|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:21:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but this is a completely specious argument. Matt Causey (or Willie Taylor, or Antoine Stoudamire, or Ray Knight, or anyone else you want to cite) made a decision to continue their education elsewhere, and graduated (or in Causey's case, will graduate) in due course. They didn't "cost" Georgetown anything in a purely financial sense, only in NCAA graduation statistics, just like the non-athletic students who transfer affect the university's transfer statistics that make US News. Conversely, a player that attends a school with the expectation that he will bolt for the first NBA opportunity serves nether the athlete nor the school in the long run. At a school like Georgetown, where the support of admissions-flexible scholarship basketball is by no means a consensus, any trend that the program is bringing in students with little or no interest in the school's academic interests can only serve to damage the program and its supporters within the university. It is this player that also costs a program, because their impact is so brief, the need to replace him is so great, and the program is ultimately set back by the dalliance. Lute Olsen said it succinctly: "I am not interested in recruiting someone that may be coming out after one year, I think that is a disaster to our program. This year in our recruiting we had two players rated in the top five that had talked about coming out this year or after one year, we just dropped them off our list, one we didn't even make a home visit on. There is no way that somebody coming into your program for one year is going to help your program, in the long run they're only going to do more harm. " But let me use the quote of another coach to make the point: "Teaching young people that education is unimportant and may be skipped in the pursuit of money hurts everybody. Because of basketball's popularity, failing to adopt some rule that stems the tide will flood the nation with this lesson in a way that baseball, hockey, golf and tennis never could. We need to motivate young people to pursue education, not avoid it."--John Thompson If Matt Causey received a scholarship, he cost us money in real terms and money in the sense of opportunity costs. I think we can agree to disagree about the one and dones in the context of costing a university, but Jack raises a good point that very few in SU are crying over their one and done. If GU sat down and looked at it seriously, some might be less upset about the Iverson situation, especially if they talked to students who learned about GU first by watching basketball games, and, face it, a Matt Causey was not going to get us a weekend slot on CBS any time soon. My reason for being more supportive of recruiting one and dones also relates to the strength that our coaches have brought toward moulding men. We've had our hiccups along the way, but Esherick and JT2 did a very good job of avoiding problems and getting their players to commit to their academics. Page and Iverson were exceptions, not the rule in those regards. I'm not overly familiar with Olsen to make a comment about his comment, but it sure seems like he's brought in players who could have left after one year.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:23:35 GMT -5
"Back then?" When was this? If the average SAT score for our players was just above 800 (per the WaPo article), find me a Georgetown student back then (circa 1994) who pulled 800 and small change on the boards. That means that there were some players even below that score! At this point in GU history, it almost takes a better score on one half of the SAT exam (before its recent restructuring) to get in to GU in the "normal" applicant pool. I guess some folks' extra-curricular activites make up a big difference.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Mar 20, 2005 23:25:46 GMT -5
Where did I make that point? In order to lose academic integrity you need to have it in the first place. I am with DFW on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:28:54 GMT -5
Meant to say that the Carmelo example was a good one, but it can cut both ways.
Also, as much as I dislike SU, they have some programs that are superior to our own, and it does not speak well of us to question their "academic integrity." If you're talking about their hoops program, I would tend to agree, although they scored higher than our own on the most recent NCAA scores on the subject, in spite of the hard work of Esherick.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Mar 20, 2005 23:31:18 GMT -5
Jersey, you don't have a leg to stand on comparing Causey to Rush or Melo.
There are a lot of question to be addressed here. An important point is that no one ever really knows whether a player will leave early until they do. When Sweetney was recruited, he was 6'8'' and 300 pounds - do you really think it was known that he was a 2 or 3 year guy? By the same token, Kareem Rush was all everything coming into college, and he ended up graduating. So have many others.
Also, I want to seperate the blantant mercanaries from the Sweetney's of the world. Mike was a serious student during his time on the hilltop. Could he have gotten in without basketball? Of course not. But neither can 99% of the high school students in the country. The point is that he was a student-athlete, as opposed a guy using Georgetown as his showcase for the NBA.
