BIG BILL FAN Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Take it to the bank bet the farm on it, first choice, or if someone like Kelvin the SLU Killer Sampson shows up late to the party, will he reconsider his options? I would say no, he really wants to play for SLU. He was extremely disappointed when Brad didn't offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king88 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 SLU is definitely his first choice. No, SLU is not his first choice. Let's not start with the rumors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG BILL FAN Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 No, SLU is not his first choice. Let's not start with the rumors. King, what is your issue? If you have knowledge about Harrellson, then post it. Otherwise, you have no right to contradict others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 No, SLU is not his first choice. Let's not start with the rumors. and we would believe you have a clue why ? BTW You are right we do need players like Dwight Howard ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 i disagree. of course it would be great for the school that would ultimately get josh. but western gets walked on again. they never get better if the late bloomer that they discovered and offered decides he is worthy of bigger and better. second, i think that western illinois can use that scholarship. they currently have more than 13 players on their roster. so someone(s) might be a walkon but they definitely are at a full roster right now. i think only the students that are truly getting money count against that 13 limit. but i admit i dont know that for sure. i just find it hard to believe that pepperdine left a roster spot for 4 years when they refused to release josh fisher from his loi until romar left. if my memory serves me correctly, fisher was granted that 5th year only after pepperdine released josh after romar resigned. Roy. Your stance appears to based upon principle but not anymore. Personally, while I agree with you and believe a signature means something. At the same time, you act like Western Illinois should not release Josh because if they do, the floodgate will open and others will want out as well. Sounds like a Soviet Union tactic: keep your players and your team full by force. In reality, though, Western IL is no longer standing on principle (8 months have passed and the kid is now playing JUCO ball) but instead is either totally inept (cannot make a decision) or most likely is seeking revenge (intentionally not making a decision). It is one thing to not give a quick release which could have enabled Josh to go to another school (possibly SLU) this year but yet another to haunt and ruin a kid's life for 1 to 2 years. Principle v. revenge. I don't like coaches who sign new long-term contracts only to leave a short while later because the right phone call came in. Are we going to punish everyone? Maybe we are - look at Biancardi losing his HC job at Wright State. Most of the time, though, the coach either takes time off (and get paid) or is coaching in the NBA (and gets paid) while the school and innocent players suffer. As is typical, no punishment followed your friend, Kelvin Sampson, to Indiana. Already, Josh has received more punishment than Bobby Huggins did in leaving K-State after only 1 year, or Kelvin Sampson, etc. Clearly Josh got bad advice and/or made a very bad decision. He should have listened to Brad and not decided until the Spring. Possibly we would have landed him and/or possibly someone else may have come in and impressed him also. In any event, he would be now playing at a good Div 1 program. WIU, release the kid and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 As usual ... I didn't read the whole thing at the NCAA. One of my biggest problems ... If you sign a National Letter of Intent, you are committed to attend that institution for your initial year of collegiate enrollment. If you do not attend the signing institution or attend that institution for less than one academic year, and you enroll in another college that participates in the National Letter of Intent program there may be eligibility ramifications. The basic penalty may preclude you from representing the second college until you have completed two academic years in residence at the latter institution and you may lose two seasons of competition in all sports. Again, interpretation is the key. So Josh did not go where he signed BUT he did not go to another college that participates in the NLI program (dont' believe this includes JUCOs). Again, I'd take that as one and done at SWIC. That's what I thought, too, until I read the NLI site last night. General 1 When I sign a National Letter of Intent what do I agree to do? When you sign the National Letter of Intent you agree to attend for one academic year the institution listed on the Letter in exchange for that institution awarding athletics financial aid for one academic year. 3 How do I fulfill the National Letter of Intent? You fulfill the National Letter of Intent in one of two ways: (1) By attending the institution with which you signed for at least one academic year as a full-time student; or, (2) By graduating from a junior college if you signed a National Letter of Intent while in high school or during your first year at the junior college. Releases and transferring 1 What happens if I change my mind about attending the institution with which I signed, and I want to attend another National Letter of Intent institution instead? If you do not attend the institution with which you signed, or if you do not fulfill the terms of the National Letter of Intent, the basic penalty is that you lose one year of eligibility in all sports and must serve one year in residence at your next National Letter of Intent institution. http://www.national-letter.org/faq/ In order to fulfill his end of the letter of intent he signed with Western Illinois, he must graduate from junior college. If he were to attend SLU (or any other school participating the the NLI program) next year -- prior to graduating from SWIC -- he would have to sit out a year and lose a year of eligibility. I take that to mean that he would next play in the 2009-10 season and be a junior, having lost his sophomore season, and he would probably also lost his ability to redshirt, if he were to get hurt. The only way Harrellson could play for SLU next year is for him to receive a release from W. Ill. -- a release they are not required to give him. Nor does it cost them a scholarship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 That's what I thought, too, until I read the NLI site last night. http://www.national-letter.org/faq/ In order to fulfill his end of the letter of intent he signed with Western Illinois, he must graduate from junior college. If he were to attend SLU (or any other school participating the the NLI program) next year -- prior to graduating from SWIC -- he would have to sit out a year and lose a year of eligibility. I take that to mean that he would next play in the 2009-10 season and be a junior, having lost his sophomore season, and he would probably also lost his ability to redshirt, if he were to get hurt. The only way Harrellson could play for SLU next year is for him to receive a release from W. Ill. -- a release they are not required to give him. Nor does it cost them a scholarship. So once he signs is he guaranteed a year at the school or can the school cancel before the season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 So once he signs is he guaranteed a year at the school or can the school cancel before the season?My reading of the NLI text suggests that the school is obligated to provide financial aid to him for a year. If the school doesn't admit the recruit, it nullifies the Letter of Intent. I suppose he could be taken off the team, but the school has to honor his scholarship for a year. http://www.national-letter.org/guidelines/nli_text.