1 scholarship left. Where to???

[Taj79]

I believe this is happening in spades at SLU because it has to. You want to play, you've got to pay. Do I personally like it? No. In year's past, the John Smiths and JustinJordans of the world would have been valuable additions .... or they would have been the next Randy Pulley or Corey Frazier or Floyd McClain or Dick Missavage or Tony Brown. The difference is that now, in the cut-throat world of college basketball, we seem to have a coach and a staff who demand constant improvement. And if you don't measure up to their (his) standards and needs, you are gone. As I've said before on numerous occassions, I wouldn't want the job for all it pays. Is it drastic? I don't know. Is it drastic for SLU? Yes. Do we need drastic? Unfortunately yes or we would not be where we are right now.

It is said that at each level, the talent increases. Can you cut it at that level? Some do, others don't. Its not a value judgment on the kid, rather its a fact. So you are the coiach -- who's cntinued livelihood depends on wins and losses. Maybe you screwed up and got a lemon. Maybe after a year something pops and you realize, oops, bad hire. Scholarships are one-year renewables.

Again, Majerus has a shelf life. This will be year four of what some say is a five- to six-year gig. If he goes longer and enjoys the continuing success, I am all for it. Maybe that's a sad statement on my part. I don't want anything illegal, but change had to come to this program or it would wallow away for another three or four decades. That I don't want. And accepting change is a hard thing to do. Kind of like the greatest fear being speaking in public.

[Quality Is Job 1]

I believe this is happening in spades at SLU because it has to. You want to play, you've got to pay. Do I personally like it? No. In year's past, the John Smiths and JustinJordans of the world would have been valuable additions .... or they would have been the next Randy Pulley or Corey Frazier or Floyd McClain or Dick Missavage or Tony Brown. The difference is that now, in the cut-throat world of college basketball, we seem to have a coach and a staff who demand constant improvement. And if you don't measure up to their (his) standards and needs, you are gone. As I've said before on numerous occassions, I wouldn't want the job for all it pays. Is it drastic? I don't know. Is it drastic for SLU? Yes. Do we need drastic? Unfortunately yes or we would not be where we are right now.

It is said that at each level, the talent increases. Can you cut it at that level? Some do, others don't. Its not a value judgment on the kid, rather its a fact. So you are the coiach -- who's cntinued livelihood depends on wins and losses. Maybe you screwed up and got a lemon. Maybe after a year something pops and you realize, oops, bad hire. Scholarships are one-year renewables.

Again, Majerus has a shelf life. This will be year four of what some say is a five- to six-year gig. If he goes longer and enjoys the continuing success, I am all for it. Maybe that's a sad statement on my part. I don't want anything illegal, but change had to come to this program or it would wallow away for another three or four decades. That I don't want. And accepting change is a hard thing to do. Kind of like the greatest fear being speaking in public.

I think you meant Ricky Frazier, because while he left for Missouri, Corey played his whole career at SLU — three years because of freshman academic ineligibility — and was a decent contributor.

As for the rest.... I guess Roy, NH, and I (along with a few others, perhaps) need to just accept (as Skip, Taj, and others have) that college basketball is no longer about college. It's really a quasi-professional enterprise — especially at the high-major level. The players are not really student-athletes; they're actually restricted free agents who can sign no more than four one-year contracts (five if they spend one year on the inactive roster). Their "pay" is the scholarship which obligates them to take on what amounts to a second full-time job. College, for most of us, is about education, a degree, career development and enhancement, identity exploration and development, and social networking (including a sense of belonging to a particular population). But I think the athletes have some of that limited because of their job responsibilities to train, practice and play for our enjoyment and some revenue.

[willie]

What I would like to know is what is normal turnover for a division one program. One a year? One every 2 years? Anybody got any ncaa stats on this?

[slufanskip]

I think you meant Ricky Frazier, because while he left for Missouri, Corey played his whole career at SLU — three years because of freshman academic ineligibility — and was a decent contributor.

As for the rest.... I guess Roy, NH, and I (along with a few others, perhaps) need to just accept (as Skip, Taj, and others have) that college basketball is no longer about college. It's really a quasi-professional enterprise — especially at the high-major level. The players are not really student-athletes; they're actually restricted free agents who can sign no more than four one-year contracts (five if they spend one year on the inactive roster). Their "pay" is the scholarship which obligates them to take on what amounts to a second full-time job. College, for most of us, is about education, a degree, career development and enhancement, identity exploration and development, and social networking (including a sense of belonging to a particular population). But I think the athletes have some of that limited because of their job responsibilities to train, practice and play for our enjoyment and some revenue.

