Post by wtm97 on Mar 22, 2012 18:07:12 GMT -5
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: Exceeding Available Ships
________________________________________
How do you guys feel about over-recruiting? Uconn, Nova, Louisville, Kentucky, etc etc etc all do it. I say OK. The crooked NCAA has rules that LIMIT rather than maximize a Program's ability to truly evaluate a kid's character and his play...to really find out what makes a kid tick..ie will he dedicate himself to improving in the gym and the classroom. With a decent man like Keno, it would be done sensibly and with the best interest of both parties in mind..not just the Program's best interest. Having hired a ton of people in my time, sometimes you don't get the round peg to fit in the round hole...and that usually happens because there wasn't enough time to truly learn more about the candidate and vice versa. In college BB, history tells us players come and go sometimes and that's just the way it is.
West Virginia had 15 players committed to 13 roster spots for next
season. While guards Joe Mazzulla and ‘Truck’ Bryant have been
suspended indefinitely for scrapes with the law, both look like they
will still be on scholarship once the fall semester begins. With the
recent transfer of Dee Proby to an NAIA school, the Mountaineers are
now down to the necessary 13 players as Will Thomas has also opted to
leave the program after finishing summer courses.
Thomas played in 23 games last season for WVU (3.1 minute average)
with a .1 per game scoring average. The 215-pound point guard, from
East Cleveland (OH), will transfer to West Virginia State.
As for Bryant, he had already been suspended indefinitely by coach
Huggins before Bryant Found Himself in Trouble With the Law Again
(Times West Virginian) for the second time in a week for a traffic
incident.
According to the Times West Virginian, the second incident actually
predated by two weeks the July 4 incident that led to him being
charged with four misdemeanors and being suspended indefinitely from
the Mountaineer basketball team.
Bryant was cited for leaving the scene of an accident with injury and
duty to give information and render aid after an accident that
occurred at 2:50 a.m. outside Bent Willey’s night club in downtown
Morgantown on June 21.
Not a good time to be a WVU guard
Back to top
4Friars
All-American
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1603
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:47 am Post subject:
________________________________________
As long as it is not done ruthlessly like Calipari in the Kentucky situation this year I wouldn't have a problem with overrecruiting by a scholarship or two. Every year there is a player or two that leaves virtually every program. Why be left scrambling in the summer to fill that vacancy.
I too trust that if we let someone go or if someone wanted to leave the program Keno would handle it in an ethical straight forward manner similar to the situation that existed with Kellogg this season.
Great topic Dex. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of everyone.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:56 am Post subject:
________________________________________
It's a spreading practice and if we're going to be in the game, I think we need to play with the same limitations as everyone else...again, with the proviso already mentioned...that we do it sensibly and selectively.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:01 am Post subject:
________________________________________
I'm not keen on over-recruiting and would favor a hard limit. Over-recruiting allows marquis programs such as UConn or Kentucky to stockpile talent, sift through the players and then finalize a roster. It's not unlike the pros sans the waivers.
Conversely, if programs were forced to cut bait before stockpiling, it gives other programs a chance to react.
If someone were to convince me that all schools were to do it (even low D-1 programs), then I might have to rethink my position. But it seems obvious that this practice has been isolated to the elites. The rich get richer type problem. BTW, where do you think this would lead? If (14) was okay, then (15), why not (20)?
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Marquette, whose success we hope to emulate has been doing it.
I often wonder, if scholarships are renewable annually, why there is
a malodorous stigma attached to the practice of advising players that
they'd be advised to find another school. Either scholarships are
renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's
suitability for the program. Which is it?
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:41 am Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Either scholarships are renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's suitability for the program. Which is it?
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
I would suggest that they are one and the same, since over-recruiting presupposes that someone on your current roster will be leaving, either by his own volition...or because of your suggestion that he find another home.
If Brizzing isn't tied into Over-recruiting, then what is the issue?
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
If Brizzing isn't tied into Over-recruiting, then what is the issue?
Ahh. I see what you mean. I would say that its a matter a sequence-of-events. The latest trend has been to stockpile, then brizz. This affords the high caliper coach a matter of safety that I argue against. By safety I mean that he doesn't absolutely have to know what he's going to do when the excess 'ship is offered. He'll sort it out later, giving lower schools less time to react.
By contrast, if the coach has to brizz before being able to offer the 'ship, he'd have to sure that the brizz is called for and not just of matter having a better prospect in his pocket.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
TheInfoMan wrote:
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Either scholarships are renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's suitability for the program. Which is it?
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
If I am correct in my interpretation, brizzing is convincing (or forcing) a player to transfer in order to make room for another player at the same position while over-recruiting would be (such as WVU has recently done) bringing in more scholarship players than the NCAA allows and, prior to start of fall classes, paring the scholarships down to the allowed number.
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
_________________
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:29 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FfldCntyFan wrote:
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
Simple. I was wrong.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
TheInfoMan wrote:
FfldCntyFan wrote:
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
Simple. I was wrong.
Fair enough.
BTW, best of luck next year & beyond. Ideally Keno will turn out as well as PC fans are hoping.
_________________
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I agree with Info in that I am against it for the most part. The NCAA has certainly allowed recruiting to become an ugly blemish on a great game. Look how far ahead schools are now accepting verbals from kids. I have already seen posts hinting that maybe Desrosiers may see us w 1 ship left and commit. PC is not a school that has much leverage forcing a kid to act now but certainly the big schools can say "take it or leave it" well before a kid makes up his mind. These hasty/forced decisions only result in the myriad of transfer we see around the game. By the way, do schools still get penalized for transfers vs graduates.?
I think it is interesting that several posters have hinted Keno may sign 4 instead of 3 for 2010. Looking at the roster, I would be against that. I understand that there is a good chance another ship opens next spring just doing the math. But the staff should be committed to the 7 incoming plus 2 poop in my pants and not looking at them as "briz" candidates. That would only leave Brooks and I doubt that would be the case. If someone decides to leave next spring then fill the ship then or hold till 2011.
Back to top
pc1971
Veteran Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 5135
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:00 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Good, thought provoking, stuff DEX.
The initial reaction of thinking--"no, it is wrong and seems unethical" is understandable.
It is not something I believe should be done "willy nilly."However---if PC really had two more really good candidates who wanted to jump on board [say CD and one of the really good wing candidates],who knew what was going on and the staff already had a good idea that at least one more open slot was going to be there [think Tim Duncan],I would say go for it.
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
The arms race for talent is a tough one.Schools we consider to be ethical and well respected [like Mrquette and NOVA for two] are doing it.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
This is key...that it all depends on the character of the Head Coach...and, so far, we have no reason to doubt that Keno has a high level character and that he wouldn't be engaging in this activity willy-nilly.
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:39 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
pc1971 wrote:
Good, thought provoking, stuff DEX.
The initial reaction of thinking--"no, it is wrong and seems unethical" is understandable.
It is not something I believe should be done "willy nilly."However---if PC really had two more really good candidates who wanted to jump on board [say CD and one of the really good wing candidates],who knew what was going on and the staff already had a good idea that at least one more open slot was going to be there [think Tim Duncan],I would say go for it.
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
The arms race for talent is a tough one.Schools we consider to be ethical and well respected [like Mrquette and NOVA for two] are doing it.
I agree with 71....great topic for conversation right now. Unfortunately I'm a little strapped for time but I'll weigh in later.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
What came first the chicken or the egg? Did I as coach determine that a player was not a good fit and suggested that he may be better off someplace else or did I only come to that conclusion after I found someone I like more?