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillikenReport Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Clearly Josh got bad advice and/or made a very bad decision. He should have listened to Brad and not decided until the Spring. This was speculated by someone on this board, but doesn't have any truth to the best of my knowledge. From what I was told, from a very reliable and trusted source, is that Soderberg was not interested in Harrellson. - Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 This was speculated by someone on this board, but doesn't have any truth to the best of my knowledge. From what I was told, from a very reliable and trusted source, is that Soderberg was not interested in Harrellson. - Nate Speculation? You're kidding. What happens is someone says this may have happened and then it gets talked about as if it did, and next thing you know it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 From what I was told, from a very reliable and trusted source, is that Soderberg was not interested in Harrellson. - Nate That wouldn't surprise me one bit. If Brad were still here, we probably wouldn't have Eckerle either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 then soderberg lied to us at the billiken club meeting that he told us he asked harrelson to wait until alexander's fall decision and then harrelson signed with western instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillikenReport Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Speculation? You're kidding. What happens is someone says this may have happened and then it gets talked about as if it did, and next thing you know it did. I believe it was presented as an argument to defend Soderberg's recruiting several months ago. About the same time I was getting ripped by Roy for suggesting Soderberg should have recruited players like Josh Harrellson and Paul Eckerle. How's that working out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I believe it was presented as an argument to defend Soderberg's recruiting several months ago. About the same time I was getting ripped by Roy for suggesting Soderberg should have recruited players like Josh Harrellson and Paul Eckerle. How's that working out? Er.........Nate...........how were we to know??? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 actually soderberg didnt name alexander, however i tried to pin down the player he was talking about by asking if it was a juco player and soderberg just laughed. but since harrelson had already signed his loi he would talk about harrelson and he was asked if he offered a scholarship to josh. he said that he was very interested in josh but had other players that he was offering scholarships to first and that he had asked josh to wait. instead josh signed with western illinois and he wished him luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 actually soderberg didnt name alexander, however i tried to pin down the player he was talking about by asking if it was a juco player and soderberg just laughed. but since harrelson had already signed his loi he would talk about harrelson and he was asked if he offered a scholarship to josh. he said that he was very interested in josh but had other players that he was offering scholarships to first and that he had asked josh to wait. instead josh signed with western illinois and he wished him luck. That kinda sounds like when you interview for a job and they tell you they will call you in a couple days but they want you to know they prefer someone else. You can't afford to wait around because you got a family to feed ( College tuition) so you take a job that is offered to you the next day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 i agree it isnt an offer but it was soderberg recognizing he had interest unlike what nate is saying. i can recall soderberg being a lot more forthright about no interest in the past. i do agree he had no interest in eckerle at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillikenReport Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 i agree it isnt an offer but it was soderberg recognizing he had interest unlike what nate is saying. i can recall soderberg being a lot more forthright about no interest in the past. i do agree he had no interest in eckerle at all. If BS had no interest in Eckerle, why was he trying to get Eckerle to walk on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 If BS had no interest in Eckerle, why was he trying to get Eckerle to walk on? That was a very messed up situation...........and by messed up I mean Brad was inept. Paul made it easy for him and BS turned the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I thought since roy was lecturing cheesman about contradictions in another, I would point this one out... A couple of days ago, Roy delivered this bit of advice, "i've moved on. the day soderberg was fired was a new day. does absolutely no good living in the past. you might want to try it." Then yesterday, he just can't help himself. Here he is defending Sodie again. Doesn't look like he's "moved on" just yet. actually soderberg didnt name alexander, however i tried to pin down the player he was talking about by asking if it was a juco player and soderberg just laughed. but since harrelson had already signed his loi he would talk about harrelson and he was asked if he offered a scholarship to josh. he said that he was very interested in josh but had other players that he was offering scholarships to first and that he had asked josh to wait. instead josh signed with western illinois and he wished him luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 that isnt defense. that is correcting a misstatement. ace, i was surprised you didnt comment on my research on pitino and calipari's first year's at louisville and memphis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 You just don't seem to be able to turn the page on the Sodie era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 just like i did when romar left when i believe someone misstates something from the previous era, i will point it out. but other than that, i am far from defending or saying anthing that would infer i wish soderberg was still here. nothing could be further from the truth on that. we now have an elite coach that will take us further than we have been since ed maccauley was our star. i may not like the path we'll take to get there, but i look forward to the day in the sun that i know is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillikenReport Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Roy, Again, you can believe what you want on this one. My sources on this are very, very good. Your source was someone who would have looked bad if he didn't say what you're saying he said. Maybe he needed to say that because of similar players he'd overlooked (like Ahearn). It doesn't matter. It is over with. When Harrellson is released from his loi, you will see a lot of schools go after him. Including Saint Louis U. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 just like i did when romar left when i believe someone misstates something from the previous era, i will point it out. but other than that, i am far from defending or saying anthing that would infer i wish soderberg was still here. nothing could be further from the truth on that. we now have an elite coach that will take us further than we have been since ed maccauley was our star. i may not like the path we'll take to get there, but i look forward to the day in the sun that i know is coming. Well on what you said in paragraph 2, we can certainly agree on. But how do you know what Nate is saying is a "misstatement"? He usually seems to a credible poster with good sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.