83 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

I don't care that it's commonplace to just renew the contracts with no regard to merit, I believe coaches have that right not to renew them with a valid reason. And not being as good as advertised is one. If they can better their team, that's enough of a reason to me. The coaches at the end of the day are evaluated on wins and losses.

 

And again, that's largely on the coach if the player is not good as advertised, at least assuming it's not a work ethic issue. 

 

You're right that it can be the right move in terms of trying to win games; although, it can effect recruiting if it becomes commonplace. I just don't think it's ethical and I don't see much justification for doing it with the two specific players mentioned. 

[Oriole85]

And again, that's largely on the coach if the player is not good as advertised, at least assuming it's not a work ethic issue. 

 

You're right that it can be the right move in terms of trying to win games; although, it can effect recruiting if it becomes commonplace. I just don't think it's ethical and I don't see much justification for doing it with the two specific players mentioned. 

And you're right that is largely on the coach if the player isn't as good as advertised. I don't think the coach should be forced to stick with them however, if it's clearly not going to work.

 

In terms of it being unethical, I don't really agree with you (generally speaking). And it's on the student-athletes to know that the scholarships are only for a year. 

 

If the coach can win, I don't think it's really going to hurt recruiting. How much did oversigning hurt Nick Saban and Les Miles? That's much more unethical if you ask me.

 

I get the whole these are college kids rhetoric going on here, these are also legal adults were talking about for the most part.

[mweb08]

And you're right that is largely on the coach if the player isn't as good as advertised. I don't think the coach should be forced to stick with them however, if it's clearly not going to work.

 

In terms of it being unethical, I don't really agree with you (generally speaking). And it's on the student-athletes to know that the scholarships are only for a year. 

 

If the coach can win, I don't think it's really going to hurt recruiting. How much did oversigning hurt Nick Saban and Les Miles? That's much more unethical if you ask me.

 

I get the whole these are college kids rhetoric going on here, these are also legal adults were talking about for the most part.

 

The way these athletes are talked to in the recruiting process and the way basketball scholarships are treated by and large throughout the nation suggests to players that they really shouldn't have to worry about having their ship taken unless they screw up somehow. 

 

And I know you keep mentioning what the coaches are allowed to do, but I don't think a coach should be allowed to revoke a scholarship just for a player not reaching expectations and I don't think a coach should over sign as you mention with Saban and Miles. I think they should fulfill the commitment they appear to be making when they offer the scholarship.

 

And if they don't have to, why should players be bound to that school? They should be able to leave and play wherever else the next year regardless of how much the coach wants them to stay. 

[Oriole85]

The way these athletes are talked to in the recruiting process and the way basketball scholarships are treated by and large throughout the nation suggests to players that they really shouldn't have to worry about having their ship taken unless they screw up somehow. 

 

And I know you keep mentioning what the coaches are allowed to do, but I don't think a coach should be allowed to revoke a scholarship just for a player not reaching expectations and I don't think a coach should over sign as you mention with Saban and Miles. I think they should fulfill the commitment they appear to be making when they offer the scholarship.

 

And if they don't have to, why should players be bound to that school? They should be able to leave and play wherever else the next year regardless of how much the coach wants them to stay. 

Well they should realize that isn't the case -- read the fine print.

 

We're in agreement in the oversigning.

 

So should these be four (or five) year commitments to the schools they sign with out of high school and they shouldn't be allowed to leave without the schools permission? Since you don't think a scholarship should NOT be renewed.

 

Without the transfer rules, athletes would be changing schools left and right, that's your answer. It's somewhat on the athletes to evaluate the best situation with regards to coaching, playing time, academics(or lack of), etc.

[mweb08]

Well they should realize that isn't the case -- read the fine print.

 

We're in agreement in the oversigning.

 

So should these be four (or five) year commitments to the schools they sign with out of high school and they shouldn't be allowed to leave without the schools permission? Since you don't think a scholarship should NOT be renewed.

 

Without the transfer rules, athletes would be changing schools left and right, that's your answer. It's somewhat on the athletes to evaluate the best situation with regards to coaching, playing time, academics(or lack of), etc.

 

I'm sure they're aware of the possibility of a coach dropping them, but I guarantee that the coach doesn't say we're going to evaluate you on a year to year basis to see if you'll keep your ship, they say they'll have the ship for 4 years. And coaches largely seem to honor that.

 

If coaches can walk away from a player with no penalty, why shouldn't a player be able to walk away from a coach/school with no penalty? Yes, a player should be able to evaluate that just as a coach should be able to evaluate if they'll want the player for 4 years before offering him a ship.

