Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
smac97

Norm Chow Blocking Mormon Player From Byu Transfer (And Byu Only)

41 posts in this topic

Weird:

Hawai'i Warriors coach Norm Chow will allow defensive back Michael Wadsworth to transfer to any school except the BYU Cougars, the Salt Lake Tribune's Jay Drew reports. This is especially noteworthy since Wadsworth, originally from Utah, is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, the organization by which Brigham Young is owned and operated.

Wadsworth doesn't even have a scholarship offer to transfer to BYU at the moment.

More from Drew's lengthy report on why Hawai'i has singled out BYU, which it's been set to do since even before Chow took over:

"The way coach Chow explained it, he believes BYU has an unfair recruiting advantage for missionaries," John Wadsworth said. "I don't know his motives. The thing he expressed to me is that he felt like [bYU] has an advantage with returning missionaries and he referenced the Riley Nelson Rule."

After Utah State apparently complained to the NCAA when quarterback Riley Nelson transferred from USU to BYU after his church mission, the NCAA enacted a rule that restricts missionaries who want to change schools.

Coaches have the power to block departing players to transfer to other schools, but are not subject to the same rules themselves. Earlier this year, Chow left the Utah Utes to take the Warriors head coaching job.

Wadsworth recorded a number of special teams tackles in 2009, but has spent the last two years on his church-mandated mission. His family denies BYU coaches contacted him about transferring during his time away. He has three years worth of football eligibility left. Coming out of high school, he was recruited by Arizona, BYU and Utah, but his best offers came from Arizona State and Hawai'i.

I don't follow football much, but this seems odd.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a good old-fashioned temper tantrum.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortuately for Norm, Wadsworth's father founded Tahitian Noni, so has more money than the entire U of H athletic program. So Elder Wadsworth will walk on at BYU and play without a scholarship.

FWIW, he's still on his mission. The whole drama is being played out between his dad, Norm, and BYU while he is knocking on doors full time in the rain uphill both ways.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Taihitian Noni? Let's pray he doesn't bring any of that MLM stuff to campus.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Taihitian Noni? Let's pray he doesn't bring any of that MLM stuff to campus.

Well, yeah. That goes without saying.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't MLM and LDS synonymous?

2

Share this post


Link to post

So the 'blocking' only applies to scholarships and not to actual playing?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't MLM and LDS synonymous?

Not in my book. IMHO, I don't know how someone who is upper management can answer the "honest in your dealings with your fellow men" TR question in the affirmative while looking his/her bishop in the eye.

Unfortunately, MLM's and Utah DO seem to be synonymous at the present time.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't MLM and LDS synonymous?

Not as long as I have breath or standing to weigh in on the matter.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
0

Share this post


Link to post

I have known John Wadsworth and several of his brothers for years. John is without doubt one of the finest, most honest individuals in the Church. He and his wife have 11 children and a growing number of grandchildren. He has served faithfully in Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies and as a Mission President. His personal history is compelling and includes great personal hardship--including the death of both parents when he was very young. Since his mother was President Hinckley's younger sister, the Hinckley's stepped in (along with other family members) to help the older siblings keep the family together. There is much--very much--to admire and appreciate about this exceptional family.

As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing about his business or personal life that would prevent him from worthily entering the House of the Lord. It seems unfair and inappropriate to call upon negative MLM stereoptypes in order to pass judgement here.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have known John Wadsworth and several of his brothers for years. John is without doubt one of the finest, most honest individuals in the Church. He and his wife have 11 children and a growing number of grandchildren. He has served faithfully in Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies and as a Mission President. His personal history is compelling and includes great personal hardship--including the death of both parents when he was very young. Since his mother was President Hinckley's younger sister, the Hinckley's stepped in (along with other family members) to help the older siblings keep the family together. There is much--very much--to admire and appreciate about this exceptional family.

As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing about his business or personal life that would prevent him from worthily entering the House of the Lord. It seems unfair and inappropriate to call upon negative MLM stereoptypes in order to pass judgement here.

My statement applies to those who start MLM's. My Bishop is a great man and has worked for NuSkin for years. So I am not saying that anyone who works for a MLM company is unworthy. If that was so, the Provo and Timp temples would be a lot less busy.

But I stand by my characterization of MLM's as a fraudulent business model. They enrich a few to the detriment of many. They are the least efficient way to distribute a product, requiring a markup far above what you would see in a retail setting due to the many layers of commission that must be paid. The fact that they thrive in Utah is a blight on the name of our great state, and to a degree, on the culture that perpetrates their continued success. I don't want to come across as harsh, but those are my honest feelings.

And no, I have never worked for an MLM. I have been recruited by friends and neighbors and taken a good look at the structure, pricing, and marketing tactics of MLMs. The more I learn, the less I like.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I sat through a three MLM pitches, but, in the end, after a preliminary estimate, I realized I didn't have enough friends and family members to take advantage of... err, I mean, to interest in products and opportunities, to make any effort in an MLM worthwhile.

It is an interesting sensation, greed.

Edited by Log
0

Share this post


Link to post

My statement applies to those who start MLM's. My Bishop is a great man and has worked for NuSkin for years. So I am not saying that anyone who works for a MLM company is unworthy. If that was so, the Provo and Timp temples would be a lot less busy.

But I stand by my characterization of MLM's as a fraudulent business model. They enrich a few to the detriment of many. They are the least efficient way to distribute a product, requiring a markup far above what you would see in a retail setting due to the many layers of commission that must be paid. The fact that they thrive in Utah is a blight on the name of our great state, and to a degree, on the culture that perpetrates their continued success. I don't want to come across as harsh, but those are my honest feelings.

And no, I have never worked for an MLM. I have been recruited by friends and neighbors and taken a good look at the structure, pricing, and marketing tactics of MLMs. The more I learn, the less I like.

Here's a tutorial on what's wrong with MLM.

I don't think anyone here is passing judgment on any individual. But even good and decent people can get tied up in unwise business ventures. Joseph Smith, for example, was into treasure seeking in his youth.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Weird:

. . . but has spent the last two years on his church-mandated mission.

Mandated?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't do MLMs but one should not castigate them as immoral business models unless they purvey immorality, which NuSkin and Wadsworth don't, or one believes that government should dictate what is moral and not in a business model.

Seems if people are free to spend money on state lotteries or Indian casinos, they ought to be free to get involved in get rich quick schemes.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, MLM's and Utah DO seem to be synonymous at the present time.

It's interesting to watch the MLM conventions when they come to the Salt Palace in Salt Lake. The vast majority of the attendees seem to be Asians. I read a theory the other day that might explain it. The top-of-the-pyramid people have run out of "down-line" recruits locally (people here have gotten wise to the flawed approach) so they are obliged to expand internationally to keep the commissions rolling in.

Add on:

Here's the on-line article to which I am referring.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
0

Share this post


Link to post

But I stand by my characterization of MLM's as a fraudulent business model. They enrich a few to the detriment of many. They are the least efficient way to distribute a product, requiring a markup far above what you would see in a retail setting due to the many layers of commission that must be paid.

Should we declare immoral in the church, or unlawful in the government, a business which enriches a few and has a markup far above retail? What happened to free agency?

These businesses provide psychic returns above and beyond the mere products they sell, and for that reason they work and attract workers and investors. You've got internet startups with no business to speak of, no cash, and nothing but an idea. Investors bet on the come, liking what they see.

I'd never be caught dead in an MLM scheme, but I also get involved in investment decisions which would cause others to scratch their heads and say, "why did he do that?"

In the Church, we should have no business judging people involved in these MLM schemes, for the agency and freedom is theirs, not yours. To the extent the government extends its paternalistic mitts to declare illegal, well, my libertarian nature has a real problem with that as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Should we declare immoral in the church, or unlawful in the government, a business which enriches a few and has a markup far above retail? What happened to free agency?

These businesses provide psychic returns above and beyond the mere products they sell, and for that reason they work and attract workers and investors. You've got internet startups with no business to speak of, no cash, and nothing but an idea. Investors bet on the come, liking what they see.

I'd never be caught dead in an MLM scheme, but I also get involved in investment decisions which would cause others to scratch their heads and say, "why did he do that?"

In the Church, we should have no business judging people involved in these MLM schemes, for the agency and freedom is theirs, not yours. To the extent the government extends its paternalistic mitts to declare illegal, well, my libertarian nature has a real problem with that as well.

I'm confused here, Bob. Has anyone here advocated a government crackdown on MLMs? Seems you might be getting prematurely worked up.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What does MLM have to do with the OP?

1

Share this post


Link to post

What does MLM have to do with the OP?

Not that it matters to me, but the subject of the OP is reportedly the son of an MLM magnate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Not that it matters to me, but the subject of the OP is reportedly the son of an MLM magnate.

Does anyone think that influenced the coach's decision?

Isn't it obvious that Mr Chow is spitefully abusing his own power because of his personal animus against BYU and/or the Church?

Regards,

Pahoran

0

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting OP. The only reason I can think of for blocking this recruit from transferring to BYU is that the D-News reported some years back that Norm Chow was subjected to racial slurs by certain BYU officials. BYU even offered an official apology:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/540034586/1999-racial-slur-elicits-apology-at-Y.html

0

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone think that influenced the coach's decision?

Isn't it obvious that Mr Chow is spitefully abusing his own power because of his personal animus against BYU and/or the Church?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm no particular apologist for Coach Chow; I've already stated my suspicion that his not having gotten a head-coaching post to this point in his career has alot to do with his distaste for, or lack of skill in, "winning friends and influencing people" in order to recruit successfully and to schmooze boosters. That said, to be fair, the policy did not originate with Coach Chow. It originated, at least, with his predecessor.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But I stand by my characterization of MLM's as a fraudulent business model.

OK, let's see what you got.

They enrich a few to the detriment of many.

So does Walmart.

They are the least efficient way to distribute a product, requiring a markup far above what you would see in a retail setting due to the many layers of commission that must be paid.

OK, it is more expensive than Walmart, but so is Kay's Jewelry -- there are many levels of middle-men, commissions, etc in the sale of diamonds. Anyway, how is this "fraudulent", as you claim?

So far, you are batting zero, but keep going.

The fact that they thrive in Utah is a blight on the name of our great state, and to a degree, on the culture that perpetrates their continued success.

So, it is "fraudulent" because you say so. Why don't you call the police?

Edited by cdowis
0

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortuately for Norm, Wadsworth's father founded Tahitian Noni, so has more money than the entire U of H athletic program. So Elder Wadsworth will walk on at BYU and play without a scholarship.

FWIW, he's still on his mission. The whole drama is being played out between his dad, Norm, and BYU while he is knocking on doors full time in the rain uphill both ways.

I'm pretty sure he will have to sit out a year according to NCAA rules. I couldn't quote you the rule though.

edited to add: I'm pretty sure it's a football thing and nothing to do with the Church. Players that want to transfer usually have to sit a year before they can jump teams. There are exceptions to the rule such as the case when USC was sanctioned. The players were allowed to transfer at that time without sitting a year. The NCAA rules are fairly complicated but my guess is Norm got tired of losing players to BYU after returning from a mission.

The stuff that goes on beteween coaches, teams, conferences and the NCAA is crazy and any well versed coach will use the rules to his advantage. It's not just a Norm thing.

Edited by rodheadlee
0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.