As fans, we are very poorly placed to judge the academic seriousness of players coming to Georgetown and after they get here. We essentially have to trust T3 to strike a balance between taking guys who are serious players, but who want to benefit on some level from Georgetown's academics. Is Rush that sort of player? Again, none of us know.
Finally, I tend to agree that stable and successful programs are not built with kids who see college as a waystation. At best, they can complement a core of experienced talent that develops during their careers. I'd wager that it's particularly true in the Princetown offense, which doesn't neccesarily lend itself to dropping players right into it and letting them freelance.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:35:32 GMT -5
Jersey, you don't have a leg to stand on comparing Causey to Rush or Melo. There are a lot of question to be addressed here. An important point is that no one ever really knows whether a player will leave early until they do. When Sweetney was recruited, he was 6'8'' and 300 pounds - do you really think it was known that he was a 2 or 3 year guy? By the same token, Kareem Rush was all everything coming into college, and he ended up graduating. So have many others. Also, I want to seperate the blantant mercanaries from the Sweetney's of the world. Mike was a serious student during his time on the hilltop. Could he have gotten in without basketball? Of course not. But neither can 99% of the high school students in the country. The point is that he was a student-athlete, as opposed a guy using Georgetown as his showcase for the NBA. As fans, we are very poorly placed to judge the academic seriousness of players coming to Georgetown and after they get here. We essentially have to trust T3 to strike a balance between taking guys who are serious players, but who want to benefit on some level from Georgetown's academics. Is Rush that sort of player? Again, none of us know. Finally, I tend to agree that stable and successful programs are not built with kids who see college as a waystation. At best, they can complement a core of experienced talent that develops during their careers. I'd wager that it's particularly true in the Princetown offense, which doesn't neccesarily lend itself to dropping players right into it and letting them freelance. If I don't have a leg to stand on, bring the case to the NCAA. The costs to GU are the same financially, and the results for the program are quite different. So, would I rather have the Esherick recruiting strategy or a strategy where we recruit a possible one and done here and there, I'll take the latter 99 times out of 100, with the 1 exception being that I don't want to do what Huggins or the others do in terms of slimy recruiting. I will respect JT3's judgment in these regards, of course, and I am just taking issue with the head in the sand approach of some members of GU administration.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,776
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 20, 2005 23:38:46 GMT -5
There is no "Esherick" admissions strategy or a "Thompson" one. There is a Georgetown one.
In the end, it is the University which decides this, not the coach.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:40:34 GMT -5
There is no "Esherick" admissions strategy or a "Thompson" one. There is a Georgetown one. In the end, it is the University which decides this, not the coach. I didn't differentiate the admissions strategies. I differentiated between the Esherick recruiting strategy (in terms of identifying players for his program, if such a strategy even existed) and another strategy. There is a Georgetown admissions policy as well, I agree, but it is not the same for the hoops program as it is for Joe Hoya (not the poster, but a generic applicant).
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Mar 20, 2005 23:47:13 GMT -5
Of course there is a different admissions policy for basketball players, just as there is a different admissions policy for women's golfers and football players and legacies and many other groups. You can put that up for debate, but it should hardly be surprising.
I really don't know exactly what the academic/recruiting policy for basketball players is, but if it were up to me, there would be only two questions: 1. Do they want to do the work? 2. Are they capable of doing the work with appropriate support?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,776
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 20, 2005 23:47:25 GMT -5
Last point on this, because 5:00 am comes early.
There is a University position on basketball recruiting. Coaches are mindful of this and must work within it.
When the University feels that any applicant is not committed to a Georgetown education, it's going to be difficult to gain admission, period. There are simply too many other talented candidates (including other capable basketball prospects) for a program to erode its principles for a short term fix.
