|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 23, 2020 12:55:04 GMT -5
Question: With the ruling that this year will not count towards players eligibility. Technically no one uses up their eligibility this year. Surely the NCAA has to realize that this could put teams in an untenable position of having recruits coming in to fill spots that are no longer open. Sure most seniors are not going to stick around on the same team for an extra year, but you have to assume at least a handful would want to. Has there been any talk about expanding the scholarship limit as a result? Maybe schools will be allowed 15 scholarships next year to accommodate the lack of using up eligibility this year. Don't know how expanding eligibility will work if they don't expand the scholarship limit. I have considered this possibility myself. Like a one year salary cap expansion so-to-speak ☺ I thought I read that they had waived the limit for seniors that return next year. I can't find that now though. That would mean that we go up to 14 if Jamorko comes back for example. 15 if Jamorko and Blair come back. And so on. I don't know how that applies to Carey since I don't know how they define senior. My guess is that it doesn't apply to him.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,143
|
Post by RBHoya on Dec 23, 2020 13:44:06 GMT -5
While I am on my high horse let me take a shot at even earlier posts such as the one that talked of our needing a four because Sibley and Billingsley are "raw." First of all that somewhat dismissive view of what Sibley could provide the team next season goes back to my older posts about how this board has this New Toy mentality. They want this toy (recruit) , then they get their wishes but they quickly grow tired of that toy and/or are underwhelmed by it and a potential new toy becomes their hearts' desire. Now granted players often don't live up to expectations and a "new toy" like Holmgren doesn't come along every Christmas season. But there is something to be said about some semblance of fan loyalty and patience, there is something to be said about dancing with the partner you brought (yeah, I flipped it around a little). Can people not make excuses about why Sibley should be so routinely dismissed and instead just come out and admit they want Holmgren because he is by all accounts a far superior player no matter how good Sibley may get? By the way what's so detrimental about a player being a little raw at first before being coached up? Seton Hall and Creighton and Xavier and Providence do this quite a lot. As for Billingsley how is someone going to categorize him as raw too before he even plays one minute for the Hoyas? This is a new one. Now we are dismissing the toys before they even arrive in favor of a POSSIBLE newer one we want to order. Can we just stop? Already on this site I'm seeing the undervaluing of Jordan Riley now that Aminu is in the fold. As for the excuse that this is a business, yada, yada, yada, there are good ways to run a business and bad ways. If you skip the ethical part of running a business (or program) because of the justification of the more immediate financial awards (success) that comes with doing so, you may end up paying a greater cost down the road. Hell, if JT had that mentality he would have recruited Shaq who admitted that Thompson was his favorite coach. Forget the fact that he had Mourning and Mutombo already in the fold, right? Bring in the bigger toy. Assuming this is directed at me since I posted yesterday about wanting an immediately eligible stretch 4 for next year in another thread. FWIW I did not say Sibley and Billingsley are "too raw", I said that I don't see either guy being ready to be a Big East starter next year. Billingsley will be a true freshman and Sibley still has a lot of development to do. There's nothing wrong with that, I don't think it's slighting them and I'm not suggesting they be run out of the program. Most players aren't ready to be starters or impact players at the high major level at that age. What I am saying is, I want to go to the tournament next year. We've been irrelevant at the national level too long, and every year that passes where we are not even in the hunt for the NCAA tournament (let alone having success in it) further diminishes the small amount of brand equity we have left. We can't afford to sit back and let things come along slowly, we need to be aggressive and proactive about getting this program back to relevance. With Aminu coming, Qudus looking like a potential future All-BE caliber player, Harris showing positive signs, etc. there is reason for optimism. Next year COULD be the year that we finally get back to the dance. But the power forward position strikes me as the weakest by far and while Sibley and JB may be the answer a couple years from now, I don't feel like they are the answer next year. Could I be wrong, and Sibley makes a big leap or JB comes in and is an impact freshman? Absolutely. It's an inexact science. But I don't want to bet on that. I want to contingency plan in case that's not what happens, and I want to