If it's such a bad thing that we tell a kid that there isn't playing time for him here and his skills might be suited or he might be a better fit elsewhere. Why would we take a transfer that is doing the exact same thing to the school he just left?

[ACE]

all i am saying ace is that in rickma's career (not just slu) he has never had problems with having to pass on players because he was out of scholarships. somehow they always open up for him to enable him to get any player he wants to sign and wants to come to rickma's program.

so why have a discussion about it? it is a moot point. he'll get who he wants and if a player doesnt leave on their own to make the space available, then he obviously makes the space.

i am amused how all at once this apparently is a scenario that only slu has happen and 2-4 players every year leave the program totally on their own efforts with no prodding by the coach. amazingly, far far better programs dont have that kind of turnover ratio. wouldnt you think that the majority of the top 90 schools ahead of slu this year would have the same problem every year? i mean you all are telling the board that it is natural for all players to want to be the man, start and play 35 minutes a game and average 20 ppg. so naturally most of the schools are just like slu then right? are there 45 schools in this year's top 90 that had 3 or more players leave the program? i dont know the answer but if anyone wants to list the 45 schools just like slu that were higher ranked last year than slu and had such a strong roster that 3 or more players left to get more playing time, i would love to read about it. thanks in advance.

When we are talking about this subject, I just wish people would stick to the facts. I think we can all agree that the Maguire, Mitchell and Knollmeyer were asked to leave. But after that, each one needs to be viewed on a case by case basis.

Roy, I can understand your objection (although don't completely agree) to what happened to the Sodie 3, but don't lump in Thompson and Reid. That's wrong. Now let's look at the others. Cotto was not pushed out the door. Now that leaves us with Jordan and Smith. I am not sure if anybody on this board knows for certain whether they left on their own or were pushed. I just think when this topic comes up, that people should stick with the facts. Stick with what we do know. Don't use Jordan and Smith to fight an old battle over the Sodie 3, unless you know something with certainty.

[b.hayes]

Thicks, I think you are in the right direction but might have missed the exit by a stop or two. College is definitely way different for athletes, especially revenue sports athletes, than it is for any "regular" students. But, the basketball players still need and want that educational aspect, social aspect, and new life experiences aspect of being in college as any other student. What changes in the order of priority of those things. Each one of those kids LOVES playing basketball. They probably love doing that more than any other thing they could do each day. It's part of who they are.

So, if they are told in the one-on-one at the end of the year that barring injuries, most of the time they spend playing basketball will be in the practice gym instead of the main court, what are they going to do? They're going to weigh their options and decide what is more important to them, a SLU degree and SLU social life with limited playing time, or a degree and social life elsewhere with more playing time. Ask Brian Conklin and Paul Eckerle if it is all about basketball and they'll probably say no, don't you think? Paul could've gone and played lots of minutes and gotten a med degree at WashU, right? But he's still here. For JJ & JS it must've been something they felt was more of a priority than the name on the diploma or the friends they made here, and that's definitely their prerogative.

[Clock_Tower]

I think you meant Ricky Frazier, because while he left for Missouri, Corey played his whole career at SLU — three years because of freshman academic ineligibility — and was a decent contributor.

As for the rest.... I guess Roy, NH, and I (along with a few others, perhaps) need to just accept (as Skip, Taj, and others have) that college basketball is no longer about college. It's really a quasi-professional enterprise — especially at the high-major level. The players are not really student-athletes; they're actually restricted free agents who can sign no more than four one-year contracts (five if they spend one year on the inactive roster). Their "pay" is the scholarship which obligates them to take on what amounts to a second full-time job. College, for most of us, is about education, a degree, career development and enhancement, identity exploration and development, and social networking (including a sense of belonging to a particular population). But I think the athletes have some of that limited because of their job responsibilities to train, practice and play for our enjoyment and some revenue.

Welcome to the 1980's....

Took you a while but at least you are up to speed now.

