Why is it ok when the players do it?

[strummer8526]

So one thing that a lot of people expressed in the now-locked Macklin thread is that they don't mind a kid walking away from the program at some point. There was a whole lot of "wishing him the best" going on. So why is it ok for the player to essentially breach his end of an agreement to play basketball for us, but it is NEVER ok for a program to consider changing its commitment to the player? Like when a few of us suggested that, hey, the school should be careful in its dealings with Braswell, everyone says it's a UCON thing to do to even considering changing out commitment. Then, Macklin MIGHT BE taking 2 years of his scholarship and development and rides off into the night, and everyone is cool with it.

Is there a critical distinction that I don't see? Really, this isn't meant to suggest that Macklin is wrong or that changing positions on recruits is right. I'm just trying to reconcile why people would view them differently.

[hoyalawyer]

The institution commits to a player based on their need for the player. A certain degree of credibility is associated with programs that honor their commitments. If a program recruits another player that is more skilled than a player that plays the position currently on the roster, it can be interpreted two ways:
1. Improving depth
2. That guy is your "replacement"

Ultimately there is only 1 team with 12-13 players. For the team to dishonor its promise looks much worse to the outside viewer (and future recruits) than it does for an INDIVIDUAL PLAYER to leave because he or she is not happy with his or her situation/role/prospects of playing time/system in which he or she plays etc . . .

[NCHoya]

It comes down to a school has on-going reputation to keep so it is not "allowed" to take back commitments. It needs to honor its commitments to kids so that more kids will come. If a program loses this credibility, well, the program is basically lost. Meanwhile, an individual player is basically "allowed" to be slefish since the only thing that is affected by the decision is them and a school. The chances another school would take a chance on the transfer, especially if there are some real reasons, is very high.

Honestly, I am Editeded at V-mack too, but he probably does not believe he will ever fit into the system we are running. Even if we increase the tempo, this ain't Memphis and I am sure a team like that will allow him to show off his athletic talents and increase the stat page. I can rationalize why he is doing this, the problem is one day he is going to have to show he can play half-court on the block. He gave up the chance of learning this at one of greatest Big Men shcools in history.

[williambraskyiii]

I can't believe you are even making this argument, even if it is just for schnitzengiggle - but I will bite

Since you come off as a myopic law student, let me put it in clear terms for you. Think of Vernon as a young associate at a large corporate law firm. The law firm cherry-picks the best law school graduates on the basis of grades, clerkships, law review, etc. The law firm invests time and money to make you a better associate. But clearly, associates make lateral moves all the time for a number of reasons - hours, crap work, not enough training, etc. At the same time, law firms rarely fire associates because to do so would be a public relations nightmare and would have a deleterious effect on future recruiting...recent history has bore this out. The same applies to summer associates - EVERYONE gets offers because if they don't, next years top students won't go to x firm.

Vernon doesn't owe anything to georgetown in my opinion. He always seemed like a positive force on the team even when he played sparingly -- a tough reality for a former McD AA. I credit him, in part, with putting JTIII and GU back on the map re having the credibility of being able to nab top recruits. There is no reason to believe he was in poor academic standing; he never embarrassed the program off the court; and he seemed like a genuine young man.

He has to do what he believes is best for him in furthering his prospective career.

[GUHoya07]

Strummer, don't you think an entire basketball program should be held to higher standards than a single individual? Sure, its nice to think that everyone should be held to the highest of standards and honor all of their commitments, but I think a program associated with an institution of higher learning should be held more accountable than a young man who is just trying to figure out what is best for his life and his future.

Now, maybe you're just a perfect person and have never had second thoughts about anything you've ever done and have never failed to honor any commitment in your life, but the fact is, thats not realistic to expect from every single individual and its important to understand that.

When a basketball program makes a commitment to a young man I feel it is their obligation to at least give that student athlete an equal shot and make him the best player and person they possibly can during his time there. That is the honorable thing to do and is what I expect from any self-respecting program. However, I can't be too angry at an individual who feels that it is better for them and their family to make a change in their life when they feel something isn't working out well.