That to me is the essence of this debate. I am absolutely against the practice. If a kid stays out of trouble keeps his grades up and does the work the coaches asked but cannot crack the rotation; who's fault is that? Who recruited who?
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
If the coach at your own school does it, its reasonable and necessary. If the coach at another school does it, its outrageously unethical.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:58 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarJ wrote:
What came first the chicken or the egg? Did I as coach determine that a player was not a good fit and suggested that he may be better off someplace else or did I only come to that conclusion after I found someone I like more?
That to me is the essence of this debate. I am absolutely against the practice. If a kid stays out of trouble keeps his grades up and does the work the coaches asked but cannot crack the rotation; who's fault is that? Who recruited who?
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently commitments were made to be broken.
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Bingo!
Over-recruiting (or as I like to call it stockpile recruiting) is like getting married and then getting married again without divorcing first. And BTW, divorce should be a last resort, not easily attained.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I will add a little to this on a couple of players (from my school) that I happen to know about:
1 - Doug Wiggins. This kid was given (too) many chances and the reality was he had to go. His subsequent stay at UMass made him a number of enemies within their administration and athletic department and from what I understand, he currently is a man without a country so to speak.
2 - Jonathan Mandeldove. This kid has been unable to get much playing time, including a period where we did not have a lot of depth at his position. After his sophomore season (he will be a senior in 09-10) JC had a long talk with him, letting him know where he stood and what he could expect as far as PT. The kid said that he would prefer remaining at UConn riding the bench than transferring and playing somewhere else. He has remained on scholarship at the school and remained on the team.
3 - Scott Haralson. The staff made it clear during his freshman season that they were not happy with his conditioning and this kept him seated on the bench for the bulk of the season. After the season ended, JC let him know what was expected of him (conditioning wise) and what he could expect as far as PT went, all dependent on his conditioning. This kid went looking for another school shortly after this conversation.
I realize that we have lost a number of scholarship players over the years and this does not always put the program in the best light. That Mandeldove was not forced out, when there were players who we could have filled that scholarship with, does lessen (at least in my eyes) the severity of this.
Most players who left the program did so knowing that there would not be a lot of PT available to them. Most who did leave did so in pursuit of a place where they could play, not because they were forced out to make room for the next hot number (see the Rodrick Rhodes story).
Unfortunately, it is a highly competitive pursuit and many kids while they are still in high school believe that they can conquer anything, only to find out that even if they are one in a million, there still are another couple hundred with similar talent.
_________________
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
In terms of who is to blame if a kid doesn't have the right stuff...blame the NCAA for its ridiculous rules preventing college coaches from doing more extensive research on the players they're recruiting.
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Fair enough, then we ought not expect to compete against everybody else.
This is not breaking rules...and, as long as it's an increasing part of the college basketball landscape, you either compete on as level a playing field as possible...or you find another game.
BTW, if you believe that Providence College established its name as a basketball power by following all the rules, I have a bridge to sell you.
Breaking rules is what I wouldn't condone...this is not in that category.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
[quote="TheInfoManOver-recruiting (or as I like to call it stockpile recruiting) is like getting married and then getting married again without divorcing first. And BTW, divorce should be a last resort, not easily attained.[/quote]
Info: Kinda like getting married. But if you are Bilal Dixon you showed up at the Church and found out they switched brides on you.
Fanatic: I agree with your statement if you believe that Providence College established its name as a basketball power by following all the rules, I have a bridge to sell you. Dave Gavitt was always looking for an edge when he ran the program.
But the problem is not with the kids. The whole process is radically weighted in favor of coaches:
1. Calipari comes in and just dumps the bench players at Kentucky.
2. If Memphis gets penalized for cheating under his watch, he is still eligible to play in the Tourney. But the Memphis kids he brought in and then left behind would be banned for some period.
3. A coach can leave a school and take over a new school right away. But a kid who leaves a school on what you say is a 1 year scholarship still has to sit out a year before he can play.
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
You can look at this the way Pete Carroll looks at it at USC. I'm going to go out and recruit the best players possible and let them compete for a job from day one. I know college football is different however if Keno is to sell to his kids that they'll have to compete at all times to get their minutes, it should keep most guys sharp and working on their games constantly. If the caliber of our recruit is going to increase due to on court success and deeper inroads made by a seasoned staff at PC, wouldn't it lead you to believe that the kid we sign next year should be better than the kid at the same position we signed two years ago? In essence, that is being recruited over also.
What separates as an institution such as PC from the souless programs in D-1 hoops such as Miss State, Fresno State, etc is that we try to do the right thing by someone who has worked hard to improve themself and represent the school. If they're not doing that, they jeopardize their ability to represent the school but their 4 year ride should only be taken if they're overall contribution does not come close to supporting the investment the school has made in giving them a free ride.
I don't condone the nature in which Calipari blew out a bunch of kids. But Kentucky has made the deal with the devil before so as a fan of that program, I would celebrate what Cal did. But I'm not a fan of UK so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
OK, so to sum up so far, as long as we're wise, sparing, not willy-nilly, honorable, ethical, handle it properly, are well respected, have high character, aren't malodorous or ruthless, then its okay to dump a kid.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Quote:
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
In terms of who is to blame if a kid doesn't have the right stuff...blame the NCAA for its ridiculous rules preventing college coaches from doing more extensive research on the players they're recruiting.
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
If you think a coach sits down with a family and tells them this is a one year deal then you should just keep your bridge.
Our pitch is class size, school, education, family etc... Thats how we get kids, if we become morally banctrupt then all we will get is kids that are also.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
Technically, I would whole heartedly support the NCAA if they were clamp down on the practice and level the playing field for all schools and deny the elites any possible advantage. Ie: Making it policy that no school can have more than 13 signed scholarship players at one time. (the language would have to be worked out since come November PC would have 15 signees!)
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
Personally, I don't have a problem with brizzing, its having 15 players on schollie at the same time and then mysteriously working it all out that I have a problem with.
I know you see them as two closely related issues, which is true. But you have to admit that brizzing well predated over-recruiting as a practice. I'd just like the clocks turned back to the days of brizzing only.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Friar71 wrote:
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
Now I would have a problem with the "number 14" part of that. If a kid isn't up to speed talent wise, he should be brizzed first, then the replacement be brought in. Under my scenario, the coach would need to A) Be certain the current player won't cut it and B) that the replacement won't sign elsewhere.
Betcha the brizzing gets reduced under my plan. Also, as I stated above..where does it all go from here? Instead of 14, we'll soon have 16, etc!
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Friar71 wrote:
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
71, yes and no. I don't really know how to exactly refute it but mistakes do happen when you're evaluating talent. What I didn't like about the prior staff doing it is that they appeared to rent guys for a year at a time and then they'd blow them out for talent that was equal or less. I'm hoping Keno can evaluate the talent he's bringing into the program so that it can contribute to a Round of 32 tournament game within his four years at PC.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:11 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Fairfield said:
"... but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit."
BTW, I used the Uconn reference first and I also mentioned Nova but neglected to mention Marquette who was correctly referenced by Fanatic. Maybe Infoman gets it and I just don't. However, I see your statement as a difference without a distinction. I bet Eaves and Garrison do too.
As Fanatic states...it's within the rules of the game until the creeps at the NCAA say differently. Accordingly, I don't see why fans of uconn have to be defensive about a strategy that doesn't break the rules and allows them to compete for NC's against other big time programs doing the same thing. I am not castigating uconn,nova, marquette, etc...No not at all. All I would say is...when in Rome, do like the Romans...and not the Washington Capitols...and all by the rules of the ncaa and of course with a sense of decency.