proactively better our roster if at all possible. IMHO, we can't afford to sit back and let a "rebuild" simmer on low for a couple more years. I also think your "new toy" analogy is a little flawed. Maybe a guy like Holmgren fits that mold, but how many people were thrilled at the commitments we got last year? It's not like the fan base got everyone we wanted last year--the guys who most people were keenest on like RJ Davis, Earl Timberlake, Matthew Alexander Moncriefe, Terrence Williams, even Brandon Murray all ended up elsewhere. Sure everyone supports the guys who pick us eventually, but you make it sound like everyone wanted the "toys" we got last year and now we are capriciously changing our minds, which doesn't seem accurate. Every fan base wants the Chet Holmgrens, Aminu Mohammeds, Ryan Mutombos of the world; it's not some unique Georgetown or Hoyatalk problem that people want top players to commit to their school, even if it means recruiting over someone. A lot of your other points re: running off players are overblown I think. There's no way we would ever outright "run off" a scholarship player. Even the shadiest of coaches don't usually do that--in the modern era it's very easy for a disgruntled player to put that story out on social media and harm a coach's reputation and ability to recruit in the future. But we can and should (must!) "recruit over" scholarship players. How else will we improve as a program, if the next class isn't better than the last and therefore risks taking their playing time? Those that come up on the short end of those battles for playing time may hang around as 12th or 13th men, or more commonly they move on to another program (especially as barriers to transferring disappear) which is fine too. The reality is, we took 3 forwards in the 2020 class that play basically the same position. We took 3 small guards as well (one decided to prep a year). And the year before that, we took 3 true centers. When you accept commitments from positionally redundant players in the same class like that somebody is always going to come up on the short end of the stick when it comes to PT, and that player may decide to move on. We could have taken a smaller class eg. one small guard, one forward, one big, etc. and that way there would have been no risk of hurt feelings. But instead we took more bites at the apple, filled up all our scholarships, and we're going to let it play out at practice and in the games. The best players will play and the losers of the PT battles can hang around at the far end of the bench with the walk-ons, or they can go to another school where they'll be featured more. The scholarships always work out, and it doesn't require a coach doing something deceptive or unethical to get there.
|
|
hoya59er
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 172
|
Post by hoya59er on Dec 23, 2020 14:02:59 GMT -5
I agree, DiamondHoya. The selection of recruits has been confusing, e.g., three centers, then three forwards who play the same position, three PGs. Fortunately, next year's class could be great and a platform going forward - finally. Hopefully we'll have the pieces of a strong team. We sure need a significant change. This year, as in the recent past, our offense and defense look uncoordinated. I happened to be listening to a sports talk program on a drive this morning, analyzing a recent ND game - 21 assists on 24 baskets, that the players are in constant motion, cutting, etc.
Fingers crossed and prayers for our Hoya program. Aminu should be a huge boost, and congrats to Coach Ewing. Now, let's coach our team up. No excuse for poor defense. As folks have said, defense is basically attitude!
|
|
|
Post by hoya8185 on Dec 23, 2020 14:03:48 GMT -5
I have considered this possibility myself. Like a one year salary cap expansion so-to-speak ☺ I thought I read that they had waived the limit for seniors that return next year. I can't find that now though. That would mean that we go up to 14 if Jamorko comes back for example. 15 if Jamorko and Blair come back. And so on. I don't know how that applies to Carey since I don't know how they define senior. My guess is that it doesn't apply to him.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Dec 23, 2020 14:57:22 GMT -5
At the end of the day, if this kid calls Ewing and says “I want to come be your PF next year,” do you really think Ewing says, “sorry kid, we’re all out of scholarships, hit the bricks”? Not a chance in hell. Yes he seems like an honorable dude and yes we all like to think our beloved university is above certain tactics, but there is too much at stake and Ewing is too big a competitor to pass on the #1 recruit in the country.
The kids at the end of the bench probably understand better than some of you would like the believe that they might get recruited over. This is major college athletics. It’s not the 1950s anymore. There is a lot at stake and programs/coaches are under immense pressure to succeed. As some other have said, it’s the nature of the game. It would be naive for us - and more accurately these kids - to think any other way.
