Memphis with another commit...

[oldcougar77]

A question for posters who are against (or at least don’t like) one and done players. Do you hold the same thoughts for grad transfers, as well? If not, what’s your distinction between them?

I still think grad transfers should sit a year. If they want to continue their education someplace else, that's fine. They've earned their degree and the right to move on. Still there is something unseemly about P5 programs poaching smaller programs to get plug-and-play talent. IMO, when a kid commits to a school, and that school invests in him, he owes them his talent all four years. If he sees a better opportunity elsewhere, he can wait a year.

I would make an exception if the grad transfer is leaving because of a coaching change. In that situation I would grant immediate eligibility. Just my two cents.

 

[Al Bino]

I still think grad transfers should sit a year. If they want to continue their education someplace else, that's fine. They've earned their degree and the right to move on. Still there is something unseemly about P5 programs poaching smaller programs to get plug-and-play talent. IMO, when a kid commits to a school, and that school invests in him, he owes them his talent all four years. If he sees a better opportunity elsewhere, he can wait a year.

I would make an exception if the grad transfer is leaving because of a coaching change. In that situation I would grant immediate eligibility. Just my two cents.

So, if a kid commits to a school then he owes them all fours years BUT since scholarships are year to year, a school can find a more talented player and tell that player, sorry but your services are no longer needed, tough luck kid.

Yea, that seems fair.

If your position is that a transferring player should set out a year then are you in favor of the school losing that scholarship for one year?

 

[oldcougar77]

So, if a kid commits to a school then he owes them all fours years BUT since scholarships are year to year, a school can find a more talented player and tell that player, sorry but your services are no longer needed, tough luck kid.

Yea, that seems fair.

If your position is that a transferring player should set out a year then are you in favor of the school losing that scholarship for one year?

I would assume that if the school pulled a scholarship then the kid is immediately free to go elsewhere and play. Bad analogy. As to your question, which school are you speaking about, the one he's leaving or the one he's transferring to ?

 

[iubirdman]

IMO, when a kid commits to a school, and that school invests in him, he owes them his talent all four years. If he sees a better opportunity elsewhere, he can wait a year.

I would make an exception if the grad transfer is leaving because of a coaching change. In that situation I would grant immediate eligibility. Just my two cents.

What if the player was there for 4 years, and then was a grad transfer? Is are they free to play right away then?

 

[oldcougar77]

What if the player was there for 4 years, and then was a grad transfer? Is are they free to play right away then?

You only get to play 4 years total. Moot point.

 

[iubirdman]

You only get to play 4 years total. Moot point.

Did not say play 4 years, you said the players owes the school all 4 years, if they are there for 4 years and decide to leave, have they not fulfilled their "obligation"?

 

[oldcougar77]

Did not say play 4 years, you said the players owes the school all 4 years, if they are there for 4 years and decide to leave, have they not fulfilled their "obligation"?

I realize I'm a dinosaur, but I think the kid owes his teammates his fourth year.

Here's my reasoning. A few years ago Izzo poached Valparaiso's point guard as a grad transfer (kid from Lawrence North, name escapes me) to fill a need for Sparty. The kid had been a three-year starter at Valpo. No coaching change at Valpo. Valpo was poised to have a really good team that next year - likely a contender for the conference championship and in the hunt for a NCAAT slot. Instead, they unexpectedly lost their most important player.

Forget the school and the coach (even though both were heavily invested in the kid), 12 guys who counted on their teammate were f@#ked by his lack of loyalty and the ability of a shark to swallow a smaller fish with tacit approval by the NCAA. MSU didn't want the kid out of high school, but they damn sure wanted him after Valpo had helped make him a P5-level player.

 

[iubirdman]

I realize I'm a dinosaur, but I think the kid owes his teammates his fourth year.

Here's my reasoning. A few years ago Izzo poached Valparaiso's point guard as a grad transfer (kid from Lawrence North, name escapes me) to fill a need for Sparty. The kid had been a three-year starter at Valpo. No coaching change at Valpo. Valpo was poised to have a really good team that next year - likely a contender for the conference championship and in the hunt for a NCAAT slot. Instead, they unexpectedly lost their most important player.

Forget the school and the coach (even though both were heavily invested in the kid), 12 guys who counted on their teammate were f@#ked by his lack of loyalty and the ability of a shark to swallow a smaller fish with tacit approval by the NCAA. MSU didn't want the kid out of high school, but they damn sure wanted him after Valpo had helped make him a P5-level player.

So two things, first, what if the kid is there 4 years and was redshirted by the coach for a year--he did give them the 4 years, why would you be against them being able to go?

Secondly, if a kid graduates, why force them to go to grad school in a program they are not interested in? If I remember correctly, they have to enroll in a grad program not offered at their original school. If a kid wants to get his MBA, why make them stay at a school that does not offer an MBA program?

