Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2020 9:41:44 GMT -5
Many of our favorite players took awhile before they found their footing. A recent example was Trawick who despite all the revisionism of late was not a fan favorite at first and was considered by lots of people on this site as detrimental to oncourt success. Now he is such a fan fave that people tend to overrate his performance overall. Point is not everyone is going to click overnight. And for a portion of those players they will never quite click. Some however will. Plenty of folks still had doubts about Hibbert after his first year showing was more successful than anticipated. Many were not convinced the Hoyas could be truly good if he started and got too many minutes. And yet for the following three years he got all the time in the world and the team flourished. Have we've seen enough time of Sibley to make a rational judgment of whether he is going to be any good? I don't think so. And we have seen zero seconds of Billingsley in a Hoya uniform and yet we are in this rush to judgment to justify this questionable idea of running kids out to open up space for more highly regarded prospects (not that either Billingsley or Sibley are necessarily the players people are thinking/hoping would be the casualties of such a running out). There's an argument to be made that many people's favorite are favorites BECAUSE they took awhile to find their footing. There's satisfaction in watching someone's steady improvement. It's almost the entirety of it.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Dec 23, 2020 10:42:07 GMT -5
Surely it doesn’t represent EVERYTHING that’s wrong with college athletics. After all he didn’t suggest paying Holmgren to get his name on the dotted line... It's not about a particular act, it's about a particularly cancerous mentality. Cancerous? Come on now. My son is going through this very process right now as one of the kids I suppose you are worried about offending or insulting. He’s either a PWO at a P5 (Pitt) or a last schollie at a smaller D1 (Loyola Balt, Miami Oh). He’s not bitter about that. That’s just the deal. If he goes to Miami, and they catch a hot recruiting streak (unlikely but not impossible), he knows he could get bumped if he’s not clearly one of the best returning 10 for an incoming frosh with more potential. That’s the deal. The stakes are higher further up the food chain, but the game is much the same. It’s not unfair. Chaotic? Potentially Unsettling? Absolutely. But you don’t turn away or stop recruiting guys who can improve your team. That’s the main reason they got rid of the one year of sitting transfer rule, so that kids don’t get stuck with no place to play. I understand you don’t like the way it now works - where commitments on both sides are more fungible than in the past. But the reality is that both sides have more freedom and flexibility to succeed re matching players and programs than ever before. It’s a free-market system. Will there be kids and programs who abuse it? Of course. But I don’t think a system or mentality that artificially keeps the 12th or 13th project guy on a team in lieu of a potential cornerstone program piece should be condoned by anyone. That’s not the way the rest of the world works. And it’s a fine line coaches are asked to walk. They don’t want to get a reputation as a guy who runs off program guys whom they recruited passionately at one point and who have done all that’s asked in the classroom and as teammates even if they haven’t developed as hoped as contributors. But that scholarship has tremendous value. Let’s let it play out. As others have said, these things almost always work themselves out organically. But you are nuts if you think Pat stops pursuing a guy like Holmgren - he’s a little more special than your “new toy.”
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 23, 2020 10:52:54 GMT -5
It's not about a particular act, it's about a particularly cancerous mentality. Cancerous? Come on now. My son is going through this very process right now as one of the kids I suppose you are worried about offending or insulting. He’s either a PWO at a P5 (Pitt) or a last schollie at a smaller D1 (Loyola Balt, Miami Oh). He’s not bitter about that. That’s just the deal. If he goes to Miami, and they catch a hot recruiting streak (unlikely but not impossible), he knows he could get bumped if he’s not clearly one of the best returning 10 for an incoming frosh with more potential. That’s the deal. The stakes are higher further up the food chain, but the game is much the same. It’s not unfair. Chaotic? Potentially Unsettling? Absolutely. But you don’t turn away or stop recruiting guys who can improve your team. That’s the main reason they got rid of the one year of sitting transfer rule, so that kids don’t get stuck with no place to play. I understand you don’t like the way it now works - where commitments on both sides are more fungible than in the past. But the reality is that both sides have more freedom and flexibility to succeed re matching players and programs than ever before. It’s a free-market system. Will there be kids and programs who abuse it? Of course. But I don’t think a system or mentality that artificially keeps the 12th or 13th project guy on a team in lieu of a potential cornerstone program piece should be condoned by anyone. That’s not the way the rest of the world works. And it’s a fine line coaches are asked to walk. They don’t want to get a reputation as a guy who runs of program guys whom they recruited passionately at one point and who have done all that’s asked in the classroom and as teammates even if they haven’t developed as hoped as contributors. But that scholarship has tremendous value. Let’s let it play out. As others have said, these things almost always work themselves out organically. But you are nuts if you think Pat stops pursuing a guy like Holmgren - he’s a little more special than your “new toy.” Where does going to school and trying to get a degree fit into all this?