With the leniency in the transfer market these days, these kids can land on any number of competitive programs and probably with more playing time available immediately. Sometimes the “nature of the beast” argument is the lazy argument, but in a case like this, it’s probably accurate.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Dec 23, 2020 15:28:33 GMT -5
While I am on my high horse let me take a shot at even earlier posts such as the one that talked of our needing a four because Sibley and Billingsley are "raw." First of all that somewhat dismissive view of what Sibley could provide the team next season goes back to my older posts about how this board has this New Toy mentality. They want this toy (recruit) , then they get their wishes but they quickly grow tired of that toy and/or are underwhelmed by it and a potential new toy becomes their hearts' desire. Now granted players often don't live up to expectations and a "new toy" like Holmgren doesn't come along every Christmas season. But there is something to be said about some semblance of fan loyalty and patience, there is something to be said about dancing with the partner you brought (yeah, I flipped it around a little). Can people not make excuses about why Sibley should be so routinely dismissed and instead just come out and admit they want Holmgren because he is by all accounts a far superior player no matter how good Sibley may get? By the way what's so detrimental about a player being a little raw at first before being coached up? Seton Hall and Creighton and Xavier and Providence do this quite a lot. As for Billingsley how is someone going to categorize him as raw too before he even plays one minute for the Hoyas? This is a new one. Now we are dismissing the toys before they even arrive in favor of a POSSIBLE newer one we want to order. Can we just stop? Already on this site I'm seeing the undervaluing of Jordan Riley now that Aminu is in the fold. As for the excuse that this is a business, yada, yada, yada, there are good ways to run a business and bad ways. If you skip the ethical part of running a business (or program) because of the justification of the more immediate financial awards (success) that comes with doing so, you may end up paying a greater cost down the road. Hell, if JT had that mentality he would have recruited Shaq who admitted that Thompson was his favorite coach. Forget the fact that he had Mourning and Mutombo already in the fold, right? Bring in the bigger toy. We've had our disagreements over the new toy analogy with Tim and Ryan (I'm still team Ryan), and I don't think we need to rehash that, yet. But on the whole too raw thing, I think that's something you can see when watching guys in high school. Now, is it an educated guess? Of course, but I think it's an observation to be made. Billingsley has a wide ranging skillset, and I think he can make that work, but I think he needs to fine tune almost every element of his game. Which would make him an excellent player, but I think it's gonna take time. I think if we get that grad transfer four, I think he's a redshirt candidate. I'm very happy to have Jalin and I think he will be a very solid college player, but I just think he's raw. Of course I can be wrong about this and he can just be a walking bucket from day one, and I'd be incredibly happy to be wrong. Just making an observation. From day one, I compared Jalin to someone like Rui Hachimura. I think their games are very similar, but it works very well in this case, too. In his freshman year, Rui averaged 2.6PPG and was known to be a raw prospect, but with skills in every area. The next season he averaged 11.6PPG and looked much more comfortable. The season after, he averaged 19.7PPG and was a complete beast. I think Jalin can have a very similar trajectory. Being raw isn't bad, and while these guys may not be excellent from day one, it shows they have tons of potential once they put everything together. Their development is exponentially faster than a guy who isn't. Again, I can be very wrong here, but it's just what I see. I think Jalin is going to be a very good college player, but we might not see a ton after year one. For Sibley, when Coach was saying he's just not ready, that meant he was raw. That was what some guys in the recruiting thread/world were saying, but I thought he'd be ready for a decent amount of minutes from day one. I thought he was raw, but not raw enough to not play over a guy who I made my offseason thoughts very clear about in Bile. But, I see pieces with Sibley and I think he will put it together and become a very good player. This is why I always mention player development, because if our development is good, we will allow these guys to reach their ceilings as college athletes and that would make our team soooo much better and avoid seasons like the last few, and the one this one is shaping out to be. For Riley, I see why people say he's raw. His jumper isn't great yet and he seems to rely a ton on his athleticism. Why I don't completely agree with this is because he's soooooooooo athletic. He has tons of potential, and I think he can/will have an immediate role. I love his game. He also seems to be growing his jumper at a solid rate and has shown he's going to work his tail off in improving it. I love the guards we are bringing in. These guys can play. Riley is going to be awesome. He's, if our player development with Crouch is that much better, going to be so much better as a senior than as a freshman, but I still think he will be a very good player as a freshman. I can't wait to see these guys on the floor.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,301
|
Post by smokeyjack on Dec 23, 2020 16:01:52 GMT -5
Riley reminds me a lot of early Jagan. I think he is more athletic, but I expect a similar growth cycle, which would make him a very solid college player. Holloway and Wilson have a lot further to go. Throw in Berger and Clark, and there are a lot of guys beneath our top 8 with fairly sizable question marks.