 

[MrBing]

"We're"?

Are you and feepaw married to each other?

Someone posted that he and feepaw are the same person. I wouldn't bet against that.

 

[oldcougar77]

So two things, first, what if the kid is there 4 years and was redshirted by the coach for a year--he did give them the 4 years, why would you be against them being able to go?

Secondly, if a kid graduates, why force them to go to grad school in a program they are not interested in? If I remember correctly, they have to enroll in a grad program not offered at their original school. If a kid wants to get his MBA, why make them stay at a school that does not offer an MBA program?

Look, we can agree to have different views on this. I understand that can be the case. Call me overly cynical, but my guess is that 99% of these grad transfers to higher-profile programs don't give a shit what the grad program or major is - they are there to play ball. I would also bet that an equal percentage did not choose their original school because of its outstanding undergrad program in some field they wanted to study.

Besides, how hard is it for the coaching staff and their target player to sit down and look at the course guide and find a graduate major not offered by the original school. Even easier if you are leaving a small school with limited graduate programs for a major state university.

If I were running the show (which I'm not and never will be) ALL transfers would sit a year but would carry with them all eligibility that remained from their former school. No players get disadvantaged as their eligibility was not diminished, but coaches couldn't use the transfer rules as a convenient pathway to poach players to fill immediate needs. If Chris Beard or anybody else wanted to recruit players who were going to leave early for the NBA , they would have to rebuild next year with their own new recruits. Not reload with the players some other coach had developed and was counting on

 

[Al Bino]

I would assume that if the school pulled a scholarship then the kid is immediately free to go elsewhere and play. Bad analogy. As to your question, which school are you speaking about, the one he's leaving or the one he's transferring to ?

What bothers me is that it is a four year commitment from the kid but only a year to year commitment from the school. That seems out of balance to me.

I didn't make my point clear on the second part.

Your position appears to be that a player should sit a year if he transfers. My question is, If that is your position should a school that forces a transfer lose that scholarship the next year?

In other words, the player is penalized for transferring by having to set the next year, should a school that forces out a player have a similar penalty in giving up a scholarship for one year?

 

[Al Bino]

I realize I'm a dinosaur, but I think the kid owes his teammates his fourth year.

Here's my reasoning. A few years ago Izzo poached Valparaiso's point guard as a grad transfer (kid from Lawrence North, name escapes me) to fill a need for Sparty. The kid had been a three-year starter at Valpo. No coaching change at Valpo. Valpo was poised to have a really good team that next year - likely a contender for the conference championship and in the hunt for a NCAAT slot. Instead, they unexpectedly lost their most important player.

Forget the school and the coach (even though both were heavily invested in the kid), 12 guys who counted on their teammate were f@#ked by his lack of loyalty and the ability of a shark to swallow a smaller fish with tacit approval by the NCAA. MSU didn't want the kid out of high school, but they damn sure wanted him after Valpo had helped make him a P5-level player.

Are you putting the blame entirely on the kid or equally on the kid and MSU?

Assuming that MSU didn't do something illegal such as recruiting the kid while he was still at Valpo, all MSU did was take advantage of the existing rules.

As you stated, the kid evidently felt no loyalty to Valpo or his teammates.

 

[oldcougar77]

What bothers me is that it is a four year commitment from the kid but only a year to year commitment from the school. That seems out of balance to me.

I didn't make my point clear on the second part.

Your position appears to be that a player should sit a year if he transfers. My question is, If that is your position should a school that forces a transfer lose that scholarship the next year?

In other words, the player is penalized for transferring by having to set the next year, should a school that forces out a player have a similar penalty in giving up a scholarship for one year?

If the school does indeed force the transfer, it should absolutely lose the scholarship.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Look, we can agree to have different views on this. I understand that can be the case. Call me overly cynical, but my guess is that 99% of these grad transfers to higher-profile programs don't give a shit what the grad program or major is - they are there to play ball. I would also bet that an equal percentage did not choose their original school because of its outstanding undergrad program in some field they wanted to study.

Besides, how hard is it for the coaching staff and their target player to sit down and look at the course guide and find a graduate major not offered by the original school. Even easier if you are leaving a small school with limited graduate programs for a major state university.

If I were running the show (which I'm not and never will be) ALL transfers would sit a year but would carry with them all eligibility that remained from their former school. No players get disadvantaged as their eligibility was not diminished, but coaches couldn't use the transfer rules as a convenient pathway to poach players to fill immediate needs. If Chris Beard or anybody else wanted to recruit players who were going to leave early for the NBA , they would have to rebuild next year with their own new recruits. Not reload with the players some other coach had developed and was counting on

why?

what possible benefit to anyone is it if all transfers have to sit a yr?

just means someone sitting the bench who is ineligible eats up a scholly for 1 yr for the school, (and a scholly denied for a walk on who might have gotten it for that yr), and a wasted yr for the kid.

if a kid wants to play for another school, so be it.

keeping someone on your team by the force of limiting his options is only mean spirited and selfish.

in the end, it's a zero sum game for the schools as a whole, as they will benefit as much as they lose over time, and kids will have opportunities they never should have been denied in the first place.

the opportunity to move up if you succeed, shouldn't end after 12th grade.

if the kid goes to MSU just to play ball, so what?

why in the world would you inject yourself into somebody else's life?

i normally enjoy your posts, but no idea what greater good you're trying to advance here.

