OT: Score one for the athlete

[moytoy12]

Well, looks like that former-IU kid that threw a hissy fit teamed up with K. Sampson's protege and orchestrated one way to get a release from a LOI.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3388282

[SS601]

Well, looks like that former-IU kid that threw a hissy fit teamed up with K. Sampson's protege and orchestrated one way to get a release from a LOI.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3388282

Good move for the kid. Sampson's protege will do a great job in Detroit.

[slufanskip]

Well, looks like that former-IU kid that threw a hissy fit teamed up with K. Sampson's protege and orchestrated one way to get a release from a LOI.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3388282

Didn't he play last year? Does the kid need a release from the school to transfer? He's sitting a year so I'm wandering why he needed a release. If it is required by the NCAA then the idea that a school can pull a kid's schollarship with no reason and no penalty ... is even more ludicrous.

So lets review

School changes it's mind and doesn't want the kid anymore ... they can just say goodbye. They don't need a release or anyones permission and they aren't penalized in any way at all.

The kid changes his mind ... he must get a release from the school and then sit out a year.

So are schollarships renewable on a yearly basis?

I can't see how everybody doesn't see the ridiculousness of this.

[Clock_Tower]

Didn't he play last year? Does the kid need a release from the school to transfer? He's sitting a year so I'm wandering why he needed a release. If it is required by the NCAA then the idea that a school can pull a kid's schollarship with no reason and no penalty ... is even more ludicrous.

So lets review

School changes it's mind and doesn't want the kid anymore ... they can just say goodbye. They don't need a release or anyones permission and they aren't penalized in any way at all.

The kid changes his mind ... he must get a release from the school and then sit out a year.

So are schollarships renewable on a yearly basis?

I can't see how everybody doesn't see the ridiculousness of this.

Not ridiculous at all. If you have ever been on the employer end of employment issues, you would easily see what a disgruntled employee can do to your office, department, group, etc. Would you propose that a school not be able to release someone. Also, if a school needed permission, whose permission would you want them to obtain? Couldn't be the player. Would it not be ridiculous to have an employer seek the permission of the bad employee for permission to fire them. If not the player/employee, should we go back to the kid's high school/AAU coach? Should we have the NCAA step in an be the "neutral" party?

If schools could not replace the player leaving for 1 year, then what do you do when the kids leaves (on his own) for more playing time, he did't like the school/coach/team mates? Who will now decide whose fault the transfer was - the kid's or the school's? Would you want the NCAA to establish tribunals to determine these issues each spring? If a kid leaves on his own, how fair is it to the remaining kids that you now punish by making them play with less kids on their team?

What you're really advocating is not that schools be stuck with players for 1 year (or lose their ability to resign) but that kids not have to sit out for that year. Again, unless you want kids to be able to reselect their colleges each year, it would be a horrible idea for college basketball, for the fans and not be good for the kids as they come and go and they please. In our case, many kids such as TL and KL would see that we are completely rebuilding with freshmen, that this will be their last year in college and they would leave SLU for the highest bidder - most likely the top BCS schools. Also, all of the "diamonds in the rough" that the small schools would take a chance on and develop would then leave for the top BCS schools. Then, when would the carousel stop? TL and KL decide to play their final year at IU and then BT and KM say they now want out of their commitment because they chose SLU to play with TL and KL. Believe if you think about it a little, you will find that your idea is the ridiculous one.

Not trying to name call or get personal, but where am I wrong?

[slufanskip]

Not ridiculous at all. If you have ever been on the employer end of employment issues, you would easily see what a disgruntled employee can do to your office, department, group, etc. Would you propose that a school not be able to release someone. Also, if a school needed permission, whose permission would you want them to obtain? Couldn't be the player. Would it not be ridiculous to have an employer seek the permission of the bad employee for permission to fire them. If not the player/employee, should we go back to the kid's high school/AAU coach? Should we have the NCAA step in an be the "neutral" party?

