DRC: Echols-Luper transferring, has interest in UNT

p_phelps · July 8, 2017

I'll take him, his past is weed related not like it was heroine. If he wants to walk on I'm not saying no to talent unless it's a major character concerned (Baylor type)

Edited July 8, 2017 by p_phelps

GTWT · July 8, 2017

A lot depends on his attitude. If he acknowledges he screwed up & sincerely wants to get his act together then give him the chance. Everyone of us has been given a second chance at one point or other in our lives, he shouldn't be any different.

MeanGreenZen · July 8, 2017

He will graduate so he must be a little bit of a competent person. If we took him, he would be here only for 4 months. He went to multiple high schools and multiple colleges so he must be part knucklehead too. I would take him only as a PWO.

greenjoe · July 8, 2017

CEL is an interesting project. He goes to a BIG 12 school with plenty of other offers. He gets plenty of playing time as a freshman and is named honorable mention in the B12. For some reason, transfers to AState and does well and is slated to graduate. And, not only graduate but to graduate early and still have a 4th year to play. This guy is not your run of the mill troubled kid.

I'm usually the first to stay away from potential troubled kids, but if he comes to North Texas with a degree in hand, I'd like to see him on Saturdays. On a very short leash.

GO MEAN GREEN

Travis · July 8, 2017

Weed? We would pass on him because of weed?? Something that should be legal anyhow.

TheTastyGreek · July 8, 2017

I think it's obvious why we wouldn't be interested... At least 2 other D1 schools offered him a scholarship. He doesn't fit our system.

Wake me when Hardin-Simmons offers. Then I bet we jump in the race.

Arkstfan · July 8, 2017

Why would he walk on at UNT to work on a graduate degree when he can find plenty of schools within 2-3 hours of his mom that will give a full ride.

Thats the beauty of grad transfers. They don't count against 25 newcomer limit but can help you get to 85.

BillySee58 · July 8, 2017

19 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

Thats the beauty of grad transfers. They don't count against 25 newcomer limit but can help you get to 85.

They do count against the 25.

GTWT · July 8, 2017

3 hours ago, Travis said:

Weed? We would pass on him because of weed?? Something that should be legal anyhow.

You're probably right that weed should be legal. That, however, isn't the point. The kid broke the law. Someone in his position should religiously follow the law - for his own best interest and for the interest of his team.

GrandGreen · July 8, 2017

30 minutes ago, GTWT said:

You're probably right that weed should be legal. That, however, isn't the point. The kid broke the law. Someone in his position should religiously follow the law - for his own best interest and for the interest of his team.

4 hours ago, Travis said:

Weed? We would pass on him because of weed?? Something that should be legal anyhow.

There would be a massive turnover in players nationwide if everyone was banned who had partaken. Now there is a question of degree involved, and he maybe more than a casual user. However, definitely deserves a look.

Danish43 · July 8, 2017

6 hours ago, greenjoe said:

CEL is an interesting project. He goes to a BIG 12 school with plenty of other offers. He gets plenty of playing time as a freshman and is named honorable mention in the B12. For some reason, transfers to AState and does well and is slated to graduate. And, not only graduate but to graduate early and still have a 4th year to play. This guy is not your run of the mill troubled kid.

I'm usually the first to stay away from potential troubled kids, but if he comes to North Texas with a degree in hand, I'd like to see him on Saturdays. On a very short leash.

GO MEAN GREEN

I am with you there Joe.

Do do they do random drug tests in these programs like they do in private business?

KRAM1 · July 8, 2017

18 hours ago, GMG24 said:

As far as I've read he had one traffic stop where they found weed parafanalia and open warrants. My guess unpaid speeding tickets. Anyway if you want to win, you're going to have some borderline guys. This guy as far as I can tell isn't a gun toting felon, I'm good with giving it a shot as a walk on. Just my opinion, but you aren't going to find a bunch of kids who can play ball who don't have their issues whether we know about them or not. It is what it is. You get them here and try to continue building their character while winning games.

Are you saying that all decent players in football are kids with problems and that you can't win without "problems" on your team?

Since when is it part of a scholarship program to take known "problems" just so you can try to mold their character?

I get the molding character part of coaching and I think it is a really good and honorable thing to do, but to try to "resurrect" a player with known challenges is "above and beyond" for me and would seem to take coaching energy away from a lot of other kids to monitor closely a known problem.