Even suggesting something like the thought that it be acceptable for schools to pull scholarships and force players out is extremely sad to me. Its not as if he didn't give anything back in return for that scholarship, you act as if we wasted two years on him, but Im pretty sure he worked his butt off as well and tried to help the team win in any way possible during his time here.

A basketball program should be ethical if it wants to be a true success on all levels, and that requires a total commitment to its players once they become part of the family, but also the understanding to let individuals go when they feel they need a change in their lives. This creates a truly caring environment that shows a real commitment to the welfare of the student athletes as people first and basketball players second and creates the foundation for the kind of healthy environment that can foster long term success.

[moe09]

Alright, who hijacked brasky's account?

[blueandgray]

A university is committed to educating and at some level responsible for giving students the tools needed to grow from teenagers to adults. The school also has a limited window in assessing whether the student/athlete is mentally and emotionally prepared make the leap. Once the school and the student/athlete are bound to eachother... at that point its the institution responsibility to continutally offer the opportunities... but its in the hands of the student to zealously make the most of the opportunity. The institution at this point really just becomes an interested observer trying to guide and provide direction.... and really has little ability or no discretion to take away the opportunities once they are offerred. In Vernon's case, the bball program spent most of its first two years giving him the tools needed to take his game to the next level... lessons he badly needed. The program was now prepared to to provide the stage for Vern to exhibit his newly honed skills...his growth from boy to man if you will. For whatever reason, Vern was not ready for this (at least at Gtown that is). Unfortunately, you can only hope that its a bilateral commitment between university and student... in this case, it appears it was only unilateral.

The tough realization is just dawning on me that we lost Crawford, Ewing, Hibbert, Wallace and now Macklin all in one year. Its going to be a very different look and feel next year.

[hoyatables]

Apr 24, 2008 9:05:47 GMT -5 moe09 said:

Alright, who hijacked brasky's account?

I was thinking the same thing .

Well said, brasky, well said.

[vcjack]

Apr 24, 2008 9:01:48 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

I can't believe you are even making this argument, even if it is just for schnitzengiggle - but I will bite

Since you come off as a myopic law student, let me put it in clear terms for you. Think of Vernon as a young associate at a large corporate law firm. The law firm cherry-picks the best law school graduates on the basis of grades, clerkships, law review, etc. The law firm invests time and money to make you a better associate. But clearly, associates make lateral moves all the time for a number of reasons - hours, crap work, not enough training, etc. At the same time, law firms rarely fire associates because to do so would be a public relations nightmare and would have a deleterious effect on future recruiting...recent history has bore this out. The same applies to summer associates - EVERYONE gets offers because if they don't, next years top students won't go to x firm.

Vernon doesn't owe anything to georgetown in my opinion. He always seemed like a positive force on the team even when he played sparingly -- a tough reality for a former McD AA. I credit him, in part, with putting JTIII and GU back on the map re having the credibility of being able to nab top recruits. There is no reason to believe he was in poor academic standing; he never embarrassed the program off the court; and he seemed like a genuine young man.

He has to do what he believes is best for him in furthering his prospective career.

well said

[strummer8526]

Apr 24, 2008 9:01:48 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

I can't believe you are even making this argument, even if it is just for schnitzengiggle - but I will bite

Since you come off as a myopic law student, let me put it in clear terms for you. Think of Vernon as a young associate at a large corporate law firm. The law firm cherry-picks the best law school graduates on the basis of grades, clerkships, law review, etc. The law firm invests time and money to make you a better associate. But clearly, associates make lateral moves all the time for a number of reasons - hours, crap work, not enough training, etc. At the same time, law firms rarely fire associates because to do so would be a public relations nightmare and would have a deleterious effect on future recruiting...recent history has bore this out. The same applies to summer associates - EVERYONE gets offers because if they don't, next years top students won't go to x firm.

Vernon doesn't owe anything to georgetown in my opinion. He always seemed like a positive force on the team even when he played sparingly -- a tough reality for a former McD AA. I credit him, in part, with putting JTIII and GU back on the map re having the credibility of being able to nab top recruits. There is no reason to believe he was in poor academic standing; he never embarrassed the program off the court; and he seemed like a genuine young man.

He has to do what he believes is best for him in furthering his prospective career.

I don't really think this question displays myopia, but anyway...