[Oriole85]

I'm sure they're aware of the possibility of a coach dropping them, but I guarantee that the coach doesn't say we're going to evaluate you on a year to year basis to see if you'll keep your ship, they say they'll have the ship for 4 years. And coaches largely seem to honor that.

 

If coaches can walk away from a player with no penalty, why shouldn't a player be able to walk away from a coach/school with no penalty? Yes, a player should be able to evaluate that just as a coach should be able to evaluate if they'll want the player for 4 years before offering him a ship.

The coaches should be more honest with them, but your employer doesn't always do that with you in life. Good for the coaches for honoring to renew a scholarship just based on effort, that's nice of them -- I don't think they should be required to.

 

Players are signing up for a school not a coach, but I get that they choose it based on a coach in many cases. Coaches get hired/fired/move on/etc a lot more now -- it's a much more transient business. Does that extend to assistant coaches, like the now-co-OC/WR coach of Auburn was the primary reason Jameis Winston came to Auburn, should he be allowed to leave now?

 

I was more arguing your scholarship renewal point though. Since you think schools should just renew scholarships on a yearly basis as long as the player is showing a good faith effort, should the students have to uphold their end of the bargain then and stay for four(or five) years?

[mweb08]

My point was that if it's just a one year commitment, that should work both ways without penalty. Why do you seemingly disagree with that?

 

I think both the players and coaches should be able to get out of their commitments under extenuating circumstances. I do not consider a fringe prospect being signed and not showing that he's more than a fringe prospect to qualify. I also don't think a good prospect being disappointing, but still working hard and playing major minutes is a case where the coach should dump the player.

[Oriole85]

My point was that if it's just a one year commitment, that should work both ways without penalty. Why do you seemingly disagree with that?<br /><br />I think both the players and coaches should be able to get out of their commitments under extenuating circumstances. I do not consider a fringe prospect being signed and not showing that he's more than a fringe prospect to qualify. I also don't think a good prospect being disappointing, but still working hard and playing major minutes is a case where the coach should dump the player.<br />

I already said because players would be transferring a lot more. I think you need some kind of deterrent. Other than in-conference, I would like coaches not to be able to dictate where players can('t) go.

 

My point with scholarships being automatically renewed was that, it should work both ways as well -- we'll renew your scholarship, but you have to stay here. I don't support going to multi-year scholarships but if we did that be a fair policy to have.

[Mackus]

Pulling the rug out from under them and not renewing the scholarship is a rash move, but I don't think it'd be necessary.  If you urge the kids to transfer because they aren't going to get any playing time, they'll leave.  These guys want to play basketball.  Even the ones that aren't NBA players can be good enough to go play overseas, but that's harder if they get buried on someone's bench for their last year or two.

[mweb08]

I already said because players would be transferring a lot more. I think you need some kind of deterrent. Other than in-conference, I would like coaches not to be able to dictate where players can('t) go.

 

My point with scholarships being automatically renewed was that, it should work both ways as well -- we'll renew your scholarship, but you have to stay here. I don't support going to multi-year scholarships but if we did that be a fair policy to have.

 

Well your first point has nothing to do with fairness, it only has to do with your desires as a fan to not have players switching schools too much. If we are being fair, if coaches get to evaluate if the player comes back each year and make a decision without penalty, then so should players.

[mweb08]

Pulling the rug out from under them and not renewing the scholarship is a rash move, but I don't think it'd be necessary.  If you urge the kids to transfer because they aren't going to get any playing time, they'll leave.  These guys want to play basketball.  Even the ones that aren't NBA players can be good enough to go play overseas, but that's harder if they get buried on someone's bench for their last year or two.

 

But if you look at the roster and the current playing time situation, it's kinda hard to honestly tell Cleare that he'd be a bench warmer next year.

[BSLChrisStoner]

But if you look at the roster and the current playing time situation, it's kinda hard to honestly tell Cleare that he'd be a bench warmer next year.

 

Right, and that is a key. He will either be a starter, or at-least still figure to receive significant minutes next year.

Dodd is a project, but I'm sure Dodd didn't anticipate playing much more than he did this year. He does have strong athleticism. Don't see him leaving either.

[Oriole85]

Well your first point has nothing to do with fairness, it only has to do with your desires as a fan to not have players switching schools too much. If we are being fair, if coaches get to evaluate if the player comes back each year and make a decision without penalty, then so should players.

Ok so since you think coaches should automatically renew scholarships if the player is showing effort. Do you also think the athlete should have to stay there throughout their college career? You seem to be avoiding this question.

