2019 Coaching Carousel

[CTWarrior]

Says the guy who can't spell or use grammar correctly.

Yes, thinking that the athlete should have control over his/her own future and should face no more barriers to freedom of movement than the coach who gets rich off his back ... how idiotic!

I'm not sure what the hardship of sitting out a year is.  In essence the transfer gets an extra year of free education.  And a buyout is not nothing.  It is not much, but it is not nothing.  Allowing transfers with no year out is nothing.  I think the guaranteed four year scholarship with the one year transfer wait period is ideal.

I understand your point of view and it is certainly reasonable, but you are approaching this from the angle that the student is an athlete first, which is a point of view the NCAA should never embrace.  I think the current proposed measures (paying players some stipend or for their likeness) will be counter-productive for basketball players as a whole, although the students at the upper-echelon schools benefit. 

I think if you start paying players and granting immediate transfers, the lower D-I schools may just give up and a lot of scholarships that once existed at smaller schools will go away.  For example, a guy like Ja Morant very likely could have ended up at a high-major this year, and schools like Murray State may start wondering what value having a scholarship basketball team brings and just go to D-II or something.

I have no idea what will happen, but the NCAA has the right to set its own rules, since no one is forcing anyone to attend college.

[CTWarrior]

If a coach leaves, the AD should immediately release all incoming recruits from their NLI.

Agree, though they should immediately offer to release all incoming recruits and let those who want to stay stay.  I am pretty sure that is what you meant.

[🏀]

Agree, though they should immediately offer to release all incoming recruits and let those who want to stay stay.  I am pretty sure that is what you meant.

Well, yes.

[MU82]

I'm not sure what the hardship of sitting out a year is.  In essence the transfer gets an extra year of free education.  And a buyout is not nothing.  It is not much, but it is not nothing.  Allowing transfers with no year out is nothing.  I think the guaranteed four year scholarship with the one year transfer wait period is ideal.

I understand your point of view and it is certainly reasonable, but you are approaching this from the angle that the student is an athlete first, which is a point of view the NCAA should never embrace.  I think the current proposed measures (paying players some stipend or for their likeness) will be counter-productive for basketball players as a whole, although the students at the upper-echelon schools benefit. 

I think if you start paying players and granting immediate transfers, the lower D-I schools may just give up and a lot of scholarships that once existed at smaller schools will go away.  For example, a guy like Ja Morant very likely could have ended up at a high-major this year, and schools like Murray State may start wondering what value having a scholarship basketball team brings and just go to D-II or something.

I have no idea what will happen, but the NCAA has the right to set its own rules, since no one is forcing anyone to attend college.

Thanks for the respectful, reasonable post. A few points ...

Sitting out a year is a "hardship" to anybody who views it as a hardship. If you would rather not sit out a year without being able to play basketball games and the powers-that-be force you to it out, it is a hardship. If you don't mind sitting out a year, you feel it helps you get your academics in order, you feel it helps you mature, etc., then it isn't a hardship.

It's kind of like freshman eligibility. When they weren't allowed to play, what was the hardship?After all, there were many benefits to sitting out that year. But for many, it was a hardship.

As for students first vs. athletes first ... I don't know if top drama students or music students or engineering students get scholarship money from Marquette, but I do know for a fact that the top editors for various student media do.

The editor of the Tribune gets a full ride, and deservedly so, because it's a ton of work. If she decides after the year to transfer to College X, where she will get a free ride to be the editor of the X Daily, should she have to sit out a year before she can be an editor again? Is she a student first or an editor first?

See, I actually want the athletes to be treated like students first. I want them to have the same freedom of movement as that editor. That editor also could earn money writing a book, could become an internet sensation and make money off her likeness, etc. So could the student trombone player, the student actor and the student engineer. Treat the athlete similarly.

I am happy that people like Jay Bilas agree with me. It doesn't make me "right" and everybody else "wrong," it just gives me comfort to know that my feelings on this subject are similar to many of those who have been through it and who think about it on a grand scale.

I appreciate the conversation, CTW.