If schools could not replace the player leaving for 1 year, then what do you do when the kids leaves (on his own) for more playing time, he did't like the school/coach/team mates? Who will now decide whose fault the transfer was - the kid's or the school's? Would you want the NCAA to establish tribunals to determine these issues each spring? If a kid leaves on his own, how fair is it to the remaining kids that you now punish by making them play with less kids on their team?

What you're really advocating is not that schools be stuck with players for 1 year (or lose their ability to resign) but that kids not have to sit out for that year. Again, unless you want kids to be able to reselect their colleges each year, it would be a horrible idea for college basketball, for the fans and not be good for the kids as they come and go and they please. In our case, many kids such as TL and KL would see that we are completely rebuilding with freshmen, that this will be their last year in college and they would leave SLU for the highest bidder - most likely the top BCS schools. Also, all of the "diamonds in the rough" that the small schools would take a chance on and develop would then leave for the top BCS schools. Then, when would the carousel stop? TL and KL decide to play their final year at IU and then BT and KM say they now want out of their commitment because they chose SLU to play with TL and KL. Believe if you think about it a little, you will find that your idea is the ridiculous one.

Not trying to name call or get personal, but where am I wrong?

Where are you wrong? Your whole concept is wrong.

Your saying kids shouldn't be allowed to end the relationship or (scholarship) with no penalty if they find the school isn't exactly the fit they thought it would be, but the school should be allowed to end the relationship (scholarship) with no penalty if they decide it's not the fit they thought it would be.

What I'm wanting is so simple ... the same rules for both.

In our case it may be even worse ... the player could have been practically booted off the team, but still must sit a year before playing somewhere else.

Your last argument is silly, because right now the school has the right to do just the thing you're saying the kid shouldn't have the right to do.

And yes I've spent almost my entire adult life on the employer hiring end things.

Sorry, but you won't convince me to go to the wrong side of this discussion.

[moytoy12]

And yes I've spent almost my entire adult life on the employer hiring end things.

Sorry, but you won't convince me to go to the wrong side of this discussion.

I guess if you're unemployed there is no way to take part in this discussion.

[Clock_Tower]

Where are you wrong? Your whole concept is wrong.

Your saying kids shouldn't be allowed to end the relationship or (scholarship) with no penalty if they find the school isn't exactly the fit they thought it would be, but the school should be allowed to end the relationship (scholarship) with no penalty if they decide it's not the fit they thought it would be.

What I'm wanting is so simple ... the same rules for both.

In our case it may be even worse ... the player could have been practically booted off the team, but still must sit a year before playing somewhere else.

Your last argument is silly, because right now the school has the right to do just the thing you're saying the kid shouldn't have the right to do.

And yes I've spent almost my entire adult life on the employer hiring end things.

Sorry, but you won't convince me to go to the wrong side of this discussion.

Talk specifically then. Do you not see the need/benefit to having a system (requiring kids to sit out 1 year) to prevent the chaos of "free agency" each year? Or would you be in favor of such chaos?

[slufanskip]

Talk specifically then. Do you not see the need/benefit to having a system (requiring kids to sit out 1 year) to prevent the chaos of "free agency" each year? Or would you be in favor of such chaos?

I don't know how much more specific I can get. For the 9,565th time. I don't really care if there is no penalty or a 1 year penalty as long as it's the same for both. It's not in any way shape or form fair to allow the school to pull a kids scholarship and then the kid gets punished. If the scholarships are renewable every year for the school they should be also for the kid.

You say if a kid got better he could just leave ... but isn't that what just happened at SLU except the school got better (or wants to) and now the kid that was good enough isn't anymore so the school got to just leave him.

It's not as hard as you make it out to be ... it's simple if the school drops a kid they get penalized a year as does the kid regardless of whose decision it is. Maybe the schools could do a better job of recruiting and selecting the right kids and the kids should be more careful and select a school they really want to go to ... oh no, let's not do that, it would be an improvement.

While were at it lets require coaches and schools to quit signing long term contracts that are a joke and only in place so the coach can tell the kid ... hell yea I'll be here they just extended my contract 11 years and then be able to leave next week. Allowing him to change his mind and not get penalized. The absolute fact of the matter is the only one who gets penalized for changing his mind is the kid ... and he gets penalized even if the school changes their mind.