Let's save this for a post-season discussion. Thanks.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,591
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 20, 2005 23:50:20 GMT -5
I am just taking issue with the head in the sand approach of some members of GU administration. Did you have someone or something specific in mind here or was it just time to inject a gratuitous cheap shot for the sake of anarchy?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 20, 2005 23:54:05 GMT -5
Well, I am just concerned for our program because I feel like they are approaching a policy that is much akin to what some board members have suggested. I feel that the focus of a basketball program should be basketball and the primary admissions criteria should relate to basketball. In other words, given a choice between AI and a "Matt Causey," I take AI all the time. My problem is that I don't think the administration would do the same, hence the reference in my post.
BTW, I'm not an anarchist. If you've read my stuff on the B&G board, you should realize that I'm unapologetically in favor of "big government."
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,591
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 21, 2005 0:01:41 GMT -5
Well, I am just concerned for our program because I feel like they are approaching a policy that is much akin to what some board members have suggested. I feel that the focus of a basketball program should be basketball and the primary admissions criteria should relate to basketball. In other words, given a choice between AI and a "Matt Causey," I take AI all the time. My problem is that I don't think the administration would do the same, hence the reference in my post. BTW, I'm not an anarchist. If you've read my stuff on the B&G board, you should realize that I'm unapologetically in favor of "big government." Why do you think I used the word anarchy. I'm not sure what you are worried about - I don't see any evidence of any change in the basketball admissions policy at the school, only speculation about it here on this board. How that translates into a 'head in the sand' approach by the 'administration' is beyond me. As others have said, none of us have any first hand knowledge of what the hoops admission rules/criteria are. As far as I am concerned, the clear 'one and dones' (in the sense that they are unabashedly using a year in college as a showcase for the NBA) are players GU should not be going after. They serve no use to the program other than attracting attention, and they probably do more damage than good in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 21, 2005 0:08:08 GMT -5
I think that I had a general concern that the Administration was going to follow an Esherick approach, where the primary and almost exclusive concern of the program was academics. The Administration's willingness to stand behind that until their hands were tied was a cause of great concern to me and reflected a "head in the sand" approach from my perspective.
We don't have knowledge of the hoops admissions policy, but we do have data that suggests some things. Your point about one and dones is well taken, but not all one and dones are the same. In other words, Charlie V is not the same as some other person like a Dajuan Wagner from Memphis. We need to go after folks like Charlie V who could be classified as a one and done using the definition that some have taken on this board with respect to recruits. That is my point. I would be very reluctant to go after a Wagner.
|
|
GPHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Post by GPHoya on Mar 21, 2005 9:17:57 GMT -5
Harvey Thomas= the primary and exclusive admissions criteria during the Esherick period was academics. Be serious.
Not that NCAA qualification standards should be accepted as definitional, but didn't we have more non-qualifiers during the Esherick era than I recalled during the JT II period.
Can the student athlete do the work with help and does the student-athlete want to do the work are the right questions. The judgment call is how safe a bet must the student athlete be against those criteria and how far does the scale slide when the athletic talent is perceived to be special. We took some foolish risks on kids who had not demonstrated a commitment to want to do the work during the 90's and continuing into the Esherick era and the resulting early departures and attitude issues corroded the program.
The phrase "We are Georgetown" means many different things to many different people, but an important theme should be that the values of the basketball program should reflect the values of the university or what is the point in rooting for the underwear.
