|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 30, 2024 22:21:50 GMT -5
But good or bad, he doesn't care who the players are unless they're playing for his school. And I think that's true of the overwhelming majority of college basketball fans. Of course better players are worth more than average players--at the same school. But is the tenth man at Kentucky really worth more than the best player in the OVC? Because he's almost certainly being paid more. That's his point. Of course we care about the team more than the players but that doesn’t mean the players aren’t more important overall. I don’t think that’s his point at all, 2003 is saying that because the majority of CBB players aren’t going to be pros they would have little value if CBB didn’t exist therefore the value proposition lies with the programs not the players. 2003 says that if the players were more important then the G-League would be more popular because it has better players, that’s the point he’s making. There might be a small number of college players who have value on their own skills (think Zion Williamson a few years ago, or Caitlin Collins). But that's rare. You are right, my opinion is that without the university connecton much of the value players have would disappear. People aren't paying millions in NIL because they want to enrich college kids. They're paying millions because they want their university to win. Of course, that doesn't mean players have zero value, but most of it comes from the university affiliation. |
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,407
|
Post by SaxaCD on May 31, 2024 6:14:38 GMT -5
Anyone else get the feeling that this is the end of college - especially Hoya - basketball as we know it? Yes. Has been trending that way awhile, and of course I will still support the team, but college basketball has lost almost all that made it such a great thing. It's now just one of many of the same sort of thing now. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on May 31, 2024 11:03:55 GMT -5
One important thing to keep in mind is that we are in a transition from a student athlete model (at varying degrees) to a pay for play pro model. The historical investment that universities have in sports (facilities, coaches, legacy, etc.) means that colleges appear to have moved on rather seamlessly to what we have today. But this has happened all too quickly and chaotically. Shocking new rules around NIL (and bag money) and transfers are only several years old, and there has been zero oversight. It is not surprising that colleges, for the moment, are doing what they can to perpetuate their programs given their investment. But, at some point, there will be oversight clarity and reflection. Would a college like Georgetown starting from a blank sheet of paper opt to "sponsor" a team of paid (essentially non student) mercenary athletes as part of its university offerings? I can't imagine this would happen. But this is where we are as all universities have fallen down an increasingly steep and slippery slope.
This is the end of college sports (at least major revenue sports) as we knew it. And it is profoundly sad. What is lost in all of this calculus is the perspective of actual students - who the University is arguably serving. I am a small sample size having attended Georgetown during a time when home games were played at McDonough, basketball players were in my Problem of God class, academic performance and degrees were important (even if admissions flexibility existed) and there was a commonality of experience and interaction that benefitted both scholarship athletes and regular students. McDonough was usually full, and support for the team was strong. All of this is lost in the new model, and I am not sure what the University is gaining (other than $$$ perhaps or some sort of perverted reputational benefit associated with a winning team) at the expense of everything that is being left behind. I don't think Georgetown students have ever been more apathetic about the basketball program....and with good reason on all counts.
And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Arguably some alumni will donate some more money on the back of a successful basketball program. But many others are increasingly disenfranchised by the University's actions and will continue to walk away. Georgetown alunmi relationships are pretty poor in my opinion (based on other colleges I attended for graduate school and the experience of my kids), and it is reflected in an endowment level which is ridiculously low for a school of Georgetown's long history and academic quality.
These days. I find I am following Georgetown basketball more out of morbid curiousity rather than general fandom. But really hard to identify with and support a bunch of paid transient players interested in coming to Georgetown solely for $$$$ and exposure.
|
|
bills
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272 
|
Post by bills on May 31, 2024 12:44:59 GMT -5
My first exposure to Georgetown was similar to yours. When the campus radio station broadcast that we had beaten ]n St, Joes up in Philadelphia my freshman year, the dorms emptied around the time the bus was due back on campus and a big crowd was cheering as the bus came in and the team exited the bus. It is a great memory of college basketball from 58 years ago. Our football team played club football, but drew a decent crowd up the hill for each home game. It is now all about the money in two college sports.