Choices...people make choices. Problem is that we allow athletes to get chance after chance after chance which does more to perpetuate the problems than fix them in my book.

Anyway, I always appreciate an actual coaches perspective. So, thanks for jumping in here. I do realize you know much more about this stuff than I do. Just hope a program does not have to take these kids to win. I hold out hope that there are plenty of "Mason Fine" good kids out there who can also play. Maybe not, but I hold out that hope.

GMG24 · July 8, 2017

34 minutes ago, Danish43 said:

I am with you there Joe.

Do do they do random drug tests in these programs like they do in private business?

"Random" :) usually the walk ons.. least that's how they did my buddies who played at SOSU and Tarleton state.

Travis · July 9, 2017

6 hours ago, GTWT said:

You're probably right that weed should be legal. That, however, isn't the point. The kid broke the law. Someone in his position should religiously follow the law - for his own best interest and for the interest of his team.

The point is that it is a terrible law. breaking a bad law that was ill made shouldn't have these kind of consequences.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Travis

p_phelps · July 9, 2017

6 hours ago, GTWT said:

You're probably right that weed should be legal. That, however, isn't the point. The kid broke the law. Someone in his position should religiously follow the law - for his own best interest and for the interest of his team.

Come on man.. that maybe a noble stance but it's a naive one. I would put everything I own to say 75% of every team has at least occasional smoking of weed. It's not such an earth shattering thing to shun him especially if he has talent. If you take your stance you better not ever go over the speed limit because that's breaking the law. Let's be real.

GTWT · July 9, 2017

12 minutes ago, p_phelps said:

Come on man.. that maybe a noble stance but it's a naive one. I would put everything I own to say 75% of every team has at least occasional smoking of weed. It's not such an earth shattering thing to shun him especially if he has talent. If you take your stance you better not ever go over the speed limit because that's breaking the law. Let's be real.

Yes, he has talent. But if he's going to embarrass your program you don't want him.

meanrob · July 9, 2017

No. If you aren't the second coming of Booger Kennedy, Mitch Maher, or Johnny Quinn I don't want you as a grad transfer. As David Wooderson would say (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'd rather go with youth."

UNTLifer · July 9, 2017

39 minutes ago, p_phelps said:

Come on man.. that maybe a noble stance but it's a naive one. I would put everything I own to say 75% of every team has at least occasional smoking of weed. It's not such an earth shattering thing to shun him especially if he has talent. If you take your stance you better not ever go over the speed limit because that's breaking the law. Let's be real.

Because those two laws are so similar. Somebody mentioned it is a bad law. Is it? Folks in Colorado may disagree.

In 2014 and 2015, nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars.

Teen drug-related school expulsions are also on the rise. And the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens.

Denver’s homeless population has exploded since Amendment 64 went into effect. And there are indications that finite tourist dollars are going more to pot and less to Colorado’s iconic natural wonders.

http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931

Edited July 9, 2017 by UNTLifer

p_phelps · July 9, 2017

27 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Because those two laws are so similar. Somebody mentioned it is a bad law. Is it? Folks in Colorado may disagree.

In 2014 and 2015, nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars.

Teen drug-related school expulsions are also on the rise. And the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens.

Denver’s homeless population has exploded since Amendment 64 went into effect. And there are indications that finite tourist dollars are going more to pot and less to Colorado’s iconic natural wonders.

http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931

Are those law so different? If we want to get to the science and evidence based speeding would be more deadly. You point out Colorado but what about the hand full of other states that legalize it every year. I don't partake personally but it's 2017. Stop looking at it as if they are doing cocaine, heroine, steroids, drinking and driving, I could go on. Even so, if kid shows remorse and has talent why not take him on for 4 months??? This isn't the boy scouts and we certainly have no right to be picky on talent. From the info I've read he may be immature but not a bad kid. It's pretty amazing how we are so quick to back our short comings in recruiting but when an opportunity comes about we shoot it down. Kids become available for a reason and we always have to weigh the pros and cons. To me the pros heavily out weigh the cons, especially if he's a walk-on.

Edited July 9, 2017 by p_phelps

meanrob · July 9, 2017

26 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Because those two laws are so similar. Somebody mentioned it is a bad law. Is it? Folks in Colorado may disagree.

In 2014 and 2015, nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars.