Your right ... I give it's fair.

[Slumn1]

I don't know how much more specific I can get. For the 9,565th time. I don't really care if there is no penalty or a 1 year penalty as long as it's the same for both. It's not in any way shape or form fair to allow the school to pull a kids scholarship and then the kid gets punished. If the scholarships are renewable every year for the school they should be also for the kid.

You say if a kid got better he could just leave ... but isn't that what just happened at SLU except the school got better (or wants to) and now the kid that was good enough isn't anymore so the school got to just leave him.

It's not as hard as you make it out to be ... it's simple if the school drops a kid they get penalized a year as does the kid regardless of whose decision it is. Maybe the schools could do a better job of recruiting and selecting the right kids and the kids should be more careful and select a school they really want to go to ... oh no, let's not do that, it would be an improvement.

While were at it lets require coaches and schools to quit signing long term contracts that are a joke and only in place so the coach can tell the kid ... hell yea I'll be here they just extended my contract 11 years and then be able to leave next week. Allowing him to change his mind and not get penalized. The absolute fact of the matter is the only one who gets penalized for changing his mind is the kid ... and he gets penalized even if the school changes their mind.

Your right ... I give it's fair.

The rules as they are now is that if a player transfers, they must sit a year. If they transfer and do not receive a release, they have to sit 2 years.

Why not change the rule so that they are eligible immediately with a release and must sit one year without the release. That way players won't be jumping every year but the players like the 4 from SLU could get a release and be eligible immediately.

[davidnark]

I don't know how much more specific I can get. For the 9,565th time. I don't really care if there is no penalty or a 1 year penalty as long as it's the same for both. It's not in any way shape or form fair to allow the school to pull a kids scholarship and then the kid gets punished. If the scholarships are renewable every year for the school they should be also for the kid.

Skip, I completely understand your position, but the underlying assumption is that it is somehow bad or a punishment for a kid to have to sit an extra year. For the kid whose year's of eligibilty are otherwise maxed (under the 5 years to use eligitibility rule), I agree. For most kids, however, this "punishment" means they get an additional year of room, board, and tuitition (and college experience) at no cost. At a lot of private schools that is worth close to $50,000 in actual dollars, and it is worth potentially much, much more in long-term value if it enables a good student to get a grad degree or a so-so student to evenutally get his undergrad degree. For this reason, a transfer under the current rules may be a very good thing from the academic perspective.

[Clock_Tower]

I don't know how much more specific I can get. For the 9,565th time. I don't really care if there is no penalty or a 1 year penalty as long as it's the same for both. It's not in any way shape or form fair to allow the school to pull a kids scholarship and then the kid gets punished. If the scholarships are renewable every year for the school they should be also for the kid.

You say if a kid got better he could just leave ... but isn't that what just happened at SLU except the school got better (or wants to) and now the kid that was good enough isn't anymore so the school got to just leave him.

It's not as hard as you make it out to be ... it's simple if the school drops a kid they get penalized a year as does the kid regardless of whose decision it is. Maybe the schools could do a better job of recruiting and selecting the right kids and the kids should be more careful and select a school they really want to go to ... oh no, let's not do that, it would be an improvement.

While were at it lets require coaches and schools to quit signing long term contracts that are a joke and only in place so the coach can tell the kid ... hell yea I'll be here they just extended my contract 11 years and then be able to leave next week. Allowing him to change his mind and not get penalized. The absolute fact of the matter is the only one who gets penalized for changing his mind is the kid ... and he gets penalized even if the school changes their mind.

Your right ... I give it's fair.

Skip. It is obvious you want to ***** and moan but not debate. So be it. I'm just glad you're not the on the NCAA's Board of Directors. You point to a few local kids who got a raw deal but ignore the floodgates behind your "solution." Curious, which kid on SLU's team is your son?

In any event, if a team were to lose a scholarship for a year after kids leave a program because they are homesick, find the coach/college too tough and demanding, don't make grades, decide they'd rather play elsewhere, leave for the NBA or drop out of school, you'd punish the school. I would not. Fair enough.

