What would you do?

[slufanskip]

My discussion with Roy in another thread brings up what might be a fun discussion. Let's say you are a player at a top 100 scholastic University and you can be on their basketball team but rarely if ever play or you could go to a school ranked 100 positions lower and start .... would you opt to stay at the higher rated school scholastically or would you opt to trade down and play?

For me the answer is a no brainer ... I'd trade down and play.

[jp18]

I would trade down and play as well as long as it isn't a terrible academic school. My thinking is you have your whole life to work but you only have so long to play sports. I know - your school will determine your job in a lot of instances - but again, unless it is a school not widely regarded, you can still do just fine with a degree.

[SShoe]

It depends. Am I dating the hot cheerleader at the current school?

[slufanskip]

It depends. Am I dating the hot cheerleader at the current school?

No ... you are a bench jockey. You very well may be at the new school though as you will be a starter. Now we're talking about the things that are really important during your time at college. (spoken by a used car guy with no degree)

[Box and Won]

I'd go to the better school and ride the bench.

[BIG BILL FAN]

I would play, you have the rest of year life to root for a team. Play while you have the opportunity.

[SShoe]

Skip, I think you could ask 100 people this question and 50 would say one thing and 50 would say the exact opposite. It really depends on the kid.

What I think folks forget is the aspirations many 18-year old college basketball players have. Speaking from personal experience, there is often a disconnect with many young athletes on their chances of playing professional ball. There are plenty of guys that I played ball with ten years ago that still harbor dreams of the NBA, MLB, or MLS, despite the fact that they were mediocre high-school players, let alone college players. So I think it depends on the kids and his dream. Some may realize early on that they have no chance of playing pro and choose the education. Others might not and think that changing schools could give them an opportunity to showcase their skills.

[slufanskip]

Skip, I think you could ask 100 people this question and 50 would say one thing and 50 would say the exact opposite. It really depends on the kid.

What I think folks forget is the aspirations many 18-year old college basketball players have. Speaking from personal experience, there is often a disconnect with many young athletes on their chances of playing professional ball. There are plenty of guys that I played ball with ten years ago that still harbor dreams of the NBA, MLB, or MLS, despite the fact that they were mediocre high-school players, let alone college players. So I think it depends on the kids and his dream. Some may realize early on that they have no chance of playing pro and choose the education. Others might not and think that changing schools could give them an opportunity to showcase their skills.

I agree, I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other ... just curious as to each individual's opinion ... let's assume you realize you have no chance to play pro ball.

I'd still trade down and play. I'm only young with that opportunity once. There is plenty of time to work. How many people percentage wise get to be D1 athlete's ... D1 athletes at a major sport in their school. I'm also not convinced the school makes that much of a difference in many of the jobs. I'm sure it does in some though so I'm not knocking the better education ... I'd just chose to play. In fact if you told me after I graduated that I could have a job starting at 100K when I was done with school at the better job or I'd have the choice of a 50k job or playing low professional ball when I graduated from the lower school and make 20K a year ... I'd play and make the 20K.

Instead of the hot women waithing in the lobby of the Ritz for me .... I'd have $5.00 crack whores waiting for me in the alley behind the Shabby Inn.

[Box and Won]

I agree, I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other ... just curious as to each individual's opinion ... let's assume you realize you have no chance to play pro ball.

I'd still trade down and play. I'm only young with that opportunity once. There is plenty of time to work. How many people percentage wise get to be D1 athlete's ... D1 athletes at a major sport in their school. I'm also not convinced the school makes that much of a difference in many of the jobs. I'm sure it does in some though so I'm not knocking the better education ... I'd just chose to play. In fact if you told me after I graduated that I could have a job starting at 100K when I was done with school at the better job or I'd have the choice of a 50k job or playing low professional ball when I graduated from the lower school and make 20K a year ... I'd play and make the 20K.

Instead of the hot women waithing in the lobby of the Ritz for me .... I'd have $5.00 crack whores waiting for me in the alley behind the Shabby Inn.

In my mind, it really depends on what schools we're talking about. I will say that in my experience, education opens a lot of doors. SLU graduates, for instance, get access to opportunities that aren't available to graduates of other schools, and graduates of schools that are higher-ranked than SLU have access to opportunities that SLU grads don't. Of course, there's no substitute for good old-fashioned hard work and tenacity, but the school really does help.

I'd rather be a non-athletic Princeton grad than a former starter on, say UMKC's basketball team.

[billiken_roy]

skip, keep in mind you can bet when any of our roster was recruited, they were sold hard on how great of a school slu is academically and what opportunities that will bring after they graduate.

now, a coach comes and says, "you really arent good enough to play basketball here. maybe you ought to look for a different school"

you dont think the original sales pitch is going to come to mind at that point? especially since your coach just told you you arent a good enough basketball player which more or less confirms you need the good education to succeed after college even more.

[Billiken Rich]

The bigger question might be: Are you the kind of guy who could say to Rick--Screw you coach! I'm going to work my butt off till you HAVE TO play me!