 

[ufo33]

I realize I'm a dinosaur, but I think the kid owes his teammates his fourth year.

Here's my reasoning. A few years ago Izzo poached Valparaiso's point guard as a grad transfer (kid from Lawrence North, name escapes me) to fill a need for Sparty. The kid had been a three-year starter at Valpo. No coaching change at Valpo. Valpo was poised to have a really good team that next year - likely a contender for the conference championship and in the hunt for a NCAAT slot. Instead, they unexpectedly lost their most important player.

Forget the school and the coach (even though both were heavily invested in the kid), 12 guys who counted on their teammate were f@#ked by his lack of loyalty and the ability of a shark to swallow a smaller fish with tacit approval by the NCAA. MSU didn't want the kid out of high school, but they damn sure wanted him after Valpo had helped make him a P5-level player.

Izzo is rape enabling scum.

 

[oldcougar77]

why?

what possible benefit to anyone is it if all transfers have to sit a yr?

just means someone sitting the bench who is ineligible eats up a scholly for 1 yr for the school, (and a scholly denied for a walk on who might have gotten it for that yr), and a wasted yr for the kid.

if a kid wants to play for another school, so be it.

keeping someone on your team by the force of limiting his options is only mean spirited and selfish.

in the end, it's a zero sum game for the schools as a whole, as they will benefit as much as they lose over time, and kids will have opportunities they never should have been denied in the first place.

the opportunity to move up if you succeed, shouldn't end after 12th grade.

if the kid goes to MSU just to play ball, so what?

why in the world would you inject yourself into somebody else's life?

i normally enjoy your posts, but no idea what greater good you're trying to advance here.

So should we just have fluid teams? Are you suggesting that kids and coaches should just be able to re-form new teams at four different schools over four years ? If there is to be no other connection to a university other than being enrolled in a minimum number of hours at one place or another each semester, why not just turn it into an AAU environment where each year 10 or so players get together and decide as a group where they want to play that year and what coach they want to coach them ?

That would seem to be the model that promotes the most personal freedom for players if that is the goal. Why go to the trouble of connecting them at all to any single university? I guess it would save coaches the hassle of recruiting kids from high school. If I were coaching in that environment, I would simply watch other teams play and recruit next year's team by reaching out to the kids from other teams that I really liked as players.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

So should we just have fluid teams? Are you suggesting that kids and coaches should just be able to re-form new teams at four different schools over four years ? If there is to be no other connection to a university other than being enrolled in a minimum number of hours at one place or another each semester, why not just turn it into an AAU environment where each year 10 or so players get together and decide as a group where they want to play that year and what coach they want to coach them ?

That would seem to be the model that promotes the most personal freedom for players if that is the goal. Why go to the trouble of connecting them at all to any single university? I guess it would save coaches the hassle of recruiting kids from high school. If I were coaching in that environment, I would simply watch other teams play and recruit next year's team by reaching out to the kids from other teams that I really liked as players.

A), schools do have different teams every yr, always have, always will.

B), because schollies are for a yr at a time, coaches have always had that option.

just because coaches can cut all their players every yr, doesn't mean they do.

C) why should a kid be contractually bound for 4 yrs and the school only 1, under the same contract.

D), the sky isn't falling, it's a zero sum game for schools, and the greater the disparity between the rights of the kid and the rights of the school, the greater the actual threat to "amateur" college sports as we know them.

so lessening the rights disparity here, where it has minor effect on the schools and great benefit to the kids, helps ensure things aren't blown up to a much greater degree down the road, as said disparities encounter more and more daylight..

the greater the rights disparities, the greater the threat to amateur college sports.

this is a place where very unseemly disparities can be reduced by greatly benefiting the kids' side of the ledger, with only very minor, if any at all, downside to schools. (imo, the pros = the cons for the schools over the long run anyway).

E), you're trying to impose yourself on someone else's life, absent anywhere near sufficient cause, or benefit to anyone.

try letting this one go. it's much ado about nothing.

 

[minneman]

So, if a kid commits to a school then he owes them all fours years BUT since scholarships are year to year, a school can find a more talented player and tell that player, sorry but your services are no longer needed, tough luck kid.

Yea, that seems fair.

If your position is that a transferring player should set out a year then are you in favor of the school losing that scholarship for one year?

