not Dooley’s job to teach Bryce Brown lessons right now; it’s the job of whatever coach he goes to, if that’s Bill Snyder then that’s Bill Snyder.
I know in this case it’s a matter of taste, but from my viewpoint it’s this: Tennessee and our Football team gain absolutely nothing more than a bit of a reputation — good or bad — from this whole ordeal. If Bryce was one of Dooley’s recruits I’d be 100% behind him, but in the end Bryce Brown didn’t come to Tennessee to play for Derek Dooley. Could he act more like a man etc. etc.? Of course he could, but he’s also, in the end, just past his freshman year in College. Let’s not all pretend that we know we would handle the situation better if we were in his shoes.
Eric Berry Eats Landsharks For Breakfast.
I completely agree with all of that.
Excellent post.
And it rubs me the wrong way that Dooley lied to the media about the meeting, even if it was only temporarily. I don’t need him or want him to tell us everything that goes on behind closed doors, but I at least expect what he says to be true.
Lou Brock loves Lamp.
by birdjam on Aug 1, 2010 2:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Money quote:
I once asked Coach [Lane] Kiffin [who signed Brown], ‘If Bryce decided he wanted to leave, would you release him?’ And he said, ‘Yes, I’d do that.’"
So what was the plan? A new program every year depending on playing time? Now I am really glad he is gone. And I hope Coach Dooley doesn’t give in.
Official MCM Hater!
"If anyone asks you, you fixed my television. Now go!"
Bear in mind that the person you asked the question of is famous for saying what he thinks you want to hear
This isn’t a political site, so we won’t mention names of former presidents who made a living that way….
The COEXIST bumper sticker is ridiculous. How are people supposed to get along when one side is flying planes into tall buildings or wearing sweater vests full of C4 and nails? The faiths are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
by memphispete on Jul 31, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, Im sure I'll regret asking but
Whats your point? Lane made the same promise to Seantrel Henderson; and kept his promise.
I am sure you can find occasions where Lane kept his promise (when it was expedient to do so)
Kiffin is a Spin Master. For example, he implied the Tennessee Titans coach was cool with everything after he called to smooth things over after Kiffin demonstrated a lack of professionalism by stealing the Titans RB coach a week before training camp without asking clearance. Titans coach called BS. Kiffin spun it as geography when the two are completely unrelated. Titans coach said Absurd.
We could go on, talking about kids and recruiting and all the stuff he did while he was at Tennessee but there’s really no need. Not sure why you feel the need to defend Kiffin over here on our site. Wonder how many Vol fans would defend him on anything these days.
The COEXIST bumper sticker is ridiculous. How are people supposed to get along when one side is flying planes into tall buildings or wearing sweater vests full of C4 and nails? The faiths are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
What's the rational for not releasing him?
Is Dooley trying to get him to stay or just trying to make a point?
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
Don't think he has any interest in him staying
It’s making a point to a degree, but it’s also consistent with what he’s done with other transfer requests, using the qualifications mentioned above in the comments (commitment to the program, value to the team, how the player handled the situation).
We’ve had five transfer requests since Dooley took over. He released Todd Campbell (WR) and Nick Stephens, who was thought to be in the mix to start at QB. He granted a conditional release (has to play eight hours outside Knoxville) to Aaron Douglas, our freshman All-American left tackle. He did not release Bryce Brown or Nick Lamaison, a juco transfer QB. He’s treated each situation in a unique way (because each situation is) but overall been consistent to his guidelines for transferring.
by Will Shelton on Jul 31, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I think...
Dooley inherited a dad who is way too involved in making decisions for his son… as evidenced by the private conversations Arthur Brown makes a point of bringing up, and the hiring of a manager for both his sons.
Probably didn’t much care for a player who was continuously being tampered with, and there is really no way of telling what Bryce Brown was saying to Dooley… just what he told his dad.
I would be willing to bet a large sum that Bryce was less than sure about transferring when speaking to Dooley, otherwise the door wouldn’t have been left open as long as it was.
Does this, on the surface
make any sense? Between transferring to a school that is almost inconcievable to play Tennessee, being a product of the old regime, having not caused much trouble other than his indecision and flakiness, why would Dooley do this? not really a criticism as a question. I am not a Vol, but am not trying to be problematic. I am interested in what you guys think. I don’t see where making BB an “example” is going to make many far reaching points, and looks not really bad but kinda bad. From what all I read about Dooley, I have gained little insight and it seems when I come over here that most of you guys arent much further ahead, so im clueless. Other than Bryce pissed him off, I dont see any obvious reasons. I hear the whole making a point to your team thing, but it doesnt seem right. Other than there is more to it than has been reported, anyone have any interesting ideas?
by otisnixon'sparty on Jul 31, 2010 10:04 PM EDT reply actions
The big problem is that we don't know what we don't know.
