Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
RiseAndGrind

Mike Lewis going Pro

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, ACE said:

But I'm talking about the increased likelihood of players coming along with the coach from the mid-major to the new P5 school he was hired to.

Imagine a program like Nebraska or Alabama, on the lookout for a quick rebuild. They look to the mid-major level and see which coaches have put together the best recruiting classes.

Example, Travis Ford signs a couple of Top 100 recruits in the same recruiting class (let's say Goodwin and French). A P5 school comes along and makes the coach an offer he can't refuse - not so much because they think the coach is great, but rather because of the possibility that the coach could bring some high level immediately eligible players along with him. Coaches will be able to more easily leverage strong recruiting classes at one school, into a better job at another.

I think a distinction needs to be made in how the coaching change occurred. 

 

Kids are already being released from their letter of intent after a coaching change and are immediately eligible. VCU and Dayton's classes blew up after their coaches left. What you're describing is the status quo. The rare mid-major coach who recruits at a top 25 level is already being poached. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have to agree with ACE on this one.  Any opportunity you give the P5 to be able to funnel talent to their teams they will take advantage of.  I cannot imagine a situation where transfer rules are loosened and it does not result in mid major talent moving to the P5.

If the transfer rules are changed to allow for more ease of transferring, then the A10 will be turned into extended AAU.  Kids will sign with A10 schools thinking of it as a tryout for the P5.  You'll start to see Coach K, Coach Self, or Coach Williams showing up for a SLU/Dayton game just like they would for the Peach Jam.  It'll be just another recruiting trip.  Any star players will leave for big programs as soon as the season ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just make the only rule that the players from a departing coach cannot go with the coach wherever he might go.    they'd have hundreds of other options so i dont think that is too restrictive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

just make the only rule that the players from a departing coach cannot go with the coach wherever he might go.    they'd have hundreds of other options so i dont think that is too restrictive

Except that the reality is that players go to play for a coach more than for a school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Except that the reality is that players go to play for a coach more than for a school.

too bad.   coach should stay then if he cares about "his kids".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billiken_roy said:

too bad.   coach should stay then if he cares about "his kids".

I'm with BR.  Unless some semblance of stability is in the system, it will turn into absolute free agency; mid's will lose big time and the students education won't even be on the radar.   Plus as a fan, I'm not too interested in rooting for a new Billliken team every year.  It would be rooting for the uniforms rather than the team. 

For me, one transfer per student athlete in a four year career, immediate eligibility, and no moving with your coach no matter where or why he goes, UNLESS it is a Father/Son combo.  If you graduate in 3, perhaps a GT transfer added, although I'm not sold on the current GT system.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

too bad.   coach should stay then if he cares about "his kids".

But they don't - at least not as much as they care about money. Which they are paid for coaching. And which the players don't get for playing. So why restrict the athletes and let the coaches go where they want without restriction?

This discussion reminds me of the one about letting players own their image or be paid. A lot of people were worried that this would give an unfair advantage to the power programs as if that's not exactly how things are right now. It baffles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pistol said:

We're fundamentally going to disagree here. "How the coaching change occurred" depends on who you ask, and again, I never want the NCAA to have to rule on an ambiguous situation if it can be avoided.

Plus, as another example to go along with yours above, a coach might be fired from a power program - like Oklahoma State - and be hired a level down - like Saint Louis - and be able to bring his players from OSU along. So while the outgoing coach might take a bunch of promising recruits with him, the incoming coach might be able to bring a higher level of recruit along with him, too.

But to me that is an important distinction - OSU chose to fire a coach. They have to weigh if it is worth the risk of losing incoming recruits when they decide to fire a coach.

Also, players are much less likely to follow a coach a "level down" than they are to follow a coach a level up.

And, unless there are extenuating circumstance, I usually don't feel too sorry for kids who have to sit out a year. It seems to me getting another year of a free education and getting to hang out in college for another year, while continuing to work on your game is hardly a "punishment."

As it is, there are already 700-800 transfers per year, the majority have to sit a year, so it is hardly a deterrent. Making it even easier to encourage more transferring doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 2:29 PM, Pistol said:

But they don't - at least not as much as they care about money. Which they are paid for coaching. And which the players don't get for playing. So why restrict the athletes and let the coaches go where they want without restriction?

This discussion reminds me of the one about letting players own their image or be paid. A lot of people were worried that this would give an unfair advantage to the power programs as if that's not exactly how things are right now. It baffles me.

Why?   NCAA has no legal basis to restrict a coach, a paid employee, from leaving College A to go to College B anymore than anyone could prevent an employee from leaving Coca Cola to then go work for Pepsico.   Would it be because a head coach still had time left on his contract?  If so, all coaches would go to 1 year contracts.   

No, as to players, this is a completely different situation as they are not paid employees and there is a real and necessary interest in having the NCAA regulate players for the good of the sport as well as the good of the players from admissions to ensure they are an eligible, worthy, academic student, to that of monitoring scholarships/eligibility to make sure they are performing well in school and are on pace for graduation, and even to regulate transferring - to prevent/reduce the amount of fraud for both the NCAA and the students.   The sheer number of players (12 per team vs 1 head coach, the lack of a monetary contracts (tuition plus room and board) vs salary provisions for head coaches leads to undisclosed cash payments, etc. as both schools would be offering, on its face, similar products -- free tuition plus room & board.  And yes, treating scholarships more and more like pure 1 year contracts based only upon athletic performance does undercut the goals and responsibilities of the NCAA and their member colleges -  and therefore colleges and the NCAA need to be  care to prevent pure free agency each year.

Thicks.   Yes, the player's most important factor may be the head  coach, but still, the player commits to the school (not to the head coach), the school provides the scholarship, tuition, room & board and the school is responsible for the student athlete while at school to play and study.  The head coach does not have the same responsibilities.  But yes, for the good of the game, to reduce/fraud, etc., as well as for the good of the student athletes, a reasonable set of restrictions upon transferring students is and should be allowed.

And getting back to the original topic, Roy is also correct in that any restrictions the A-10 has are similar to that of other conferences, that I am glad to see the A-10 (and the other conferences) have tougher standards than the NCAA.   IMO, the fact that Lewis spent some time at Nevada does not change the fact that he would be going from one A-10 team to another. Let the kids play -- but just not at another league school.   And yes, when a coach leaves, if the kids are allowed to leave, then leave but just do not follow the head coach.   Over 340 choices for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...