I have mixed feelings about Creaning. It has the potential to be a big negative in a kid's longterm life since it takes focus off of school. It gives kids a motivation to work hard to be on the team since there is a threat of getting essentially cut. While that might produce better basketball players, it takes away from study time. It also gives athletes yet another reason to take pointless classes, especially at the bigger state schools. The point is, the threat of being cut takes away from the academic experience that college should be.
If you are close to getting Creaned, you are not going to be getting paid much to play basketball, so you want those kids hitting the books.
The positive about Creaning is that it potentially produces the best product on the court to promote the schools. It also allows players to find the best spot for them. In men's basketball, Marquette has a varsity team, and Creaning is like having cuts in high school. If you don't belong on the team, then you are cut. As long as a kid can stay at the school (Im not sure if they get a full ride still) maybe it is ok to have cuts. The best 13 kids at the school should be on the team.
Maybe the fairest solution is to guarantee kids full ride academic scholarships and make basketball irrelevant to having the scholarship (though there would still be the 13 limit). I am not sure if this is offically guaranteed now or not. Promise the kids education, not a spot on the basketball team.
I don't think it affects recruiting much because every coach does it.
Am I allowed to respond or was our former cosch's name not brought up yet?
Can I get a ruling?
( Hoops....this was not directed at you by the way )
Just because you saw someone put it on urban dictionary doesn't mean its an actual word that any one uses. Get real, many programs do this rightly or wrongly but the recent love for a made-up word (that conveniently blames and makes fun of Crean) is stupid.
The point of the post was not to degrade Crean. I was just trying to consider the issues that come with it and see if anyone has any ideas to fix it. It's not the most pressing issue that faces the world, but could be something that needs to be addressed. College is a tough decision for any kid at age 17 and not everyone makes the right choice, regardless of basketball.
No offense taken Chicos. I thought Creaning has been part of the MUscoop vocab and it is easier to just use it as a verb. I think Crean is always fair game on the MU board, but I am not trying to make fun of Crean here. All coaches do it, and that is why I think it is a non-issue in recruiting.
Whatever it's called (I'm sorry I started this earlier), I still think it's unfair that the situation of a kid that gets forced out falls under the same rule as a kid who decides to transfer. Make the schools be honest about it... If a coach doesn't want to renew a scholarship, fine, but don't cover it up by saying the kid wants to transfer, and then don't punish a kid who was essentially forced to transfer with the same rule that is only in place to prevent transfers. Change the rule to give a kid a free transfer if his scholarship is not renewed.
Quote from: KCMarq09 on April 11, 2010, 11:29:34 PM
Just because you saw someone put it on urban dictionary doesn't mean its an actual word that any one uses. Get real, many programs do this rightly or wrongly but the recent love for a made-up word (that conveniently blames and makes fun of Crean) is stupid.
I think its easier to just assign a verb to the practice personally. Crean did have to do some house cleaning in Bloomington, most of which was probably justified. He was our old coach and is the focus of inside jokes among MU fans (and IU fans actually). Talking about Crean is not going away. That was not the point of the post anyway.
Quote from: TJ on April 11, 2010, 11:55:58 PM
Whatever it's called (I'm sorry I started this earlier), I still think it's unfair that the situation of a kid that gets forced out falls under the same rule as a kid who decides to transfer. Make the schools be honest about it... If a coach doesn't want to renew a scholarship, fine, but don't cover it up by saying the kid wants to transfer, and then don't punish a kid who was essentially forced to transfer with the same rule that is only in place to prevent transfers. Change the rule to give a kid a free transfer if his scholarship is not renewed.
The only thing that concerns me there is enforcement. Many players could get around the sit out rule by claiming that they got asked to leave because they were not going to play (I was actually annoyed to type out "asked to leave because they were not going to play" rather than using Creaned). That would open the door for someone like Hayward who played on a team with all seniors his junior year seeing that his senior year would be a rebuilding year. He could just then use this escape clause to say that he was pushed out and then transfer to a contender.
It would almost lead to recruiting of current players. Is there a way to address this concern?
Quote from: HoopsMalone on April 12, 2010, 12:01:41 AM(I was actually annoyed to type out "asked to leave because they were not going to play" rather than using Creaned)
Yeah, that's why I did it earlier. Says in one word what it otherwise takes a whole sentence to get across.
To the rest of your comments, I would imagine the school would be the party reporting the decision to not renew a scholarship, not the player. So Butler, not wanting to lose Hayward, wouldn't lie about it. Of course there could be opportunity for abuse, but I don't think it would be that widespread.
I think some coaches would want to respect player's wishes and would say that they Creaned the player as a favor. Buzz was very polite in the media about JMay, but did attach some conditions about where he could go to his release. I don't know if Buzz would have granted J-May's request to Crean him. Would coaches recruit saying that they will Crean you as a favor if you do not like it? College basketball could have effective free agents.