I agree with Friar71 about the havoc being wreaked on our sport due to transfers and I blame it in large part on the ncaa's minimizing the periods of evaluation of a kid's basketball ability, personal charcter and aspirations. They are more worried about a free ham sandwich than the bond that needs to be established between a coach and a kid before the big decision is taken.
Now last year the respected Jay Wright parted company with a couple of kids...same for another similar institution as ours like Marquette. Keno did it with Kellogg. All I read here was "best of luck Alex" or "it's in the best interest of both parties"....and it was indeed true as evidenced by Kellogg's parting remarks as well as Keno's. I can also tellya that Ben Eaves is a much happier person today at uri than he ever was at Storrs....good for him. The lesson is....It Often Works. Errors occur in this flawed recruiting process...usually the shared responsibiltiy of the coach, player, family and of course those street weasle agents on occasion. The system sux.
The elites and other programs are in effect increasing roster limits temporarily and taking very good players off the board for other programs. The assistant coaches for programs not utilizing this strategy (and they are fewer and fewer) are p!$$ed off about working at a dis-advantage. You would too in whatever professional endeavor you may be involved in your personal life.
Now what came first the chicken or the egg argument has merit...albeit the outcome is the same. Keno and Alex announced an understanding in April. Do you really believe that Alex and Keno didn't know what would be in the parties' best interests at Christmas?
Also, the character and ethical principles of the coach is a valid point in these matters and integral to the good reputation of a program. Good men don't want to be tagged as users or con artists. All I can say is if Fr Shanley, after investing $ 8 + million in Keno and extending him contracturally, doesn't trust him to make good decisions about the welfare of the kids entering the college....then 2 + 2 = 5.
Now, like it or not, Fr Shanley did indeed enter The Arms Race some 15 months ago when he made huge financial offers to coaching candidates, upgraded the salary of assistants, increased the budget, improved the facilities, and stopped the neglect of the athletic programs in general...and thankfully the basketball program in particular which we BEBers care about most. He had no choice IMO. The alternative was to leave the Big East and all that revenue and notariety behind. I would suggest that BEBers would not be so generous in their donations, attendance to functions, or buying season tickets at increased prices to see an A-10 type venue. PC is Big Business and Keno has the weight of our world on his shoulders.
As far as whether Keno is telling a recruit and his family that the scholarship is a one year comittment and it's contingent on the student-athlete demonstrating an effort to improve his bb skills, perform adequately in the classroom, integrate with the student body, and embrace the spirit of Providence College...yep, that's exactly what I trust that Keno says. Does Keno, Fr Shanley and Driscoll think the comittment goes both ways?? Ask Ray Hall.
"...so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly." Billy has it absolutely correct.
Back to top
Bipolar Friar22
All-American
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 1223
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:54 am Post subject:
________________________________________
1. The NCAA should have killed the "scholly is only for 1 year" crap a long time ago. You recruit a kid. You sign a kid. You own the kid....as long as it takes to graduate the kid or get him to the pros. These coaches are making 7 figures a year. Give them some appropriate responsibilities other than simple dollar figures.
2. The only time I don't mind seeing overrecruiting is when it occurs with a new coach who comes into a program with kids that he did not recruit. If Dixon chose PC because he was enamoured with the coaching staff, he got horrendous advice. But an established guy who's been somewhere for 10 years doing it shows me that he has done a poor job of evaluating talent.
3. This does not happen all over the place in basketball. It happens at BCS schools. I know a kid who ended up at Northeastern. He wanted to go to Maine to be close to his family. He talked to the coach but he did not have a scholly for him. He told the kid's coach that the kid probably would have been in the rotation from day 1, but that the school would have never allowed him to overrecruit like that. Apples and oranges.
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:54 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
If the coach at your own school does it, its reasonable and necessary. If the coach at another school does it, its outrageously unethical.
OK, so to sum up so far, as long as we're wise, sparing, not willy-nilly, honorable, ethical, handle it properly, are well respected, have high character, aren't malodorous or ruthless, then its okay to dump a kid.
Tonton?
It is c-o-m-p-l-e-x; surely you understand that...(I know you do, btw).
Basically, what you are saying here is a yes because that is the playing field...
I don't like it, don't want to agree with it, nor endorse it but that is the reality of the BIG business of college hoops. It is but one facet in a complex world of 'ethics' that are bespoken yet oft used to gain that tiny edge.
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:56 am Post subject:
________________________________________
LOYALTY?
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands brought into a room, told their 'position has been eliminated' and then told to vacate the premises within an hour or so...
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:19 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Wow, I can't believe some of you have rationalized this down to "it's legal" and "it has to be done to run with the big boys"
Sometimes it's about doing the right thing, and if you can live with running a kid out of school that we recruited and who has done everything asked of him just because we see somebody we like more then I guess that's just the way it's going to be, because when the alummni don't even care about the reputation of the program then the coaches surely won't either.
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:36 am Post subject:
________________________________________
We're aging; we're desperate; we're faustian friars...
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:40 am Post subject:
________________________________________
WTM97 wrote:
We're aging; we're desperate; we're faustian friars...
I hear you.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:52 am Post subject:
________________________________________
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
None of the above. Obviously the staff asked Dixon and Greedy to sit out a year so it would be unethical to now say we changed our mind. That would result in either leaving now and having 2 years of no basketball or be a lame duck for 1 year then sit out another year. Either way that would probably ruin their career.
Mondy hasn't even suited up so asking him to now leave is almost as bad. So I would say if CD and Moore said yes, you go back and tell Coleman or Giplaye no. They would be the least impacted from a career standpoint. Now if this was another school like Kentucky, they would make the best decision for the program and screw the student-athlete.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:02 am Post subject:
________________________________________
If they ended up taking those two verbals, then why not take a 3rd or a 4th? Then at the end of the year we can dump the two guys who get no run and start the whole thing over again the next year.
But if it were to be just CD and JJ then I would think that by the 1st semester there would be a sit down with one of the 5 incoming freshmen and they would be told it would be best if they trnasferred now so they could play sometime next year.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:41 am Post subject:
________________________________________
"Tonton?
It is c-o-m-p-l-e-x; surely you understand that...(I know you do, btw).
Basically, what you are saying here is a yes because that is the playing field... "
Ah, you saw through my lame attempt at humor. Yes, I believe its acceptable, even when Calipari and Calhoun do it. I was one of few who didn't castigate Welsh in the Lowe-Rudolph adventure, and I wished at the time Barnes had done it with Alose. The only time it seemed iffy was when Garrison's coach called Calhoun out for doing the wrong thing by his kid and JC did it anyway, but like Dex said a long time ago, as long as there are guys like Calhoun and kids dumb enough to buy it, that's the way its going to be. I'm not sure when its wise and sparing and when its not, but I suspect that if you win, it becomes a non-issue.
A coach's first responsibility is to put the best team on the floor and win games. If he can maintain some semblance of respectability, fine, but we've had respectable coaches here who didn't win enough and we railroaded them.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
A coach's first responsibility is to put the best team on the floor and win games. If he can maintain some semblance of respectability, fine, but we've had respectable coaches here who didn't win enough and we railroaded them.
We also have had many posters ( and alumni) through the years complain when we made mistakes by bringing in questionable character. Certainly there was a lot of negativity when Prime Time happened. Many questioned those players. Sometimes winning at all costs ends up with stolen gloves, stabbings and tire irons.
