Transfers and grad transfers - 2020

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, Clock_Tower said:

Sounds like Omaha

Somewhere in middle America
Get right to the heart of matters
It's the heart that matters more
I think you'd better turn your ticket in
And get your money right at the door

[Reinert310]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

Somewhere in middle America
Get right to the heart of matters
It's the heart that matters more
I think you'd better turn your ticket in
And get your money right at the door

Counting Crows. Well done.

[NH]

1 hour ago, Clock_Tower said:

NH   That's life though.  Approximately 10 majors cater to and education to most students at an entire university and yet all students are suppose to pay the same tuition and then the schools take this money to subsidize the other less popular majors.  It has to be so much cheaper to educate a business major than a science or engineering student.  Music and drama departments and dance recitals are money drains. Many schools fund entire departments upon government funded research. Within the pharmaceutical industry, a handful of money making drugs provide most of the revenue for and subsidize all the other hundreds of drugs and research which arguably are equally important. Airlines (prior to COVID 19) made most of their money on certain lucrative flights/routes which subsidize flights to less popular cities and more remote areas.  I could go on but life is full of examples of the few generate the most.

Maybe I don't fully understand your point, but not a single one of those examples is equivalent to the NCAA's current issue with student-athlete compensation. Airlines make most of their money off of lucrative routes, but they don't fly the other routes they do out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because that is what is required to have a business with enough scale to be (usually) profitable. And when routes stop being beneficial to fly, they shut those routes down. Generally the same principle with pharmaceutical companies. Schools subsidize less popular majors for a variety of reasons. But they're not directly profiting off of students in any of those majors, so the comparison doesn't even really hold.  

I don't have a problem with my alma mater (Vanderbilt) making money off of football and losing money on girl's soccer. In fact, I am glad there are some controls in place which force schools to fund those money-losing sports, because I want to support a well-rounded institution. But I also know that big-time college sports have become lucrative for universities, and best athletes at the biggest schools are generating far more revenue than the value of their scholarship is worth. Legally, the NCAA's current setup of camouflaging everything under the guise of amateurism is simply not going to hold. 

[NH]

3 minutes ago, NH said:

Maybe I don't fully understand your point, but not a single one of those examples is equivalent to the NCAA's current issue with student-athlete compensation. Airlines make most of their money off of lucrative routes, but they don't fly the other routes they do out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because that is what is required to have a business with enough scale to be (usually) profitable. And when routes stop being beneficial to fly, they shut those routes down. Generally the same principle with pharmaceutical companies. Schools subsidize less popular majors for a variety of reasons. But they're not directly profiting off of students in any of those majors, so the comparison doesn't even really hold.  

I don't have a problem with my alma mater making money off of football and losing money on girl's soccer. In fact, I am glad there are some controls in place which force schools to fund those money-losing sports, because I want to support a well-rounded institution. But I also know that big-time college sports have become lucrative for universities, and best athletes at the biggest schools are generating far more revenue than the value of their scholarship is worth. Legally, the NCAA's current setup of camouflaging everything under the guise of amateurism is simply not going to hold. 

 

[NH]

Maybe I don't fully understand your point, but not a single one of those examples is equivalent to the NCAA's current issue with student-athlete compensation. Airlines make most of their money off of lucrative routes, but they don't fly the other routes they do out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because that is what is required to have a business with enough scale to be (usually) profitable. And when routes stop being beneficial to fly, they shut those routes down. Generally the same principle with pharmaceutical companies. Schools subsidize less popular majors for a variety of reasons. But they're not directly profiting off of students in any of those majors, so the comparison doesn't even really hold.  

I don't have a problem with my alma mater making money off of football and losing money on girl's soccer. In fact, I am glad there are some controls in place which force schools to fund those money-losing sports, because I want to support a well-rounded institution. But I also know that big-time college sports have become lucrative for universities, and best athletes at the biggest schools are generating far more revenue than the value of their scholarship is worth. Legally, the NCAA's current setup of camouflaging everything under the guise of amateurism is simply not going to hold. 

[Clock_Tower]

8 minutes ago, NH said:

Maybe I don't fully understand your point, but not a single one of those examples is equivalent to the NCAA's current issue with student-athlete compensation. Airlines make most of their money off of lucrative routes, but they don't fly the other routes they do out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because that is what is required to have a business with enough scale to be (usually) profitable. And when routes stop being beneficial to fly, they shut those routes down. Generally the same principle with pharmaceutical companies. Schools subsidize less popular majors for a variety of reasons. But they're not directly profiting off of students in any of those majors, so the comparison doesn't even really hold.  

