FGCU!

This team is incredible to watch... playing loose and flying around the court. I wonder if Comer would like to come play on the Bluff?

And they are about to be the first 15 seed to make the Sweet 16... How can you not like to watch these guys?!

PilotNut wrote:How can you not like to watch these guys?!

Because I would have gotten two points with a San Diego State win.

I was at a Chili's (not my choice) on Friday night yelling and cheering during their win over G'Town. It was kinda fun getting all the crazy looks.

It wouldn't be the worst thing for my bracket if they beat Florida as long as they lose to Kansas after that. I'm in a 3 way tie for 1st at work, but have the lowest possible points remaining (thanks to Gonzaga flaming out yet again so I can't feel that bad I guess. Me and one of the guys I'm tied with both have Louisville winning, but he has them playing against Florida for the championship so some Kansas wins (and Ohio State losses) are my place to make up some ground.

I haven't had the opportunity to catch FGCU in action, but the highlights make it look like they're fun to watch.

And Stoney still hasn't missed one.

Amazing!

=

I'm sure Stonehouse had LaSalle too. How could he go against his old school?

I forget where I heard this idea a couple of years ago, but Enfield going to USC and Alford to UCLA reminded me of it again. Coaches who leave a school before their contract has expired should have sit out a year before coaching again. Just like the student-athletes have to do when they transfer. If your contract is up, moving schools is fair game. But if you leave mid-contract, sit out a year.

It's just not fair to the student-athletes for a coach to recruit them to school and then bail out because another place offers them a bit more cash. The players don't get paid, and yet they have severe restrictions on transferring. There needs to be a disincentive built into the system to prevent coaches from leaving their players and schools in the lurch.

You are attacking the issue from the wrong end. The letter of intent is one year, but the commitment is for the following year as well - but not for the school. They can stop your scholarship with no penalty.

I think that if you aren't happy at a school you should be able to leave when your letter expires and the school's commitment to you is over for that year.

PurpleGeezer wrote:You are attacking the issue from the wrong end. The letter of intent is one year, but the commitment is for the following year as well - but not for the school. They can stop your scholarship with no penalty.

I think that if you aren't happy at a school you should be able to leave when your letter expires and the school's commitment to you is over for that year.

So then would coaches always be re-recruiting their players? That would probably be an improvement from the players' perspective. But coaches would be like herd bulls, constantly trying to fend off all the other coaches trying to poach their best players. Talk about stressful.

up7587 wrote:

PurpleGeezer wrote:You are attacking the issue from the wrong end. The letter of intent is one year, but the commitment is for the following year as well - but not for the school. They can stop your scholarship with no penalty.

I think that if you aren't happy at a school you should be able to leave when your letter expires and the school's commitment to you is over for that year.

So then would coaches always be re-recruiting their players? That would probably be an improvement from the players' perspective. But coaches would be like herd bulls, constantly trying to fend off all the other coaches trying to poach their best players. Talk about stressful.

Well, coaches are always talking about commitment. They should put their money where their mouths are.

For one thing, the NCAA now permits four year letters of intent. That would lock in school and player for all of the kids eligibility.

But frankly, I think most coaches would prefer the stress of making sure their players were happy to the stress that they would have actually keeping the promises For four years they make to players when they recruit them.


And some coaches recruit one and done now. Connecticut graduated about a dozen players in the last decade.

Amateurism is tottering, particularly at the NCAA D1 level. Is the recommendation regarding transfers from one D1 institution to another likely to undermine further the status of these players? They are students, not merely basketball and football players.

If not already a part of the rules any player should be allowed to transfer without sitting out a year if a coach leaves. Under no circumstances would I allow a school to fail to release a player from their commitment to the university, which I occassionally hear happens. I would also like to authorize transfers without sitting out if the graduation rate at a university is below a stated norm, limit transfers to schools with below average graduation rates, and finally consider no sitting out if the transfer is from a large institution to an undersized one, even if both are D1.

But I think conditioning transfers on sitting out on the whole promotes competitiveness across the board and protects smaller schools from raids.

Part of the problem I see is one-and-done. Nobody on the planet thinks those players will get an education.