As to the signing of long term contracts, the schools and coaches negotiate the termination clauses at the time they sign the new contract. Most of the time, the schools are so worried about signing the coach and/or retaining the coach that they don't negotiate tougher or pro-school provisions. How much leverage did SLU have in negotiating such provisions to protect SLU when negotiating with RM? Not much. Again, a fact of life.

[slufanskip]

Skip. It is obvious you want to ***** and moan but not debate. So be it. I'm just glad you're not the on the NCAA's Board of Directors. You point to a few local kids who got a raw deal but ignore the floodgates behind your "solution." Curious, which kid on SLU's team is your son?

In any event, if a team were to lose a scholarship for a year after kids leave a program because they are homesick, find the coach/college too tough and demanding, don't make grades, decide they'd rather play elsewhere, leave for the NBA or drop out of school, you'd punish the school. I would not. Fair enough.

As to the signing of long term contracts, the schools and coaches negotiate the termination clauses at the time they sign the new contract. Most of the time, the schools are so worried about signing the coach and/or retaining the coach that they don't negotiate tougher or pro-school provisions. How much leverage did SLU have in negotiating such provisions to protect SLU when negotiating with RM? Not much. Again, a fact of life.

Debate?

What are you debating?

Floodgates? If the school also gets penalized a year ... what floodgates open? You give these overly dramatic scenarios that might happen and decide I'm not debating. I'd hate to really debate you, as soon as I didn't agree you'd whine no fair ... I've given an unproven scenario and he still doesn't agree.

I told you the solution, hold the school accountable for their choices just as you do the kid. You say that's not fair to the school if the kids get homesick the school gets punshed. I say is it fair that if the school decides the kid doesn't fit and just boots him the kid gets punished.

Why is it fair to punish the kid for the schools decision but not the school for the kids decision?

None are my kids, but if the NCAA would try to come up with a rule that they would consider fair if it were there kid, it'd be a better rule. You're convinced how it is is the best solution ... I'm not. It's not just a few kids, it's happenning all over.

If the school knew they'd lose a year if they recruted the wrong kid, the only thing that would happen is they'd be more careful. They'd adapt, they'd have to. Change is not neccessarily a bad thing.

I'm surprised you haven't used the "it's the way it's always been" argument ... it's usually a good one.

It's simple your kid goes to college A .... he's at the end of his jr year and he's already redshirted, the school fires the coach and the new coach thinks your kid doesn't fit his system. He pulls your kids scholarship (who btw is on track to grad in a year) Your kid now can't play his Sr year. Tell me ... would the rule be fair then? Your kid didn't want to leave .... Go ahead and say ... yes, you'd be ok with it.

It's simple .... make sure the kid your recruiting is a kid you want.

One last thing I'm not clear on .... are you saying the rule is fair? Or you agree it's not fair ... it's just the best solution. I'm not exactly sure where you stand.

[Clock_Tower]

Debate?

What are you debating?

Floodgates? If the school also gets penalized a year ... what floodgates open? You give these overly dramatic scenarios that might happen and decide I'm not debating. I'd hate to really debate you, as soon as I didn't agree you'd whine no fair ... I've given an unproven scenario and he still doesn't agree.

I told you the solution, hold the school accountable for their choices just as you do the kid. You say that's not fair to the school if the kids get homesick the school gets punshed. I say is it fair that if the school decides the kid doesn't fit and just boots him the kid gets punished.

Why is it fair to punish the kid for the schools decision but not the school for the kids decision?

None are my kids, but if the NCAA would try to come up with a rule that they would consider fair if it were there kid, it'd be a better rule. You're convinced how it is is the best solution ... I'm not. It's not just a few kids, it's happenning all over.

If the school knew they'd lose a year if they recruted the wrong kid, the only thing that would happen is they'd be more careful. They'd adapt, they'd have to. Change is not neccessarily a bad thing.

I'm surprised you haven't used the "it's the way it's always been" argument ... it's usually a good one.