We can look at Uconn and try and bring in those types of kids. Just tell your sons and daughters who go to PC to get locks for their laptops. Our competition is certainly doing it. We should have taken Lance Stephenson.......................................
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
You're making a good point, 71, but you're drifting off topic. I'm talking about fielding the best team by getting the best players, which is what this thread is about, not taking questionable character.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
I'm talking about fielding the best team by getting the best players, which is what this thread is about, not taking questionable character.
and they are not mutually exclusive
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
1. The NCAA should have killed the "scholly is only for 1 year" crap a long time ago. You recruit a kid. You sign a kid. You own the kid....as long as it takes to graduate the kid or get him to the pros. These coaches are making 7 figures a year. Give them some appropriate responsibilities other than simple dollar figures.
NOPE...the kid has responsibilities too in this covenant as I enumerated. I also don't agree that a kid has to be wed to a Program/Coach/School that doesn't meet his needs or expectations. He should be a free agent after each year so he can satisfy his desires elsewhere....and without transfer penalties as Friar71 correctly suggests. It might disrupt the team-building strategy...but that's the reality these days whether in MLB or the NFL...you are always dealing with moving parts with regard to personnel. Suppose Alex K. was a superstar....but did not relate to Keno or perhaps PC in general...I don't think he should be forced to stay just because he's an athlete. The ability to transfer becomes more one-sided for an upper-classman btw.
One year renewables serve the purpose of making a coach work at his relationship with a player who has potential so as to keep him in the Program. Conversely, it should have the same incentive for a kid to perform his responsibilities to the program and college if he wants to stay. I stand to be corrected...but academic scholarships don't mandate a 4 year guaranteed ride, do they? Are they not performanced based?
2. The only time I don't mind seeing overrecruiting is when it occurs with a new coach who comes into a program with kids that he did not recruit. If Dixon chose PC because he was enamoured with the coaching staff, he got horrendous advice. But an established guy who's been somewhere for 10 years doing it shows me that he has done a poor job of evaluating talent.
NOPE.....you ignore the ncaa recruiting evaluation rules of frequency etc... which is many times a cause for a poor decision by both sides. Additionally, your criteria for an experienced coach not making evaluation mistakes is utopia.....such "mistakes" enumerated in this thread by the coaches of Louisville, Uconn, Nova are documented...yet we would all agree that Pitino, Calhoun and Wright know a little about evaluating talent. They also apparently know a little about "enhancing" or "upgrading" their programs with better assets.
3. This does not happen all over the place in basketball. It happens at BCS schools. I know a kid who ended up at Northeastern. He wanted to go to Maine to be close to his family. He talked to the coach but he did not have a scholly for him. He told the kid's coach that the kid probably would have been in the rotation from day 1, but that the school would have never allowed him to overrecruit like that. Apples and oranges.
Fair enough...however we are competing against other Power Conference schools whether it be uconn, louisville or Nova or Marquette etc etc.
Driscoll and Shanley have expressed the goal is to "compete at the highest levels for championships". Anyone disagree? if so, I never read it here at BEB. Easier said than done especially when you (Keno) are asked to carry a piano on your back on the fast break. PC has inherent dis-advantages in comparison to some other schools as it is. Once again, the question arises What do you want to be? Not coincidentally, this is one of the most important considerations in business as well as in education and sports. It's also a primary root of failures in those areas. Once again, we're talking here about playing by the rules with an honorable decent man as our coach.
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
NOPE...I don't think it usually works that way with a decent man as your coach. More like one of your verbals de-commits...or one of your verbals doesn't pass academic muster or has a family issue or an injury occurs to a verbal or roster player ( ie Ray Hall, Sharaud,) or it is mutually agreed that a year of prep school is warranted.
Now to your example of an existing roster player, I think it goes back to what other posters have stated about the character and honor of your coach. Assuming Keno is an honorable man, he probably hopes that all his roster players will be 4 year men and graduate and excel in basketball too. But, as a practical man, he realizes that the reality is that some won't succeed, and some won't love him, and also they may not be able to adjust to that reality and be happy at PC. As in the case of Kellogg, a coach who inter-acts with his players 6 or 7 days per week gets the sense of who may not be fulfilling their needs. I really don't think the process is clinical and predictable...I rather think it emerges.
I do realize how opinions can vary on these issues and I certainly don't profess to have all the answers. However, I do prefer to analyze this stuff from the real world perspective and the jungle that the ncaa promulgates. I have an open mind on some of this stuff....but, as my former Italian National partner used to say in broken English....." I need some convincement"
"...so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly." Billy
Back to top
Bipolar Friar22
All-American
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 1223
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Dex,
So who do you think would be the brizzed player if KD decides to use 4 schollies? I completely disagree with 71 in that there is no way he asks Coleman or Giplaye to decommitt. That would basically be destroying his BABC connection.
I am going to guess that within 5 years, the NCAA does something that makes overrecruiting a taboo practice. The thought of my son getting a scholly to play a sport somewhere and the coach, after one year of him having no problems at the school, telling him he is no longer provided for at the school is an ugly one. It almost makes me want to have him go the Divisio III route where scholastic grant money is guaranteed for 4 years as long as the student is in good standing and GPA requirments are met. IMHO, you offer a kid a scholly for a fully funded program, the kid has to do something wrong to have it pulled. Trouble with the law, poor grades...finding someone you want more is not one of those reasons. Now, telling a kid he should look elsewhere if he wants to play is much different than telling a kid he no longer has a paid for education at the school. Huge difference. Most kids at the big time level will want to go elsewhere so that they can play, but forcing that decision down their throat is simply unethical and a black mark on whatever program does it. No argument can be made against this.
And I am very surprised that we are so fine with the prospect of it happening here yet we rip away at any program that also does it...this is a phenomen that is shared by the other site as well.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
BiP, I think you should explain further, because I'm not seeing a "huge difference" between a coach getting someone he likes better and a coach telling a kid there's someone he likes better and you'll never see the floor. Especially if, as you say, most kids will leave if told that anyway.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I don't see it either Tonton.
AnywayI attempted a very measured and specific response twice. I do not support this as a casual willy nilly course of action. If you think Keno is a black-hearted so and so who would abuse this process, then by all means I understand one's reluctance.
If on the other hand one believes that Keno and Jay Wright are responsible decent people and will do things the right way and also within the rules and that maybe Keno will rescue us from the Washington Capitol Syndrome we are in at present, you will give him some ammo to succeed.
Like Fanatic said, and I agree, ...get out of the Big East rather than making the annual pilgrimage to MSG to watch your team get it's brains beat in by those morally bankrupt schools led by Jay, Rick, Flan, Buzz, Stan, Jim etc etc . To equate this stuff to going over to the dark side is quite unbelievable.
Back to top
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: Exceeding Available Ships
________________________________________
How do you guys feel about over-recruiting? Uconn, Nova, Louisville, Kentucky, etc etc etc all do it. I say OK. The crooked NCAA has rules that LIMIT rather than maximize a Program's ability to truly evaluate a kid's character and his play...to really find out what makes a kid tick..ie will he dedicate himself to improving in the gym and the classroom. With a decent man like Keno, it would be done sensibly and with the best interest of both parties in mind..not just the Program's best interest. Having hired a ton of people in my time, sometimes you don't get the round peg to fit in the round hole...and that usually happens because there wasn't enough time to truly learn more about the candidate and vice versa. In college BB, history tells us players come and go sometimes and that's just the way it is.