One other point. Without defending Calipari, Pitino, Mizzou and others. Roy has been absolutely consistent on his views as to the other programs. Mizzou crossed the lines several times: scandals, NCAA probations, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions.... If given the chance, IMO, the administration at Mizzou will do so again. Same with Calipari and several others. Roy, you have typed Mi$$ou for years and they deserve it.

At the same time, when 90% of the college basketball is going in a certain direction (including our fellow Catholic Universities), we look kind of foolish saying those 90% are going in the wrong direction. Yes, SLU has changed. We are not the "little engine that could" school under Rich Grawer - though our athletic department still is. But we are clearly become more like the 90%. From your posts, it appears that you would suggest we are joining the 10%. Does that make it right? No. Unless and until the other 90% change their ways, this is called progress.

[Archy McNally]

all i am saying ace is that in rickma's career (not just slu) he has never had problems with having to pass on players because he was out of scholarships. somehow they always open up for him to enable him to get any player he wants to sign and wants to come to rickma's program.

so why have a discussion about it? it is a moot point. he'll get who he wants and if a player doesnt leave on their own to make the space available, then he obviously makes the space.

i am amused how all at once this apparently is a scenario that only slu has happen and 2-4 players every year leave the program totally on their own efforts with no prodding by the coach. amazingly, far far better programs dont have that kind of turnover ratio. wouldnt you think that the majority of the top 90 schools ahead of slu this year would have the same problem every year? i mean you all are telling the board that it is natural for all players to want to be the man, start and play 35 minutes a game and average 20 ppg. so naturally most of the schools are just like slu then right? are there 45 schools in this year's top 90 that had 3 or more players leave the program? i dont know the answer but if anyone wants to list the 45 schools just like slu that were higher ranked last year than slu and had such a strong roster that 3 or more players left to get more playing time, i would love to read about it. thanks in advance.

I was originally suspicious but now I am not so sure now. I know we signed a guy who looks like one of the top 2 recruits and that makes the freshmen class look good, but we just lost 2 guys, 2 guys that looked pretty talented to me as freshmen. I know that a lot of people are enamored with the new class year after year, but I am a "Bird in the hand" kind of guy and losing someone like Jon Smith cannot be something the coaching staff wanted. JS just had incredible athletic ability and even though he was raw, he showed he could put some stats at times. His ceiling was so high, I just cannot think this was a good thing. I think losing 2 guys and picking up 1 guy is a bad thing for SLU. The only thing that helps is class parity and if you redshirt JS or CR, you get that anyway.

[SShoe]

I was originally suspicious but now I am not so sure now. I know we signed a guy who looks like one of the top 2 recruits and that makes the freshmen class look good, but we just lost 2 guys, 2 guys that looked pretty talented to me as freshmen. I know that a lot of people are enamored with the new class year after year, but I am a "Bird in the hand" kind of guy and losing someone like Jon Smith cannot be something the coaching staff wanted. JS just had incredible athletic ability and even though he was raw, he showed he could put some stats at times. His ceiling was so high, I just cannot think this was a good thing. I think losing 2 guys and picking up 1 guy is a bad thing for SLU. The only thing that helps is class parity and if you redshirt JS or CR, you get that anyway.

While I'm not a big fan of losing players, especially ones as athletically gifted as Smith, I consider this a good thing. We're essentially turning over the bottom of the roster withyounger and supposedly better talent. Given the recruiting over the past three years and his success at Utah, why is there any debate over Majerus' ability to evaluate talent and bring in guys that will be as good or better than Smith? If Rick and his staff think that Jett is an upgrade over Jordan and feel that it's worth risking Smith leaving by telling him he needs to redshirt, I'm all for it.

[Zink]

Now tell me: Which one is Andre Miller, which one Jordair Jett?

Also, both are 6'2" and weigh 200lbs...

[sluhomer]

Reading this thread I am starting to believe this is a St. Louis thing. We get so attached to players, when they leave our world is shattered. There are countless football, baseball, hockey players that this city just adores. Why do we get so hung up on the past? This team has a bright future. Player movement is occurring throughout the NCAAs. I credit the coaching staff, they continued recruiting and had someone lined up to sign, in case a player decided to leave school.

I thought this thread was a discussion on what to do with the remaining scholly. Easy, continue recruiting, if another player would like to attend SLU, give him the scholly. If we do not sign a player during this signing period, give it to a walk-on for 1 season.

We should always be on the lookout to improve this team.