I don't have a problem with my alma mater making money off of football and losing money on girl's soccer. In fact, I am glad there are some controls in place which force schools to fund those money-losing sports, because I want to support a well-rounded institution. But I also know that big-time college sports have become lucrative for universities, and best athletes at the biggest schools are generating far more revenue than the value of their scholarship is worth. Legally, the NCAA's current setup of camouflaging everything under the guise of amateurism is simply not going to hold. 

My only point is that men's football and basketball carrying all the other sports is no different than what is found in life generally.  If every team, major, arts department, drug, airline flight had to be self sufficient, we would sure have a lot less than we do.  Whether to serve a notion of fairness, equity, equality, to fulfill a mission/purpose, satisfy a public good or to prevent government regulation, this is common.   The arts would not exist/survive without subsidies.  A large amount of all majors would be eliminated  and tuition prices adjusted based upon the true cost of education.  Non-revenue sports would not survive without football and men's basketball. BTW, I hear U of Cincy is cutting their soccer programs due to lack of funding from conference/COVID 19.  What do Universities do with the all the millions made on the backs of certain and few football and male basketball players?   Not pay the salaries of University Presidents who have always been well compensated but to fund golf, tennis, lacrosse, baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, swim, water polo, wrestling, women's basketball, cross country, track & field athletes with their education, training, facilities, coaches, travel and league fees.  Pay the kids everyone screams -- to which I say, they already have been.

 

[CBFan]

11 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Sounds like Omaha

I think Omaha is greater than Wichita.  In Omaha there are some hills and trees.  Omaha has a real nice baseball stadium in the middle of the city.  I spent about a month Omaha last winter and it was cold and windy.  If I was a basketball player I would rather play for Creighton than Wichita state.

[Pistol]

Oton Jankovic to Tulane.

[Clock_Tower]

56 minutes ago, CBFan said:

I think Omaha is greater than Wichita.  In Omaha there are some hills and trees.  Omaha has a real nice baseball stadium in the middle of the city.  I spent about a month Omaha last winter and it was cold and windy.  If I was a basketball player I would rather play for Creighton than Wichita state.

I believe you.  I've been to Omaha and their baseball stadium (which is nice) a few times, but never Witchita.   If worse, then it must really be bad.

[slufanskip]

3 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

I believe you.  I've been to Omaha and their baseball stadium (which is nice) a few times, but never Witchita.   If worse, then it must really be bad.

I was in Wichita visiting a friend in '84 or '85. They had this small amusement park by a pond that had bumper boats (like bumper cars) and this old wooden roller coaster with the steepest drops I've ever seen. It wasn't real big but it seemed so rinky dink and shook like crazy. The cars felt like they were falling off on every turn. It was such a great ride. I've been to a lot of amusement parks throughout the country and to this day that was still my favorite roller coaster. 

[almaman]

Daughter finishing her senior year at Rockhurst during this BS. She knows lots of kids from Omaha and has always marveled about how much those kids love their city.

[cgeldmacher]

22 hours ago, NH said:

The G League becoming a viable option for high school players would be much worse for SLU than this transfer rule.

I disagree.  I think it would help SLU.  The G League isn't offered to every kid.  There will still be a limited number of spots.  The local kids those spots will go to are the ones that never seem to consider SLU anyway.  For instance, this year, Fletcher and Love are committed to Kentucky and North Carolina.  These are the kids that will go to the G League if it's a viable option.  If you add the rule that kids who go to college must stay there for three years, then these types of kids almost assuredly would go to the G League.  I think that SLU will by much more competitive with recruiting the kids that are left than we will, or have been, with the kids who would jump to the G League.

[NH]

28 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I disagree.  I think it would help SLU.  The G League isn't offered to every kid.  There will still be a limited number of spots.  The local kids those spots will go to are the ones that never seem to consider SLU anyway.  For instance, this year, Fletcher and Love are committed to Kentucky and North Carolina.  These are the kids that will go to the G League if it's a viable option.  If you add the rule that kids who go to college must stay there for three years, then these types of kids almost assuredly would go to the G League.  I think that SLU will by much more competitive with recruiting the kids that are left than we will, or have been, with the kids who would jump to the G League.

That doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm not saying we will lose kids to the G-League (e.g., Tatum, Love, etc.) but I don't understand how we could possibly get more competitive with the remaining kids, if the only difference is those players now have more interest from Kentucky and UNC. 

One of the best things to happen to mid-majors was the One-and-Done rule. Instead of going four-year, top 100 guys like Jordan Goodwin the blue bloods were freed up to focus their scholarships (and attention) on the McDonalds All-Americans who might otherwise consider the NBA out of high school. This left more high-quality players for the next tier of schools, which had a cascading effect. Then, while those blue-bloods were reloading every year other schools were building continuity. The Xaviers and Gonzagas of the world have certainly benefited. I think having fewer kids go to the NCAA, lessening the top of the talent pool, would have the opposite impact. 

[gobillsgo]

1 minute ago, NH said:

That doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm not saying we will lose kids to the G-League (e.g., Tatum, Love, etc.) but I don't understand how we could possibly get more competitive with the remaining kids, if the only difference is those players now have more interest from Kentucky and UNC. 

One of the best things to happen to mid-majors was the One-and-Done rule. Instead of going four-year, top 100 guys like Jordan Goodwin the blue bloods were freed up to focus their scholarships (and attention) on the McDonalds All-Americans who might otherwise consider the NBA out of high school. This left more high-quality players for the next tier of schools, which had a cascading effect. Then, while those blue-bloods were reloading every year other schools were building continuity. The Xaviers and Gonzagas of the world have certainly benefited. I think having fewer kids go to the NCAA, lessening the top of the talent pool, would have the opposite impact. 

Agreed... for every top player that goes to the G League, that’s another spot for the UKs and Dukes of the world to poach a transfer like Toppin from URI or take a chance on a lesser prospect that might usually be on our radar. 

[Old guy]

With Marten Linssen (a big) transferring to SLU from UNCW, I think the danger of Jacobs transferring out is significantly lower.

[bauman]

Absent another player leaving, this should put an end to the Russell rumor.  If another player was leaving, e.g. Jacobs or Diarra, wouldn't they have already put their name in the transfer portal?  Is there a logical reason to hold off on doing that?

I guess the one other reason that we might still be in the hunt for Russell is if TF knows, or suspects that our Swede isn't coming

[billikenfan05]

3 minutes ago, bauman said:

Absent another player leaving, this should put an end to the Russell rumor.  If another player was leaving, e.g. Jacobs or Diarra, wouldn't they have already put their name in the transfer portal?  Is there a logical reason to hold off on doing that?

Coronavirus

[bauman]

2 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

Coronivirus

If you were planning on transferring why would the COVID 19 cause you to wait?  It seems like you would want to get your name out there as soon as possible so that as many schools as possible could consider you.

[billikenfan05]

11 minutes ago, bauman said:

If you were planning on transferring why would the COVID 19 cause you to wait?  It seems like you would want to get your name out there as soon as possible so that as many schools as possible could consider you.

With the uncertainty of next season I’d imagine you wouldn’t want to make a massive change in your life at the same time.

[bauman]

1 minute ago, billikenfan05 said:

With the uncertainty of next season I’d imagine you wouldn’t want to make a massive change in your life at the same time.

Check.

[moytoy12]

2 hours ago, slufanskip said:

 It was such a great ride. I've been to a lot of amusement parks throughout the country and to this day that was still my favorite roller coaster. 

Mine is any Billikens GDT. 

[billikenfan05]

6 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Mine is any Billikens GDT. 

We know.

[Old guy]

I think both Jacobs and Diarra are planning to stay in the team for next season. We still need to wait for the completion of Goodwin's and French's NBA bids, but this may just be a matter of time and red tape. However, with the current announcement of the return to normalcy phased guidelines, at least we are not faced with an open ended process any longer and there is every reason to hope that we will be able to play a normal basketball season 2020-2021.

[slufanskip]

1 hour ago, moytoy12 said:

Mine is any Billikens GDT. 

Aren't you the driver? 

[TheChosenOne]

I saw this on the front page and had a good chuckle (would be detrimental to the kids - again we are talking about them being able to transfer one time freely without having to sit out a year):

Dick Vitale Just spoke with HoFer Tom Izzo and he is furious with the possibility that the @NCAA would pass a rule allowing players to transfer w/o sitting out 1 yr. Many coaches agree with Tom that it would be detrimental to the kids as well as the game . COACHES SHOULD UNITE!