seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Apr 26, 2023 14:47:08 GMT -5
Very good read! It'll be interesting to see how this plays out... The two players — Moussa Cisse and Woody Newton — listened to Boynton’s words of caution. They decided to transfer anyway. “They think that they’ll figure it out,” Boynton told The Athletic. “They’ll get enough sympathy publicly by some sob story coming out in the press and somebody latching onto it on social media that they’ll be viewed as a victim somehow and that’ll all be taken care of. And, in some ways, I can see how they’d think that. We don’t have any precedents that the NCAA, especially recently, is going to stand up and try to hold anybody accountable to anything Until the NCAA decides one way or the other, any coach building a roster will have to decide whether it’s worth it to take the risk. If the NCAA really wants to take care of the student athlete, then it’s the responsibility of the NCAA to be very specific as to player movement and eligibility. The NCAA has to be crystal clear… but who am I kidding… They also can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. The portal was open and had kids in it when this new rule was announced. Plenty more entered after, but the fact remains for them that they spent a whole season developing expectations based on what the rules were, not what they are now. They teach you about that stuff In law school, it’s even in the Constitution- no changing the rules after the fact.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,967
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 26, 2023 15:02:18 GMT -5
Until the NCAA decides one way or the other, any coach building a roster will have to decide whether it’s worth it to take the risk. If the NCAA really wants to take care of the student athlete, then it’s the responsibility of the NCAA to be very specific as to player movement and eligibility. The NCAA has to be crystal clear… but who am I kidding… They also can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. The portal was open and had kids in it when this new rule was announced. Plenty more entered after, but the fact remains for them that they spent a whole season developing expectations based on what the rules were, not what they are now. They teach you about that stuff In law school, it’s even in the Constitution- no changing the rules after the fact. This change was voted on and approved in early January of this year.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2023 16:41:30 GMT -5
When the NCAA changed the rule allowing transfers to move schools one time without having to sit, I don't think the intent was to actually allow players to transfer multiple times without having to sit. Otherwise, that would have been the rule. The problem is that the NCAA has never had a backbone and has allowed players and universities to use waivers freely without real justifications, as happened last year for a multitude of athletes.
I would actually like to see the NCAA enforce the rules, otherwise what's the point of having rules at all? Things have also gotten out of hand, with players constantly transferring. I know it's in fashion now to want to let guys do whatever they want in the name of freedom, but the instability the policy brings is out of hand, it forces coaches to constantly be recruiting both inside and outside the program, and it causes so much roster change year-over-year, that it's hard for fans to gain any allegiance to players (And why would they? Increasingly, players have no allegiance to their institution; a very high percentage of players no longer spend 4 years at a university).
I realize the NCAA is only quasi-professional (and technically not), but no professional sports organization would even allow the level of pandemonium and roster changes that have been happening.
I would do the following:
1. You get one "free" transfer. Once you use it, you cannot transfer again without sitting a year.
2. You cannot use the "free" transfer until being on the roster of a Division I program for two years, unless there is a coaching change or truly extenuating circumstances (returning home for a relative who is sick, etc.).
This would give kids a lot of freedom, but it would also force kids to make some sort of commitment to their university, too. I realize for a long time the balance has been against the players, but allowing guys to transfer year to year with no penalty is simply a bad idea for the game, and weakens it.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 29, 2023 16:57:27 GMT -5
When the NCAA changed the rule allowing transfers to move schools one time without having to sit, I don't think the intent was to actually allow players to transfer multiple times without having to sit. Otherwise, that would have been the rule. The problem is that the NCAA has never had a backbone and has allowed players and universities to use waivers freely without real justifications, as happened last year for a multitude of athletes. I would actually like to see the NCAA enforce the rules, otherwise what's the point of having rules at all? Things have also gotten out of hand, with players constantly transferring. I know it's in fashion now to want to let guys do whatever they want in the name of freedom, but the instability the policy brings is out of hand, it forces coaches to constantly be recruiting both inside and outside the program, and it causes so much roster change year-over-year, that it's hard for fans to gain any allegiance to players (And why would they? Increasingly, players have no allegiance to their institution; a very high percentage of players no longer spend 4 years at a university). I realize the NCAA is only quasi-professional (and technically not), but no professional sports organization would even allow the level of pandemonium and roster changes that have been happening. I would do the following: 1. You get one "free" transfer. Once you use it, you cannot transfer again without sitting a year. 2. You cannot use the "free" transfer until being on the roster of a Division I program for two years, unless there is a coaching change or truly extenuating circumstances (returning home for a relative who is sick, etc.). This would give kids a lot of freedom, but it would also force kids to make some sort of commitment to their university, too. I realize for a long time the balance has been against the players, but allowing guys to transfer year to year with no penalty is simply a bad idea for the game, and weakens it. What’s the guarantee the school makes to the player? Are scholarships still one year and renewed annually?