[MB73]

Majerus is doing outstanding work; recruiting, teaching, developing.

Willie's improvement alone... astonishing.

We had no D1 talent other than Lisch and Liddell.

We needed complete overhaul. Restructuring. Reorganization.

Our roster is now plentiful... with numerous quality "bigs", neverbefore seen here; becoming balanced year-wise, too.

Players leave when they see they are last on depth chart to get more playing time: legitimate, good for both parties.

Necessary evil under the circumstances; just more happening here because we started with nothing.

Some do not get it for some reason, or are just sticking to an old, worn out attention strived agenda.

I cannot stand the whiners who criticize Majeus for taking us to a much higher level... especially one who does this 24/7.

Same old attacks.

When Majerus is gone, maybe SLU will hire another lovable loser - Mr. Rogers type who will smile while he watches the team that Majerus put together dilute away, and ultimately go down the tubes.

But new guy will go on 101.1 FM and be nice to you at the Billiken Club get togethers.

Barring injuries, we can finally crack the top 50 next yr... hell, maybe top 25 or so!

Enjoy these amazing years... hope Majerus stays for 10 more.

[BIG BILL FAN]

I think you meant Ricky Frazier, because while he left for Missouri, Corey played his whole career at SLU — three years because of freshman academic ineligibility — and was a decent contributor.

As for the rest.... I guess Roy, NH, and I (along with a few others, perhaps) need to just accept (as Skip, Taj, and others have) that college basketball is no longer about college. It's really a quasi-professional enterprise — especially at the high-major level. The players are not really student-athletes; they're actually restricted free agents who can sign no more than four one-year contracts (five if they spend one year on the inactive roster). Their "pay" is the scholarship which obligates them to take on what amounts to a second full-time job. College, for most of us, is about education, a degree, career development and enhancement, identity exploration and development, and social networking (including a sense of belonging to a particular population). But I think the athletes have some of that limited because of their job responsibilities to train, practice and play for our enjoyment and some revenue.

Stop the sob story...I don't feel sorry for anyone who is receiving a $40,000 year scholarship to play basketball...Oh, the poor victims..you obviously must be a liberal....

[Archy McNally]

While I'm not a big fan of losing players, especially ones as athletically gifted as Smith, I consider this a good thing. We're essentially turning over the bottom of the roster withyounger and supposedly better talent. Given the recruiting over the past three years and his success at Utah, why is there any debate over Majerus' ability to evaluate talent and bring in guys that will be as good or better than Smith? If Rick and his staff think that Jett is an upgrade over Jordan and feel that it's worth risking Smith leaving by telling him he needs to redshirt, I'm all for it.

I am not questioning Coach's recruiting ability or his eye for talent or how he handled the situation with Smith or Jordan, although I don't really know what happened. All I am saying is that I think losing Jordan and Smith for this one recruit is a net loss and now we are not at 13 scholarships. I think both of them were higher than whatever their recruiting ranking is. Jordan showed he can play as the 1st guard off the bench and we talked about Smith already. Jordan's value can be seen with the losses to VCU when he was not there.

That being said, I think Majerus's strategy of going after guys to avoid what happened last year with BT was smart. Getting Loe and Jett both is a major upgrade to the recruiting class that looked solid but now looks great. Now lets see if they pan out.

[NH]

There aren't 90 schools ahead of SLU that had a new coach in the last 3 years. Throw out all of the transition recruits and Danny Lisch as transfers. Then start comparing. In the "Majerus classes" you have Cotto who wanted to be "the man", Reid who got his head smushed and went back to KS, Jordan & Smith who want playing time they aren't going to get. What's so wild about that?

Most programs dont have three kids transfer a year. You can continue to believe that JJ wanted to leave, I cant convince you differently, but it is not what I believe.

Maybe as Thicks says we will see less transfers now. I can only hope so.

[SShoe]

I am not questioning Coach's recruiting ability or his eye for talent or how he handled the situation with Smith or Jordan, although I don't really know what happened. All I am saying is that I think losing Jordan and Smith for this one recruit is a net loss and now we are not at 13 scholarships. I think both of them were higher than whatever their recruiting ranking is. Jordan showed he can play as the 1st guard off the bench and we talked about Smith already. Jordan's value can be seen with the losses to VCU when he was not there.