The one year rule for transferring is a good idea I think. It's a good incentive. But on the other hand, coaches get to leave whenever they want... It's a really tough call. Many things to consider.
The kid can opt out of his side of the bargain any time and transfer. (most recently, see Jeronne Maymon). Why shouldn't the school be allowed to opt out based on on-the-court performance?
Recruits know what they've signed up for. It's a basketball scholarship. You need to work hard everyday to keep it. If you are not a high major player but have been given a chance to play at a school like Marquette, then improve or give your scholarship to someone else. I am sure Buzz would keep you as a walk on to help in practices, etc. As harsh as that may sound, that is what a 13 limit on scholarships does to high major programs.
The positives outlined in the first post far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion.
This could be one of those issues where the more we think about it, the more we realize that the rules as they are work as best as possible.
This really does not sit well with me but I can't think of a better solution. These 17 year old kids are being hustled by all of these coaches whose job it is to sell the program. I think almost all coaches want what is best for the kids, but picking a school is not the most informed decision. It is like reading a company's annual report. Everything alway seems like rainbows. The sales pitch of getting a kid to move somewhere with the idea that he will contribute to a high major team can't sound bad.
At the end of the day, downtown85 makes a good point. This is just basketball. If you get cut, then you cut. Worse things happen in life, and maybe there is a better spot for you on another team. Life isn't fair though. No one is going to treat us like this in the real world either. I'm still conflicted though.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on April 11, 2010, 11:57:31 PM
I think its easier to just assign a verb to the practice personally. Crean did have to do some house cleaning in Bloomington, most of which was probably justified. He was our old coach and is the focus of inside jokes among MU fans (and IU fans actually). Talking about Crean is not going away. That was not the point of the post anyway.
Really? The point of the post is to NOT bring up Crean? I'm sorry, but the verb you "assigned" to this, and all situations similar to it, screams "Crean is part of this."
I understand that creating a verb for this particular action is convenient but to associate all such action with Crean is just wrong and pointless. Pardon how he left, Crean deserves credit for almost everything good that has happened with Marquette Basketball in the past decade. I would not want anything done differently, he left us with an upgraded program, and coach and recruiter...what more could you ask for?
Now get over it and stop creating small pointless ways to bring Crean up for discussion and/or insult him in EVERY thread.
Quote from: KCMarq09 on April 12, 2010, 02:34:26 AM
Now get over it and stop creating small pointless ways to bring Crean up for discussion and/or insult him in EVERY thread.
The point of the post is to talk about solutions to the practice of Creaning. Trying to have a discussion about a recruiting issue is not some conspiracy to bash Crean. I actually think that urbandictionary thing is funny though. People are going to talk about Crean and you are the one who needs to get over it.
I don't come onto these boards to try to play gotcha games. I don't come on here to vent about a coach I never met leaving my alma mater's basketball team. I just like talking about basketball and talking about Marquette. It's usually fun.
I really just want to see if anyone else has ideas about this. I like the idea of revising the amount of time one has to sit out if a coach pushes them out. I just worry about the compliance and enforcement of it. Maybe there are other ideas out there.
Kids know their situations...coaches know their situations...nothing is usually a suprise. Fans might think stuff like this comes out left field, but that is rarely the case.
Quote from: downtown85 on April 12, 2010, 01:12:16 AM
It's a basketball scholarship. You need to work hard everyday to keep it.
Agree 100%. If a student earns an academic scholarship but does not keep up a certain GPA, he loses that scholarship. I don't hear anyone crying for those students. In most cases, we'd probably blame to student for not doing enough to keep his GPA up, even though it might be that he's just in over his head at the particular school or in a particular program. An athletic scholarship is really no different - if you don't keep up your end of the agreement, you lose it.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 12, 2010, 08:26:49 AM
Agree 100%. If a student earns an academic scholarship but does not keep up a certain GPA, he loses that scholarship. I don't hear anyone crying for those students. In most cases, we'd probably blame to student for not doing enough to keep his GPA up, even though it might be that he's just in over his head at the particular school or in a particular program. An athletic scholarship is really no different - if you don't keep up your end of the agreement, you lose it.
True... but what does a basketball player have to do to keep his scholarship?
What if he works his ass of in practice everyday, goes to class, and does everything the coach asks? The only "issue" the player is having is that he's just not as good as some of the other players.
If a player isn't working hard and showing up, then by all means revoke the scholarship... but if the kid works very hard and does everything the coach asks... then it gets a little gray. (in my opinion anyways).
Quote from: 2002MUalum on April 12, 2010, 08:37:11 AM
but if the kid works very hard and does everything the coach asks... then it gets a little gray. (in my opinion anyways).