|
|
ahoya3
Member
Former hoop club president and 22 year season ticket holder
Posts: 60
|
Post by ahoya3 on Mar 21, 2005 13:05:31 GMT -5
I must agree with DFW. I would strongly like to see this program avoid the "one and done" type of player. Lot's of teams in the NCAA tournament without that type of team member.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 21, 2005 13:33:28 GMT -5
At a school like Georgetown, where the support of admissions-flexible scholarship basketball is by no means a consensus, any trend that the program is bringing in students with little or no interest in the school's academic interests can only serve to damage the program and its supporters within the university. It is this player that also costs a program, because their impact is so brief, the need to replace him is so great, and the program is ultimately set back by the dalliance. I read the above and the many posts from JerseyHoya34 and others. Here's what I have been thinking about this issue. DFW has idealistic views of where the program should be. I agree with that. We should be idealistic about it and strive for the best. At the same time, what I am interpreting from JerseyHoya is a need for consistency between our lofty goals and the realities of what's been happening. Jersey, correct me if I am not reflecting your views accurately. I believe one of the issues you were referring to was the many pronouncements that GU would NOT take "one and dones" or others who were not serious about their academic efforts. That GU would only take student athletes who were serious about pursuing academics and a degree. Yet, we kept recruiting kids who were marginal students and/or students who later transferred or otherwise did not complete their studies. Among this group in recent years are: Shamel Jones Shernard Long Ed Sheffey Kenny Brunner Willie Taylor Jason Burns Demetrius Hunter Tony Bethel Drew Hall Harvey Thomas Matt Causey And a big question mark for Lee Scruggs. Did Lee graduate? he was mostly ineligible at GU Meanwhile, during this same time period, we had three students leave to pursue professional basketball before their eligibility was exhausted -- Iverson, Page, Sweetney. (after 2, 2 and 3 years respectively) While saying we wouldn't take players who didn't want to pursue a degree, we took quite a number who left GU well before getting a degree -- the vast majority for non-pro hoops reasons. Some might interpret that as hypocritical or at least disingenuous. But either way, how is it helping the program to refrain from taking students/athletes who are so talented they might well leave early for the NBA, while taking lesser talented basketball players who are leaving the program left and right anyway? Is that better for the program than some stud hoopster who leaves for the NBA before 4 years are up? The reality today is that many top kids will have an opportunity to head to the pros before their eligibility is used up. They might be from DUKE, STANFORD or even GU, not just Alabama, OK, UNLV, Cincinnatti, or wherever else. If we are not willing to take kids who are so talented that they might leave, we are going to find it very difficult to run a top level program. That said, is there a guideline to distinguish between the absolute "one and dones" who really have no interest whatsoever in their education and those who aren't yet ready for the NBA as HS students, but might well be in a year or two or three? That is a tough line to define. It would appear from our pursuit of Rush and some others, that GU is not overly concerned with 4 year student athletes. My take on it is this... to build a program, we need a base of committed students who will be here for 4 years. As an academic institution, we should be pursuing student athletes who value education -- and who are prepared and qualified to do GU level work, even if they need some tutors and/or other assistance to thrive. But we should also be prepared to accept an occasional student who is at the top level of recruits and who might leave early to complement our base. We should NOT be stretching our academic guidelines so far that we end up with kids who are not capable of doing GU level work. That is, I think it is acceptable to recruit a smart kid who was also a great athlete, who will keep his academics up while he's at GU, and who is so talented he might depart early for the NBA. I do not think it is acceptable to bring in a stud recruit regardless of how ill prepared he is to handle GU academics. I know Pops believes strongly in academics, and I have no reason to doubt that T3 has the same goals. But it is not reasonable to assume that every talented kid will stay 4 years.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 21, 2005 13:42:40 GMT -5
I think people are really overreacting here. I think JTIII knows how to recruit kids. He recruited at Princeton and did a fine job. And he has a good recruiting class right now. Oden needs to go to school. He even admitted himself he has no offensive game and needs to college to get one. One and done's or two and done's are not easy to predict. Do you think Paul Hewitt thought Chris Bosh would be one and done?. Did anyone think Joe Smith from Maryland would be 2 and done and the number one pick in the draft. You just never know. If a kid has a great year and is projected to be a lottery pick, you can't turn that down. I think our recruiting approach is fine. Oden has 10 schools after him already. He is more hype than great. We have a 7-2 guy who, with development, has more potential than this Oden kid. Oden was outclassed by Derrick Character. Here is some info on that matchup. www.sportscolumn.com/story/2004/9/28/171026/349