You just explained why the program, for pragmatic reasons, has to stay committed to its recruits, regardless of changing circumstances. I don't disagree. There would be PR problems for GU if we showed a willingness to change like that. I still don't see why there shouldn't be the same standard for the player when his circumstances change and maybe he doesn't get the playing time he likes.

Let's say the last two years have been a wash--the school has given to Vernon as expected (an education, a scholarship, training, etc.) and Vernon has given to the team (being a positive force, working hard, staying out of trouble). So everyone is even as things stand now. No one owes anyone anything. Still, going into the third year, there are all those practical / PR reasons that GU has to stay bound, regardless of how much the player has under-achieved, team needs have evolved, etc. When the player's situation changes, why is everyone so willing to say he should be free to go w/ no questions asked?

Basically, you explain why GU can't do what Vernon is doing. I want to know why no one has issue with it when players do what Vernon is doing.

No, we can't stop him, but we also don't need to say "He needs to do what's best for his family" when the same "GU needs to do what's best for the program" wouldn't fly for even a second.

[strummer8526]

Apr 24, 2008 9:03:53 GMT -5 GUHoya07 said:

Strummer, don't you think an entire basketball program should be held to higher standards than a single individual? Sure, its nice to think that everyone should be held to the highest of standards and honor all of their commitments, but I think a program associated with an institution of higher learning should be held more accountable than a young man who is just trying to figure out what is best for his life and his future.

Now, maybe you're just a perfect person and have never had second thoughts about anything you've ever done and have never failed to honor any commitment in your life, but the fact is, thats not realistic to expect from every single individual and its important to understand that.

When a basketball program makes a commitment to a young man I feel it is their obligation to at least give that student athlete an equal shot and make him the best player and person they possibly can during his time there. That is the honorable thing to do and is what I expect from any self-respecting program. However, I can't be too angry at an individual who feels that it is better for them and their family to make a change in their life when they feel something isn't working out well.

Even suggesting something like the thought that it be acceptable for schools to pull scholarships and force players out is extremely sad to me. Its not as if he didn't give anything back in return for that scholarship, you act as if we wasted two years on him, but Im pretty sure he worked his butt off as well and tried to help the team win in any way possible during his time here.

A basketball program should be ethical if it wants to be a true success on all levels, and that requires a total commitment to its players once they become part of the family, but also the understanding to let individuals go when they feel they need a change in their lives. This creates a truly caring environment that shows a real commitment to the welfare of the student athletes as people first and basketball players second and creates the foundation for the kind of healthy environment that can foster long term success.

Totally agree. The program does need to remain ethical, and pulling scholarships would be a mess. But you even seem to recognize my point: there is something inherently UNETHICAL about a player walking from his commitment. My point was that the other thread's "Best of luck to him. Sad to see him go" attitude was Editeding me off b/c at the end of the day, he is walking away from a commitment to a school that was permanently bound to him and his development.

No, Georgetown can't do the same thing. We should be held to that high standard, and I'd never expect the team to pull scholarships. But if you're going to say that, I think you also have to say that it's wrong when players do this and leave their program hanging. Playing time and the type of offense we run are, to me, selfish and disadmirable reasons to leave. If it's for something personal, then that's different. If it's a basketball decision, then I have no respect for someone who does that.

[williambraskyiii]

I was not saying that your question displays myopia, but rather your small-minded jabs at the young man.

The very clear distinction is that Georgetown is an institution and VMack is an individual. Vernon leaving will not cause the Program to crumble. Life will go on, the freshmen will get acclimated and we will have a successful season next year. However, it appears that Vern perceives that by not leaving the program, he will be passed over for PT and not reach his ultimate goal. Staying, in his mind, might have irreparable consequences for him as an individual. It just isn't a level playing field in terms of damage (individual v. institution). Therefore, the outrage just isn't there for me in regard to players transferring as compared to programs giving up on players.

To go back to a law-related analogy, how is this different than a student going to a second-tier law school on scholarship, killing it his first year and then transferring to Harvard ? Sure Georgetown isn't a second-tier program, so that aspect is a bit inapt, but the law student transfers b/c by going to Harvard he will get a better job and better opportunities. Should that law student not transfer from the second-tier school because he owes some sort of fealty to the institution for accepting him and giving him a merit scholarship? No he shouldn't...because going to Harvard will afford him better post-school opportunities. The second-tier institution will look to the remainder of the class, and the next wave of potential applicants, to fill the void.