This is the hard thing. Especially when you consider the recruiting process happens when they are so young. It is a little gray.
In life, though, you don't get to keep a job for effort. Results are what counts. Maybe banning these practices would be a bad life lesson for the kids since it doesn't reflect reality?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on April 12, 2010, 08:37:11 AM
True... but what does a basketball player have to do to keep his scholarship?
What if he works his ass of in practice everyday, goes to class, and does everything the coach asks? The only "issue" the player is having is that he's just not as good as some of the other players.
If a player isn't working hard and showing up, then by all means revoke the scholarship... but if the kid works very hard and does everything the coach asks... then it gets a little gray. (in my opinion anyways).
If a student goes to class, studies constantly, meets with his professors regularly, and yet still get bad grades, they still lose their academic scholarship.
I think this type of thing can be done rarely, but still be allowed.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 12, 2010, 08:49:43 AM
If a student goes to class, studies constantly, meets with his professors regularly, and yet still get bad grades, they still lose their academic scholarship.
I think this type of thing can be done rarely, but still be allowed.
Ultimately, I guess you're right, it's about performance...
But, I don't like the precedent of moving a kid out of the program because he can't shoot like the coach who recruited him thought. I know it happens, so I've accepted it... but it just leaves me with a bad taste, ya know?
If the kid comes in and works hard and does everything the coach wants, I don't think a coach can ask much more than that. It was the coach who evaluated the kid's talent and ceiling.
As far as a kid with grades, if he is busting ass and meeting with advisers, etc. He/she is going to be giving every chance to keep his/her academic scholarship... maybe it should be the same for hoops players. Maybe they should get 2 years before they are "Creaned" or "Buzzed" or "Ryaned" or "Pearled" or whatever coach you want to use.
*With all of this said, I guess it's ok if a coach says "It just doesn't look like you are going to play much. If you want to transfer, I'll help you. If you want to stay, you'll have to work just as hard in practice and in the classroom and probably won't see the floor."
That's not really pushing a player out the door, it's an honest assessment of the situation, which is what I hope is happening in a lot of these cases.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on April 12, 2010, 08:37:11 AM
True... but what does a basketball player have to do to keep his scholarship?
What if he works his ass of in practice everyday, goes to class, and does everything the coach asks? The only "issue" the player is having is that he's just not as good as some of the other players.
If a player isn't working hard and showing up, then by all means revoke the scholarship... but if the kid works very hard and does everything the coach asks... then it gets a little gray. (in my opinion anyways).
What if previously referenced student on scholarship does all those exact same things and carries a C average? Please. Be a Big Boy.
Coach and player sit and and say it just is not happening the way we had hoped. Now you can stay here if you want or you can transfer to another school that will provide u more opportunity. it is ultimately the players choice.
Actually, how many guys did TC force out. ODB amd Mason and Bradley left on their own. Christopherson and Mbakwe left due to the coaching change (with an assist from Trevor's posse). Hester was well "de-Deaned"...! Bell and Matthews caused their own issues while TC still wanted Christian. Amoroso...well, he was "off" anyway. Menard was simply over his head. Hazel (on Buzz's watch caused his own issue as well) . Now, take a look at Majerus and Calipari the last two years. I suspect "Creaning" is a real misnomer. The term seems to be more about mis-recruting than about forcing guys out...?
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on April 12, 2010, 09:21:54 AM
What if previously referenced student on scholarship does all those exact same things and carries a C average? Please. Be a Big Boy.
Coach and player sit and and say it just is not happening the way we had hoped. Now you can stay here if you want or you can transfer to another school that will provide u more opportunity. it is ultimately the players choice.
I understand your point of view, it's a performance issue.
I just think it's a somewhat slippery slope.
Where is the cut off line for a guy who isn't getting playing time?
Should schools regularly have 3 or 4 transfers per year? I don't expect that to happen, but again, where is the line with this kind of stuff? 1 or 2 per year is ok? 3 is too much?
Quote from: 2002MUalum on April 12, 2010, 10:29:12 AM
I understand your point of view, it's a performance issue.
I just think it's a somewhat slippery slope.
Where is the cut off line for a guy who isn't getting playing time?
Should schools regularly have 3 or 4 transfers per year? I don't expect that to happen, but again, where is the line with this kind of stuff? 1 or 2 per year is ok? 3 is too much?
I don't know if there should be an amount of transfers type of rule when drawing the line. I think every time should be looked at on a case by case basis.
I think the best way to test it is if the player was pushed out for his own play or conduct, or was it that the coach found someone who he thinks is better. I think these are two different situations and we are only considering Roseboro-type situations.