I'd take the shot at eternal glory at UMKC over getting slobbered on by Fr Eugene at the end of the bench at SLU......of course, like Skip, I didn't attend SLU......

[NashvilleBilliken]

My discussion with Roy in another thread brings up what might be a fun discussion. Let's say you are a player at a top 100 scholastic University and you can be on their basketball team but rarely if ever play or you could go to a school ranked 100 positions lower and start .... would you opt to stay at the higher rated school scholastically or would you opt to trade down and play?

For me the answer is a no brainer ... I'd trade down and play.

Before I answer the question, I just want to point out that I don't think this question can be applied to DM's situation. There is nothing that says he has to go to a lesser acedemic school. Hell, he could go to Yale and become a starter. That would be a huge win for DM. I think the better question would be, would you rather ride the bench at the school you really want to attend, or transfer to another school because you have a better opportunity to play.

But anyway...

I would probably trade down and play. But, that's coming from a 27 y.o. who never played collegiate sports. However, I also feel very strongly that the school one attends is not a measure of how you will do in your career (save the top 10 or so). IMO, it's all up to the individual. Speaking for myself, I pretty much completely blew off my school work. Fortunately for me, I was able to graduate anyway. I know I didn't take advantage of any opportunities offered by my SLU education, but I was able to become professionally successful regardless. IMO, it is all up to the induvidual. A diploma gives you the tools to succeed; regardless of the institution on it.

[Parks 68]

What if the choices were between a school/team that had a chance to go to the big dance and one where you could play right away?

Now there is a choice to ponder. What if your choices two years ago were SLU or U of I?

You could come to SLU and play ball immediately, or be on a team that potentially could be wearing that NCAA Champ. ring? If you don't like U of I< insert your favorite school, let's say the current Memphis team or even UNC!

[kshoe]

My discussion with Roy in another thread brings up what might be a fun discussion. Let's say you are a player at a top 100 scholastic University and you can be on their basketball team but rarely if ever play or you could go to a school ranked 100 positions lower and start .... would you opt to stay at the higher rated school scholastically or would you opt to trade down and play?

For me the answer is a no brainer ... I'd trade down and play.

The funny thing to me is that some of the same people that say a kid should stay and ride the bench are the ones that felt the need to deride a certain local juco player that chose to attend IU, currently gets about 20 minutes per game but probably doesn't play as much as he would here. The two schools are about equal when it comes to academics, yet according to some, this kid made a huge mistake.

[Guest BillikenReport]

What if the choices were between a school/team that had a chance to go to the big dance and one where you could play right away?

There was a kid in St. Louis a couple years ago who had to make a choice like this.

MICDS guard Mustafa Abdul-Hamid's final two choices were Harvard and UCLA (as a walk-on).

So you have one of the top academic schools in the country, where he could have played much more, and then you have one of the top basketball programs in the country, where he could sit on the bench and win a national championship.

What would you guys choose?

Mustafa chose UCLA:

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl...e.html#TEAM.IND

- Nate

[davidnark]

For me, it is an easy question. I would find the best academic school in the country that would give me a scholarship. I would start with great academic schools with great basketball programs (e.g., Duke, Stanford, Cal, Michigan, Georgetown, etc.) and then I would work my way down to great academic schools that were so-so basketball programs (e.g., Northwestern, the Ivy leagues (without an athletic scholarship) Rice, etc.). Out of the 3,500 kids playing D1 at any given time, probably only about 1% make a permanent living playing ball; therefore, I would bank on the degree.

I wouldn't allow my kid to go a so-so college like Fontbonne (only 3rd tier in regional rankings) or McKendree (only ranked in regional "Baccalaureate" rankings) just to play ball. There are dozens of prestigious D3 schools that would be better options if he or she wanted to keep playing. Picking SLU or Marquette v. a Northwestern or Rice would be a more difficult choice.

[davidnark]

There was a kid in St. Louis a couple years ago who had to make a choice like this.

MICDS guard Mustafa Abdul-Hamid's final two choices were Harvard and UCLA (as a walk-on).

So you have one of the top academic schools in the country, where he could have played much more, and then you have one of the top basketball programs in the country, where he could sit on the bench and win a national championship.

What would you guys choose?

Mustafa chose UCLA:

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl...e.html#TEAM.IND

- Nate

UCLA is the 25th ranked academic university in the country. While it isn't Harvard, he didn't exactly settle for a bad school.

[Guest BillikenReport]

UCLA is the 25th ranked academic university in the country. While it isn't Harvard, he didn't exactly settle for a bad school.

I understand that, but the difference is playing quite a bit vs. playing very little.

[Box and Won]

For me, it is an easy question. I would find the best academic school in the country that would give me a scholarship. I would start with great academic schools with great basketball programs (e.g., Duke, Stanford, Cal, Michigan, Georgetown, etc.) and then I would work my way down to great academic schools that were so-so basketball programs (e.g., Northwestern, the Ivy leagues (without an athletic scholarship) Rice, etc.). Out of the 3,500 kids playing D1 at any given time, probably only about 1% make a permanent living playing ball; therefore, I would bank on the degree.