The NCAA rules have always favored the school and have gone against the athlete's interests. The grad transfer rule is one of the more current changes that show this might be changing. You'll likely see more changes like this that favor athletes in the future as the NCAA tries to placate those that see it as exploiting the athletes while not going so far as to get rid of its "amateur" label.

I would assume that if the school pulled a scholarship then the kid is immediately free to go elsewhere and play. Bad analogy. As to your question, which school are you speaking about, the one he's leaving or the one he's transferring to ?

Under current rules, that is not the case. If an athlete transfers for any reason they have to sit out a year unless they're a grad transfer or they receive a waiver from the NCAA. The NCAA is inconsistent, at best, at granting waivers.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about grad transfers having to sit a year. I think the current rule is a step in the right direction. I don't think any transfers should have to sit. A change that big would greatly change the CBB landscape but I'm more for the interests of the athletes over those of the schools.

 

[009rdarby]

I am really old school, I prefer no shot clock. I actually enjoy the strategy part of slowing the tempo down and limiting possessions when you are outmanned or in foul trouble. Again I see beauty in low scoring grinders, where every possession matters. Then you would see less weave and heave at the end of the shot clock. I am absolutely not a fan of the shot clock at the HS level. No shot clock, high % shots is more beautiful to me than just seeing forced low % shots out of one on one moves to beat the shot clock, which is ugly basketball to me. Reminds me of ugly no defense all-star games and weekend AAU dribble drive hand off ball.

I remember a State Final morning game where Logootee played 5 kids, including the Butcher Brothers, who had played 4 years with each other, were coached by their Dad (Mr Butcher), were all 6’1-6’4, and never took a shot that was not a lay-up (no shot clock). They one the first and lost the championship game,

 

[oldcougar77]

I remember a State Final morning game where Logootee played 5 kids, including the Butcher Brothers, who had played 4 years with each other, were coached by their Dad (Mr Butcher), were all 6’1-6’4, and never took a shot that was not a lay-up (no shot clock). They one the first and lost the championship game,

I get your point, but your memory is faulty. I assume you are talking about the 1975 game (the only time in the Jack Butcher era that LHS made the final game). There was only one Butcher son on that team (Bill). Loogootee didn't play many kids, but they played more than five. And while they shot a lot of layups in that game, those weren't the only shots they took. As for the composition of that team, there were seniors (Butcher, Mike Mattingly, Mark Riggins), juniors (Kenny Nigg, Kenny Mattingly) and sophomores ( David Strange, Mike Waggoner) all in the mix. There were a couple of others I've forgotten as well.

But your point about the shot clock is well taken. Still, the Loogootee teams of that era would struggle to have the same success today. They played a very tightly packed 2-3 zone and dared you to shoot the ball from the perimeter. If they had you down in the 4th quarter, they spread the floor and cut you to pieces. The 3-point line in today's game vastly reduces the effectiveness of that defense.

 

[ORG]

Every single commit they have so far this year, and 3 of their top 4 last year are all from the Memphis metro area.
Also, 4 of the 7 Memphis metro kids were coached by Hardaway in HS. All Hardaway is really doing is pulling in kids he already has a long-standing relationship with

It may also be called "building a competitive team."

 

[ORG]

I remember a State Final morning game where Logootee played 5 kids, including the Butcher Brothers, who had played 4 years with each other, were coached by their Dad (Mr Butcher), were all 6’1-6’4, and never took a shot that was not a lay-up (no shot clock). They one the first and lost the championship game,

Did that include Jade Butcher?

 

[ufo33]

So should we just have fluid teams? Are you suggesting that kids and coaches should just be able to re-form new teams at four different schools over four years ? If there is to be no other connection to a university other than being enrolled in a minimum number of hours at one place or another each semester, why not just turn it into an AAU environment where each year 10 or so players get together and decide as a group where they want to play that year and what coach they want to coach them ?

That would seem to be the model that promotes the most personal freedom for players if that is the goal. Why go to the trouble of connecting them at all to any single university? I guess it would save coaches the hassle of recruiting kids from high school. If I were coaching in that environment, I would simply watch other teams play and recruit next year's team by reaching out to the kids from other teams that I really liked as players.

The Texas Tech model. It works.

 

[fpeaugh]

The Texas Tech model. It works.

We need their coach though.

 

[fpeaugh]

Having to sit a year is a complete sham. Coaches don’t have to sit a year when they leave. It’s up to these schools to provide the value necessary to keep kids there. And so many coaches lie to kids about what to expect and then change once they’re on campus and they know they have them locked in. That’s wrong.

My rule would be to give every kid one free transfer. No sitting out. It’s like one get out of jail free card. After that then you sit out a year.

 

[iubirdman]

The Texas Tech model. It works.

It worked this year, not sure that is a sustainable model