It (Holmgren signing) would work itself out. Would be a nice problem to have and give Hoyas a top 3 national class...which would be highest ranked since modern services began (post-1990).
As for schollies next year, Srs or grad transfers can return and do not count against 13 cap in 2021-22. Nobody who played this season will “lose” that year of eligibility. However, after 21-22, the 13 limit returns, so coaches will need to recruit accordingly. Meaning, for instance, Wahab has 3 more seasons of eligibility after this season technically. But he would count against the 13 as a 5th-yr Sr.
I have no idea what Patrick is thinking relative to who gets “invited” back among the Srs/grad transfers, but I would love to see Blair and Carey back. I think Pickett will go pro overseas, and I think Bile and JHarris prob get in way of youngsters with less obvious return benefit.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,212
|
Post by jwp91 on Dec 23, 2020 16:03:34 GMT -5
Another nuance of not counting this year's season against eligibility....
While players like Blair or Pickett could return, there still has to be budget to fund those scholarships. The money doesn't appear out of nowhere. The athletic department's financial situation could very much affect who returns and for what reasons.
|
|
|
Post by hsaxon on Dec 23, 2020 21:58:02 GMT -5
Riley reminds me a lot of early Jagan. I think he is more athletic, but I expect a similar growth cycle, which would make him a very solid college player. Holloway and Wilson have a lot further to go. Throw in Berger and Clark, and there are a lot of guys beneath our top 8 with fairly sizable question marks. It (Holmgren signing) would work itself out. Would be a nice problem to have and give Hoyas a top 3 national class...which would be highest ranked since modern services began (post-1990). As for schollies next year, Srs or grad transfers can return and do not count against 13 cap in 2021-22. Nobody who played this season will “lose” that year of eligibility. However, after 21-22, the 13 limit returns, so coaches will need to recruit accordingly. Meaning, for instance, Wahab has 3 more seasons of eligibility after this season technically. But he would count against the 13 as a 5th-yr Sr. I have no idea what Patrick is thinking relative to who gets “invited” back among the Srs/grad transfers, but I would love to see Blair and Carey back. I think Pickett will go pro overseas, and I think Bile and JHarris prob get in way of youngsters with less obvious return benefit. If Riley is as good, or potentially good, as people are saying, he's better than Jagan. Jagan was really solid but gave us very little in scoring.
Jagan was my favorite player on last year's team. I respect and admire him.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,809
|
Post by blueandgray on Dec 23, 2020 22:18:07 GMT -5
I think people loved Jagan because of his effort, attitude and his bball IQ more than anything. I think most would agree that Riley’s ceiling is considerably higher.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,532
|
Post by bostonfan on Dec 24, 2020 8:30:43 GMT -5
I think people loved Jagan because of his effort, attitude and his bball IQ more than anything. I think most would agree that Riley’s ceiling is considerably higher. I was/am a huge Jagan fan and loved the way he played, but he was never really a significant offensive threat. He developed a decent 3 point shots in his last year or so, but he never showed the confidence/aggressiveness in his offense that is needed to be a big tie scorer. Riley has shown he can be a big time scorer at the high school level, and while that does not always translate into the college game, he seems to have the physical skills and confidence that should help make him a strong offensive player in college as he develops.
|
|
|
Post by tribeninerhoya on Dec 24, 2020 9:22:46 GMT -5
So... Chet Holmgren, come on down!