I wouldn't allow my kid to go a so-so college like Fontbonne (only 3rd tier in regional rankings) or McKendree (only ranked in regional "Baccalaureate" rankings) just to play ball. There are dozens of prestigious D3 schools that would be better options if he or she wanted to keep playing. Picking SLU or Marquette v. a Northwestern or Rice would be a more difficult choice.

That's pretty much how I feel.

[GOSLU68]

top 100 scholastic athletes-with the exception of the Larry Hughes' types-because we are assuming they are hardly playing D1 level

would obviously concentrate on their studies and be in awe of their team leaders; they would be happy to be scout teamers. Gym rats

are happy to walk on to be able to say I was on the same team as Michael Jordan or "Mike" as TLIII calls him.

[billiken_roy]

The funny thing to me is that some of the same people that say a kid should stay and ride the bench are the ones that felt the need to deride a certain local juco player that chose to attend IU, currently gets about 20 minutes per game but probably doesn't play as much as he would here. The two schools are about equal when it comes to academics, yet according to some, this kid made a huge mistake.

the atmosphere of a 30,000 student campus is not "about equal" to the atmosphere at slu. what do you think the teacher to student ratio is? not even close to comparing apples to apples imo.

btw, stemler did not make his decision based on academics.

[Pistol]

the atmosphere of a 30,000 student campus is not "about equal" to the atmosphere at slu. what do you think the teacher to student ratio is? not even close to comparing apples to apples imo.

btw, stemler did not make his decision based on academics.

I thought his argument was on academics, not campus atmosphere. The schools are drastically different in campus atmosphere, but if you go by the (flawed but authoritative) US News rankings, IU is 75 and SLU is 82- pretty close.

Stemler is playing on a 13th-ranked team and one of the most storied programs in college basketball history. He is logging big minutes and is certainly considered a contributor. I don't think he's second-guessing his decision, no matter how much we attribute the decision to Sampson's recruiting tactics at the 11th hour.

[billiken_roy]

I thought his argument was on academics, not campus atmosphere. The schools are drastically different in campus atmosphere, but if you go by the (flawed but authoritative) US News rankings, IU is 75 and SLU is 82- pretty close.

Stemler is playing on a 13th-ranked team and one of the most storied programs in college basketball history. He is logging big minutes and is certainly considered a contributor. I don't think he's second-guessing his decision, no matter how much we attribute the decision to Sampson's recruiting tactics at the 11th hour.

you dont think having a 12:1 teacher to student ratio compared to about 200:1 is an academic issue?

stemler would have been a star in his home town at slu, he will be forgotten by april in bloomington. good luck finding a job lance.

[Pistol]

you dont think having a 12:1 teacher to student ratio compared to about 200:1 is an academic issue?

stemler would have been a star in his home town at slu, he will be forgotten by april in bloomington. good luck finding a job lance.

It's all in what the student wants. Some kids like lecture halls and the anonymity they offer. Some prefer smaller, more intimate classroom settings. While I prefer the latter and liked that about SLU (I had one lecture hall class in 4 years), I don't fault anyone for their personal preference.

Do you think Lance is that concerned about his legacy? Do you think he would have been a bigger hometown star than Tommie or Kevin, both of whom are 4-year players while he's a 2-year guy? How much legacy can a 2-year player have? He wouldn't have been a bigger factor than Love or Jeffers, both of which are about the best you can hope for out of juco transfers. Do you think IU grads have that much trouble finding jobs? Keep in mind the school is higher ranked than SLU. I lived in Chicago for two years, and everyone hires IU grads there- employers absolutely love the Kelley School of Business grads.

I would be willing to bet that he can look around at the national championship banners, the pervasive basketball culture in Bloomington (basketball players are rockstars there), the packed arena, the TV exposure, the 20 wins they already have, the NCAA Tournament (they're a lock) and the chance to go deep this year, the future NBA players on the roster, the gorgeous coeds (the quality and quantity at IU is better than SLU), and I don't think he's worried about his legacy or the student-teacher ratio.

[kshoe]

you dont think having a 12:1 teacher to student ratio compared to about 200:1 is an academic issue?

stemler would have been a star in his home town at slu, he will be forgotten by april in bloomington. good luck finding a job lance.

Roy, you have such a double standard. According to you, Stemmler should have stayed because he would be a star here yet nobody should ever transfer to a lower-tier school unless they get better academics.

The academics of IU and SLU are about equal as evidenced by the U.S. News ranking, which of course do factor in the student to teacher ratio, among other things.

Stop focusing on some small difference between SLU and IU and tell me why you continue to berate a kid that chose fewer minutes at a basketball powerhouse with similar academics, but don't think anybody else should transfer for more playing time unless they get better academics?