West Virginia had 15 players committed to 13 roster spots for next
season. While guards Joe Mazzulla and ‘Truck’ Bryant have been
suspended indefinitely for scrapes with the law, both look like they
will still be on scholarship once the fall semester begins. With the
recent transfer of Dee Proby to an NAIA school, the Mountaineers are
now down to the necessary 13 players as Will Thomas has also opted to
leave the program after finishing summer courses.
Thomas played in 23 games last season for WVU (3.1 minute average)
with a .1 per game scoring average. The 215-pound point guard, from
East Cleveland (OH), will transfer to West Virginia State.
As for Bryant, he had already been suspended indefinitely by coach
Huggins before Bryant Found Himself in Trouble With the Law Again
(Times West Virginian) for the second time in a week for a traffic
incident.
According to the Times West Virginian, the second incident actually
predated by two weeks the July 4 incident that led to him being
charged with four misdemeanors and being suspended indefinitely from
the Mountaineer basketball team.
Bryant was cited for leaving the scene of an accident with injury and
duty to give information and render aid after an accident that
occurred at 2:50 a.m. outside Bent Willey’s night club in downtown
Morgantown on June 21.
Not a good time to be a WVU guard
Back to top
4Friars
All-American
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1603
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:47 am Post subject:
________________________________________
As long as it is not done ruthlessly like Calipari in the Kentucky situation this year I wouldn't have a problem with overrecruiting by a scholarship or two. Every year there is a player or two that leaves virtually every program. Why be left scrambling in the summer to fill that vacancy.
I too trust that if we let someone go or if someone wanted to leave the program Keno would handle it in an ethical straight forward manner similar to the situation that existed with Kellogg this season.
Great topic Dex. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of everyone.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:56 am Post subject:
________________________________________
It's a spreading practice and if we're going to be in the game, I think we need to play with the same limitations as everyone else...again, with the proviso already mentioned...that we do it sensibly and selectively.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:01 am Post subject:
________________________________________
I'm not keen on over-recruiting and would favor a hard limit. Over-recruiting allows marquis programs such as UConn or Kentucky to stockpile talent, sift through the players and then finalize a roster. It's not unlike the pros sans the waivers.
Conversely, if programs were forced to cut bait before stockpiling, it gives other programs a chance to react.
If someone were to convince me that all schools were to do it (even low D-1 programs), then I might have to rethink my position. But it seems obvious that this practice has been isolated to the elites. The rich get richer type problem. BTW, where do you think this would lead? If (14) was okay, then (15), why not (20)?
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Marquette, whose success we hope to emulate has been doing it.
I often wonder, if scholarships are renewable annually, why there is
a malodorous stigma attached to the practice of advising players that
they'd be advised to find another school. Either scholarships are
renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's
suitability for the program. Which is it?
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:41 am Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Either scholarships are renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's suitability for the program. Which is it?
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
I would suggest that they are one and the same, since over-recruiting presupposes that someone on your current roster will be leaving, either by his own volition...or because of your suggestion that he find another home.
If Brizzing isn't tied into Over-recruiting, then what is the issue?
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
If Brizzing isn't tied into Over-recruiting, then what is the issue?
Ahh. I see what you mean. I would say that its a matter a sequence-of-events. The latest trend has been to stockpile, then brizz. This affords the high caliper coach a matter of safety that I argue against. By safety I mean that he doesn't absolutely have to know what he's going to do when the excess 'ship is offered. He'll sort it out later, giving lower schools less time to react.
By contrast, if the coach has to brizz before being able to offer the 'ship, he'd have to sure that the brizz is called for and not just of matter having a better prospect in his pocket.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
TheInfoMan wrote:
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Either scholarships are renewable...or they're for the 4 year ride, regardless of the player's suitability for the program. Which is it?
Different topic, no?
Brizzing vs over-recruiting.
I favor the former and argued against the latter above.
If I am correct in my interpretation, brizzing is convincing (or forcing) a player to transfer in order to make room for another player at the same position while over-recruiting would be (such as WVU has recently done) bringing in more scholarship players than the NCAA allows and, prior to start of fall classes, paring the scholarships down to the allowed number.
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
_________________
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:29 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FfldCntyFan wrote:
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
Simple. I was wrong.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
TheInfoMan wrote:
FfldCntyFan wrote:
If this is true, why did you use my school as an example? Yes, we have brizzed some players over the years but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit.
Simple. I was wrong.
Fair enough.
BTW, best of luck next year & beyond. Ideally Keno will turn out as well as PC fans are hoping.
_________________
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I agree with Info in that I am against it for the most part. The NCAA has certainly allowed recruiting to become an ugly blemish on a great game. Look how far ahead schools are now accepting verbals from kids. I have already seen posts hinting that maybe Desrosiers may see us w 1 ship left and commit. PC is not a school that has much leverage forcing a kid to act now but certainly the big schools can say "take it or leave it" well before a kid makes up his mind. These hasty/forced decisions only result in the myriad of transfer we see around the game. By the way, do schools still get penalized for transfers vs graduates.?
I think it is interesting that several posters have hinted Keno may sign 4 instead of 3 for 2010. Looking at the roster, I would be against that. I understand that there is a good chance another ship opens next spring just doing the math. But the staff should be committed to the 7 incoming plus 2 poop in my pants and not looking at them as "briz" candidates. That would only leave Brooks and I doubt that would be the case. If someone decides to leave next spring then fill the ship then or hold till 2011.
Back to top
pc1971
Veteran Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 5135
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:00 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Good, thought provoking, stuff DEX.
The initial reaction of thinking--"no, it is wrong and seems unethical" is understandable.
It is not something I believe should be done "willy nilly."However---if PC really had two more really good candidates who wanted to jump on board [say CD and one of the really good wing candidates],who knew what was going on and the staff already had a good idea that at least one more open slot was going to be there [think Tim Duncan],I would say go for it.
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
The arms race for talent is a tough one.Schools we consider to be ethical and well respected [like Mrquette and NOVA for two] are doing it.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
This is key...that it all depends on the character of the Head Coach...and, so far, we have no reason to doubt that Keno has a high level character and that he wouldn't be engaging in this activity willy-nilly.
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:39 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
pc1971 wrote:
Good, thought provoking, stuff DEX.
The initial reaction of thinking--"no, it is wrong and seems unethical" is understandable.
It is not something I believe should be done "willy nilly."However---if PC really had two more really good candidates who wanted to jump on board [say CD and one of the really good wing candidates],who knew what was going on and the staff already had a good idea that at least one more open slot was going to be there [think Tim Duncan],I would say go for it.
Keno and Fr. Shanley are honorable men.Things would be properly handled.
The arms race for talent is a tough one.Schools we consider to be ethical and well respected [like Mrquette and NOVA for two] are doing it.
I agree with 71....great topic for conversation right now. Unfortunately I'm a little strapped for time but I'll weigh in later.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
What came first the chicken or the egg? Did I as coach determine that a player was not a good fit and suggested that he may be better off someplace else or did I only come to that conclusion after I found someone I like more?
That to me is the essence of this debate. I am absolutely against the practice. If a kid stays out of trouble keeps his grades up and does the work the coaches asked but cannot crack the rotation; who's fault is that? Who recruited who?
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
If the coach at your own school does it, its reasonable and necessary. If the coach at another school does it, its outrageously unethical.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:58 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarJ wrote:
What came first the chicken or the egg? Did I as coach determine that a player was not a good fit and suggested that he may be better off someplace else or did I only come to that conclusion after I found someone I like more?
That to me is the essence of this debate. I am absolutely against the practice. If a kid stays out of trouble keeps his grades up and does the work the coaches asked but cannot crack the rotation; who's fault is that? Who recruited who?
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently commitments were made to be broken.