My prayer is that those schools who want to hire professional athletes to represent them so they can bring in lots of money from bid TV contracts form their own conferences and hold their own tournaments. The other schools can focus on educating students and competing in a wide range of sports against student athletes from other universities is an extracurricular activity that students can enjoy participating in and watching as spectators. End of season tournaments would be for bragging rights, not piles of cash. There are so many streaming services that some of them might be interested in broadcasting some games for a subscription fee, but not to pay millions of dollars to the schools. If Georgetown choose to hire professional athletes to bring in TV money, I would end my interest in Georgetown athletics.
academic institutions that view athletics as a way of bringing in money have lost their primary mission of education and should lose their tax exempt status.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 31, 2024 14:35:31 GMT -5
One important thing to keep in mind is that we are in a transition from a student athlete model (at varying degrees) to a pay for play pro model. The historical investment that universities have in sports (facilities, coaches, legacy, etc.) means that colleges appear to have moved on rather seamlessly to what we have today. But this has happened all too quickly and chaotically. Shocking new rules around NIL (and bag money) and transfers are only several years old, and there has been zero oversight. It is not surprising that colleges, for the moment, are doing what they can to perpetuate their programs given their investment. But, at some point, there will be oversight clarity and reflection. Would a college like Georgetown starting from a blank sheet of paper opt to "sponsor" a team of paid (essentially non student) mercenary athletes as part of its university offerings? I can't imagine this would happen. But this is where we are as all universities have fallen down an increasingly steep and slippery slope. This is the end of college sports (at least major revenue sports) as we knew it. And it is profoundly sad. What is lost in all of this calculus is the perspective of actual students - who the University is arguably serving. I am a small sample size having attended Georgetown during a time when home games were played at McDonough, basketball players were in my Problem of God class, academic performance and degrees were important (even if admissions flexibility existed) and there was a commonality of experience and interaction that benefitted both scholarship athletes and regular students. McDonough was usually full, and support for the team was strong. All of this is lost in the new model, and I am not sure what the University is gaining (other than $$$ perhaps or some sort of perverted reputational benefit associated with a winning team) at the expense of everything that is being left behind. I don't think Georgetown students have ever been more apathetic about the basketball program....and with good reason on all counts. And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Arguably some alumni will donate some more money on the back of a successful basketball program. But many others are increasingly disenfranchised by the University's actions and will continue to walk away. Georgetown alunmi relationships are pretty poor in my opinion (based on other colleges I attended for graduate school and the experience of my kids), and it is reflected in an endowment level which is ridiculously low for a school of Georgetown's long history and academic quality. These days. I find I am following Georgetown basketball more out of morbid curiousity rather than general fandom. But really hard to identify with and support a bunch of paid transient players interested in coming to Georgetown solely for $$$$ and exposure. Didn't you like the move to the Big East conference for Gtown? Same question for you billsPosts like these scream "I hate that my team stinks right now". I played 18 with 3 Uconn alums on Sunday, this angst over the direction of CBB never came up for some odd reason |
|
|
|
Post by x-centercourt400s on May 31, 2024 15:19:24 GMT -5
One important thing to keep in mind is that we are in a transition from a student athlete model (at varying degrees) to a pay for play pro model. The historical investment that universities have in sports (facilities, coaches, legacy, etc.) means that colleges appear to have moved on rather seamlessly to what we have today. But this has happened all too quickly and chaotically. Shocking new rules around NIL (and bag money) and transfers are only several years old, and there has been zero oversight. It is not surprising that colleges, for the moment, are doing what they can to perpetuate their programs given their investment. But, at some point, there will be oversight clarity and reflection. Would a college like Georgetown starting from a blank sheet of paper opt to "sponsor" a team of paid (essentially non student) mercenary athletes as part of its university offerings? I can't imagine this would happen. But this is where we are as all universities have fallen down an increasingly steep and slippery slope. This is the end of college sports (at least major revenue sports) as we knew it. And it is profoundly sad. What is lost in all of this calculus is the perspective of actual students - who the University is arguably serving. I am a small sample size having attended Georgetown during a time when home games were played at McDonough, basketball players were in my Problem of God class, academic performance and degrees were important (even if admissions flexibility existed) and there was a commonality of experience and interaction that benefitted both scholarship