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Dec 24, 2020 10:34:08 GMT -5
Pat and the history of Georgetown definitely does not seem like the type of program that would start running off guys. It's not G'Town's style, and goes against everything the program has been about. But I think it's fair to say you'd maybe expect a center to leave next year, with Ryan coming in. Obviously no idea if the staff ever thinks this way, but I think we as fans wouldn't be surprised if a center decides to transfer to get more playing time. It also wouldn't surprise me if the staff had known beforehand that Carey only intends to stay one year, hence why they pushed for Mohammed --- they already know an open scholarship will be available. Now if we hear over the next few weeks they are continuing a pursuit of Chet or Khalil Brantley (or A.J. Neal) even after getting Mohammed, you'd expect the staff either knows something or has a plan as to how they will make that scholarship situation work. Are they anticipating a transfer (one transfer would be very likely)? That opens up an additional spot for one more recruit. But yes, I don't see Patrick Ewing/Georgetown being the type who would run players out of town. By all accounts, Pat is a great guy and to my knowledge Georgetown's recruiting has always been done the right way. He’s already run one guy out. I guess we will see what happens after this year. It will be up to Carey if he wants to leave or we will see at least 1 more run out.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Dec 24, 2020 10:39:18 GMT -5
I don't say this lightly, but Chet might be one of the most unique talents in the last decade. He's has potential to make 10 all-NBA teams. He's that talented. If THAT KID wants to come to us, you do whatever is needed to make it happen. If Chet were a Hoya, we'd have a chance to win the national championship. He affects winning that much.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Dec 24, 2020 10:39:52 GMT -5
I don't think it's always the case of pushing people out, but rather the product of an honest conversation. "Hey, we have a bunch of recruits coming in who, based on their abilities, are going to be ahead of you on the depth chart (in addition to those on the current team who are already ahead of you). Given the way the roster is shaking out, you most likely won't see much, if any, playing time goign forward. If you want to pursue other opportunities that would provide you playing time, we support that." Players want to play. If they are told that they essentially will never see the floor, they are likely to pursue other opportunities. In such an example it's perfectly fine if the player transfers because of the competition coming in. But it should be his choice alone. Don't need the coaches using every method to push him out the door. The coaches don’t have that conversation with kid if the intent is not to push them out. It just helps them and the fans that care about this sleep better at night.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,653
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Dec 24, 2020 10:44:45 GMT -5
Basketball players and the general student body should be treated separately. It’s apples and oranges.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 24, 2020 10:52:35 GMT -5
I don't say this lightly, but Chet might be one of the most unique talents in the last decade. He's has potential to make 10 all-NBA teams. He's that talented. If THAT KID wants to come to us, you do whatever is needed to make it happen. If Chet were a Hoya, we'd have a chance to win the national championship. He affects winning that much. And we desperately need a 4 next year. Add Qudus, Aminu, Jordan and Dante/Beard/Berger, we could have the pieces to make a lot of noise.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,361
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Dec 24, 2020 12:30:10 GMT -5
Basketball players and the general student body should be treated separately. It’s apples and oranges. It only “apples and oranges” if you concede that basketball players are not “student athletes”. If they are indeed students (as opposed to semi professional basketball players in the employ of an academic institution’s affiliated sports club), then they should be treated like the “general student body”.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,212
|
Post by jwp91 on Dec 24, 2020 12:35:41 GMT -5
Basketball players and the general student body should be treated separately. It’s apples and oranges. It only “apples and oranges” if you concede that basketball players are not “student athletes”. If they are indeed students (as opposed to semi professional basketball players in the employ of an academic institution’s affiliated sports club), then they should be treated like the “general student body”. I don't know. Some students should be admitted on a year to year basis too. Probably many on this board ;-)
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on Dec 24, 2020 14:03:24 GMT -5
I don't say this lightly, but Chet might be one of the most unique talents in the last decade. He's has potential to make 10 all-NBA teams. He's that talented. If THAT KID wants to come to us, you do whatever is needed to make it happen. If Chet were a Hoya, we'd have a chance to win the national championship. He affects winning that much. Wow. Sign me up for that.
|
|