Teen drug-related school expulsions are also on the rise. And the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens.

Denver’s homeless population has exploded since Amendment 64 went into effect. And there are indications that finite tourist dollars are going more to pot and less to Colorado’s iconic natural wonders.

http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931

That's an opinion piece. I could post a link that shows opposite "facts." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/13/heres-how-legal-pot-changed-colorado-and-washington/?utm_term=.8e520b2b10ae

I could care less, I don't smoke the wacky tobacky. But the links she uses don't even back up her statements. In the link about school expulsions it says violent crime is down which contradicts her previous statement.

It took me five seconds to find this poll of the people in Colorado not having buyer's remorse-http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/20/legalize-marijuana-poll/

Good grief, a comment about a WR we don't even have interests in turns in to a debate using bs facts about pot. #Merica.

Arkstfan · July 9, 2017

If someone wants to make me emperor, I'd take pot off the schedule of drugs or move it to the lowest classification.

When the current law was adopted, President Nixon appointed a panel of doctors and scientist to determine where it should be classified. They split. Half said at the lowest level, half said it shouldn't be federally regulated at all. Politics being politics, President Nixon had it classified as the most dangerous of drugs.

I find some amusement that the people most opposed to legalization are people who generally utter words like "states rights" well more than half the states have sent DC a message, we want to regulate this just as we have a constitutionally protected right to regulate alcohol.

I was Mr. Skeptic and long felt this was something we should do greater research on before making a decision. Then the study comes out showing that states that have permitted sales have seen small dips in prescriptions for anxiety medication, depression medications, and large decreases in prescriptions for opioids. That tells me people are using it as a substitute for medication in addition to the recreational use we all know is taking place under the guise of medical.

That also signaled to me that there would be a strong fight to do anything because there is a lot of money on the table to be lost.

I know a guy who lives in a non-medical state whose wife was severely injured in an accident, spent a long-time in a coma and had serious cognitive issues. He is talking to her neurologist months later as her recovery had slowed and the neurologist said, if you believe in prayer, pray, but if it were my wife, I'd also find a pot dealer.

He eventually did. Tremors were reduced, anxiety attacks decreased, memory improved. She is now back working a professional job and smokes about a joint over the course of a week.

I've no interest or desire in smoking dope. I rarely drink and avoid medication as much as I can, but if the early studies related to Alzheimer's continue to support slowing of symptoms and used early enough even reversing some symptoms for a time, I'll rethink my position based on watching my mother's decline. My ultra conservative father saw such a report on Fox News and told me if he had known earlier he would have tried to find a way to get it for it (way too late now).

We vacation quite a bit in Colorado. I read a report about a park that is just covered in trash and homeless people swarm it smoking pot. I drove past it and all I saw was pre-school age kids and their mothers in the park and it sure looked clean (maybe the horror is away from the highway). While we were in Breckenridge last trip the local paper said that some of the ski communities that banned sales locally out of fear of losing tourists have seen their tourist numbers be flat or decrease while the communities allowing it have seen growth. They now are viewing it as just another amenity to offer.

Reality is no member of Congress wants to go on the record reducing pot from the most dangerous drug to something you could buy by presenting ID even though most states have already voted to do so.

One thing I would do differently though, is ban the sale to anyone under 25 unless medically approved because the worst impact seems to be on people under 25. Odd as it seems it may be beneficial to developed brains in some cases but the evidence regarding people with developing brains seems much more negative.

UNTLifer · July 9, 2017

My point is that it is considered illegal and he chose to break the law. This isn't about legalizing pot. Somebody else turned the discussion that direction.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 9, 2017

16 hours ago, meanrob said:

It took me five seconds to find this poll of the people in Colorado not having buyer's remorse-http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/20/legalize-marijuana-poll/

A poll done by The Cannabist? I'm sure there's no agenda driving their methodology or reporting.

I could be mistaken, but isn't this kind of discussion verboten outside the Pie forum?

meanrob · July 9, 2017

14 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

A poll done by The Cannabist? I'm sure there's no agenda driving their methodology or reporting.

I could be mistaken, but isn't this kind of discussion verboten outside the Pie forum?

I wasn't trying to say that poll was valid, just that it doesn't take long to find an opposing viewpoint. Or a link to give credence to one's own opinion. I probably should've have made that more clear.

And no, you aren't mistaken.

Fifty plus days til kickoff.