athletes and regular students. McDonough was usually full, and support for the team was strong. All of this is lost in the new model, and I am not sure what the University is gaining (other than $$$ perhaps or some sort of perverted reputational benefit associated with a winning team) at the expense of everything that is being left behind. I don't think Georgetown students have ever been more apathetic about the basketball program....and with good reason on all counts. And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Arguably some alumni will donate some more money on the back of a successful basketball program. But many others are increasingly disenfranchised by the University's actions and will continue to walk away. Georgetown alunmi relationships are pretty poor in my opinion (based on other colleges I attended for graduate school and the experience of my kids), and it is reflected in an endowment level which is ridiculously low for a school of Georgetown's long history and academic quality. These days. I find I am following Georgetown basketball more out of morbid curiousity rather than general fandom. But really hard to identify with and support a bunch of paid transient players interested in coming to Georgetown solely for $$$$ and exposure. Didn't you like the move to the Big East conference for Gtown? Same question for you billsPosts like these scream "I hate that my team stinks right now". I played 18 with 3 Uconn alums on Sunday, this angst over the direction of CBB never came up for some odd reason Posts like theirs (and mine) scream of people who aren't happy to have their favorite sport transition to just another pro-league. You may want to follow it but I'm one of the many (it seems) who do not like the change, regardless of the potential success of my team. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on May 31, 2024 15:26:58 GMT -5
EB.......perhaps that's because UConn has relatively little to celebrate other than basketball? After all, basketball is essentially Uconn's identify (both men's and women's programs) - so they will go along with whatever is necessary to perpetuate it. Georgetown University has a much richer tapestry to draw on........historically, academically, philosophically, spiritually etc. - making basketball an obviously smaller part of the University's identity. Hiring JT Jr. and getting behind the social justice elements of his program were admirable. There were corners cut but, ultimately, the program was clean, players went to classes and graduated (a number to go on to do other interesting things). We were showing leadership in that era. The move to the Big East was great. Essentially a Catholic conference that was designed to let smaller schools play big time basketball in a little different way - perhaps more consistent with these schools' orientations and values. With basketball as the main sport (mostly) at these universities. The outliers were obvious (I'm looking at you Syracuse and West Virginia, among others). Through JTIII we played in that conference honorably. But then Ewing came, we had a slew of character challenged recruits, mass transfers and then the NIL/Portal. I could cheer on JTIII's losing teams because he was focused on doing the right things. Not so much thereafter.
The team's performance is irrelevant as it relates to my comments, though it reflects a certain incompetence. My post screams more that "College sports are being destroyed by NIL (the bag) and the portal.....and whatever comes next....and I am increasingly ashamed as a graduate that Georgetown is willing to participate on that basis". Sure, let Alabama and Kentucky do whatever they want to do. We are not those schools. There is a certain exceptionalism that is attached to Georgetown that should inform it to go in a different direction. Though I have zero confidence in Georgetown's administration to get out front on this issue and make the right choices.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 31, 2024 16:27:21 GMT -5
And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Let's be specific here - could you please detail what you see the University "giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission?" |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,762
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 31, 2024 16:33:04 GMT -5
UConn has the indoor and outdoor track and field conference meet to celebrate, and no other team in the Big East will win the conference with UConn in it. Being a state school UConn has resources which the other BE teams have not. On the national level, however, UConn is often behind the Hoyas, Nova, Butler, and Provy.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 31, 2024 17:34:16 GMT -5
Didn't you like the move to the Big East conference for Gtown? Same question for you billsPosts like these scream "I hate that my team stinks right now". I played 18 with 3 Uconn alums on Sunday, this angst over the direction of CBB never came up for some odd reason
You may want to follow it but I'm one of the many (it seems) who do not like the change, regardless of the potential success of my team. It's been just another pro league for decades now, to be honest. The major difference has been the players had zero say in the revenues and little control over their movements. Players sued and courts have overwhelmingly agreed with them. With the new revenue sharing coming soon, I think we'll see roster stability return, especially for the better players in top conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by jctnhoya4ever on May 31, 2024 18:00:27 GMT -5
Now the ncaa is talking about allowing sponsors on the field and jerseys. Of companies. It’s no longer college athletics it’s now nfl and nba minor leagues. This isn’t college no more it’s over.
|
|
bills
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by bills on May 31, 2024 18:19:22 GMT -5
One important thing to keep in mind is that we are in a transition from a student athlete model (at varying degrees) to a pay for play pro model. The historical investment that universities have in sports (facilities, coaches, legacy, etc.) means that colleges appear to have moved on rather seamlessly to what we have today. But this has happened all too quickly and chaotically. Shocking new rules around NIL (and bag money) and transfers are only several years old, and there has been zero oversight. It is not surprising that colleges, for the moment, are doing what they can to perpetuate their programs given their investment. But, at some point, there will be oversight clarity and reflection. Would a college like Georgetown starting from a blank sheet of paper opt to "sponsor" a team of paid (essentially non student) mercenary athletes as part of its university offerings? I can't imagine this would happen. But this is where we are as all universities have fallen down an increasingly steep and slippery slope. This is the end of college sports (at least major revenue sports) as we knew it. And it is profoundly sad. What is lost in all of this calculus is the perspective of actual students - who the University is arguably serving. I am a small sample size having attended Georgetown during a time when home games were played at McDonough, basketball players were in my Problem of God class, academic performance and degrees were important (even if admissions flexibility existed) and there was a commonality of experience and interaction that benefitted both scholarship athletes and regular students. McDonough was usually full, and support for the team was strong. All of this is lost in the new model, and I am not sure what the University is gaining (other than $$$ perhaps or some sort of perverted reputational benefit associated with a winning team) at the expense of everything that is being left behind. I don't think Georgetown students have ever been more apathetic about the basketball program....and with good reason on all counts. And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Arguably some alumni will donate some more money on the back of a successful basketball program. But many others are increasingly disenfranchised by the University's actions and will continue to walk away. Georgetown alunmi relationships are pretty poor in my opinion (based on other colleges I attended for graduate school and the experience of my kids), and it is reflected in an endowment level which is ridiculously low for a school of Georgetown's long history and academic quality. These days. I find I am following Georgetown basketball more out of morbid curiousity rather than general fandom. But really hard to identify with and support a bunch of paid transient players interested in coming to Georgetown solely for $$$$ and exposure. Didn't you like the move to the Big East conference for Gtown? Same question for you bills Posts like these scream "I hate that my team stinks right now". I played 18 with 3 Uconn alums on Sunday, this angst over the direction of CBB never came up for some odd reason I was and am happy with the Big East conference. I am not happy with the focus on how much money can basketball generate. Georgetown should not be in the basketball business. Universities should not ne in the sports business. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on May 31, 2024 22:28:10 GMT -5
And seriously, how much money is Georgetown actually netting from basketball set against the size of the University budget and what it is giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission. Let's be specific here - could you please detail what you see the University "giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission?" I will assume that this is a serious question....though I would think it would be fairly obvious. Simply put....operating a pay for play athletics program supporting basically mercenary and transient non student athletes with the sponsorhip of the Georgetown University name seems inconsistent with running a top tier academic university founded and guided by Jesuit ideals. See the Ivy League for reference. Frankly, this has been the case for a long time on a lot of levels...but it has gotten insufferable. How many schools of Georgetown's academic caliber and reputation operate big time basketball programs? Duke? Perhaps schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Notre Dame....? Though I think those schools have have adhered much more strongly to academic qualifications in recruiting and running their programs. And have achieved limited success. In moving from a model where we admit student athletes with flexible admissions policies while expecting and supporting them in the classroom as they spend four years earning their degrees to just buying (actually renting) players year by year who have little or no ties to the university we have crossed a very distinct line between arguable student athletes to paid mercenaries. Georgetown has no business operating such a program and, set against the net revenues the University may earn from basketball, would seem a very poor strategic choice. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on Jun 1, 2024 10:41:06 GMT -5
I'm too lazy to run the numbers but I think a good way to show how ridiculous the idea of "student athlete" has become would be to compare the number of "students" who played basketball for GU since say 2015 and the number of "students" who played basketball for GU since 2015 and actually graduated with a GU degree. Anyone think the number is greater than 25%? I'm old enough to remember that when a player didn't graduate it was a disgrace and if I'm not mistaken the NCAA actually kept records of these numbers and called schools out for not having an acceptable graduation rate for "student athletes". Huggy Bear and Cincy come to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on Jun 1, 2024 10:50:30 GMT -5
I might move the year a couple of years out....I think JTIII did a pretty good job recruiting high character guys who stayed the course and graduated (there were exceptions, of course). But you are 100% right.
The other factor here now is that those players who are graduating now (Jay Heath, for example) are doing so through Georgetown's Continuing Studies Program which is quite apart from Georgetown's traditional undergraduate offerings and features many (if not wholly) on-line courses. Not sure when this started (I know some graduate transfers availed of this in the past) for undergraduate players.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 1, 2024 15:05:24 GMT -5
I might move the year a couple of years out....I think JTIII did a pretty good job recruiting high character guys who stayed the course and graduated (there were exceptions, of course). But you are 100% right. The other factor here now is that those players who are graduating now (Jay Heath, for example) are doing so through Georgetown's Continuing Studies Program which is quite apart from Georgetown's traditional undergraduate offerings and features many (if not wholly) on-line courses. Not sure when this started (I know some graduate transfers availed of this in the past) for undergraduate players. To me you're blaming Gtown's issues on the changing system. NIL has zero to do with the "character" of the kids Gtown recruits or Gtown's grad rates or the mission you feel they should be aspiring to. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jun 1, 2024 15:26:38 GMT -5
In moving from a model where we admit student athletes with flexible admissions policies while expecting and supporting them in the classroom as they spend four years earning their degrees to just buying (actually renting) players year by year who have little or no ties to the university we have crossed a very distinct line between arguable student athletes to paid mercenaries. How so? The only distinction you've made here is that the athletes are going to be compensated - which they likely were under the table for the past two decades. We ran a program for the six years of Ewing that was far more transient in terms of recruiting freshman and either watching them transfer or the program itself pushing them out the door than the one I think we've begun to run. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on Jun 2, 2024 11:48:17 GMT -5
In response to EB and TC:
1. Ewing was incompetent, recruited kids of questionable character, and, as a result, suffered more turnover than most other schools during his tenure. This was pre-NIL and a completely open portal.....though there were a lot of waivers granted for players for various reasons. We also graduated less kids than in the past. This is mostly on Ewing and Georgetown.
2. The current and prospective NIL (bag money), open transfer portal and what may come to pass is external to Georgetown and is impacting Georgetown as well as every other team. Some teams are better able to retain players than others in some years (limited sample so far), but even excellent winning programs with high quality coaches are being upended annually. That is on the system, not Georgetown specifically.
3. I like to think that Georgetown was not paying players under the table and was committed to running a program based on (some semblance of) student athletes. Certainly this was true through the JTIII years. Ewing, as noted, ran a different kind of program....either by design or by incompetence.
4. Yes....moving to an system of openly compensating players changes everything in my opinion....at least for Georgetown (based on my assumptions/beliefs that Georgetown aspired to run a clean program focused on graduating student athletes). Certainly some other schools have been running programs differently for years - ignoring the classroom and graduation (or gaming it) and illegally compensating players. So I think these changes have a relatively unique impact on Georgetown, among a few others.
5. I'm just of the view that Georgetown can and should affimatively decide whether it wants to continue to operate a basketball program based on paid transient players, few or none of whom can be considered student athletes irrespective of their salaries, whose connection to the University stops at the logo on their uniform. Such a program has absolutely nothing to do everything else that Georgetown aspires to be as a university - and, in my view, reflects poorly on the institution. While I get that we are here as a result of a rapid evolution of college basketball driven by the courts, looked at from the perspective of potentially starting such a program at Georgetown from a blank sheet of paper, it would seem unlikely that Georgetown would elect to do this. For the same reasons, Georgetown should thoughtfully consider whether such a program continues to have value for Georgetown - or is, in fact, a detriment. That is the proper role of University Trustees, the President and other administrators at Georgetown - but I would not hold my breath on this.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 2, 2024 11:52:13 GMT -5
Let's be specific here - could you please detail what you see the University "giving up in terms of abandoning its academic and philosophical mission?" I will assume that this is a serious question....though I would think it would be fairly obvious. Simply put....operating a pay for play athletics program supporting basically mercenary and transient non student athletes with the sponsorhip of the Georgetown University name seems inconsistent with running a top tier academic university founded and guided by Jesuit ideals. See the Ivy League for reference. Frankly, this has been the case for a long time on a lot of levels...but it has gotten insufferable. How many schools of Georgetown's academic caliber and reputation operate big time basketball programs? Duke? Perhaps schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Notre Dame....? Though I think those schools have have adhered much more strongly to academic qualifications in recruiting and running their programs. And have achieved limited success. In moving from a model where we admit student athletes with flexible admissions policies while expecting and supporting them in the classroom as they spend four years earning their degrees to just buying (actually renting) players year by year who have little or no ties to the university we have crossed a very distinct line between arguable student athletes to paid mercenaries. Georgetown has no business operating such a program and, set against the net revenues the University may earn from basketball, would seem a very poor strategic choice. Alright, thanks. Let's take a look at a couple of these one by one. So there's a couple of descriptors there. We have "mercenary and transient," which I suppose is some combination of 'choosing to play somewhere for the money' and 'not demonstrating loyalty to Georgetown or any other school, but instead hopping around to three or more institutions.' Both of these are departures from what we might call 'classic NCAA amateurism,' although more in degree than in kind. And then we have "non student athletes," which I interpret as a claim that the athletes in question are not actually engaged in studies, going to class, etc. On no. 1: Financial considerations have always been a major factor in inducing players to attend one school over another. While the NCAA historically tried to level the playing field, in practice that's simply not possible, because schools are too different. The monetary value of a scholarship varies widely, depending on the cost of tuition and room & board, while at the service academies, they actually pay all their students a salary! Things schools don't cover also impact many athletes' considerations, such as the costs associated with travel to/from campus. And that's just talking about the revenue sports. Recall that most college sports - which are held out as hewing closer to the spirit of