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Apr 29, 2023 17:23:38 GMT -5
When the NCAA changed the rule allowing transfers to move schools one time without having to sit, I don't think the intent was to actually allow players to transfer multiple times without having to sit. Otherwise, that would have been the rule. The problem is that the NCAA has never had a backbone and has allowed players and universities to use waivers freely without real justifications, as happened last year for a multitude of athletes. I would actually like to see the NCAA enforce the rules, otherwise what's the point of having rules at all? Things have also gotten out of hand, with players constantly transferring. I know it's in fashion now to want to let guys do whatever they want in the name of freedom, but the instability the policy brings is out of hand, it forces coaches to constantly be recruiting both inside and outside the program, and it causes so much roster change year-over-year, that it's hard for fans to gain any allegiance to players (And why would they? Increasingly, players have no allegiance to their institution; a very high percentage of players no longer spend 4 years at a university). I realize the NCAA is only quasi-professional (and technically not), but no professional sports organization would even allow the level of pandemonium and roster changes that have been happening. I would do the following: 1. You get one "free" transfer. Once you use it, you cannot transfer again without sitting a year. 2. You cannot use the "free" transfer until being on the roster of a Division I program for two years, unless there is a coaching change or truly extenuating circumstances (returning home for a relative who is sick, etc.). This would give kids a lot of freedom, but it would also force kids to make some sort of commitment to their university, too. I realize for a long time the balance has been against the players, but allowing guys to transfer year to year with no penalty is simply a bad idea for the game, and weakens it. I’m with one but not with two
|
|
Omega
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 565
|
Post by Omega on Apr 29, 2023 17:26:43 GMT -5
When the NCAA changed the rule allowing transfers to move schools one time without having to sit, I don't think the intent was to actually allow players to transfer multiple times without having to sit. Otherwise, that would have been the rule. The problem is that the NCAA has never had a backbone and has allowed players and universities to use waivers freely without real justifications, as happened last year for a multitude of athletes. I would actually like to see the NCAA enforce the rules, otherwise what's the point of having rules at all? Things have also gotten out of hand, with players constantly transferring. I know it's in fashion now to want to let guys do whatever they want in the name of freedom, but the instability the policy brings is out of hand, it forces coaches to constantly be recruiting both inside and outside the program, and it causes so much roster change year-over-year, that it's hard for fans to gain any allegiance to players (And why would they? Increasingly, players have no allegiance to their institution; a very high percentage of players no longer spend 4 years at a university). I realize the NCAA is only quasi-professional (and technically not), but no professional sports organization would even allow the level of pandemonium and roster changes that have been happening. I would do the following: 1. You get one "free" transfer. Once you use it, you cannot transfer again without sitting a year. 2. You cannot use the "free" transfer until being on the roster of a Division I program for two years, unless there is a coaching change or truly extenuating circumstances (returning home for a relative who is sick, etc.). This would give kids a lot of freedom, but it would also force kids to make some sort of commitment to their university, too. I realize for a long time the balance has been against the players, but allowing guys to transfer year to year with no penalty is simply a bad idea for the game, and weakens it. What’s the guarantee the school makes to the player? Are scholarships still one year and renewed annually? Have players ever had allegiance to a university? Or were they sticking around in situations because they had no leverage..
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 29, 2023 19:03:08 GMT -5
When the NCAA changed the rule allowing transfers to move schools one time without having to sit, I don't think the intent was to actually allow players to transfer multiple times without having to sit. Otherwise, that would have been the rule. The problem is that the NCAA has never had a backbone and has allowed players and universities to use waivers freely without real justifications, as happened last year for a multitude of athletes. I would actually like to see the NCAA enforce the rules, otherwise what's the point of having rules at all? Things have also gotten out of hand, with players constantly transferring. I know it's in fashion now to want to let guys do whatever they want in the name of freedom, but the instability the policy brings is out of hand, it forces coaches to constantly be recruiting both inside and outside the program, and it causes so much roster change year-over-year, that it's hard for fans to gain any allegiance to players (And why would they? Increasingly, players have no allegiance to their institution; a very high percentage of players no longer spend 4 years at a university). I realize the NCAA is only quasi-professional (and technically not), but no professional sports organization would even allow the level of pandemonium and roster changes that have been happening. I would do the following: 1. You get one "free" transfer. Once you use it, you cannot transfer again without sitting a year. 2. You cannot use the "free" transfer until being on the roster of a Division I program for two years, unless there is a coaching change or truly extenuating circumstances (returning home for a relative who is sick, etc.). This would give kids a lot of freedom, but it would also force kids to make some sort of commitment to their university, too. I realize for a long time the balance has been against the players, but allowing guys to transfer year to year with no penalty is simply a bad idea for the game, and weakens it. Step one is acknowledging where this is all likely headed in the first place - collective bargaining. Stop being so pious about the “innocence of college sports,” and just admit that this is a big business, with labor and capital both having joint and opposite concerns.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,505
|
Post by hoyaboya on May 1, 2023 19:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BeantownHoya on May 1, 2023 19:14:25 GMT -5
Did The Onion write this? If Murray has a long NBA career due to his defense I will eat my shoes...
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,505
|
Post by hoyaboya on May 1, 2023 19:16:45 GMT -5
Did The Onion write this? If Murray has a long NBA career due to his defense I will eat my shoes... 100% agree based on what we saw from him last year. However, Murray was said to be a good defender at LSU and he's about to go play for Chris Beard, who is an outstanding defensive coach. The incompetence that was Ewing, Nickelberry & Co. on the defensive end really can't be overstated.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
Member is Online
|
Post by vv83 on May 1, 2023 22:12:28 GMT -5
Murray did show good defensive instincts - but his intensity (and probably conditioning) level was so poor that he ended up playing lousy D most of the time;. But occasionally he would make a really good read and pick off a pass or make a flashy play. It was the play after play grind of effort/attention/positioning that he failed at most of the time.
|
|