KState Will Not Release Leticia Romero | Page 3 | The Boneyard

KState Will Not Release Leticia Romero

Status
Not open for further replies.
meyers7 said:
Well let's not be ridiculous here. She can leave anytime she wants and go to any school that will accept her. She's not a hostage. I know she would have to pay and can't play, but that's very different than being held hostage.

I agree, K-State is being about a stupid as it can possibly be (and digging itself in deeper and deeper), but it's not like she can't just say and leave.
Expand ...
She is a financial hostage.
 
Icebear said:
She is a financial hostage.
Expand ...
No, not really. She isn't being forced to buy anything. She isn't being forced to pay to leave.

I just don't think "hostage" is the right word.
 
meyers7 said:
I just don't think "hostage" is the right word.
Expand ...
"Indentured servitude" isn't the right term either.

Nor, I suppose, is the captivity of the Israelites in Egypt an exact historical precedent.

There's a place, even when one isn't engaged in excoriation, for rhetorical metaphor.

And in that vein, I think the Red Sea will part to allow the exodus of Ms. Romero.
 
I hope you are right, JS. Any indications that this might be the case? Incidentally, don;t ever underestimate the thickheadednes of Kansans. Having grown up there and kept in touch, I know whereof I speak. I just hope and trust that they are being so peppered with emails and tweets and facebook messages that they think the dam has busted, and that those who are peppering them don't let up until they see the light.

And RAdyLady, what SORT of facts might be lurking behind the scenes? It looks very much as if everything is way out in the open. If there ARE any facts that have not come out, I am willing to bet that they are not likely to improve K-State's image.
 
Last edited:
meyers7 said:
No, not really. She isn't being forced to buy anything. She isn't being forced to pay to leave.

I just don't think "hostage" is the right word.
Expand ...
It has been reported she says she cannot afford college without an athletic scholarship. KState understands this and is attempting to leverage her into staying. If she is not a student she may well, also, need to leave the US since a student visa could be revoked. Pretty much an economic hostage. Kind of a contemporary equivalent of being unable to leave while in debt to the company store.
 
I am just wondering, what could Ms Romero have done that was wrong, as in facts we don't know?
Icebear said:
It has been reported she says she cannot afford college without an athletic scholarship. KState understands this and is attempting to leverage her into staying. If she is not a student she may well, also, need to leave the US since a student visa could be revoked. Pretty much an economic hostage. Kind of a contemporary equivalent of being unable to leave while in debt to the company store.
Expand ...

Can't a"Ford" to go.

 
.-.
pap49cba said:
I know I should not care one tiny iota what happens at Kansas State but this case just really (ticks) me off. It epitomizes everything that is screwed up about NCAA Div. 1 athletics. And yet people continue to argue that no, athletics don't 'run' the university. B.S. Do you really think Leti would have gone to Kan. St. if she knew this was what might happen if it didn't work out?
Expand ...

mel\'s picture of beach.jpg


As much as I hope things work out for Ms. Romero, at this point I'm more worried about pap49cba's blood pressure. We need our Supreme Linkster..!!

Pap, please sit in the most comfortable chair in the house, stare at the above picture and slowly say, "Kia Nurse, Courtney Ekmark, Sadie Edwards, Gabby Williams"..... then take a deep breath and say, "Natalie Butler, DeJanae Boykin, Napheesa Collier, Katie Lou Samuelson." And finally, close your eyes and whisper " Stewie, MoJeff, Kaleena" over and over until you're totally relaxed....:cool:

By the way, IMO several other BYers might want to try this, just to take it down a notch or two....:rolleyes:
 
Just a thought here. Is it possible for her to transfer to the school of her choice and receive a scholastic scholarship from that University and then walk on to the basketball team. Yes she will still have to sit out her required year but she would then have her education paid for and she would practice with the WBB team for the entire year. Then the following year she could be awarded an athletic scholarship and play WCBB for her chosen school. Is this kind of approach just beyond the pail?
 
This poor kid. Going to college so far from home, attending classes and playing D1 basketball is stressfull enough. To have all this additional drama and having her feel like she is trapped cannot be easy. KState has her boxed into a corner ad I can only imagine what this is doing to her metally and emotionally. Enough is enough.