[Herman Cain]

I say yes...because it goes along with what i said above...players are SUPPOSED to be committing to that school, not a particular coach, and the school would be paying you(not the Coach, well at least at most schools ). Know what you're getting into before you commit to that school.

Kids commit to programs. Part of the program is the relationship with the coaching staff . This is why many times it makes sense to hire a current assistant . The players in fact lobby for it. That is what happened with Xavier and Travis Steele. and it has worked out well for them. They were able to retain their players and put together a solid 5 man recruiting class.

[GOO]

Thanks for the respectful, reasonable post. A few points ...

Sitting out a year is a "hardship" to anybody who views it as a hardship. If you would rather not sit out a year without being able to play basketball games and the powers-that-be force you to it out, it is a hardship. If you don't mind sitting out a year, you feel it helps you get your academics in order, you feel it helps you mature, etc., then it isn't a hardship.

It's kind of like freshman eligibility. When they weren't allowed to play, what was the hardship?After all, there were many benefits to sitting out that year. But for many, it was a hardship.

As for students first vs. athletes first ... I don't know if top drama students or music students or engineering students get scholarship money from Marquette, but I do know for a fact that the top editors for various student media do.

The editor of the Tribune gets a full ride, and deservedly so, because it's a ton of work. If she decides after the year to transfer to College X, where she will get a free ride to be the editor of the X Daily, should she have to sit out a year before she can be an editor again? Is she a student first or an editor first?

See, I actually want the athletes to be treated like students first. I want them to have the same freedom of movement as that editor. That editor also could earn money writing a book, could become an internet sensation and make money off her likeness, etc. So could the student trombone player, the student actor and the student engineer. Treat the athlete similarly.

I am happy that people like Jay Bilas agree with me. It doesn't make me "right" and everybody else "wrong," it just gives me comfort to know that my feelings on this subject are similar to many of those who have been through it and who think about it on a grand scale.

I appreciate the conversation, CTW.

Look, I respect your opinion and understand why you think players should be free agents.  The other side, that I see more strongly is that a scholarship is an incredibly valuable asset for the institution and player.  A scholarship alone is really, really valuable for the players and should be the primary concern of 98% of those taking a scholarship  - what school and academics - not who is the coach.  A system that makes the coach the number one item, is not what 98% of these kids should be most concerned about..

 Some players have no business being in college and will go pro after one year - transfers don't matter for them.  98% should be putting college first and their sports careers second.  There maybe between 1% and 2% where the coach is what it is about for the players - those that are not one and done but have serious hope and likelihood of getting to play high level pro ball.  I feel for those types when things don't work out, but the system can't be built around the 2%.

To me, the fact is that a free agency system devalues the institution and what the purpose of the 98% that get scholarships should be concerned with - school.

[MU82]

Look, I respect your opinion and understand why you think players should be free agents.  The other side, that I see more strongly is that a scholarship is an incredibly valuable asset for the institution and player.  A scholarship alone is really, really valuable for the players and should be the primary concern of 98% of those taking a scholarship  - what school and academics - not who is the coach.  A system that makes the coach the number one item, is not what 98% of these kids should be most concerned about..

 Some players have no business being in college and will go pro after one year - transfers don't matter for them.  98% should be putting college first and their sports careers second.  There maybe between 1% and 2% where the coach is what it is about for the players - those that are not one and done but have serious hope and likelihood of getting to play high level pro ball.  I feel for those types when things don't work out, but the system can't be built around the 2%.

To me, the fact is that a free agency system devalues the institution and what the purpose of the 98% that get scholarships should be concerned with - school.

Fair enough. We will agree to disagree. Take it easy.

[UNC Eagle]

Thanks for the respectful, reasonable post. A few points ...

Sitting out a year is a "hardship" to anybody who views it as a hardship. If you would rather not sit out a year without being able to play basketball games and the powers-that-be force you to it out, it is a hardship. If you don't mind sitting out a year, you feel it helps you get your academics in order, you feel it helps you mature, etc., then it isn't a hardship.

It's kind of like freshman eligibility. When they weren't allowed to play, what was the hardship?After all, there were many benefits to sitting out that year. But for many, it was a hardship.