Yet basketball programs are built around them to the detriment of real student-athletes.

I don't believe I am "attacking the issue from the wrong end." The system should put coaches and players on an even playing field.

1. A scholarship offer should be for 4 years, contingent upon academic and behavior performance. This is a joint commitment by the university and player to enter into a 4-year relationship.
2. A coach's contract is a joint commitment by the university and the coach to enter into a relationship for the duration of the contract.
3. The player or the coach can break the contract with the university, but if they choose to do so they must sit out one season before entering into a contract with another university.

This provides some degree of flexibility for both players and coaches, but also creates a disincentive for wonton transferring (by both players and coaches).

We should be concerned with both players and coaches being poached from smaller schools. We should also be concerned with holding coaches (who are paid hundreds-of-thousands per year) to AT LEAST the same level accountability as we hold student-athletes.

One-and-dones are certainly an issue, unless you believe that at this moment Andrew Wiggins is poring over academic calendars from UK and FSU trying to decide which program fits him the best.

Is the solution a move to an MLB-style system?

A player commits to a school and gets drafted by an NBA team out of HS, then has the option of either signing with that team or going to school...once they step foot in class, they're on campus for three seasons at which point they become draft-eligible again.

In fact I think I saw @CoachReveno tweet something just like that a month or two ago.

Well, coaches when they leave frequently have a buyout clause. So they are paying money to the school they leave. So is sitting out a year the "buyout clause?"

I not saying that things are great now, or how wrong they are. I have not thought about it enough to state a defendable public opinion.

DeanMurdoch wrote:One-and-dones are certainly an issue, unless you believe that at this moment Andrew Wiggins is poring over academic calendars from UK and FSU trying to decide which program fits him the best.

Is the solution a move to an MLB-style system?

A player commits to a school and gets drafted by an NBA team out of HS, then has the option of either signing with that team or going to school...once they step foot in class, they're on campus for three seasons at which point they become draft-eligible again.

In fact I think I saw @CoachReveno tweet something just like that a month or two ago.

As I read the NCAA rules now, a basketball player ( or any athlete before enrollment) could be treated the same way, according to current NCAA rules. The problem is getting the NBA and the players association to agree to it and getting past restraint of trade laws.

Baseball has an exception to antitrust. Basketball doesn't.

MaizeBluePurple wrote:Well, coaches when they leave frequently have a buyout clause. So they are paying money to the school they leave. So is sitting out a year the "buyout clause?"

I not saying that things are great now, or how wrong they are. I have not thought about it enough to state a defendable public opinion.

Well, yeah, that could be the buyout clause, but it would still make it hard for a coach to leave mid-contact.

Nobody hires two years in advance.

PurpleGeezer wrote:

MaizeBluePurple wrote:Well, coaches when they leave frequently have a buyout clause. So they are paying money to the school they leave. So is sitting out a year the "buyout clause?"

I not saying that things are great now, or how wrong they are. I have not thought about it enough to state a defendable public opinion.

Well, yeah, that could be the buyout clause, but it would still make it hard for a coach to leave mid-contact.

Nobody hires two years in advance.

Sorry, I was vague. I meant is the student sitting out a year their "buyout clause?" (or their equivalent)

MaizeBluePurple wrote:

PurpleGeezer wrote:

MaizeBluePurple wrote:Well, coaches when they leave frequently have a buyout clause. So they are paying money to the school they leave. So is sitting out a year the "buyout clause?"

I not saying that things are great now, or how wrong they are. I have not thought about it enough to state a defendable public opinion.

Well, yeah, that could be the buyout clause, but it would still make it hard for a coach to leave mid-contact.

Nobody hires two years in advance.

Sorry, I was vague. I meant is the student sitting out a year their "buyout clause?" (or their equivalent)

Well, it's not equivalent with a student. If you have a letter of intent for one year, you get "paid" ( scholarship) for that year, but you still have to sit out the next year if you decide to transfer, during which the school that is making you sit out doesn't "pay" a scholarship.

So right now they "own" you for two years for one year's "pay". You don't count towards their scholarship count, either. You count towards the new school who can't play you.