It's simple your kid goes to college A .... he's at the end of his jr year and he's already redshirted, the school fires the coach and the new coach thinks your kid doesn't fit his system. He pulls your kids scholarship (who btw is on track to grad in a year) Your kid now can't play his Sr year. Tell me ... would the rule be fair then? Your kid didn't want to leave .... Go ahead and say ... yes, you'd be ok with it.

It's simple .... make sure the kid your recruiting is a kid you want.

One last thing I'm not clear on .... are you saying the rule is fair? Or you agree it's not fair ... it's just the best solution. I'm not exactly sure where you stand.

Skip. Sorry if I used the term debate if that word offends you. Second, the only whinning I keep hearing is coming from you. This is not the first time, or most likely the last time, that you will keep proposing your "simple" idea and crying about the poor kids.

Based upon what I know, DM most certainly got a raw deal. AK not quite as bad. AM, I'm not so sure about since I don't know what RM discussed with him. If a rule change can be made to punish (not reuse the scholarship for 1 year) the schools in the DM sitution, then I'd be OK with this change.

Your "simple" solution certainly would be fair and equitable in the DM situation which may, or may not be, increasing in recent years. My question is who will determine if the kid leaves because he is kicked off the team or because he wants to leave. Sounds simple but I suggest it would be extremely complex.

As far as change is concerned, bring it on. I am not stuck with what worked previously. I can see the need, and would probably be agreeable with, letting kids go when their coach leaves. I would be in favor of the NCAA having the ability to waive the 1 year rule on a case by case basis.

Second, while your "simple" solution certainly may be fair and equitable in the DM situation which may, or may not be, increasing in recent years, I would not punish the school if he kid voluntarily leaves whether it's because he is homesick, has bad grades, leaves for the pro's, doesn't like the coach or his playing time or no longer wants to play basketball. Explain to me why the program should be punished in this situation by not being able to reuse the scholarship. If even under these situtions you believe the school should lose the scholarship the next, then I completely disagree. If you think the school should be able to reuse the scholarship, then my next question is who will determine if the kid leaves because he is kicked off the team (DM situation) or because he wants to leave. Sounds simple but I suggest it would be extremely complex.

As far as the floodgates, this would occur if neither the school nor the player were forced to wait a year. Obviously you don't understand (or you don't want to understand) my point. Therefore, I will not repeat it. I'll leave it to say that your "simple" approach may fix the DM situation but, in the process, would unfairly punish schools and the remaining players, or worse, create "free agency" to the detriment of both the schools and the kids you claim to support.

[William Iken]

just one point to add to your 'discussion', football and basketball (and I think baseball) are unique in that kids have to sit out a year after transferring. This is not the case for 'non-revenue' sports (they do, however, still need a letter of release before talking to other schools) - may impact on some of your reasoning.

[Clock_Tower]

just one point to add to your 'discussion', football and basketball (and I think baseball) are unique in that kids have to sit out a year after transferring. This is not the case for 'non-revenue' sports (they do, however, still need a letter of release before talking to other schools) - may impact on some of your reasoning.

HK. You're correct. The difference is that no booster is paying thousands of dollars to lure the top women's volleyball players as they play in prime time on CBS. If kids drop out on their own, why punish the school and some innocent high school senior who would then be denied a scholarship. SLU and the highschooler deserve to be punished for not knowing some kid might become homesick, have a change of heart/mind, not commit the classroom enough? For instance, when SLU lost Obi Ikeafor, Skip would punish SLU by not allowing us to reuse his scholarship for 1 year and also punish some innocent high school senior who is looking to get a college degree while playing the sport he loves. Why? Because some are so bitter over RM and what he did to DM that they cannot think straight.

[cheeseman]

Well, looks like that former-IU kid that threw a hissy fit teamed up with K. Sampson's protege and orchestrated one way to get a release from a LOI.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3388282

Seems fishy to me - I hope UDM does not find out that they have another Sampson on their hands. I think this will cause a NCAA review because Crean will demand it.

[Clock_Tower]

Seems fishy to me - I hope UDM does not find out that they have another Sampson on their hands. I think this will cause a NCAA review because Crean will demand it.