What was said in all these meetings between Dooley and the Browns? Also, what in Dooley’s history caused him to come up with these guidelines for transfer requests? This isn’t a system that sprung up out of the blue, and I doubt it’s one he had to worry much about at LaTech. That gets me back to his time with Saban at LSU: what did Dooley learn about player/school relationships then?
I’m far from settled on it myself, and bobo very eloquently stated the problems as well. I’ve tried looking at the most positive spins to see what logic makes the most sense, but it’s not easy to understand the decision independent of any emotional context (which is what Dooley claims he’s doing).
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 31, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
even when i think of guidelines
in that context a) doesnt make alot of sense and b) this is the perfect case to cut someone loose with no fanfare. Either Dooley is more hotblooded than people think or… this has to be temper/im in charge/instinctual sort of thing. nothing else makes sense just wonder if this is him announcing his authority or his personality that no one knew about. An interesting year ahead learning who this man really is
by otisnixon'sparty on Jul 31, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.
There’s still a lot I don’t know about the guy. To be honest, I hadn’t even heard of him prior to his name popping up in the coaching search. So I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t account for his demeanor in something like this.
I can see the ’I’m in charge’ angle. I have a hard time with the ‘temper’ angle because this thing dragged on for so long that the emotional energy from a temper flare-up would have died down. Instinctual? Perhaps.
I keep leaning toward the possibility that Dooley felt that Brown was being unprofessional about this. If he sees the release as a gift, then it would make sense (whether we agree with the decision or not) that he wouldn’t give a release to someone who offends (in a business sense).
My second theory is that Dooley can’t see why Brown would want to leave. If, in Dooley’s mind, there’s no justification for a transfer, then there’s no release, right?
Well, that’s where I’m at. A whole pile of unsure. I can see reasons for and against the move, but I can’t resolve it with what I know.
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 31, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I think there's a degree, no matter how small
of “I know what’s best for you” in here that’s bothersome to some. I know that Aaron Douglas’s family wasn’t too happy with the eight hour rule, which Dooley enacted because Douglas was having problems being “close to home” – which he interpreted as the need to get 8+ hours away. Pure speculation, but maybe with Brown there’s some “this kid needs to grow up – if he can’t ask me face to face for a release, I’m not giving him one to teach him a lesson.” And based on the information at hand, Bryce does need to grow up (as we all did at 18-19). But you won’t hear anything good from the families of Brown, Douglas, or Lamaison about the way their transfer requests were handled.
by Will Shelton on Jul 31, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
That's true.
And we’re not going to hear the whole story from Dooley either.
;-)
by David Hooper on Jul 31, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
There is more to it than is being reported
At least that’s what I’ve been told by someone who’s been reliable in the past. That unreported fact sheds a bit of light on the situation, but even with it, I’m sure it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Bottom line, Dooley has all of the facts (or at least more than we do), and he’s made a decision. We can second guess him based on our more limited understanding of things — that’s what we do — and we can talk about perception because that’s extremely important.
The thing that bothers me the most about this is that Dooley has said — perhaps more accurately, led us to believe — that he didn’t meet with Brown, but Brown’s dad is saying they did meet and Dooley told him not to talk about it. Dooley may have been lawyering the statements a little bit, saying only that they hadn’t met in his office and Brown hadn’t looked him in the eye and asked for a release or something tortuously parsed like that, but the perception is that either Dooley or Brown’s dad is lying about the meeting, and Dooley can’t afford to be perceived as having lied right now, what with his emphasis on changing the culture, character education, and telling the kids that he’s going to have to win their trust.
by Joel Hollingsworth on Aug 1, 2010 7:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Your last paragraph
Is what has me annoyed over this, too. I believe, from what the ESPN article about this said, that Dooley confirmed meeting with Bryce on Saturday — granted, Arthur and Dooley both said that Bryce Brown did not ask for a release to Dooley’s face. So it’s just a messy situation, in my mind. Part of me respects Dooley for sticking to his guns and taking a stand on this, but another part of me believes that this is just a messy situation that Tennessee doesn’t need attributed to them right now, and further that this is messin’ with a young kid’s future, to an extent.. I’m not of the opinion you should tell someone to “grow up” by making or telling their family to pay 10,000 dollars (or whatever KSU’s yearly tuition is) just cause “Neener Neener you didn’t talk to my face about it!”
Eric Berry Eats Landsharks For Breakfast.
when i say not right
I mean it doesnt seem like the real why. Tennessee is well within their rights, just seems like unless im missing something or all the information is out that Dooley is like 40’s old school and he doesnt seem like THAT much of a hardcase
by otisnixon'sparty on Jul 31, 2010 10:07 PM EDT reply actions

by 






