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Bingo!
Over-recruiting (or as I like to call it stockpile recruiting) is like getting married and then getting married again without divorcing first. And BTW, divorce should be a last resort, not easily attained.
Back to top
FfldCntyFan
Hall of Famer
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 7890
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I will add a little to this on a couple of players (from my school) that I happen to know about:
1 - Doug Wiggins. This kid was given (too) many chances and the reality was he had to go. His subsequent stay at UMass made him a number of enemies within their administration and athletic department and from what I understand, he currently is a man without a country so to speak.
2 - Jonathan Mandeldove. This kid has been unable to get much playing time, including a period where we did not have a lot of depth at his position. After his sophomore season (he will be a senior in 09-10) JC had a long talk with him, letting him know where he stood and what he could expect as far as PT. The kid said that he would prefer remaining at UConn riding the bench than transferring and playing somewhere else. He has remained on scholarship at the school and remained on the team.
3 - Scott Haralson. The staff made it clear during his freshman season that they were not happy with his conditioning and this kept him seated on the bench for the bulk of the season. After the season ended, JC let him know what was expected of him (conditioning wise) and what he could expect as far as PT went, all dependent on his conditioning. This kid went looking for another school shortly after this conversation.
I realize that we have lost a number of scholarship players over the years and this does not always put the program in the best light. That Mandeldove was not forced out, when there were players who we could have filled that scholarship with, does lessen (at least in my eyes) the severity of this.
Most players who left the program did so knowing that there would not be a lot of PT available to them. Most who did leave did so in pursuit of a place where they could play, not because they were forced out to make room for the next hot number (see the Rodrick Rhodes story).
Unfortunately, it is a highly competitive pursuit and many kids while they are still in high school believe that they can conquer anything, only to find out that even if they are one in a million, there still are another couple hundred with similar talent.
_________________
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
In terms of who is to blame if a kid doesn't have the right stuff...blame the NCAA for its ridiculous rules preventing college coaches from doing more extensive research on the players they're recruiting.
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
Back to top
FriarFanatic100
1st Round Draft Choice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 3468
Location: CT
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
And the everybody else is doing it is the weakest argument of all. We are not everyone else.
Fair enough, then we ought not expect to compete against everybody else.
This is not breaking rules...and, as long as it's an increasing part of the college basketball landscape, you either compete on as level a playing field as possible...or you find another game.
BTW, if you believe that Providence College established its name as a basketball power by following all the rules, I have a bridge to sell you.
Breaking rules is what I wouldn't condone...this is not in that category.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
[quote="TheInfoManOver-recruiting (or as I like to call it stockpile recruiting) is like getting married and then getting married again without divorcing first. And BTW, divorce should be a last resort, not easily attained.[/quote]
Info: Kinda like getting married. But if you are Bilal Dixon you showed up at the Church and found out they switched brides on you.
Fanatic: I agree with your statement if you believe that Providence College established its name as a basketball power by following all the rules, I have a bridge to sell you. Dave Gavitt was always looking for an edge when he ran the program.
But the problem is not with the kids. The whole process is radically weighted in favor of coaches:
1. Calipari comes in and just dumps the bench players at Kentucky.
2. If Memphis gets penalized for cheating under his watch, he is still eligible to play in the Tourney. But the Memphis kids he brought in and then left behind would be banned for some period.
3. A coach can leave a school and take over a new school right away. But a kid who leaves a school on what you say is a 1 year scholarship still has to sit out a year before he can play.
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
You can look at this the way Pete Carroll looks at it at USC. I'm going to go out and recruit the best players possible and let them compete for a job from day one. I know college football is different however if Keno is to sell to his kids that they'll have to compete at all times to get their minutes, it should keep most guys sharp and working on their games constantly. If the caliber of our recruit is going to increase due to on court success and deeper inroads made by a seasoned staff at PC, wouldn't it lead you to believe that the kid we sign next year should be better than the kid at the same position we signed two years ago? In essence, that is being recruited over also.
What separates as an institution such as PC from the souless programs in D-1 hoops such as Miss State, Fresno State, etc is that we try to do the right thing by someone who has worked hard to improve themself and represent the school. If they're not doing that, they jeopardize their ability to represent the school but their 4 year ride should only be taken if they're overall contribution does not come close to supporting the investment the school has made in giving them a free ride.
I don't condone the nature in which Calipari blew out a bunch of kids. But Kentucky has made the deal with the devil before so as a fan of that program, I would celebrate what Cal did. But I'm not a fan of UK so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
OK, so to sum up so far, as long as we're wise, sparing, not willy-nilly, honorable, ethical, handle it properly, are well respected, have high character, aren't malodorous or ruthless, then its okay to dump a kid.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Quote:
It's just more of the same breakdown that is rampant in our whole society today as I see it. Apparently committments were made to be broken.
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
In terms of who is to blame if a kid doesn't have the right stuff...blame the NCAA for its ridiculous rules preventing college coaches from doing more extensive research on the players they're recruiting.
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
If you think a coach sits down with a family and tells them this is a one year deal then you should just keep your bridge.
Our pitch is class size, school, education, family etc... Thats how we get kids, if we become morally banctrupt then all we will get is kids that are also.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
Technically, there is no broken commitment. The scholarship is good for one year only, renewable at the discretion of the school, each year.
Technically, I would whole heartedly support the NCAA if they were clamp down on the practice and level the playing field for all schools and deny the elites any possible advantage. Ie: Making it policy that no school can have more than 13 signed scholarship players at one time. (the language would have to be worked out since come November PC would have 15 signees!)
FriarFanatic100 wrote:
If there is something morally wrong with evaluating a player and determining that he is or is not he is talented enough for the level at which you're competing, then make scholarships a 4 year deal.
Personally, I don't have a problem with brizzing, its having 15 players on schollie at the same time and then mysteriously working it all out that I have a problem with.
I know you see them as two closely related issues, which is true. But you have to admit that brizzing well predated over-recruiting as a practice. I'd just like the clocks turned back to the days of brizzing only.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
Back to top
TheInfoMan
Veteran Pro
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 5007
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Friar71 wrote:
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
Now I would have a problem with the "number 14" part of that. If a kid isn't up to speed talent wise, he should be brizzed first, then the replacement be brought in. Under my scenario, the coach would need to A) Be certain the current player won't cut it and B) that the replacement won't sign elsewhere.
Betcha the brizzing gets reduced under my plan. Also, as I stated above..where does it all go from here? Instead of 14, we'll soon have 16, etc!
Back to top
BillyD34
All-American
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1305
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Friar71 wrote:
Billy: I think you are referring to a different scenario i.e over recruiting versus brizzing. I would have no problem if Keno brings in a top 50 point guard to compete w Lacy and Council. I would have a problem if that scholarship was number 14 and then Lacy or Council was forced to leave.
71, yes and no. I don't really know how to exactly refute it but mistakes do happen when you're evaluating talent. What I didn't like about the prior staff doing it is that they appeared to rent guys for a year at a time and then they'd blow them out for talent that was equal or less. I'm hoping Keno can evaluate the talent he's bringing into the program so that it can contribute to a Round of 32 tournament game within his four years at PC.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:11 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Fairfield said:
"... but I cannot recall ever having to force a player to find another home before the school year began in order to prevent us from being over the limit."
BTW, I used the Uconn reference first and I also mentioned Nova but neglected to mention Marquette who was correctly referenced by Fanatic. Maybe Infoman gets it and I just don't. However, I see your statement as a difference without a distinction. I bet Eaves and Garrison do too.