Maybe her solution should be to become one of those players that KState "overlooks" the policy for and quit being the star, go-to player. Failing to perform at the accustomed level leading KState lose some games to start the season in November - my guess is tht by the end of the first semester KState would probably be opening th door wide for her exit.

Of course, few if any self-respecting top performing athletes would do that. I know no matter how unhappy I may be at work and want to underperform to get fired, I have too much pride in my work ethic to resort to that kind of thing so continue to strive to perform my job duties to th best of my abilities.
 
JS said:
And in that vein, I think the Red Sea will part to allow the exodus of Ms. Romero.
Expand ...
I hope so.....and without the locusts or frogs.
 
Icebear said:
It has been reported she says she cannot afford college without an athletic scholarship. KState understands this and is attempting to leverage her into staying. If she is not a student she may well, also, need to leave the US since a student visa could be revoked. Pretty much an economic hostage. Kind of a contemporary equivalent of being unable to leave while in debt to the company store.
Expand ...
ummmm no. Again, she doesn't owe anybody anything and doesn't have to pay anybody to leave. She can leave and go home anytime she wants. No hostage.

A contemporary equivalent would be working at a job you hate and saying you can't quit. You can quit, anytime. You may not be able to live the way you want (<$$$), but they are not making you stay.
 
.-.
DavidinNaples said:
Pap, please sit in the most comfortable chair in the house, stare at the above picture and slowly say, "Kia Nurse, Courtney Ekmark, Sadie Edwards, Gabby Williams"..... then take a deep breath and say, "Natalie Butler, DeJanae Boykin, Napheesa Collier, Katie Lou Samuelson." And finally, close your eyes and whisper " Stewie, MoJeff, Kaleena" over and over until you're totally relaxed....:cool:

By the way, IMO several other BYers might want to try this, just to take it down a notch or two....:rolleyes:
Expand ...
Actually that gets me all excited for next year. And the year after, and......... :D
 
RadyLady said:
I know I am probably going to gwt hammered by saying this but say I must:

Are we sure we know all the facts on this one? For the life of me I cannot understand why any university would make such a huge negative public spectacle of themselves for something so seemingly obvious unless there was something going on that has yet to be made public.
Expand ...

Anyone who has ALL the facts, please let us know because I have never heard of the media getting something wrong.
 
meyers7 said:
ummmm no. Again, she doesn't owe anybody anything and doesn't have to pay anybody to leave. She can leave and go home anytime she wants. No hostage.

A contemporary equivalent would be working at a job you hate and saying you can't quit. You can quit, anytime. You may not be able to live the way you want (< $), but they are not making you stay.
Expand ...
You are simply being intentionally blind to the leverage being exercised on her. She, yes, has a choice. Stay and play or potentially be forced to leave the country that is coercive leverage. It's is about the power same as the company store was. The company store was never about he products sold there. It was about exercising control and dominance over others by coercion through exploitation of economic leverage
 
Last edited:
elzorrogris said:
I hope you are right, JS. Any indications that this might be the case? Incidentally, don;t ever underestimate the thickheadednes of Kansans. Having grown up there and kept in touch, I know whereof I speak.
Expand ...
There is no head so thick it can't see this is a debacle.

Well, maybe I better not generalize without having seen all of them play. But they're blundering their way through a growing firestorm and have to find a way out.

They claim to be bound by policies they wrote themselves, as though those policies were an immutable constitution. Bull. Even constitutional rulings can be reconsidered, and constitutions changed.

Speaking of constitutions, in addition to everything else that's been said, I'm thinking they're implicitly under threat of a lawsuit that they won't want to see to a conclusion (bleeding the whole while) but will want to settle before it even starts by agreeing to a mutually acceptable transfer.

Among other things, they're a state school. If I'm her lawyer I'm starting to think about a constitutional (fed and/or state) due process argument.

They're an arm of the state and have administered their rules to an individual's detriment in a way that, based on virtually all reported facts, appears to have been unreasonable, inconsistent, opaque and arbitrary (to say nothing of accident prone).