[SFHoya99]

Strummer, you're acting like there's a written contract somewhere. The reality is that there are accepted mores in these situations and unless things are explicitly said, scholarships and taken and given with both sides fully understanding the situation.

For example:

• Players realize that a coach could leave at any time in their tenure despite it usually being the #1 reason they came to a school. It's one thing if the coach accepted their LOI while promising to stay all four years -- and this happens a lot "I'll be here". But if no such conversation took place, any reasonable person knows that a coach may choose what is best for him. If the players asks and the coach says, "I can make no promises, etc." then I don't see the issue.
  
  
• Players are expected to jump to the league or transfer if that's what's best for them. That's the default. A University is selling a product, and the customer is always right. Especially when the product being sold is essentially the betterment of the customer -- how could you expect a University to expect a player to stay for the betterment of the University and the degradation of the player.
  
  Again, it might be different if the scholarship offer was extended on the condition the player stays all four years. Like a signing bonus in the rest of the world, or a stay bonus. But otherwise, it's an understood condition of the contract between vendor and customer.
  
  
• Pulling a scholarship just isn't expected. Again, if there are terms that players violate -- team rules, don't make academics, don't work hard, it's entirely understandable. But the unspoken assumption -- and sometimes spoken -- is that if you work hard and are coachable and hit the books, you've got one for four years. Because the norm is one way, I don't think pulling a scholarship against the norm is particularly ethical unless that standard was set before.
  
  

[hoyasexy]

I think there is an inherent assymetry in the dependencies on each other that justifies a double standard. A college basketball team is comprised of 13 players, and its success is dependent on the collective success of those 13 individuals. Therefore, the success of a program is not dependent on the success of a single individual. On the flip side, the success of an individual is much more dependent on the team. Many factors contibute to whether a single player can achieve success, including a number that are out of his control (such as wether the team runs a system that does not suit that particular player's strengths).

In the end, if a single player on a team is not finding the level of success that he feels he can achieve, it may be the best solution for him to find an alternative outlet. This decision is unlikely to cause serious damage to a program, as he was no more than one out of thirteen. (Given the fact that transferring players are seldomly star players or even significant contributors, it could be argued that they are often less than that, but I can assume equality for the purpose of this analysis.)

However, the damage that a program can do to an individual by quitting on him can be staggering, as options for that person may be limited. Further, if the situation were different, and players were forced to stay (either because of stricter rules on transferring or because of so-called ethical considerations), the player may never be able to develop or achieve success by reason of factors that may have been outside of his control.

[Filo]

The fact that anyone has to expound on this is beyond ludicrous. Seriously, Strummer, what 's the truth? 1L or 1st grade?

But you are free to be Editeded off because some are wishing him luck, while others can be Editeded off at you because you were acting like a tool.

[SFHoya99]

Apr 24, 2008 10:58:37 GMT -5 hoyasexy said:

I think there is an inherent assymetry in the dependencies on each other that justifies a double standard. A college basketball team is comprised of 13 players, and its success is dependent on the collective success of those 13 individuals. Therefore, the success of a program is not dependent on the success of a single individual. On the flip side, the success of an individual is much more dependent on the team. Many factors contibute to whether a single player can achieve success, including a number that are out of his control (such as wether the team runs a system that does not suit that particular player's strengths).

In the end, if a single player on a team is not finding the level of success that he feels he can achieve, it may be the best solution for him to find an alternative outlet. This decision is unlikely to cause serious damage to a program, as he was no more than one out of thirteen. (Given the fact that transferring players are seldomly star players or even significant contributors, it could be argued that they are often less than that, but I can assume equality for the purpose of this analysis.)

However, the damage that a program can do to an individual by quitting on him can be staggering, as options for that person may be limited. Further, if the situation were different, and players were forced to stay (either because of stricter rules on transferring or because of so-called ethical considerations), the player may never be able to develop or achieve success by reason of factors that may have been outside of his control.

Right on.