As Fanatic states...it's within the rules of the game until the creeps at the NCAA say differently. Accordingly, I don't see why fans of uconn have to be defensive about a strategy that doesn't break the rules and allows them to compete for NC's against other big time programs doing the same thing. I am not castigating uconn,nova, marquette, etc...No not at all. All I would say is...when in Rome, do like the Romans...and not the Washington Capitols...and all by the rules of the ncaa and of course with a sense of decency.
I agree with Friar71 about the havoc being wreaked on our sport due to transfers and I blame it in large part on the ncaa's minimizing the periods of evaluation of a kid's basketball ability, personal charcter and aspirations. They are more worried about a free ham sandwich than the bond that needs to be established between a coach and a kid before the big decision is taken.
Now last year the respected Jay Wright parted company with a couple of kids...same for another similar institution as ours like Marquette. Keno did it with Kellogg. All I read here was "best of luck Alex" or "it's in the best interest of both parties"....and it was indeed true as evidenced by Kellogg's parting remarks as well as Keno's. I can also tellya that Ben Eaves is a much happier person today at uri than he ever was at Storrs....good for him. The lesson is....It Often Works. Errors occur in this flawed recruiting process...usually the shared responsibiltiy of the coach, player, family and of course those street weasle agents on occasion. The system sux.
The elites and other programs are in effect increasing roster limits temporarily and taking very good players off the board for other programs. The assistant coaches for programs not utilizing this strategy (and they are fewer and fewer) are p!$$ed off about working at a dis-advantage. You would too in whatever professional endeavor you may be involved in your personal life.
Now what came first the chicken or the egg argument has merit...albeit the outcome is the same. Keno and Alex announced an understanding in April. Do you really believe that Alex and Keno didn't know what would be in the parties' best interests at Christmas?
Also, the character and ethical principles of the coach is a valid point in these matters and integral to the good reputation of a program. Good men don't want to be tagged as users or con artists. All I can say is if Fr Shanley, after investing $ 8 + million in Keno and extending him contracturally, doesn't trust him to make good decisions about the welfare of the kids entering the college....then 2 + 2 = 5.
Now, like it or not, Fr Shanley did indeed enter The Arms Race some 15 months ago when he made huge financial offers to coaching candidates, upgraded the salary of assistants, increased the budget, improved the facilities, and stopped the neglect of the athletic programs in general...and thankfully the basketball program in particular which we BEBers care about most. He had no choice IMO. The alternative was to leave the Big East and all that revenue and notariety behind. I would suggest that BEBers would not be so generous in their donations, attendance to functions, or buying season tickets at increased prices to see an A-10 type venue. PC is Big Business and Keno has the weight of our world on his shoulders.
As far as whether Keno is telling a recruit and his family that the scholarship is a one year comittment and it's contingent on the student-athlete demonstrating an effort to improve his bb skills, perform adequately in the classroom, integrate with the student body, and embrace the spirit of Providence College...yep, that's exactly what I trust that Keno says. Does Keno, Fr Shanley and Driscoll think the comittment goes both ways?? Ask Ray Hall.
"...so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly." Billy has it absolutely correct.
Back to top
Bipolar Friar22
All-American
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 1223
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:54 am Post subject:
________________________________________
1. The NCAA should have killed the "scholly is only for 1 year" crap a long time ago. You recruit a kid. You sign a kid. You own the kid....as long as it takes to graduate the kid or get him to the pros. These coaches are making 7 figures a year. Give them some appropriate responsibilities other than simple dollar figures.
2. The only time I don't mind seeing overrecruiting is when it occurs with a new coach who comes into a program with kids that he did not recruit. If Dixon chose PC because he was enamoured with the coaching staff, he got horrendous advice. But an established guy who's been somewhere for 10 years doing it shows me that he has done a poor job of evaluating talent.
3. This does not happen all over the place in basketball. It happens at BCS schools. I know a kid who ended up at Northeastern. He wanted to go to Maine to be close to his family. He talked to the coach but he did not have a scholly for him. He told the kid's coach that the kid probably would have been in the rotation from day 1, but that the school would have never allowed him to overrecruit like that. Apples and oranges.
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:54 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
If the coach at your own school does it, its reasonable and necessary. If the coach at another school does it, its outrageously unethical.
OK, so to sum up so far, as long as we're wise, sparing, not willy-nilly, honorable, ethical, handle it properly, are well respected, have high character, aren't malodorous or ruthless, then its okay to dump a kid.
Tonton?
It is c-o-m-p-l-e-x; surely you understand that...(I know you do, btw).
Basically, what you are saying here is a yes because that is the playing field...
I don't like it, don't want to agree with it, nor endorse it but that is the reality of the BIG business of college hoops. It is but one facet in a complex world of 'ethics' that are bespoken yet oft used to gain that tiny edge.
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:56 am Post subject:
________________________________________
LOYALTY?
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands brought into a room, told their 'position has been eliminated' and then told to vacate the premises within an hour or so...
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:19 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Wow, I can't believe some of you have rationalized this down to "it's legal" and "it has to be done to run with the big boys"
Sometimes it's about doing the right thing, and if you can live with running a kid out of school that we recruited and who has done everything asked of him just because we see somebody we like more then I guess that's just the way it's going to be, because when the alummni don't even care about the reputation of the program then the coaches surely won't either.
Back to top
WTM97
Veteran Pro
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 5936
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:36 am Post subject:
________________________________________
We're aging; we're desperate; we're faustian friars...
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:40 am Post subject:
________________________________________
WTM97 wrote:
We're aging; we're desperate; we're faustian friars...
I hear you.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:52 am Post subject:
________________________________________
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
None of the above. Obviously the staff asked Dixon and Greedy to sit out a year so it would be unethical to now say we changed our mind. That would result in either leaving now and having 2 years of no basketball or be a lame duck for 1 year then sit out another year. Either way that would probably ruin their career.
Mondy hasn't even suited up so asking him to now leave is almost as bad. So I would say if CD and Moore said yes, you go back and tell Coleman or Giplaye no. They would be the least impacted from a career standpoint. Now if this was another school like Kentucky, they would make the best decision for the program and screw the student-athlete.
Back to top
FriarJ
All-Conference
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 946
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:02 am Post subject:
________________________________________
If they ended up taking those two verbals, then why not take a 3rd or a 4th? Then at the end of the year we can dump the two guys who get no run and start the whole thing over again the next year.
But if it were to be just CD and JJ then I would think that by the 1st semester there would be a sit down with one of the 5 incoming freshmen and they would be told it would be best if they trnasferred now so they could play sometime next year.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:41 am Post subject:
________________________________________
"Tonton?
It is c-o-m-p-l-e-x; surely you understand that...(I know you do, btw).
Basically, what you are saying here is a yes because that is the playing field... "
Ah, you saw through my lame attempt at humor. Yes, I believe its acceptable, even when Calipari and Calhoun do it. I was one of few who didn't castigate Welsh in the Lowe-Rudolph adventure, and I wished at the time Barnes had done it with Alose. The only time it seemed iffy was when Garrison's coach called Calhoun out for doing the wrong thing by his kid and JC did it anyway, but like Dex said a long time ago, as long as there are guys like Calhoun and kids dumb enough to buy it, that's the way its going to be. I'm not sure when its wise and sparing and when its not, but I suspect that if you win, it becomes a non-issue.
A coach's first responsibility is to put the best team on the floor and win games. If he can maintain some semblance of respectability, fine, but we've had respectable coaches here who didn't win enough and we railroaded them.