Turning from the courts to the NCAA, which doesn't seem supportive of K-State's actions, there's a place for the NCAA permissible restrictions on transfers. The policy behind them is to avoid athletes opportunistically hopping around among programs seeking the best situations of the moment, while interrupting the presumed four-year educational path followed by other students.

The NCAA has always recognized coaching changes as a circumstance outside the athlete's control that can make her original choice a sort of shell game and that merit more lenient transfer rules.

That's the case here, and the notorious "stolen" letter makes clear that the AD was satisfied Ms. Romero wasn't being tampered with, i.e. lured by the former coaching staff to wherever they were going.

You add all this up, and conclude that it's going to dawn on even the thickest of heads that they have to get this case behind them and start repairing the damage.
 
Icebear said:
You are simply being intentionally blind to the leverage being exercised on her.
Expand ...
Not at all. I completely understand it. I'm not sure I can say the same for you. They only have leverage because they have something she wants. If she didn't want that, then they would have no leverage. If she is held "hostage" to anything, it is her wants.

Icebear said:
She, yes, has a choice.
Expand ...
Exactly. (not good choices, but choices)

Icebear said:
It's is about the power same as the company store was. The company store was never about he products sold there. It was about exercising control and dominance over others by coercion through exploitation of economic leverage
Expand ...
Closer,but not quite right. The Company store, you owed money to. That's why they had to keep working. She doesn't owe them anything.
 
.-.
meyers7 said:
ummmm no. Again, she doesn't owe anybody anything and doesn't have to pay anybody to leave. She can leave and go home anytime she wants. No hostage.

A contemporary equivalent would be working at a job you hate and saying you can't quit. You can quit, anytime. You may not be able to live the way you want (< $), but they are not making you stay.
Expand ...
Not quite. They are denying her the opportunity to continue her studies, as she can't afford it as a non-scholarship student. K-State may not get another decent wcbb recruit in a long time. Serves them right.
 
uconnfan68 said:
Not quite. They are denying her the opportunity to continue her studies, as she can't afford it as a non-scholarship student. K-State may not get another decent wcbb recruit in a long time. Serves them right.
Expand ...
Well that's not true. She can go to K State for free. AND like millions of other people who can't afford to go to college, it's not K State's fault they can't afford it.

I'm not defending K State, I don't like what they are doing. But some of you people need to think about what you are saying. The point was, she is not being held "hostage". She's being F&*#ed over. And yes hopefully, K State regrets this down the road. (even if they fix it)
 
elzorrogris said:
...

And RAdyLady, what SORT of facts might be lurking behind the scenes? It looks very much as if everything is way out in the open. If there ARE any facts that have not come out, I am willing to bet that they are not likely to improve K-State's image.
Expand ...

Adesmar123 said:
Anyone who has ALL the facts, please let us know because I have never heard of the media getting something wrong.
Expand ...

I knew this would be trouble, yet the vehemence was so overpowering (and from some surprising sources on the BY) that I felt it necessary to chirp. I am not a crystal ball and as I stated before, even in our instances of transfer, we are never told the entire circumstance of that players departure. Frankly I never thought that it was any of my business.

That said, it is very easy to side with the player in this case, and really makes the most sense. Yet I have that one little voice telling me that there may be more here than meets the eye, so I did a little digging. And I found a link to an article in the comments section of Mechelle's column yesterday, of which someone posted some content above, dated in April and gave me pause. I am not saying it's gospel, I am not saying that the writer even knows for sure..

I am just saying that there may be more here (operative word being "may"). That's all.
 
meyers7 said:
Well that's not true. She can go to K State for free. AND like millions of other people who can't afford to go to college, it's not K State's fault they can't afford it.

I'm not defending K State, I don't like what they are doing. But some of you people need to think about what you are saying. The point was, she is not being held "hostage". She's being F& #ed over. And yes hopefully, K State regrets this down the road. (even if they fix it)
Expand ...
You sure sound like you are defending them. She can only go to K-State for free IF she plays basketball. Do you think they'll honor her scholarship if she doesn't? If she chooses NOT to play for them, she loses her scholarship. If she chooses to go elsewhere, she has to pay out-of-pocket as she can't get the release from K-State. It sure sounds like she is being made to play basketball at K-State if she wants to continue going to school.
 