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 21, 2005 13:42:55 GMT -5
I read the above and the many posts from JerseyHoya34 and others. Here's what I have been thinking about this issue. DFW has idealistic views of where the program should be. I agree with that. We should be idealistic about it and strive for the best. At the same time, what I am interpreting from JerseyHoya is a need for consistency between our lofty goals and the realities of what's been happening. Jersey, correct me if I am not reflecting your views accurately. I believe one of the issues you were referring to was the many pronouncements that GU would NOT take "one and dones" or others who were not serious about their academic efforts. That GU would only take student athletes who were serious about pursuing academics and a degree. Yet, we kept recruiting kids who were marginal students and/or students who later transferred or otherwise did not complete their studies. Among this group in recent years are: Shamel Jones Shernard Long Ed Sheffey Kenny Brunner Willie Taylor Jason Burns Demetrius Hunter Tony Bethel Drew Hall Harvey Thomas Matt Causey And a big question mark for Lee Scruggs. Did Lee graduate? he was mostly ineligible at GU Meanwhile, during this same time period, we had three students leave to pursue professional basketball before their eligibility was exhausted -- Iverson, Page, Sweetney. (after 2, 2 and 3 years respectively) While saying we wouldn't take players who didn't want to pursue a degree, we took quite a number who left GU well before getting a degree -- the vast majority for non-pro hoops reasons. Some might interpret that as hypocritical or at least disingenuous. But either way, how is it helping the program to refrain from taking students/athletes who are so talented they might well leave early for the NBA, while taking lesser talented basketball players who are leaving the program left and right anyway? Is that better for the program than some stud hoopster who leaves for the NBA before 4 years are up? The reality today is that many top kids will have an opportunity to head to the pros before their eligibility is used up. They might be from DUKE, STANFORD or even GU, not just Alabama, OK, UNLV, Cincinnatti, or wherever else. If we are not willing to take kids who are so talented that they might leave, we are going to find it very difficult to run a top level program. That said, is there a guideline to distinguish between the absolute "one and dones" who really have no interest whatsoever in their education and those who aren't yet ready for the NBA as HS students, but might well be in a year or two or three? That is a tough line to define. It would appear from our pursuit of Rush and some others, that GU is not overly concerned with 4 year student athletes. My take on it is this... to build a program, we need committed students who will be here for 4 years. As an academic institution, we should be pursuing student athletes who value education -- and who are prepared and qualified to do GU level work, even if they need some tutors and/or other assistance to thrive. We should NOT be stretching our academic guidelines so far that we end up with kids who are not capable of doing GU level work. That is, I think it is acceptable to recruit a smart kid who was also a great athlete, who will keep his academics up while he's at GU, and who is so talented he might depart early for the NBA. I do not think it is acceptable to bring in a stud recruit regardless of how ill prepared he is to handle GU academics. I know Pops believes strongly in academics, and I have no reason to doubt that T3 has the same goals. But it is not reasonable to assume that every talented kid will stay 4 years. It is a little disengenious to craft a list of transfers who bookend two coaching turnovers and cite this as a pattern. I would say that coaching changes cause unrest in all schools and that we are no different. However, you could argue that it was the arrival of Esherick that changed it from an uncommon occurance to frighteningly common. Note that most of the people on the list left the school either due to the departure of JTjr or the extension of Esherick.... Seems to be quite a correlation.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 21, 2005 13:58:30 GMT -5
It is a little disengenious to craft a list of transfers who bookend two coaching turnovers and cite this as a pattern. I would say that coaching changes cause unrest in all schools and that we are no different. However, you could argue that it was the arrival of Esherick that changed it from an uncommon occurance to frighteningly common. Note that most of the people on the list left the school either due to the departure of JTjr or the extension of Esherick.... Seems to be quite a correlation. I guess you could interpret the list as disingenuous if that is how it appears to you, but I took the last 10 years as a good round number and also because it was in '96 that GU lost it's first "early departure" to the NBA. So during that time, how many early departures were "one and done", "two and done" etc. vs. kids who just left for a variety of other reasons? If one is claiming that early departures hurt a program... it seem obvious to me the non-prohoops departures are in far greater numbers and maybe we should be doing something about that instead. As for your correlation issues... I don't think you will find anything in my posts that would dispute your comments. However, only one student (Hunter) could possibly fit into your category of being related to Pops' departure -- and he stated other reasons.
|
|