Recruiting - 2018 class

[RiseAndGrind]

24 minutes ago, Westy03 said:

Rhoden is down to four Seton hall, SLU, Penn State, and Wichita State

So he cut Santa Clara, right? 

I would be pleasantly surprised with a Rhoden commitment, but I don't think it's in the cards. 

[NextYearBill]

1 minute ago, RiseAndGrind said:

So he cut Santa Clara, right? 

I would be pleasantly surprised with a Rhoden commitment, but I don't think it's in the cards. 

i dunnnnno..... he would have cut us too if we were out. c'mon TFord.... bring it home 

[Quality Is Job 1]

14 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Interesting to see that we are still in play for Rhoden, sign him and figure out what to do later.

I'm not in favor of that.  It means we'll go through the whole season with current players wondering which one of them might be cut and fans speculating on who will be "encouraged" to transfer.  I think it's bad for morale all the way around.  It might even be bad for recruiting, as coaches of opposing programs can say, "Look, they won't even promise to give you more than one year at that school."

Yeah, I know the rules, but I still think it's a bad way of doing business.  I would prefer, if Rhoden wants to be a Billiken and the coaches want him and they know who they want to cut, for them to tell him they'll hold a spot for him in the spring but not to announce a commitment.  Let them do their chess playing quietly so that players aren't grumbling and wondering and fans aren't throwing stuff around on the message boards during the season.  Yes, every program, on average, loses two players per year, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

[JMM28]

13 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I'm not in favor of that.  It means we'll go through the whole season with current players wondering which one of them might be cut and fans speculating on who will be "encouraged" to transfer.  I think it's bad for morale all the way around.  It might even be bad for recruiting, as coaches of opposing programs can say, "Look, they won't even promise to give you more than one year at that school."

Yeah, I know the rules, but I still think it's a bad way of doing business.  I would prefer, if Rhoden wants to be a Billiken and the coaches want him and they know who they want to cut, for them to tell him they'll hold a spot for him in the spring but not to announce a commitment.  Let them do their chess playing quietly so that players aren't grumbling and wondering and fans aren't throwing stuff around on the message boards during the season.  Yes, every program, on average, loses two players per year, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

Why would any recruit in their right mind do that? 

It is bad business to not be prepared for the inevitability of a transfer, two, or three. Sign the best talent. This is big boy basketball. 

[brianstl]

20 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

Why would any recruit in their right mind do that? 

It is bad business to not be prepared for the inevitability of a transfer, two, or three. Sign the best talent. This is big boy basketball. 

If you don't over sign you end up giving a scholarship to a walk-on.  With so many new players and a couple of returning players that expect to get minutes, somebody is going to be disappointed and transfer.

[ACE]

2 hours ago, Westy03 said:

Rhoden is down to four Seton hall, SLU, Penn State, and Wichita State

One of his AAU teammates committed to Seton Hall yesterday, so maybe that will be a factor in his decision.

[Quality Is Job 1]

2 hours ago, JMM28 said:

Why would any recruit in their right mind do that? 

It is bad business to not be prepared for the inevitability of a transfer, two, or three. Sign the best talent. This is big boy basketball. 

I'm not saying a recruit should do that.  Of course the coaches should continue to recruit (keep developing relationships with players) in the 2018 class in preparation for inevitable transfer activity after the season, but I think oversubscribing (in advance) hurts the overall culture of the program.

[billiken_roy]

3 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I'm not saying a recruit should do that.  Of course the coaches should continue to recruit (keep developing relationships with players) in the 2018 class in preparation for inevitable transfer activity after the season, but I think oversubscribing (in advance) hurts the overall culture of the program.

i totally agree.   

[Pistol]

VCU is overbooked by one scholarship. The average D-I team sees two transfers out and two transfers in per year (351 teams, and there have been 700-800 transfers in recent seasons). Just saying.

Santa Clara just got a commitment from Trey Wertz at his position a few days ago. That was the only place he hadn't visited yet, so it seems he just decided not to bother after that.

I'm surprised Pearson didn't have the same effect on him w/r/t SLU, but maybe there's something being communicated that we don't know about.

Anyway, he announces Saturday so we will find out soon enough.

[Pistol]

1 hour ago, ACE said:

One of his AAU teammates committed to Seton Hall yesterday, so maybe that will be a factor in his decision.

 

[Franchise_08]

Anthony Nelson = Dead

[CBFan]

3 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I'm not in favor of that.  It means we'll go through the whole season with current players wondering which one of them might be cut and fans speculating on who will be "encouraged" to transfer.  I think it's bad for morale all the way around.  It might even be bad for recruiting, as coaches of opposing programs can say, "Look, they won't even promise to give you more than one year at that school."

Yeah, I know the rules, but I still think it's a bad way of doing business.  I would prefer, if Rhoden wants to be a Billiken and the coaches want him and they know who they want to cut, for them to tell him they'll hold a spot for him in the spring but not to announce a commitment.  Let them do their chess playing quietly so that players aren't grumbling and wondering and fans aren't throwing stuff around on the message boards during the season.  Yes, every program, on average, loses two players per year, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

Respectfully Quality fans speculating on who is going to transfer happens when the scholarships are not overbooked.  This site is an example of fan transfer speculation.

I agree with your points 100 percent, the recruiting success is making me greedy for more.