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Dec 23, 2020 11:00:19 GMT -5
Cancerous? Come on now. My son is going through this very process right now as one of the kids I suppose you are worried about offending or insulting. He’s either a PWO at a P5 (Pitt) or a last schollie at a smaller D1 (Loyola Balt, Miami Oh). He’s not bitter about that. That’s just the deal. If he goes to Miami, and they catch a hot recruiting streak (unlikely but not impossible), he knows he could get bumped if he’s not clearly one of the best returning 10 for an incoming frosh with more potential. That’s the deal. The stakes are higher further up the food chain, but the game is much the same. It’s not unfair. Chaotic? Potentially Unsettling? Absolutely. But you don’t turn away or stop recruiting guys who can improve your team. That’s the main reason they got rid of the one year of sitting transfer rule, so that kids don’t get stuck with no place to play. I understand you don’t like the way it now works - where commitments on both sides are more fungible than in the past. But the reality is that both sides have more freedom and flexibility to succeed re matching players and programs than ever before. It’s a free-market system. Will there be kids and programs who abuse it? Of course. But I don’t think a system or mentality that artificially keeps the 12th or 13th project guy on a team in lieu of a potential cornerstone program piece should be condoned by anyone. That’s not the way the rest of the world works. And it’s a fine line coaches are asked to walk. They don’t want to get a reputation as a guy who runs of program guys whom they recruited passionately at one point and who have done all that’s asked in the classroom and as teammates even if they haven’t developed as hoped as contributors. But that scholarship has tremendous value. Let’s let it play out. As others have said, these things almost always work themselves out organically. But you are nuts if you think Pat stops pursuing a guy like Holmgren - he’s a little more special than your “new toy.” Where does going to school and trying to get a degree fit into all this? It’s hard. Take my kid again as an example. He got into Vandy, but he wants to play ball. He’ll never see the floor at Vandy. He might never see the floor at Pitt, but he really liked the school on top of hoops. And he loves Capel. He’s not terribly excited about going to school at Loyola, but he can actually play there. What do you do? Nobody said it was easy man. It’s life. You make the best choice you can, work your butt off and be prepared to adapt if things don’t go your way.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 23, 2020 11:03:19 GMT -5
Where does going to school and trying to get a degree fit into all this? It’s hard. Take my kid again as an example. He got into Vandy, but he wants to play ball. He’ll never see the floor at Vandy. He might never see the floor at Pitt, but he really liked the school on top of hoops. And he loves Capel. He’s not terribly excited about going to school at Loyola, but he can actually play there. What do you do? Nobody said it was easy man. It’s life. You make the best choice you can, work your butt off and be prepared to adapt if things don’t go your way. I’m not talking about juggling school and sports. I did that at GU so I know it’s not easy. I’m talking about always looking over your shoulder in case a better player comes and you have to transfer. How do you plan for school and the proper course of study if you can’t be sure where you will be next year? I thought these were students first? For example, I had a very niche major (only 7 of us in our entire class) that I discovered after I got to GU. If I got forced out because someone better at my sport came along, it would have been hard to find a school that had the athletic and academic fit to let me continue to pursue my major and play the sport. Given what college sports are supposed to be about, how do we resolve the conflict between the student and athlete and which one is the priority?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 23, 2020 11:05:40 GMT -5
Once you give a kid a scholarship, you should NEVER run him off, as long as he is working hard, making the grade, and doing what is expected from him from a commitment standpoint. Now, you can tell him that he might, or even likely, will never see the court. But if he wants to stay, he should remain in the program. Pushing kids out is the wrong way. If that means we lose for perpetuity, I am fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by gojeffgoroyunder7 on Dec 23, 2020 11:12:52 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.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 23, 2020 11:15:07 GMT -5
And that approach is okay. Pulling scholarships for a kid who committed and has done his part but is just "not good enough" is unacceptable.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Dec 23, 2020 11:30:31 GMT -5
And that approach is okay. Pulling scholarships for a kid who committed and has done his part but is just "not good enough" is unacceptable. I agree that it is never ideal. I think it would be easily solved if every school had a couple of floater schollies available where players could transition to essentially academic scholarships if they didn’t want to transfer to play elsewhere. Frankly, some schools will tell you that right now. That they will always have a place for you to continue your studies. I can tell you that in every one of the dozens of discussions I’ve had on this subject, every single one of the concerns was over playing time and not an education interrupted. I think that’s an extreme edge case and can’t imagine the university not working with a kid who wanted to make an academic transition. In fact, Georgetown has done that very thing with at least one player in the last decade. I don’t think that argument is really in play.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 23, 2020 11:39:48 GMT -5
It's also a good reason why you never want to fill all 13 schollies if you can avoid it. Not only is it ridiculously hard to keep all 13 kids happy with PT, but it gives you flexibility in recruiting an elite level player without having to deal with the ethical issues of transitioning a player already on the team who may or may not want to leave.