Consider this hypo. Lazar by all accounts was a great student athlete for MU. Great leader, hard worker, All-Big East talent. Let's say somehow an exact replica of all the players from the 1996 Bulls all were in high school and only wanted to go to Marquette. Obviously, they are all better than Lazar. Is it ok to push out Lazar because 13 players are willing to come and commit to you that you know all play well together. I know its a silly example, but its exaggerated to make a point. Would Buzz have the right (or obligation to put the best team on the floor for MU) to push Lazar out for the Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc clones? Lazar would have been a great teammate and great person for 3 years, but someone better comes along. Where do you draw the line then? I think this is the harder thing to consider.
I think a Roseboro type of situation is different. There was no big time recruit knocking on the door to take his place last year. It was just a bad fit. Roseboro got a great opportunity, and it did not work out for him. Would he be better off had he not had that opportunity every? Who knows. When he is 45 years old, I am sure he won't mind telling people he had a scholarship offer from a Big East school.
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on April 12, 2010, 09:21:54 AM
What if previously referenced student on scholarship does all those exact same things and carries a C average? Please. Be a Big Boy.
Coach and player sit and and say it just is not happening the way we had hoped. Now you can stay here if you want or you can transfer to another school that will provide u more opportunity. it is ultimately the players choice.
The point of this whole conversations is for situations where it is not ultimately the players' choice. When the player has been told "you've worked hard, you've done all that I asked, but you're simply not good enough at basketball. I'm not renewing your scholarship for next year because I can sign another player that is better. I'll help you transfer to another school where you get to sit out a year as punishment for something you had absolutely no say in." Or something to that effect.
I just hope if we're going to do some Buzz Cutting that the kid is left with a good situation wherever he goes. I hate the practice, no matter who it is. Many programs do it, but some more than others. In my mind, Buzz Cutting is typically the fault of the coach AND the player\parents. The expectations by some players and their families is so out of control these days. They all think they are going to the NBA and the dollar signs are filled in their noggins.
Meanwhile, coaches recruit over players in their attempts to get better, that doesn't sit well with players for obvious reasons.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2010, 01:26:16 PM
I just hope if we're going to do some Buzz Cutting that the kid is left with a good situation wherever he goes. I hate the practice, no matter who it is. Many programs do it, but some more than others. In my mind, Buzz Cutting is typically the fault of the coach AND the player\parents. The expectations by some players and their families is so out of control these days. They all think they are going to the NBA and the dollar signs are filled in their noggins.
Meanwhile, coaches recruit over players in their attempts to get better, that doesn't sit well with players for obvious reasons.
Good point about the culture kids grow up with in high school. Parents and players need to be honest with themselves too with how good they are. Most players would probably want to give the best school possible a shot. But there should be some burden on the players and parents on some level. Maybe someone like Roseboro should have come and played against Burke and Fulce a few times before coming.
I still think the burden is more on the coaches to be a little more upfront. These guys are professional recruiters hustling 17 year olds.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on April 12, 2010, 11:15:05 AM
I don't know if there should be an amount of transfers type of rule when drawing the line. I think every time should be looked at on a case by case basis.
I think the best way to test it is if the player was pushed out for his own play or conduct, or was it that the coach found someone who he thinks is better. I think these are two different situations and we are only considering Roseboro-type situations.
Consider this hypo. Lazar by all accounts was a great student athlete for MU. Great leader, hard worker, All-Big East talent. Let's say somehow an exact replica of all the players from the 1996 Bulls all were in high school and only wanted to go to Marquette. Obviously, they are all better than Lazar. Is it ok to push out Lazar because 13 players are willing to come and commit to you that you know all play well together. I know its a silly example, but its exaggerated to make a point. Would Buzz have the right (or obligation to put the best team on the floor for MU) to push Lazar out for the Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc clones? Lazar would have been a great teammate and great person for 3 years, but someone better comes along. Where do you draw the line then? I think this is the harder thing to consider.
I think a Roseboro type of situation is different. There was no big time recruit knocking on the door to take his place last year. It was just a bad fit. Roseboro got a great opportunity, and it did not work out for him. Would he be better off had he not had that opportunity every? Who knows. When he is 45 years old, I am sure he won't mind telling people he had a scholarship offer from a Big East school.
Agree 100%.
I'm not against transfers (like Rosario), I'm just saying I don't want to see teams regularly trying to trim the bottom of their roster and bring in new guys.
I know that's not exactly happening now, but where does the "he's just not good enough" argument end?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2010, 01:26:16 PM
I just hope if we're going to do some Buzz Cutting Creaningthat the kid is left with a good situation wherever he goes. I hate the practice, no matter who it is. Many programs do it, but some more than others. In my mind, Buzz Cutting Creaningis typically the fault of the coach AND the player\parents. The expectations by some players and their families is so out of control these days. They all think they are going to the NBA and the dollar signs are filled in their noggins.
Meanwhile, coaches recruit over players in their attempts to get better, that doesn't sit well with players for obvious reasons.