[Quality Is Job 1]

7 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Respectfully, Quality, fans speculating on who is going to transfer happens when the scholarships are not overbooked.  This site is an example of fan transfer speculation.

I agree with your points 100 percent, the recruiting success is making me greedy for more.

You make a good point that fans will speculate on who may transfer even if the team isn't overbooked, but at least then transferring will more likely be the player's heartfelt choice rather than having been psyched into it because he knows one or more guys will be given the boot to make room for newcomers when there's oversubscription.

Recruiting success (on paper) doesn't always translate to program success on the court.  Coach Ford has restocked the roster with talented recruits and transfers, yet some fans are exhibiting greed for more on-paper recruiting success when they don't even know what the current team will do on the court yet.

[NextYearBill]

8 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

yet some fans are exhibiting greed for more on-paper recruiting success when they don't even know what the current team will do on the court yet.

put me in this group all day long. go bills 

[DoctorB]

2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

i totally agree.   

I used to feel that way, but given the AVERAGE now of 2 or more transfers EVERY YEAR  -- maybe it's time to oversubscribe.  As opposed to getting screwed by flaky teenagers wanting more PT and just leaving.  Or bailing on class and flunking out, or doing knucklehead stuff and posting it on social media even before a season begins, or whatever... That door works both directions, folks.  Gotta have enough bodies for practice, folks.

[3star_recruit]

We were one of the first schools to offer Rhoden and I think we made the cut because he respects that. I wish him and his AAU teammate well at Seton Hall.

[almaman]

2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

i totally agree.   

 

dragged.rtfd.zip

[almaman]

i haven't figured out how to inject stuff but this was supposed to be a image of that doctor being dragged off plane my feelings of booting someone off a scholarship

[DoctorB]

Just so you know: athletic scholarships are reviewed and renewed annually; they are not "guaranteed" for 4-5 years and frankly, they should not be.  For a variety of reasons ...

[Quality Is Job 1]

6 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

Just so you know: athletic scholarships are reviewed and renewed annually; they are not "guaranteed" for 4-5 years and frankly, they should not be.  For a variety of reasons ...

Yeah, I'm aware of that, and I don't really have a problem with that rule.  I just think it's bad management to walk into the locker room at the beginning of the season and announce, basically, "One of you won't be with us next season, because we won't have room and we don't care."  Now, pulling a guy aside at the end of the season and saying, "Thank you for your efforts, but we need to go in a different direction next season; we'll help you land in a good spot that you'll like," is better management, even though it might sting.

[billiken_roy]

i believe the purpose of an athletic scholarship having to be reviewed and renewed annually was never intended as a process to upgrade the talent level of a roster.   i believe it was to allow a school to cut ties with a nonperforming in the classroom student athlete, or a bad citizen or a bad teamate.   a coach should be responsible to coach his players he/she chose to make them better on court game performers.   if they made a mistake, but the player wants to stay then the coach should have to live with that assuming the player is doing their job in the classroom, in the lockerroom and in society.   nothing says the coach has to play said player, just honor the promise he/she made when they were in the recruiting process.   

[NH]

Agree with Roy's point about the purpose of the scholarship renewal. Academic scholarships are also renewable every year but generally based on a mandatory threshold of effort. Not like they go in and say "hey we found a smarter kid so think you should look at other colleges"

That said, transfers have become so prevelant in D1 bball that it's tough to expect a coach to just sit back and be comfortable with only the players scheduled to return

[ACE]

7 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i believe the purpose of an athletic scholarship having to be reviewed and renewed annually was never intended as a process to upgrade the talent level of a roster.   i believe it was to allow a school to cut ties with a nonperforming in the classroom student athlete, or a bad citizen or a bad teamate.   a coach should be responsible to coach his players he/she chose to make them better on court game performers.   if they made a mistake, but the player wants to stay then the coach should have to live with that assuming the player is doing their job in the classroom, in the lockerroom and in society.   nothing says the coach has to play said player, just honor the promise he/she made when they were in the recruiting process.   

You are assuming the coach always promises the player four years in the recruiting process.  I could see a situation where a coach takes a chance on a kid that he hopes is a late bloomer... telling the kid that we'll get you in the program for a year and see if you can compete at this level. You get one year to prove yourself.

Also, your criteria of being a "bad teammate" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  One could make the argument that a kid who is not very talented and is not improving is NOT a good teammate. 

[eastsidejoe]

13 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i believe the purpose of an athletic scholarship having to be reviewed and renewed annually was never intended as a process to upgrade the talent level of a roster.   i believe it was to allow a school to cut ties with a nonperforming in the classroom student athlete, or a bad citizen or a bad teamate.   a coach should be responsible to coach his players he/she chose to make them better on court game performers.   if they made a mistake, but the player wants to stay then the coach should have to live with that assuming the player is doing their job in the classroom, in the lockerroom and in society.   nothing says the coach has to play said player, just honor the promise he/she made when they were in the recruiting process.   

I think we all know where you stand Roy.  I think I have seen this written several times before.

[slu72]

Transferring has become the choice du jour for guys who just aren't happy at the school they first chose. There are multiple reasons why w/ playing time probably being right at the top of the list. Most recruits have been the stars for a number of years wherever they played. To find themselves riding the pine for a year or two just grinds at them, especially when they see themselves being recruited over. This could happen to us with this squad, and any coach worth his salt is going to have to factor in a transfer or two every year.