[mweb08]

Ok so since you think coaches should automatically renew scholarships if the player is showing effort. Do you also think the athlete should have to stay there throughout their college career? You seem to be avoiding this question.

 

I actually specifically answered it already. And you still have no counter to my point other than you don't want players moving around a lot.

[Oriole85]

I actually specifically answered it already. And you still have no counter to my point other than you don't want players moving around a lot.

I already said players are signing up for the school NOT the coach. I get that they go to a school in many ways for the coach but where does that end as I listed with my Jameis Winston, should he be able to transfer because he went to FSU largely due to an assistant coach who left for Auburn or does that just apply to head coaches? Nowhere in the National Letter of Intent does it say "I'm signing up to play for [Nick Saban or Les Miles or Randy Edsall or Rich Rodriguez]." It's your signing up to play for [Alavama or LSU or Maryland or Arizona]. But many mistakenly think that's what they are doing. There's no guarantee that those coaches will be there at the end of four years let alone one, choose the school for other reasons as well. And yeah I know those coaches promised... people lie, talk is cheap.

 

 

Scrolling up, I think you answered it here (although I'm not entirely sure). My apologies:

 

Yes, a player should be able to evaluate that just as a coach should be able to evaluate if they'll want the player for 4 years before offering him a ship.

[mweb08]

I answered it here:

 

My point was that if it's just a one year commitment, that should work both ways without penalty. Why do you seemingly disagree with that?

 

I think both the players and coaches should be able to get out of their commitments under extenuating circumstances. I do not consider a fringe prospect being signed and not showing that he's more than a fringe prospect to qualify. I also don't think a good prospect being disappointing, but still working hard and playing major minutes is a case where the coach should dump the player.

[mweb08]

I already said players are signing up for the school NOT the coach. I get that they go to a school in many ways for the coach but where does that end as I listed with my Jameis Winston, should he be able to transfer because he went to FSU largely due to an assistant coach who left for Auburn or does that just apply to head coaches? Nowhere in the National Letter of Intent does it say "I'm signing up to play for [Nick Saban or Les Miles or Randy Edsall or Rich Rodriguez]." It's your signing up to play for [Alavama or LSU or Maryland or Arizona]. But many mistakenly think that's what they are doing. There's no guarantee that those coaches will be there at the end of four years let alone one, choose the school for other reasons as well. And yeah I know those coaches promised... people lie, talk is cheap.

 

 

Scrolling up, I think you answered it here (although I'm not entirely sure). My apologies:

 

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that the player signed up for the school, not the coach since that has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if the coach is allowed to get rid of a player after each year without penalty, the player should be able to leave and go elsewhere after each year without penalty. It should work both ways or no ways.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Whatever opinion you have on this... I think the bottom-line is that next year MD figures to look like:

 

2014-15 Terps
Guards:  Faust (Sr), Allen (Jr), Peters (Soph), Trimble (Frosh), Wiley (Frosh)
Wings: Wells (Sr), Layman (Jr), Nickens (Frosh)
Bigs: Mitchell (Jr), Cleare (Jr), Smotrycz (Sr), Graham (Sr), Dodd (Soph), Reed (Frosh)

 

Mike, you speak with Jeff tonight... I'll be curious to hear if he disagrees, and sees any departures as likely to occur.

 

Also, if he does see a departure likely to happen, does he believe that Graham would get that scholarship before someone else externally was added?

[Oriole85]

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that the player signed up for the school, not the coach since that has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if the coach is allowed to get rid of a player after each year without penalty, the player should be able to leave and go elsewhere after each year without penalty. It should work both ways or no ways.

I'm shifting my position somewhat here: if a coach or program doesn't want a player back I do think they should be allowed to transfer to any non-conference school free of penalty. Take a situation like Dez Wells, no reason, he should have to sit out a year(and he didn't).

 

And yes, I prefer players not transfer left and right after every season. The NCAA has it's bylaws in place. If it's so bad, why hasn't a court of law struck it down yet?

[mweb08]

I'm shifting my position somewhat here: if a coach or program doesn't want a player back I do think they should be allowed to transfer to any non-conference school free of penalty. Take a situation like Dez Wells, no reason, he should have to sit out a year(and he didn't).

 

And yes, I prefer players not transfer left and right after every season. The NCAA has it's bylaws in place. If it's so bad, why hasn't a court of law struck it down yet?

 

So everything that is bad will automatically be struck down in court? I mean that's an odd argument to make, especially when we're dealing with the NCAA.