I understand we were looking to just up the number of bodies available ASAP after barely having enough to finish last season, but this is why we probably should have been a little more judicious in adding as many guys as we did in the 2020 offseason.
|
|
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 23, 2020 11:55:09 GMT -5
I think we are jumping ahead here. We have had players leave the program for a variety of reasons over the last decade and we have always ended up with enough scholarships for incoming recruits -- in fact, we're usually scrambling to fill a few. I agree that we don't want to force kids out -- that doesn't fit with the overall reputation of our program & university -- and that is why I'm not worried about us doing that for now.
Pat has seen more than his fair share of early departures from transfer or attempts at pro ball and I'm sure he is aware of that possibility again. Considering he was pushing to get a 5th player into the 2021 class -- he was making other offers and pursuing other players besides Aminu -- I have to think he knows a bit more about our scholarship situation for next year than we are privy to. At this stage, he can't afford to stop recruiting a possible #1 overall player like Holmgren if we are in his top schools. If he goes with us, I just trust that the scholarships will work themselves out as they always have in the past -- as smokeyjack says, most kids want playing time and many will transfer if they are made aware that they are unlikely to get it.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 23, 2020 12:02:21 GMT -5
And that approach is okay. Pulling scholarships for a kid who committed and has done his part but is just "not good enough" is unacceptable. So as long as they're nice about it you're okay with pulling scholarships? Let's be honest, very few supporters of whatever the program does will complain if the staff continues to recruit kids for next season...
|
|
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 23, 2020 12:06:14 GMT -5
It's also a good reason why you never want to fill all 13 schollies if you can avoid it. Not only is it ridiculously hard to keep all 13 kids happy with PT, but it gives you flexibility in recruiting an elite level player without having to deal with the ethical issues of transitioning a player already on the team who may or may not want to leave. I understand we were looking to just up the number of bodies available ASAP after barely having enough to finish last season, but this is why we probably should have been a little more judicious in adding as many guys as we did in the 2020 offseason. I tend to agree. But I think that works better with more equitable class sizes. Pat brought in 3 grad transfers in addition to the 5 frosh, which you'd think would even classes out and give us enough for the next year. If we continue to do this after class sizes return to a normal 3-4 and don't leave open the possibility of a late big-time pick-up, then I'll question the approach more. But I get how the coaches didn't want to pass on any of the guys coming for 2021 and I also get how they probably thought 5 scholarships would be enough.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2020 12:06:59 GMT -5
Where does going to school and trying to get a degree fit into all this? It’s hard. Take my kid again as an example. He got into Vandy, but he wants to play ball. He’ll never see the floor at Vandy. He might never see the floor at Pitt, but he really liked the school on top of hoops. And he loves Capel. He’s not terribly excited about going to school at Loyola, but he can actually play there. What do you do? Nobody said it was easy man. It’s life. You make the best choice you can, work your butt off and be prepared to adapt if things don’t go your way. Everybody is a free agent these days. Coaches, kids, everyone
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 23, 2020 12:10:16 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.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2020 12:26:52 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. Good observation
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,818
|
Post by hoyazeke on Dec 23, 2020 12:32:30 GMT -5
I cannot wait to see more of Sibley. In his limited minutes I thought he looked pretty good. Bring on more of Billingsley too. I happen to be extremely high on Kobe Clark. I stand by my observations. Pickett will not be drafted. Bile needs to sit he is a turnover machine. Sibley, Clark and Billingsley need to play. Dante Harris is the real deal. Very excited to see this team play and develop and next year we will be very good. Paranoia I'm gonna assume that you meant Holloway or Berger when you typed Billingsley... Billingsley won't be playing until next year...😂
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 23, 2020 12:36:49 GMT -5
And that approach is okay. Pulling scholarships for a kid who committed and has done his part but is just "not good enough" is unacceptable. So as long as they're nice about it you're okay with pulling scholarships? Let's be honest, very few supporters of whatever the program does will complain if the staff continues to recruit kids for next season... No, not at all- I am okay with the staff telling kids that their might not be playing time, and then those players can decide what to do.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 23, 2020 12:40:10 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.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 23, 2020 12:45:03 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 ☺
|
|