That being said, I think Majerus's strategy of going after guys to avoid what happened last year with BT was smart. Getting Loe and Jett both is a major upgrade to the recruiting class that looked solid but now looks great. Now lets see if they pan out.

If we get Majok and it's Jett/Majok vs. Jordan/Smith, do you think it's a win? I'm just saying that four years ago, losing a guy like Smith would've badly stung. Now, we can move on easily and I think will probably benefit us (and probably him) in the long run.

[slufanskip]

Most programs dont have three kids transfer a year. You can continue to believe that JJ wanted to leave, I cant convince you differently, but it is not what I believe.

Maybe as Thicks says we will see less transfers now. I can only hope so.

Did I miss your post condeming Jon Smith for not renewing his scholarship even though it's been reported that RM wanted him to stay? Or does this unwritten moral requirement to be committed for 4 years (even though of course the agreement is for 1) apply only to the school?

Also, if you don't mind sharing .... how did you come upon your belief JJ wanted to stay? Do you have any real info that supports your belief? Or is it just a special psychic gift you have?

[NH]

Did I miss your post condeming Jon Smith for not renewing his scholarship even though it's been reported that RM wanted him to stay? Or does this unwritten moral requirement to be committed for 4 years (even though of course the agreement is for 1) apply only to the school?

Skip, you made a very good point earlier when I mentioned Anthony Booker. But, first of all, the players are punished for transferring, they have to sit out a year. But coaches can kick anyone off they want. Secondly, players are recruited to schools, not vice-versa.

Lets say you have a 33 on the ACT and you decide you want to go to St. Jesuit university. You get accepted and you go there for a year. You stay on top of your studies and get good, but not great grades. But, the school gets a bunch of kids with 36s to apply. They only have so much room, so they get rid of you so that the 36s can come in. That doesn't seem fair to me.

But, If you go to the school and all of your professors and cruel to you, and you don't like the school, should you be forced to stay? Again, I don't think so.

A coach takes a risk when he recruits a player. A player also takes a risk when he chooses a school. But, when it comes down to it, I will side with the kid who is still growing rather than the experienced coach who has been doing this for years.

[NH]

Also, if you don't mind sharing .... how did you come upon your belief JJ wanted to stay? Do you have any real info that supports your belief? Or is it just a special psychic gift you have?

I don't understand why I have to come off as conceited and arrogant for making predictions. I looked at the situation with JJ (freshman who played good minutes, performed well, got along well with teammates etc.) and did not understand why he would want to transfer.

But I can see why Majerus would want the 5'9" shooting guard to transfer, so he could upgrade the position. So he has his little end of season conversation with JJ and lets him know the situation.

People who claim to have talked to JJ says he felt forced out, I don't know if they are right or not. Nate claimed that at one point JJ wanted to stay, I don't know if he changed his mind after that or not.

I would guess that JJ was pushed out. I'm not saying that has to be true, but that is my guess on what happened. I don't claim to have psychic visions, but I am still allowed to form opinions, right?

[Billikan]

I don't understand why I have to come off as conceited and arrogant for making predictions. I looked at the situation with JJ (freshman who played good minutes, performed well, got along well with teammates etc.) and did not understand why he would want to transfer.

But I can see why Majerus would want the 5'9" shooting guard to transfer, so he could upgrade the position. So he has his little end of season conversation with JJ and lets him know the situation.

People who claim to have talked to JJ says he felt forced out, I don't know if they are right or not. Nate claimed that at one point JJ wanted to stay, I don't know if he changed his mind after that or not.

I would guess that JJ was pushed out. I'm not saying that has to be true, but that is my guess on what happened. I don't claim to have psychic visions, but I am still allowed to form opinions, right?

If you want to state opinions based upon no facts then that is your so called right in the world of fan forums on the internet. But if you state them as facts then I have a problem with it. People in the know have said that JJ was told he could stay and keep his scholarship. But his minutes were going to be cut way back with the return of injured players and the new recruits. He made the decision to leave. Ultimately, he may be much happier if he finds the rights situation where he plays big minutes. But either way he was told he could keep his scholarship and he decided to leave. On the other hand, the staff was trying to keep Jon Smith and for the exact same reasons he decided to leave. But somehow you are perfectly fine with Jon Smith leaving, even if it hurt the team but you find it objectionable that JJ is leaving for more playing time and we now have a new guard who may be better. This lack of logic makes my head hurt! Why not just wish the players who are leaving the best and cheer for the ones who stay?