To take it further:

This is a major decision in Vernon's life and his future.

This affects strummer's potential enjoyment of Hoya games.

Which one is a larger impact?

[Hilltopper]

Take the basketball out of it. What if Joe Hoya decided after two years that he would be better off somewhere else. Who would begrudge that?

But, what would you say if the university told him,say an average student who does nothing "of benefit" to the school, but a student in good academic standing, that he had to transfer because he was not fitting in well enough. Or because they had such a strong class of applicants that they neede to clear some room.

Seems analagous to me.

[strummer8526]

He's 16 months younger than me, so in my mind, I'm not picking on a little boy somewhere. It's not a "small-minded jab" to have a fundamental problem with this kind of thing.

Braskyiii: I guess where I differ is that I see a potentially greater harm in an individual player transferring than you do. This was a scholarship that we did not give to someone else, and this is one of only THIRTEEN players on a team (unlike the hundreds or thousands that go to the second-tier school in the law school analogy). He would be one of only six with any serious PT experience at all. So to lose that, I consider significant, on par w/ the individual's having to suffer through a little less playing time or a slightly slower system than he wants (especially when he CHOSE that system in the first place, knowing it's what we run).

As far as the mores, I understand they exist but just don't like them. I agree not to pull scholarships. I agree that players MAY be expected to jump to the NBA (even that one, I kind of disagree w/, but in the 1 and done era, it's just reality), b/c at least when a player jumps to the league, he builds the program's reputation. I think I just see it more as the school as a sort of employer (b/c we are paying via a scholarship) than as a seller of a product. I certainly see the players as more a part of the program than as "consumers" of the program.

Yeah, obviously the mores that apply allow players to do this. It doesn't mean the fan-base of the team that's getting screwed has to be so willing to give him a happy send-off. Overall, I just wish there was more of an expected commitment on the player's side.

[RDF]

Nobody knows what is really going on in this situation except those who coach/play on team. The coaches/players talk about the development/program's expectations all of the time. When someone comes to Georgetown--I'm excited because they are part of my favorite team. I'm not going to get angry with them if it doesn't work out--that's life. The players are also people and too many times we equate size/talent with age--and have these greater then life expectations of people. It's why adults ripping on 17 year olds for their "lack of production" and make a profit for doing so is getting out of hand. For instance--Greg Monroe gets TRASHED for his performance or lack of in certain events--and yet you find out later that there are off the court things that would effect many in personal life--and nobody mentions that "ranks" players.

Vernon was a good addition to the program. I think he became a much better player on the block offensively, and was looking forward to him getting to utilize his athleticism more this year. For whatever reason--he and program have parted ways. I don't get the anger with this? It's his life--and it doesn't always work out how players/coaches/fans would like--but no reason to take mean shots or take it personal. If it's basketball criticism--I understand--but the personal shots like he's trying to "get one over" on the program are silly. Things happen for a reason and just wish Vern the best and ready to go with guys are still here and look forward to the next group of players who sign with Georgetown.

[PDRHoya99]

Apr 24, 2008 11:27:03 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

It doesn't mean the fan-base of the team that's getting screwed has to be so willing to give him a happy send-off.

Just to jump in somewhat on strummer's side here. I don't disagree with much of the responses above. Both the basketball program and its players have made committments, and both could break them to some degree (transferring, NBA, coach leaving, school de-emphasizing program, having Jim Calhoun force out players, etc), and that's just the way NCAA hoops works.

However, I as a fan of the basketball program, I have made no commitment other than to be a fan of Georgetown. The second a player is no longer a part of Georgetown basketball I have no committment to wish him well or encourage his future success. I guess its a classy thing to do, but I think we can all agree that the repeated expressions of goodwill are probably not meant very seriously, especially when people express them with caveats (e.g. unless you go to School X). Strummer may have been taking a radical stand, but it's no worse than somebody on the opposite end of the spectrum wishing him well when in fact they'd prefer he'd never score another point in college basketball. No, this doesn't apply to all the wellwishers. Some of you truly know these kids and have followed their games for a long time. I follow them for four years at the most, because they attend the same college I did. When one of them chooses to say it's not somewhere they enjoy being I see no reason to commend them for that decision.