Very fishy. The old "I can't play for your team because I need to be close to my family" trick by the recruit as he then chooses a school not close to his home. Gee, where did we hear that recently? Let's expand the review to include WIU and UK.

[slufanskip]

Skip. Sorry if I used the term debate if that word offends you. Second, the only whinning I keep hearing is coming from you. This is not the first time, or most likely the last time, that you will keep proposing your "simple" idea and crying about the poor kids.

Based upon what I know, DM most certainly got a raw deal. AK not quite as bad. AM, I'm not so sure about since I don't know what RM discussed with him. If a rule change can be made to punish (not reuse the scholarship for 1 year) the schools in the DM sitution, then I'd be OK with this change.

Your "simple" solution certainly would be fair and equitable in the DM situation which may, or may not be, increasing in recent years. My question is who will determine if the kid leaves because he is kicked off the team or because he wants to leave. Sounds simple but I suggest it would be extremely complex.

As far as change is concerned, bring it on. I am not stuck with what worked previously. I can see the need, and would probably be agreeable with, letting kids go when their coach leaves. I would be in favor of the NCAA having the ability to waive the 1 year rule on a case by case basis.

Second, while your "simple" solution certainly may be fair and equitable in the DM situation which may, or may not be, increasing in recent years, I would not punish the school if he kid voluntarily leaves whether it's because he is homesick, has bad grades, leaves for the pro's, doesn't like the coach or his playing time or no longer wants to play basketball. Explain to me why the program should be punished in this situation by not being able to reuse the scholarship. If even under these situtions you believe the school should lose the scholarship the next, then I completely disagree. If you think the school should be able to reuse the scholarship, then my next question is who will determine if the kid leaves because he is kicked off the team (DM situation) or because he wants to leave. Sounds simple but I suggest it would be extremely complex.

As far as the floodgates, this would occur if neither the school nor the player were forced to wait a year. Obviously you don't understand (or you don't want to understand) my point. Therefore, I will not repeat it. I'll leave it to say that your "simple" approach may fix the DM situation but, in the process, would unfairly punish schools and the remaining players, or worse, create "free agency" to the detriment of both the schools and the kids you claim to support.

You keep skating around the inequties.

AM must be penalized though not his choice to leave ... so why isn't it just as fair that the school get penalized even though it may not be their choice? That's the entire basis for my argument. You seem to brush it under the table wen the player is getting screwed, but want to make a big issue when the school ends up on the wrong end.

The word debate didn't bother me .... just your insinuation that you were and I wasn't.

[Clock_Tower]

You keep skating around the inequties.

AM must be penalized though not his choice to leave ... so why isn't it just as fair that the school get penalized even though it may not be their choice? That's the entire basis for my argument. You seem to brush it under the table wen the player is getting screwed, but want to make a big issue when the school ends up on the wrong end.

The word debate didn't bother me .... just your insinuation that you were and I wasn't.

If you can separate the cases between AM (involutarily leaving) and OI and all of the others who voluntarily leave, then fine. How will you do that?

Why not address my concerns with the kids who voluntarily leave? The remedy you propose to fix the involuntary situation would unfairless punish others who voluntarily leave. I say that the distinction will not be able to be determined without a contested litigation/adversary process. Hence, treat them the same.

[slufanskip]

If you can separate the cases between AM (involutarily leaving) and OI and all of the others who voluntarily leave, then fine. How will you do that?

Why not address my concerns with the kids who voluntarily leave? The remedy you propose to fix the involuntary situation would unfairless punish others who voluntarily leave. I say that the distinction will not be able to be determined without a contested litigation/adversary process. Hence, treat them the same.

which is exactly what I say. Treat them all the same. The player sits a year, the school loses a scholly. For the player it's no change. For the school, it will make them put a little more emphasis on recruiting the right player. If you want to tell me that RM thought AM would be a 4 year player at SLU, we will just have to disagree. I say he knew RM probably wouldn't make it, but why not take him any way just in case. If it doesn't work out we can pull his scholly ... no problem or penalty for us. I say AM would have been better if RM would have just said "I don't think you are ready to be what I need, or you don't fit" ... whatever AM would be going into his soph year at a school where he would have a better chance. If there was a penalty to be had, RM may have thought a little more before offering.