I
meyers7 said:
Well that's not true. She can go to K State for free. AND like millions of other people who can't afford to go to college, it's not K State's fault they can't afford it.

I'm not defending K State, I don't like what they are doing. But some of you people need to think about what you are saying. The point was, she is not being held "hostage". She's being F& #ed over. And yes hopefully, K State regrets this down the road. (even if they fix it)
Expand ...
I don't know what her basketball and education options are at home or in other foreign countries, but if I were Leticia I'd be thinking, "The h-- with the USA, see ya, good riddance." In any case K-State's treatment of her can't be making her feel too good about all the freedom and individual rights we preach about. Egg on more than just K-state's face IMO.
 
So, Meyers, (and maybe Ozzie too), you are of the opinion that, in spite of the fact that the coaching team which recruited her to KSU has all been fired, that the school is entirely justified in refusing to grant the young lady a release, and this in spite of the fact that they have nothing to gain and she has a great deal to lose, is that correct? In other words, because they have the power to refuse to release her, they also have the right to do so? "She should have read the fine print"? "All that is legal is justified"? "Caveat emptor"? Do you realistically think that there was any way she could or should have anticipated this sort of situation? If this is not defending them, what is it, pray tell?

Incidentally, RadyLady's link will not work for me. I would be interested to see the article.
 
Last edited:
.-.
that's very weird. It worked before, now it's not working. I refreshed the page. I am going to go to the original source and check it from there.....
 
Try this link

The site appears to not to want to let me link to it. So I suggest you go to

https://kansasstate.rivals.com/

and in the web search field, type
Raging battle continues over Romero

I just was able to get to the article doing this. I could copy and paste the relevant stuff here, but without the link, it is useless
 
elzorrogris said:
So, Meyers, (and maybe Ozzie too), you are of the opinion that, in spite of the fact that the coaching team which recruited her to KSU has all been fired, that the school is entirely justified in refusing to grant the young lady a release, and this in spite of the fact that they have nothing to gain and she has a great deal to lose, is that correct? In other words, because they have the power to refuse to release her, they also have the right to do so? "She should have read the fine print"? "All that is legal is justified"? "Caveat emptor"? Do you realistically think that there was any way she could or should have anticipated this sort of situation? If this is not defending them, what is it, pray tell?

Incidentally, RadyLady's link will not work for me. I would be interested to see the article.
Expand ...

Not me. Where did I indicate this? I put you in the Penalty Box for that error.
 
Last edited:
elzorrogris said:
So, Meyers, (and maybe Ozzie too), you are of the opinion that, in spite of the fact that the coaching team which recruited her to KSU has all been fired, that the school is entirely justified in refusing to grant the young lady a release, and this in spite of the fact that they have nothing to gain and she has a great deal to lose, is that correct? In other words, because they have the power to refuse to release her, they also have the right to do so? "She should have read the fine print"? "All that is legal is justified"? "Caveat emptor"? Do you realistically think that there was any way she could or should have anticipated this sort of situation? If this is not defending them, what is it, pray tell?

Incidentally, RadyLady's link will not work for me. I would be interested to see the article.
Expand ...

I just checked...this was my only post in this thread, and I clearly take her side.

"I am just wondering, what could Ms Romero have done that was wrong, as in facts we don't know?"

I am not happy with your mistake.
 
uconnfan68 said:
You sure sound like you are defending them.
Expand ...
Then you are not reading my posts right.

uconnfan68 said:
She can only go to K-State for free IF she plays basketball. Do you think they'll honor her scholarship if she doesn't? If she chooses NOT to play for them, she loses her scholarship. If she chooses to go elsewhere, she has to pay out-of-pocket as she can't get the release from K-State. It sure sounds like she is being made to play basketball at K-State if she wants to continue going to school.
Expand ...
Sure. But that is not denying her a free education. Actually that is providing her a free education. Which is the exact opposite.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,979
Messages
4,548,016
Members
10,430
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom