DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,931
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 2, 2024 18:20:28 GMT -5
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? Harvey Thomas or Chris Sodom? Harvey Thomas: 1997-98: Fredericksburg HS 1998-99: Mt. Zion (NC) 1999-00: Montrose Christian (MD) 2000-01: Hamilton HS (TN) 2001-02: Georgetown Summer 2002: Daytona JC, quit 2002-03: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M JC 2003-04: Baylor Chris Sodom 2014-15: Houston St. Thomas HS 2015-16: Beaumont Central (TX) HS 2016-17: Tennessee Prep (TN) 2017-18: Georgetown Summer 2018: George Washington, quit Fall 2018: Iowa Western JC, DNP Spring 2019: Delaware St., redshirt 2019-22: Delaware St. 2022-23: Southeastern (FL), DNP The real lesson, and this goes back to Victor Page, is to allow Admissions to take a more active look at recruits with two or more stops in high schools, particularly schools that cater to wayward athletes. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 2, 2024 19:32:26 GMT -5
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? Harvey Thomas or Chris Sodom? Harvey Thomas: 1997-98: Fredericksburg HS 1998-99: Mt. Zion (NC) 1999-00: Montrose Christian (MD) 2000-01: Hamilton HS (TN) 2001-02: Georgetown Summer 2002: Daytona JC, quit 2002-03: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M JC 2003-04: Baylor Chris Sodom 2014-15: Houston St. Thomas HS 2015-16: Beaumont Central (TX) HS 2016-17: Tennessee Prep (TN) 2017-18: Georgetown Summer 2018: George Washington, quit Fall 2018: Iowa Western JC, DNP Spring 2019: Delaware St., redshirt 2019-22: Delaware St. 2022-23: Southeastern (FL), DNP The real lesson, and this goes back to Victor Page, is to allow Admissions to take a more active look at recruits with two or more stops in high schools, particularly schools that cater to wayward athletes. Granted that Chris Sodom has also has his share of trials and tribulations, including that medical fundraiser and allegations of his being mistreated from last year (although maybe things are looking up for him? www.firstcoastnews.com/article/sports/local-sports/jacksonville-95ers-take-chris-sodom-with-1-overall-pick-kevin-waters-draft/77-cf8e253d-4958-4bed-a4c6-84e819068067), but with Harvey Thomas I was specifically thinking of the whole "Dave Bliss tried to frame him for murder" thing. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on Jun 3, 2024 12:48:06 GMT -5
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? I think your comments are fair ones as far as they stand alone, but we really are talking degree and context here, right? Sure....transfers are a normal part of college for both athletes and non-athletes alike. My wife transferred to Georgetown and I don't hold it against her - too often! But when players are attending 3 or more colleges through the use of the transfer portal, resulting in team turnover that requires an annual rebuilding from the outside, this is not a positve thing for team identify or fan interest. We can debate whether "loyalty" has any place in this discussion, set against players' diverse interests and needs, but it seems clear that factors other than the attraction of an academic institution are driving players' decisions. Josh Leblanc's story is lamentable, but it is more the norm than not - for Georgetown players and other college players. Many recent Georgetown players have attended, or are attending 3 colleges, both incoming and outgoing. As to $$$, surely economic interests factor into college (and other) decisions for both athletes and non-athletes. Financial aid and athletic scholarships are not all equal. But we are talking about a world now where players hang a sign out as to what amount of $$$ they need in order to commit - for a year. This is mercenary, not economic calculation at the margin. Again, I don't begrudge the players for doing this. I just think it perverts the system of college athletics. The fact that many of these players are earning $$$ beyond what they might ever hope to earn as true professionals speaks to how far things have gotten out of whack. Certainly most players coming to Georgetown these days are not coming for the academics nor have any intention of sticking it out for four years and graduating. There are exceptions. Ryan Mutombo being one. So I think the student aspect to their experience at Georgetown is entirely secondary (or tertiary). The advent of on-line continuing studies credits at Georgetown as a means of academic qualification for playing and, in some cases, as a means of academic advancement for graduation, suggests that Georgetown is facilitating a non-traditional undergraduate (and graduate) path for athletes. This is an entirely different student experience than a traditional Georgetown undergraduate. We can debate whether this is a good or bad thing, but it highlights that Georgetown does not expect/demand these athletes to be subject to the academic rigors of a traditional undergraduate program. This is a slippery slope. With many of these players moving on after a year or two, this whole academic progress thing becomes moot. I am not sure what bars exist at transfer portal destinations, but most will have academic bars lower than Georgetown. It remains to be seen what Cooley will craft from his incoming classes, and what kinds of players and students they will be. As to admissions bars, I obviously do not have internal data - but I did attend graduate school at Stanford and have a son who attended Notre Dame so I have a bit of view into those athletic programs and recruited athletes. Every year, there are clearly athletes that are not recruited due to academic standards. And every year, there are students who receive scholarships but ultiimately do not show up on signing day as they have failed to meet academic thresholds established as part of their recruitment. To the best of my knowledge (which is limited to the press and blogs), I am not aware of a player that Georgetown was interested in but was deemed off limits academically (though such a player may exist and you probably know one!) - nor of scholarships granted that ultimately were pulled due to academics. To be fair, Georgetown historically balanced its flexible admissions standards with a bona fide commitment to helping student athletes adjust academically and graduate - within the confines of a traditional undergraduate program. With the revolving door of players these days and fewer graduates, I am not sure what this means anyore. Stanford and Notre Dame are also pretty much limited to only accepting grad students through the transfer portal - due to a strict enforcement of graduation requirements. There is also the eye test....though limited by sample size. But Stanford and Notre Dame impress in this regard. Again, it will be interesting to see what Cooley does here and how his recruits stack up. So far, I am positively disposed. Certainly all of these developments are positive for players. They have rights and options that were not there before - though I do think that all of this has moved way too far in the players' interests from the standpoint of the sustainability of college athletics. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 22, 2024 7:11:57 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,941
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 22, 2024 8:00:17 GMT -5
Certainly most players coming to Georgetown these days are not coming for the academics nor have any intention of sticking it out for four years and graduating. No, not "certainly." That is an assumption on your part. This incoming freshman class is the first one Cooley has had with the benefit of a non-truncated off-season, so this is the first cohort that should be assessed from a "these days" standpoint, as opposed to If you're a basketball player at a high enough level to play professionally, that is most likely going to be your primary focus. But the notion that everyone coming in is already looking for their next move is completely unsubstantiated at this point. I am not sure what bars exist at transfer portal destinations, but most will have academic bars lower than Georgetown. ... To the best of my knowledge (which is limited to the press and blogs), I am not aware of a player that Georgetown was interested in but was deemed off limits academically (though such a player may exist and you probably know one!) - nor of scholarships granted that ultimately were pulled due to academics. I think you can see the tension between these two claims - on the one hand, that transfer portal destinations have a lower bar than Georgetown, and on the other hand that Georgetown apparently has no bar at all - or one so low that it has never been detected. As to admissions bars, I obviously do not have internal data - but I did attend graduate school at Stanford and have a son who attended Notre Dame so I have a bit of view into those athletic programs and recruited athletes. ... Stanford and Notre Dame are also pretty much limited to only accepting grad students through the transfer portal - due to a strict enforcement of graduation requirements. There is also the eye test....though limited by sample size. But Stanford and Notre Dame impress in this regard. Notre Dame and Stanford both have plenty of inbound underclassmen transfers. Kebbe Njie transferred to Notre Dame after his freshman year at Penn State. Tae Davis transferred to Notre Dame after his freshman year at Seton Hall. Julian Roper transferred to Notre Dame after his freshman and sophomore years at Northwestern. Chisom Okpara transferred to Stanford after his first two years at Harvard. Derin Saran transferred to Stanford after his freshman year at UC Irvine. Oziyah Sellers transferred to Stanford after his first two years at Southern Cal. These are all guys and those schools right now. If you go back further in time, or extend it outside of men's basketball, you'll find plenty more examples. I'm not sure what "eye test" you're using (20 years ago, my instinct would have been to assume that's a racially coded euphemism, but fortunately we've evolved considerably since then and aren't judging academic acumen based on skin color, hairstyle, or tattoos anymore), but I would suggest that it is too surface-level to provide an accurate picture. If you want to make strong claims about individuals' or institutions' commitment to academics, you do actually have to dive into the details. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on Jun 22, 2024 10:50:49 GMT -5
A question for the Board. I have a nephew who is an outstanding high school quarterback. He will begin his junior year this Fall but has already signed a LOI with a major football school for the class of '27. Do colleges wave NIL money to these kids to get them to sign a LOI this early in their high school career? Is that legal?
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,639
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 22, 2024 11:13:54 GMT -5
A question for the Board. I have a nephew who is an outstanding high school quarterback. He will begin his junior year this Fall but has already signed a LOI with a major football school for the class of '27. Do colleges wave NIL money to these kids to get them to sign a LOI this early in their high school career? Is that legal? Wow! Congrats to your family! Free education and more… I understand that the earliest is November or December of the student athlete’s hs senior year. For example, the early date to sign a football LOI (it’s NLI) for prospective Student-Athletes signing 2023-24 and enrolling 2024-25 was December 20, 2023. Maybe is was a verbal (non-binding) commit? “You may sign an NLI only during the designated signing period. If you sign an NLI outside the appropriate signing period, the NLI shall be considered invalid. Presuming you are within the permissible signing period, you and your parent or legal guardian must sign the NLI and financial aid agreement within 7 days of the issuance date noted on the NLI signing page. You may find the appropriate signing period for your sport on the NLI website: www.nationalletter.org “ |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,490
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 22, 2024 20:06:23 GMT -5
A question for the Board. I have a nephew who is an outstanding high school quarterback. He will begin his junior year this Fall but has already signed a LOI with a major football school for the class of '27. Do colleges wave NIL money to these kids to get them to sign a LOI this early in their high school career? Is that legal? Wow! Congrats to your family! Free education and more… I understand that the earliest is November or December of the student athlete’s hs senior year. For example, the early date to sign a football LOI (it’s NLI) for prospective Student-Athletes signing 2023-24 and enrolling 2024-25 was December 20, 2023. Maybe is was a verbal (non-binding) commit? “You may sign an NLI only during the designated signing period. If you sign an NLI outside the appropriate signing period, the NLI shall be considered invalid. Presuming you are within the permissible signing period, you and your parent or legal guardian must sign the NLI and financial aid agreement within 7 days of the issuance date noted on the NLI signing page. You may find the appropriate signing period for your sport on the NLI website: www.nationalletter.org “ Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure this answers drquigley's question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a school were to say to an athlete, hey, we'll set aside $X for you if you sign with us when the time comes. Is that binding? That's a different question. Does it fall within the rules? I guess I would say what rules? |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,639
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 22, 2024 23:22:47 GMT -5
Wow! Congrats to your family! Free education and more… I understand that the earliest is November or December of the student athlete’s hs senior year. For example, the early date to sign a football LOI (it’s NLI) for prospective Student-Athletes signing 2023-24 and enrolling 2024-25 was December 20, 2023. Maybe is was a verbal (non-binding) commit? “You may sign an NLI only during the designated signing period. If you sign an NLI outside the appropriate signing period, the NLI shall be considered invalid. Presuming you are within the permissible signing period, you and your parent or legal guardian must sign the NLI and financial aid agreement within 7 days of the issuance date noted on the NLI signing page. You may find the appropriate signing period for your sport on the NLI website: www.nationalletter.org “ Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure this answers drquigley's question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a school were to say to an athlete, hey, we'll set aside $X for you if you sign with us when the time comes. Is that binding? That's a different question. Does it fall within the rules? I guess I would say what rules? If I understood correctly, he was asking about NLI (National Letter of Intent), not NIL (Name, Image and Likeness). |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,959
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 24, 2024 5:25:21 GMT -5
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure this answers drquigley's question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a school were to say to an athlete, hey, we'll set aside $X for you if you sign with us when the time comes. Is that binding? That's a different question. Does it fall within the rules? I guess I would say what rules? If I understood correctly, he was asking about NLI (National Letter of Intent), not NIL (Name, Image and Likeness). He said “wave NIL money” at the kid, so I’m pretty sure he meant NIL, not NLI. But it is extremely annoying that the initials are so close. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on Jun 24, 2024 10:25:23 GMT -5
If I understood correctly, he was asking about NLI (National Letter of Intent), not NIL (Name, Image and Likeness). He said “wave NIL money” at the kid, so I’m pretty sure he meant NIL, not NLI. But it is extremely annoying that the initials are so close. No I meant NIL money. The kid is only a 17 year old starting his junior year of high school. So my question was twofold. Can he sign a legit LOI this soon and can a school offer (promise?) NIL money this soon? Based on what was said above it sounds like the LOI is not binding because it came outside the signing window and NIL money therefore probably wasn't offered. I've spoken to his grandma and she said he just loved Ann Arbor (hated Columbus) and UM's new coach. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on Jun 24, 2024 10:34:57 GMT -5
He said “wave NIL money” at the kid, so I’m pretty sure he meant NIL, not NLI. But it is extremely annoying that the initials are so close. No I meant NIL money. The kid is only a 17 year old starting his junior year of high school. So my question was twofold. Can he sign a legit LOI this soon and can a school offer (promise?) NIL money this soon? Based on what was said above it sounds like the LOI is not binding because it came outside the signing window and NIL money therefore probably wasn't offered. I've spoken to his grandma and she said he just loved Ann Arbor (hated Columbus) and UM's new coach. I went to the LOI website and it is obvious the kid just made a verbal commitment and did not and could not sign a LOI until the end of his junior year. Likewise the University also just made a verbal commitment. As far as NIL money goes I would guess that although no actual cash changed hands an NIL package was discussed and would be forthcoming upon his signing a LOI. |
|