If you don't agree ... we just disagree. It's not like my opinion is going to change anything anyway.

[Clock_Tower]

which is exactly what I say. Treat them all the same. The player sits a year, the school loses a scholly. For the player it's no change. For the school, it will make them put a little more emphasis on recruiting the right player. If you want to tell me that RM thought AM would be a 4 year player at SLU, we will just have to disagree. I say he knew RM probably wouldn't make it, but why not take him any way just in case. If it doesn't work out we can pull his scholly ... no problem or penalty for us. I say AM would have been better if RM would have just said "I don't think you are ready to be what I need, or you don't fit" ... whatever AM would be going into his soph year at a school where he would have a better chance. If there was a penalty to be had, RM may have thought a little more before offering.

If you don't agree ... we just disagree. It's not like my opinion is going to change anything anyway.

Skip. Last post.

Not trying to change your mind. Will agree to disagree. You make a valid point about coaches releases players without recourse but I am not convinced the numbers are that great to be worried about it. Possibly these numbers are increasing but I am not so sure. I do, though, believe the numbers of voluntary transfers well exceed the involuntary ones which is troubling you so much - such as DM and possibly AM. Guess you will not even acknowledge the distinction between a voluntary and involuntary transfer or admit that you "simple" solution would affect alot more than the DM's and AM's of college basketball. You can throw the baby out with the bath water but I won't.

As said, agree to disagree on the issues in general but believe the thrust of your position is misplaced -- poor DM and poor AM being used by bad guy RM and able to get away with it because of an unfair double standard by the NCAA. Hogwash. Before you assume that RM used AM, open yourself to the likelihood that RM had an honest discussion with him prior to the season and gave AM a benefit. Without RM allowing him on the team last year (and unless I am wrong - didn't AM accept an offer from Brad), AM's only real choice was JUCO - which he can still do - and not sit out. DM's skills also are not D1 (possibly low-level D1) and likewise, his only real choice was Division 2 or JUCO.

Not directed at you Skip, but similarly, I don't buy that RM unfairly used Angres Thorpe either. Thorpe provided continuity and contacts and, in return, received a job late last spring when jobs were few and far between and was paid quite nicely for the job. Further, based upon RM's track record, he as most likely had an honest discussion with AT long before AT left.

[slufanskip]

Skip. Last post.

Not trying to change your mind. Will agree to disagree. You make a valid point about coaches releases players without recourse but I am not convinced the numbers are that great to be worried about it. Possibly these numbers are increasing but I am not so sure. I do, though, believe the numbers of voluntary transfers well exceed the involuntary ones which is troubling you so much - such as DM and possibly AM. Guess you will not even acknowledge the distinction between a voluntary and involuntary transfer or admit that you "simple" solution would affect alot more than the DM's and AM's of college basketball. You can throw the baby out with the bath water but I won't.

As said, agree to disagree on the issues in general but believe the thrust of your position is misplaced -- poor DM and poor AM being used by bad guy RM and able to get away with it because of an unfair double standard by the NCAA. Hogwash. Before you assume that RM used AM, open yourself to the likelihood that RM had an honest discussion with him prior to the season and gave AM a benefit. Without RM allowing him on the team last year (and unless I am wrong - didn't AM accept an offer from Brad), AM's only real choice was JUCO - which he can still do - and not sit out. DM's skills also are not D1 (possibly low-level D1) and likewise, his only real choice was Division 2 or JUCO.

Not directed at you Skip, but similarly, I don't buy that RM unfairly used Angres Thorpe either. Thorpe provided continuity and contacts and, in return, received a job late last spring when jobs were few and far between and was paid quite nicely for the job. Further, based upon RM's track record, he as most likely had an honest discussion with AT long before AT left.

I'm not sure whether AM had signed or not, but could have been released and allowed to move on. I do think there is a distinction between voluntarily leaving and being forced out. Unlike you I just believe a more equitable solution could and should be found.

As to AT ... he's a paid employee, not the same thing at all, and I have no problem.