As for students first vs. athletes first ... I don't know if top drama students or music students or engineering students get scholarship money from Marquette, but I do know for a fact that the top editors for various student media do.

The editor of the Tribune gets a full ride, and deservedly so, because it's a ton of work. If she decides after the year to transfer to College X, where she will get a free ride to be the editor of the X Daily, should she have to sit out a year before she can be an editor again? Is she a student first or an editor first?

See, I actually want the athletes to be treated like students first. I want them to have the same freedom of movement as that editor. That editor also could earn money writing a book, could become an internet sensation and make money off her likeness, etc. So could the student trombone player, the student actor and the student engineer. Treat the athlete similarly.

I am happy that people like Jay Bilas agree with me. It doesn't make me "right" and everybody else "wrong," it just gives me comfort to know that my feelings on this subject are similar to many of those who have been through it and who think about it on a grand scale.

I appreciate the conversation, CTW.

Sitting out the year benefits the athlete. They are able to focus hard on strength and conditioning ,skills development and  uilding chemistry with New teammates . The last point is crucial to team and individual success .

I generally don’t like the NCAA but in this particular case the rule is one of those things that keeps all the coaches honest. If the coaches had their way kids would
Be instantly eligible .

[Dr. Blackheart]

Thanks for the respectful, reasonable post. A few points ...

Sitting out a year is a "hardship" to anybody who views it as a hardship. If you would rather not sit out a year without being able to play basketball games and the powers-that-be force you to it out, it is a hardship. If you don't mind sitting out a year, you feel it helps you get your academics in order, you feel it helps you mature, etc., then it isn't a hardship.

It's kind of like freshman eligibility. When they weren't allowed to play, what was the hardship?After all, there were many benefits to sitting out that year. But for many, it was a hardship.

As for students first vs. athletes first ... I don't know if top drama students or music students or engineering students get scholarship money from Marquette, but I do know for a fact that the top editors for various student media do.

The editor of the Tribune gets a full ride, and deservedly so, because it's a ton of work. If she decides after the year to transfer to College X, where she will get a free ride to be the editor of the X Daily, should she have to sit out a year before she can be an editor again? Is she a student first or an editor first?

See, I actually want the athletes to be treated like students first. I want them to have the same freedom of movement as that editor. That editor also could earn money writing a book, could become an internet sensation and make money off her likeness, etc. So could the student trombone player, the student actor and the student engineer. Treat the athlete similarly.

I am happy that people like Jay Bilas agree with me. It doesn't make me "right" and everybody else "wrong," it just gives me comfort to know that my feelings on this subject are similar to many of those who have been through it and who think about it on a grand scale.

I appreciate the conversation, CTW.

I gave up after "Thanks".

[MU82]

Sitting out the year benefits the athlete. They are able to focus hard on strength and conditioning ,skills development and  uilding chemistry with New teammates . The last point is crucial to team and individual success .

I generally don’t like the NCAA but in this particular case the rule is one of those things that keeps all the coaches honest. If the coaches had their way kids would
Be instantly eligible .

Again, as I said to GOO, many athletes don't want to "benefit" this way.

Are we advocating a return to freshmen being ineligible so they can all "benefit."

I appreciate your point. I just happen to think it's wrong. The drama student and the newspaper editor don't have to sit out a year. Neither does the basketball coach. Neither should the basketball player. In my opinion.

[WarriorDad]

Again, as I said to GOO, many athletes don't want to "benefit" this way.

Are we advocating a return to freshmen being ineligible so they can all "benefit."

I appreciate your point. I just happen to think it's wrong. The drama student and the newspaper editor don't have to sit out a year. Neither does the basketball coach. Neither should the basketball player. In my opinion.

Some athletes do, likely the majority what the benefit that way.  The non-revenue sport athletes, even Northwestern football had a chance to unionize and didn't.

Do the drama student and newspaper editor compete in competitions, have a league, and a governing body such as the NCAA?  Doesn't feel as though the comparison is appropriate.

[MU82]

Some athletes do, likely the majority what the benefit that way.  The non-revenue sport athletes, even Northwestern football had a chance to unionize and didn't.

Do the drama student and newspaper editor compete in competitions, have a league, and a governing body such as the NCAA?  Doesn't feel as though the comparison is appropriate.

Debate students compete. Musicians definitely do. And what does having a governing body have to do with anything?

[MUMonster03]

So any actual news on who is hiring who?

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

I gave up after "Thanks".

I gave up after “MU82”

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Some athletes do, likely the majority what the benefit that way.  The non-revenue sport athletes, even Northwestern football had a chance to unionize and didn't.

Do the drama student and newspaper editor compete in competitions, have a league, and a governing body such as the NCAA?  Doesn't feel as though the comparison is appropriate.

Ironically non-revenue athletes usually don’t have to sit out a year after transfer. Neither does anyone at the Division III level. Which basically throws the “year to acclimate” argument in the garbage.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I gave up after “MU82”

It is amazing how much he’s in your head.

[Pakuni]

Some athletes do, likely the majority what the benefit that way.  The non-revenue sport athletes, even Northwestern football had a chance to unionize and didn't.

Northwestern football didn't have a chance to unionize. They sought to unionize, but their efforts were denied by the federal government. It wasn't, as you're trying to imply here, a case of them deciding they prefer the status quo.

[Bocephys]

Northwestern football didn't have a chance to unionize. They sought to unionize, but their efforts were denied by the federal government. It wasn't, as you're trying to imply here, a case of them deciding they prefer the status quo.

Cheeks "accidentally" misrepresenting facts?  Well, I never!

[WarriorDad]

Debate students compete. Musicians definitely do. And what does having a governing body have to do with anything?

A governing body exists because there need to be rules enacted to assure institutions are not cheating while keeping some semblance of a level playing field. 

Musicians have competitions from one school to another?  I did not realize this, but will assume it is true.  My hunch is there isn't tampering going on with the debate and music students from one school to another.  Nor are 80,000 people coming to a concert or to watch the debate team perform.  I also do not recall nightly shows dedicated to the performance of the debate or music students at universities as we do with college sports teams.  That is why I think the comparisons are not appropriate.  They couldn't be any more different. 

[WarriorDad]

Northwestern football didn't have a chance to unionize. They sought to unionize, but their efforts were denied by the federal government. It wasn't, as you're trying to imply here, a case of them deciding they prefer the status quo.

Maybe my syntax wasn't clear, but that what I attempted to convey is what you stated.  They were going to vote, that was the initial intention to unionize.  In the end, after they thought Fitzgerald was going to leave, there was a racial split, it was ugly.  Whether their efforts would be denied eventually by the Federal govt (NLRB) was not my argument as the players had the intention to take the necessary steps to do what they had to do for the process to start. Which they did with their vote, even though they knew in the end they would lose.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2016/02/24/northwestern-union-case-book-indentured


We had very good friends who had a son play on that team.

[cheebs09]

Cheeks "accidentally" misrepresenting facts?  Well, I never!

Did Cheeks get a vacation? Seems to have abruptly stopped posting and other profiles are posting at a higher rate.

[Billy Hoyle]

Northwestern football didn't have a chance to unionize. They sought to unionize, but their efforts were denied by the federal government. It wasn't, as you're trying to imply here, a case of them deciding they prefer the status quo.

Correct.  When I read the decision I felt there was a legit case for them but the NLRB rejected their petition:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/sports/ncaafootball/nlrb-says-northwestern-football-players-cannot-unionize.html

Chief among the board’s reasons for declining to consider the case were the complexities of an N.C.A.A. in which one team might be unionized while others were not, and whether a union would negotiate terms that conflicted with the association’s rules. The N.L.R.B., which has jurisdiction only over the private sector, was also reluctant to wade into territory that could have raised implications for public universities. A vast majority of top-level college football programs are at public colleges, and Northwestern is the only private institution in the 14-member Big Ten Conference.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Fairfield U has a new coach.

Sorry to awake anyone.............

[monkeyman34]

Vanderbilt hired Jerry Stackhouse

[Pakuni]

@AdamZagoria: Sources say Virginia Tech and Seton Hall have both discussed numbers with Kevin Willard, with one saying it's '50/50' right now.

Reached by text, Willard has no comment.