[slufanskip]

Skip, you made a very good point earlier when I mentioned Anthony Booker. But, first of all, the players are punished for transferring, they have to sit out a year. But coaches can kick anyone off they want. Secondly, players are recruited to schools, not vice-versa.

Lets say you have a 33 on the ACT and you decide you want to go to St. Jesuit university. You get accepted and you go there for a year. You stay on top of your studies and get good, but not great grades. But, the school gets a bunch of kids with 36s to apply. They only have so much room, so they get rid of you so that the 36s can come in. That doesn't seem fair to me.

But, If you go to the school and all of your professors and cruel to you, and you don't like the school, should you be forced to stay? Again, I don't think so.

A coach takes a risk when he recruits a player. A player also takes a risk when he chooses a school. But, when it comes down to it, I will side with the kid who is still growing rather than the experienced coach who has been doing this for years.

As for your example ... yes it seems fair. All throughout life the people who excel (or who have rich Dads) get the spoils. It's the way life is.

My example ...You run a company, you recruit and hire an employee who is there he does a good not great job. The profits of your company fall squarely on the shoulders of the person in this job. With his help you are doing moderately well. Now you only have room for 1, but you now have a chance to hire an employee who has excelled in this field for years and there is little doubt he will outperform your current employee making you quite a bit more money. In fact if he performs as expected he could take your company to on near the top of your field. Now this isn't some big corporation, it's your small family business whose income you depend on to support your family and to save for your 3 kid's (Little Justin, Jon, and Anthony) college. Do you hire the new guy or do you continue to be just ok with the old guy?

We need to quit acting like these guys are too stupid to know the positives and potential negatives of the decisions they make.

Here are a few other decisions 18 year olds are allowed to make.

They can vote

They can get married

They can join the military and risk their life

They can choose a career or job

They can have an abortion

the list goes on ....

but somehow they aren't smart enough to know the ins and outs of their college decisions. Like everything else in life, sometimes things work out as planned, other times they don't. In the end JJ played basketball and received free room, board, and tuition at SLU. He can still get free room board and tuition at another school while playing basketball in front of thousands of people. I can see where life has dealt him an unfair hand.

[BIG BILL FAN]

As for your example ... yes it seems fair. All throughout life the people who excel (or who have rich Dads) get the spoils. It's the way life is.

My example ...You run a company, you recruit and hire an employee who is there he does a good not great job. The profits of your company fall squarely on the shoulders of the person in this job. With his help you are doing moderately well. Now you only have room for 1, but you now have a chance to hire an employee who has excelled in this field for years and there is little doubt he will outperform your current employee making you quite a bit more money. In fact if he performs as expected he could take your company to on near the top of your field. Now this isn't some big corporation, it's your small family business whose income you depend on to support your family and to save for your 3 kid's (Little Justin, Jon, and Anthony) college. Do you hire the new guy or do you continue to be just ok with the old guy?

We need to quit acting like these guys are too stupid to know the positives and potential negatives of the decisions they make.

Here are a few other decisions 18 year olds are allowed to make.

They can vote

They can get married

They can join the military and risk their life

They can choose a career or job

They can have an abortion

the list goes on ....

but somehow they aren't smart enough to know the ins and outs of their college decisions. Like everything else in life, sometimes things work out as planned, other times they don't. In the end JJ played basketball and received free room, board, and tuition at SLU. He can still get free room board and tuition at another school while playing basketball in front of thousands of people. I can see where life has dealt him an unfair hand.

well stated

[Quality Is Job 1]

Stop the sob story...I don't feel sorry for anyone who is receiving a $40,000 year scholarship to play basketball...Oh, the poor victims..you obviously must be a liberal....

You're making an ASSumption, but not making one of me.

[davidnark]

Skip, Billiken, et al. You guys are highly-intelligent, experienced adults with a pragmatic and reasonable view of these things. However, do you realize that you are debating online with a teenage kid who isn't even old enough to get a driver's license? I am not trying to disrespect NH, but here are some things that that take a little bit of life experience and maturity to understand.

[sluhomer]

One more thing to consider, everyone is connecting Jordan leaving to Jett's arrival. It can be debated that Jordan could have seen reduced playing time with the arrival of McCall and the return of Femi. Both are taller guards.