Back to top
Friar71
All-American
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1607
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
A coach's first responsibility is to put the best team on the floor and win games. If he can maintain some semblance of respectability, fine, but we've had respectable coaches here who didn't win enough and we railroaded them.
We also have had many posters ( and alumni) through the years complain when we made mistakes by bringing in questionable character. Certainly there was a lot of negativity when Prime Time happened. Many questioned those players. Sometimes winning at all costs ends up with stolen gloves, stabbings and tire irons.
We can look at Uconn and try and bring in those types of kids. Just tell your sons and daughters who go to PC to get locks for their laptops. Our competition is certainly doing it. We should have taken Lance Stephenson.......................................
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
You're making a good point, 71, but you're drifting off topic. I'm talking about fielding the best team by getting the best players, which is what this thread is about, not taking questionable character.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
I'm talking about fielding the best team by getting the best players, which is what this thread is about, not taking questionable character.
and they are not mutually exclusive
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
1. The NCAA should have killed the "scholly is only for 1 year" crap a long time ago. You recruit a kid. You sign a kid. You own the kid....as long as it takes to graduate the kid or get him to the pros. These coaches are making 7 figures a year. Give them some appropriate responsibilities other than simple dollar figures.
NOPE...the kid has responsibilities too in this covenant as I enumerated. I also don't agree that a kid has to be wed to a Program/Coach/School that doesn't meet his needs or expectations. He should be a free agent after each year so he can satisfy his desires elsewhere....and without transfer penalties as Friar71 correctly suggests. It might disrupt the team-building strategy...but that's the reality these days whether in MLB or the NFL...you are always dealing with moving parts with regard to personnel. Suppose Alex K. was a superstar....but did not relate to Keno or perhaps PC in general...I don't think he should be forced to stay just because he's an athlete. The ability to transfer becomes more one-sided for an upper-classman btw.
One year renewables serve the purpose of making a coach work at his relationship with a player who has potential so as to keep him in the Program. Conversely, it should have the same incentive for a kid to perform his responsibilities to the program and college if he wants to stay. I stand to be corrected...but academic scholarships don't mandate a 4 year guaranteed ride, do they? Are they not performanced based?
2. The only time I don't mind seeing overrecruiting is when it occurs with a new coach who comes into a program with kids that he did not recruit. If Dixon chose PC because he was enamoured with the coaching staff, he got horrendous advice. But an established guy who's been somewhere for 10 years doing it shows me that he has done a poor job of evaluating talent.
NOPE.....you ignore the ncaa recruiting evaluation rules of frequency etc... which is many times a cause for a poor decision by both sides. Additionally, your criteria for an experienced coach not making evaluation mistakes is utopia.....such "mistakes" enumerated in this thread by the coaches of Louisville, Uconn, Nova are documented...yet we would all agree that Pitino, Calhoun and Wright know a little about evaluating talent. They also apparently know a little about "enhancing" or "upgrading" their programs with better assets.
3. This does not happen all over the place in basketball. It happens at BCS schools. I know a kid who ended up at Northeastern. He wanted to go to Maine to be close to his family. He talked to the coach but he did not have a scholly for him. He told the kid's coach that the kid probably would have been in the rotation from day 1, but that the school would have never allowed him to overrecruit like that. Apples and oranges.
Fair enough...however we are competing against other Power Conference schools whether it be uconn, louisville or Nova or Marquette etc etc.
Driscoll and Shanley have expressed the goal is to "compete at the highest levels for championships". Anyone disagree? if so, I never read it here at BEB. Easier said than done especially when you (Keno) are asked to carry a piano on your back on the fast break. PC has inherent dis-advantages in comparison to some other schools as it is. Once again, the question arises What do you want to be? Not coincidentally, this is one of the most important considerations in business as well as in education and sports. It's also a primary root of failures in those areas. Once again, we're talking here about playing by the rules with an honorable decent man as our coach.
4. Let's play, gentlemen...let's say CD and JJ Moore verbal at the same time. Gotta take both as they are great recruits. Who goes? Let's have some predictions. Here are mine.
1. Dixon
2. Mondy
3. Greedy
NOPE...I don't think it usually works that way with a decent man as your coach. More like one of your verbals de-commits...or one of your verbals doesn't pass academic muster or has a family issue or an injury occurs to a verbal or roster player ( ie Ray Hall, Sharaud,) or it is mutually agreed that a year of prep school is warranted.
Now to your example of an existing roster player, I think it goes back to what other posters have stated about the character and honor of your coach. Assuming Keno is an honorable man, he probably hopes that all his roster players will be 4 year men and graduate and excel in basketball too. But, as a practical man, he realizes that the reality is that some won't succeed, and some won't love him, and also they may not be able to adjust to that reality and be happy at PC. As in the case of Kellogg, a coach who inter-acts with his players 6 or 7 days per week gets the sense of who may not be fulfilling their needs. I really don't think the process is clinical and predictable...I rather think it emerges.
I do realize how opinions can vary on these issues and I certainly don't profess to have all the answers. However, I do prefer to analyze this stuff from the real world perspective and the jungle that the ncaa promulgates. I have an open mind on some of this stuff....but, as my former Italian National partner used to say in broken English....." I need some convincement"
"...so I'd hope that PC/Keno would do it wisely, and sparingly." Billy
Back to top
Bipolar Friar22
All-American
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 1223
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Dex,
So who do you think would be the brizzed player if KD decides to use 4 schollies? I completely disagree with 71 in that there is no way he asks Coleman or Giplaye to decommitt. That would basically be destroying his BABC connection.
I am going to guess that within 5 years, the NCAA does something that makes overrecruiting a taboo practice. The thought of my son getting a scholly to play a sport somewhere and the coach, after one year of him having no problems at the school, telling him he is no longer provided for at the school is an ugly one. It almost makes me want to have him go the Divisio III route where scholastic grant money is guaranteed for 4 years as long as the student is in good standing and GPA requirments are met. IMHO, you offer a kid a scholly for a fully funded program, the kid has to do something wrong to have it pulled. Trouble with the law, poor grades...finding someone you want more is not one of those reasons. Now, telling a kid he should look elsewhere if he wants to play is much different than telling a kid he no longer has a paid for education at the school. Huge difference. Most kids at the big time level will want to go elsewhere so that they can play, but forcing that decision down their throat is simply unethical and a black mark on whatever program does it. No argument can be made against this.
And I am very surprised that we are so fine with the prospect of it happening here yet we rip away at any program that also does it...this is a phenomen that is shared by the other site as well.
Back to top
Tonton
All-American
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 1459
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
BiP, I think you should explain further, because I'm not seeing a "huge difference" between a coach getting someone he likes better and a coach telling a kid there's someone he likes better and you'll never see the floor. Especially if, as you say, most kids will leave if told that anyway.
Back to top
Dex
Rookie-year Pro
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 4841
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I don't see it either Tonton.
AnywayI attempted a very measured and specific response twice. I do not support this as a casual willy nilly course of action. If you think Keno is a black-hearted so and so who would abuse this process, then by all means I understand one's reluctance.
If on the other hand one believes that Keno and Jay Wright are responsible decent people and will do things the right way and also within the rules and that maybe Keno will rescue us from the Washington Capitol Syndrome we are in at present, you will give him some ammo to succeed.
Like Fanatic said, and I agree, ...get out of the Big East rather than making the annual pilgrimage to MSG to watch your team get it's brains beat in by those morally bankrupt schools led by Jay, Rick, Flan, Buzz, Stan, Jim etc etc . To equate this stuff to going over to the dark side is quite unbelievable.
Back to top