amateurism - have fewer scholarships than contributors on the team, meaning most players are getting only partial scholarships. Does choosing a better scholarship offer from one school over another make one a "mercenary?" I suppose you could argue that, though it seems odd to argue that athletes and their families shouldn't take finances into account, but it's certainly nothing new. On no. 2: The transiency piece offends traditionalist college sports fan sensibilities because it's a departure from their own experience and ideal model: you attend a single school and remain loyal to it for life (significant caveats apply - only talking about undergraduate, not counting study abroad, and junior/community college is a different animal and also doesn't really count). Ok, sure, fine, maybe you get one transfer without us looking askance at you. We'll accept Patrick Ewing Jr. and Paul Rothrock and Bradley Cooper as our own. But any more than that, and you're a rootless cosmopolitan with no sense of loyalty... The thing is, this is a very idealized model of a college experience - and one that is really predicated on elite, or at least upper-middle class, experiences and expectations. There are millions of Americans who cobble together bachelor's degrees through a winding journey across multiple community colleges and/or four-year degree-granting institutions. Most of them are working at the same time and have other things going on in their lives. While some folks may still look down on those kinds of journeys, I would hope that we would not. So is it ideal for student-athletes to have a Harvey Thomas-like saga across institutions? No. Do we want the Josh LeBlanc experience, going from LSU to Georgetown to UAB to Nicholls State to LSU Shreveport (did I miss any?) to become the norm? Surely not. But let's not forget a key rationale behind loosening the transfer rules - fairness. Scholarships are only committed by a school to an athlete one year at a time. Restrictive transfer rules created an even greater power imbalance, limiting student-athletes' ability to escape bad situations, especially since many of them can't afford to attend college without a scholarship. Instead, the onus is on the school to create an environment where people want to stay. That was a major failure of Ewing's, and while I'm willing to give Cooley a pass for his first season, given the abbreviated timetable he had to pull together a (not particularly) competitive roster, it will be a key indicator. Loyalty is earned, but institutions have taken it for granted through restrictive rules for a long time. No longer. On no. 3: Labeling someone a "non student" is a pretty serious charge. Are you privy to Georgetown basketball players' academic records? Do you have some other source of evidence for such a claim? Or are you just assuming that if someone transfers, that means they blew off class (while someone maintaining eligibility to play). See the Ivy League for reference. The Ivy League is sailing in the same shifting winds - in both directions. You've got athletes transferring out (e.g., www.thedp.com/article/2024/02/penn-athletics-nil-ivy-league-basketball-transfers-and-rumors) and transferring in (to offer one humorous example, Princeton got the Norwegian national record holder in the pole vault to transfer from UCLA in order to help construct "the best track and field team ever — not simply at Princeton, but in the Ivy League" (see paw.princeton.edu/article/norwegian-pole-vault-duo-could-lead-historic-season) If you want to stick to men's basketball, I can point you to Casey Simmons, who transferred from Northwestern to Yale, or Paxson Wojcik, who moved from Loyola-Chicago to Brown, or Sarju Patel, who went from VMI to Cornell...etc. etc. (and who can forget Mark Coury, who famously moved from Kentucky to Cornell). [How many schools of Georgetown's academic caliber and reputation operate big time basketball programs? Duke? Perhaps schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Notre Dame....? Though I think those schools have have adhered much more strongly to academic qualifications in recruiting and running their programs. And have achieved limited success. What sort of evidence do you have for the proposition that the basketball programs at Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Notre Dame "have adhered much more strongly to academic qualifications in recruiting and running their programs" as compared to Georgetown? |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 2, 2024 12:01:52 GMT -5
By the way, if you want to do a deep dive into the history of Georgetown basketball and transfers, you'll find the interesting stories of Tommy O'Keefe and Ray Corley, whom Elmer Ripley brought with him from Notre Dame in 1946 when he returned to the Hilltop.
O'Keefe was selected in the fourth round of the 1950 NBA draft by the Washington Capitols and also played for the Baltimore Bullets; he ended up as Georgetown's head coach during the first half of the 1960s. Corley was selected in the fifth round of the 1949 BAA Draft by the Providence Steamrollers(!) and played in the NBA for three seasons with the Syracuse Nationals, Baltimore Bullets, Tri-Cities Blackhawks, and Fort Wayne Pistons.
|
|
