Page 30 of 50 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 496
  1. #291
    Junior Lloyd Braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Sounds a bit like Ryan Welage.
    If you watch the highlights Welage is a very fair comp. I know we need shooters... but I’m not sure I can get super excited about him. Had a difficult time finding defensive highlights.

  2. #292
    Senior xavierj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Sounds a bit like Ryan Welage.
    Agree except about 50 lbs heavier. I am sure its take a chance see if he can translate. Worst thing that can happen is that he is not good enough to get off the bench. It's not like they are wasting a scholarship they need for someone else. If he comes to X then maybe a walk on gets upset because it uses a scholarship that they sometimes give to a walk on.

  3. #293
    Junior IM4X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,357
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    Look at James....barely played his first 2 years at X and now heÂ’s going to have to sit out a full year before heÂ’s eligible to play. 3 wasted years for him....and only 2 years left to play.
    Situation 1:
    It does not seems to make sense to make players like James- players in his circumstance have to sit out a year. He gave his best to his coach and team for two years, but he is still not getting significant playing time. So why not allow all players who commit to a school where the coach chooses not to give them significant playing time by the end of their second full year to move on without having to sit out a year.

    Situation 2:
    If a player chooses to leave during or after their first year (like Bishop), then it makes more sense for that player to have to sit out a year (unless the coach has determined that the player will not ever likely get significant playing time.

    Situation 3:
    It also seems to make sense that a starter (or someone who plays more than say 25 minutes) who wants to transfer also should have to sit out a year. This is where it could get really messy if these recruits donÂ’t have to sit out. It is what keeps schools from constantly trying to steal away talent and causing chaos for basketball teams and their program. If you are a starter (or at least getting significant minutes), you are already getting what you signed up for. If you want to go somewhere else -fine- but know you will have to sit out a year.

  4. #294
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    17,037
    Quote Originally Posted by IM4X View Post
    Situation 1:
    It does not seems to make sense to make players like James- players in his circumstance have to sit out a year. He gave his best to his coach and team for two years, but he is still not getting significant playing time. So why not allow all players who commit to a school where the coach chooses not to give them significant playing time by the end of their second full year to move on without having to sit out a year.

    Situation 2:
    If a player chooses to leave during or after their first year (like Bishop), then it makes more sense for that player to have to sit out a year (unless the coach has determined that the player will not ever likely get significant playing time.

    Situation 3:
    It also seems to make sense that a starter (or someone who plays more than say 25 minutes) who wants to transfer also should have to sit out a year. This is where it could get really messy if these recruits donÂ’t have to sit out. It is what keeps schools from constantly trying to steal away talent and causing chaos for basketball teams and their program. If you are a starter (or at least getting significant minutes), you are already getting what you signed up for. If you want to go somewhere else -fine- but know you will have to sit out a year.
    So the biggest worry or concern from this remains "chaos" or roster management issues for the coaches? I just dont know why everyone is so concerned about the coaches job getting tougher.

    Again situation 2 and 3 don't solve the issues that this rule is trying to solve.
    "I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  5. #295
    Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    3,151
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Sounds a bit like Ryan Welage.
    Wasn't Welage more like 6'7" 180 ?
    As far as the transfer rule, what will happen when weazels like Bruce Pearl and Kelvin Sampson see a guy is averaging 15 and 10 in Dec, and blow the kid's phone up for the next 3 months promising him God knows what ? But I guess that goes on now. I think maybe the limit should be 2 no sit transfers period.

  6. #296
    Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    3,151
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Sounds a bit like Ryan Welage.
    Wasn't Welage more like 6'7" 180 ?
    As far as the transfer rule, what will happen when weazels like Bruce Pearl and Kelvin Sampson see a guy is averaging 15 and 10 in Dec, and blow the kid's phone up for the next 3 months promising him God knows what ? But I guess that goes on now. I think maybe the limit should be 2 no sit transfers period.

  7. #297
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z View Post
    So the biggest worry or concern from this remains "chaos" or roster management issues for the coaches? I just dont know why everyone is so concerned about the coaches job getting tougher.
    .
    I do think that is a legitimate concern, but not because it could make the coaches job tougher.

    IMO it could even make a coaches job easier, especially for assistant coaches. No more need to travel to little HS gyms, or summer tourneys. No more need to suck up to 13 year olds and their parents. Sit back, watch the college game, and cherry pick the cream of the crop from the college ranks. Build your team by recruiting college all-stars. Meanwhile, all the coaches that beat the bushes, found these under the radar players, and worked to develop them, are screwed. Just when it was starting to pay off, someone takes them away because they have better facilities, and prettier co-eds. (Or just a stack of cash?)

    That’s why I would propose a limit on the number of these players that can be on a roster. It would make it impossible to build a complete roster that way, but would also give the players the opportunity to transfer, without having to sit out, that they want (and should have IMO).

  8. #298
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    17,037
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    I do think that is a legitimate concern, but not because it could make the coaches job tougher.

    IMO it could even make a coaches job easier, especially for assistant coaches. No more need to travel to little HS gyms, or summer tourneys. No more need to suck up to 13 year olds and their parents. Sit back, watch the college game, and cherry pick the cream of the crop from the college ranks. Build your team by recruiting college all-stars. Meanwhile, all the coaches that beat the bushes, found these under the radar players, and worked to develop them, are screwed. Just when it was starting to pay off, someone takes them away because they have better facilities, and prettier co-eds. (Or just a stack of cash?)

    That’s why I would propose a limit on the number of these players that can be on a roster. It would make it impossible to build a complete roster that way, but would also give the players the opportunity to transfer, without having to sit out, that they want (and should have IMO).
    Well it can’t be both ways. If the bigger schools are poaching “college all stars” (which I don’t think it going to happen near the level that some are concerned on this board) and not “sucking up to 13 year olds” and recruiting high school kids then there are that many more talented high school kids who won’t have spots on bigger schools and that will be available for those hard working coaches who aren’t going after transfers.

    And the players aren’t the schools possession. I honestly don’t care if the found a diamond in the rough who turned out to be a star and not wants a shot at a higher school. Why are so many people against that? It’s truly confusing to me. It’s almost completely unamerican when you look at all of our lives and that we all strive to better our skills, better our jobs, better our positions and opportunities in life. But when it comes to the under recruited kid who worked hard and became a better player we get all in a tizzy when he wants a chance to compete at a higher level. It’s so strange.

    And to me the rich getting richer argument just doesn’t hold water. This isn’t going to change anything in the landscape of whos is the best and who will consistently be final 4 and national championship contenders. That gap is too wide already for it to get wider in any significant way.
    Last edited by D-West & PO-Z; 04-11-2020 at 07:30 AM.
    "I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  9. #299
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,517
    Do you think that there should be ANY restrictions upon a student-athletes freedom to transfer and compete right away?

    Do you think that there should be ANY restrictions upon the number of scholarships that a school can hand out?

  10. #300
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    17,037
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    Do you think that there should be ANY restrictions upon a student-athletes freedom to transfer and compete right away?

    Do you think that there should be ANY restrictions upon the number of scholarships that a school can hand out?
    1. I like the proposed rule of one free transfer where no sitting out is required. That’s it. There’s no need for any other restriction or tier levels or anything else imo. Transfer twice then you have to sit a year.

    2. Other than the normal scholarship limits (what is it 13 that a school gets?), no.
    "I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •