http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/topic/85143-unt-hires-former-marquette-asst-scott-monarch/#entry734455
He was just hired last month to be the men's coach at a DII school in South Carolina called Claflin University. That didn't take long.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2013, 05:20:05 PM
He was just hired last month to be the men's coach at a DII school in South Carolina called Claflin University. That didn't take long.
Pretty sh1tty switch on Monarch's part. He is already off the web roster but still listed on the landing page.
Quote from: keefe on July 16, 2013, 07:10:48 PM
Pretty sh1tty switch on Monarch's part. He is already off the web roster but still listed on the landing page.
Yep. Coaches can bolt at will and the players have to sit a year.
$$$$$$ and Monarch is better off in TX and Div I. Not so great for Claflin.
Quote from: 79Warrior on July 16, 2013, 07:23:12 PM
Yep. Coaches can bolt at will and the players have to sit a year.
Players can leave as well. NAIA no sitting. Or go to DIII, no sitting. Here's the other difference, a player can transfer to many places because there are many openings. A coach has very few places to move to. If a player isn't doing that well, someone will take him on another program. If a coach isn't doing well...he gets fired.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2013, 07:29:53 PM
Players can leave as well. NAIA no sitting. Or go to DIII, no sitting. Here's the other difference, a player can transfer to many places because there are many openings. A coach has very few places to move to. If a player isn't doing that well, someone will take him on another program. If a coach isn't doing well...he gets fired.
Clafin is Division 2...and there are circumstances where a D2 player can transfer without sitting.
Quote from: Nukem2 on July 16, 2013, 07:29:23 PM
$$$$$$ and Monarch is better off in TX and Div I. Not so great for Claflin.
I've been going back and forth in my head on this. On the one hand, leaving for another job less than two months after you took it, is really a poor thing to do. OTOH, if I were Clafin I would rather have Monarch leave now than in a year.
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 16, 2013, 07:33:12 PM
I've been going back and forth in my head on this. On the one hand, leaving for another job less than two months after you took it, is really a poor thing to do. OTOH, if I were Clafin I would rather have Monarch leave now than in a year.
Piss poor character on Monarch's part.
I've got no problem with this. At the end of the day you need to look out for yourself and your family and make the decision that you think best benefits you/them. Very similar to what Chew did leaving Illinois for MU after only a couple months.
Quote from: jmayer1 on July 16, 2013, 08:33:00 PM
I've got no problem with this. At the end of the day you need to look out for yourself and your family and make the decision that you think best benefits you/them. Very similar to what Chew did leaving Illinois for MU after only a couple months.
at the end of the day, you're only as good as your word, and i'm always interested as to how many coaches lie to kids and justify it through words like "i have to do what's best for my family."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2013, 07:29:53 PM
Players can leave as well. NAIA no sitting. Or go to DIII, no sitting. Here's the other difference, a player can transfer to many places because there are many openings. A coach has very few places to move to. If a player isn't doing that well, someone will take him on another program. If a coach isn't doing well...he gets fired.
you'll argue anything. you think a D1 coach that gets fired would be able to pick up a job at a D3 school? you think D1 players that get cut can afford to pay tuition at a D3 school? as far as the "number of openings"...that's supply and demand...
Anyone know why Benford didn't hire him two months ago before he accepted at Clafin or whatever?
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 16, 2013, 10:38:38 PM
Anyone know why Benford didn't hire him two months ago before he accepted at Clafin or whatever?
Monarch was waiting for North Texas to print up some awesome new t-shirts before joining.
Quote from: keefe on July 16, 2013, 07:38:40 PM
Piss poor character on Monarch's part.
Agreed. Now he jumps somewhere else where I'm sure one of his spiels to the players will be about loyalty ;D
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 16, 2013, 10:38:38 PM
Anyone know why Benford didn't hire him two months ago before he accepted at Clafin or whatever?
His assistant, and former MU assistant, Bart Lundy took the head coaching gig at Queens University a couple weeks ago.
I think its a much Bigger deal for a head coach to leave after being Hired for 2 months then an asst. Easy to find a adequate asst in July, Much harder to spend the time to hire a good fit as HC on July 15th.
That being said this was Monarchs only chance to get back into D-1, most schools would not touch him after the violation and conduct. So in that regard I understand why.
Quote from: kmwtrucks on July 17, 2013, 08:37:44 AM
I think its a much Bigger deal for a head coach to leave after being Hired for 2 months then an asst. Easy to find a adequate asst in July, Much harder to spend the time to hire a good fit as HC on July 15th.
That being said this was Monarchs only chance to get back into D-1, most schools would not touch him after the violation and conduct. So in that regard I understand why.
I think that a lot of schools will look at this move as confirmation Scott Monarch is not a desirable candidate for any vacancy. If I see a 2 month tenure on a resume I will have questions before the person ever gets in the door for an interview.
Quote from: avid1010 on July 16, 2013, 08:56:28 PM
you'll argue anything. you think a D1 coach that gets fired would be able to pick up a job at a D3 school? you think D1 players that get cut can afford to pay tuition at a D3 school? as far as the "number of openings"...that's supply and demand...
I think you missed a key part of what I said. There are many openings for players to transfer, very few for coaches. There are 13 spots per team for players with typically 3 to 4 new ones rotating every year, there is one head coaching position per team. There is tons of movement for players due to the number of transfers, there aren't nearly the openings for coaches.
Why do you automatically assume a D1 player is poor and can't afford a D3 school? Why do you assume a D3 school isn't affordable?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
I think you missed a key part of what I said. There are many openings for players to transfer, very few for coaches. There are 13 spots per team for players with typically 3 to 4 new ones rotating every year, there is one head coaching position per team. There is tons of movement for players due to the number of transfers, there aren't nearly the openings for coaches.
Why do you automatically assume a D1 player is poor and can't afford a D3 school? Why do you assume a D3 school isn't affordable?
So somehow because there are 13 player spots on a team and only 4-5 coaching spots on a team, that somehow justifies imposing a penalty on the players who choose to move but not the coaches? Explain that again?
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 17, 2013, 07:03:05 AM
His assistant, and former MU assistant, Bart Lundy took the head coaching gig at Queens University a couple weeks ago.
Is that Queens College/CUNY?
Quote from: keefe on July 16, 2013, 07:10:48 PM
Pretty sh1tty switch on Monarch's part. He is already off the web roster but still listed on the landing page.
Never liked Monarch. Thought Buzz was blinded by loyalty when he brought him on. Was happy when he crap his pants and was ousted.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on July 17, 2013, 09:31:54 AM
Never liked Monarch. Thought Buzz was blinded by loyalty when he brought him on. Was happy when he crap his pants and was ousted.
I don't know about happy but I believe Marquette is a better place without Mr. Monarch.
"I have dined with kings, I've been offered wings. And I've never been too impressed." -- Bob Dylan
Quote from: keefe on July 16, 2013, 07:38:40 PM
Piss poor character on Monarch's part.
Most of us know people who have taken jobs and left shortly thereafter for many different reasons. This really is no different? On top of that, its his opportunity to get back into Div I, be closer to home and provide better for his family. Poor character...I don't think so.
Quote from: Nukem2 on July 17, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
Most of us know people who have taken jobs and left shortly thereafter for many different reasons. This really is no different? On top of that, its his opportunity to get back into Div I, be closer to home and provide better for his family. Poor character...I don't think so.
Not sure what could have changed materially within 8 weeks other than he got a better prom date. He gave his word and made a commitment to a number of people. I have always heard of the 1 year minimum after accepting a position.
I have made career changes but never after such a short tenure. And whenever I did make a change I made damn sure my exit was executed cleanly and properly. When I decided to leave GE Capital to return to the USAF after 9/11 I needed the better part of a year to transition effectively. I communicated my intentions immediately to my bosses back in CT, we put together a turn over plan, and they involved me in the search for my replacement. There were greater logistics because it was an expat assignment in Singapore with the added complication that it was a JV involving Sun Microsystems, Quintiles, Harvard, and Temasek Holdings. Both GE and the USAF appreciated my need to wrap things up thoroughly and efficiently.
I suppose many of us know people who have left jobs after a short tenure but Monarch accepted an executive position. He made a commitment which he conveniently shrugged off. Poor character? Absolutely.
I have to wonder when did a man's word become so meaningless? I come from a world where men entrust their very mortal existence on the integrity of a man's word. Monarch should be ashamed but I doubt he has any problems when he shaves in the morning.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on July 17, 2013, 09:31:54 AM
Never liked Monarch. Thought Buzz was blinded by loyalty when he brought him on. Was happy when he crap his pants and was ousted.
Curious why you say that? Is there something specific in his background before he came to MU?
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 08:58:06 AM
I think that a lot of schools will look at this move as confirmation Scott Monarch is not a desirable candidate for any vacancy. If I see a 2 month tenure on a resume I will have questions before the person ever gets in the door for an interview.
I hear ya on this. I apply the same principles/values in my business too.
I suspect that sports and college athletics play by different rules. Look at Chew for an example. For that matter, look at the time of year Majerus chose to leave MU.
I also suspect that regardless of Monarch's history, if he starts bringing in high caliber recruits, and helps coach UNT to a new level (conf championships, consistent trips to the dance), higher level D1 programs will fight for his services.
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 10:37:31 AM
Not sure what could have changed materially within 8 weeks other than he got a better prom date. He gave his word and made a commitment to a number of people. I have always heard of the 1 year minimum after accepting a position.
I have made career changes but never after such a short tenure. And whenever I did make a change I made damn sure my exit was executed cleanly and properly. When I decided to leave GE Capital to return to the USAF after 9/11 I needed the better part of a year to transition effectively. I communicated my intentions immediately to my bosses back in CT, we put together a turn over plan, and they involved me in the search for my replacement. There were greater logistics because it was an expat assignment in Singapore with the added complication that it was a JV involving Sun Microsystems, Quintiles, Harvard, and Temasek Holdings. Both GE and the USAF appreciated my need to wrap things up thoroughly and efficiently.
I suppose many of us know people who have left jobs after a short tenure but Monarch accepted an executive position. He made a commitment which he conveniently shrugged off. Poor character? Absolutely.
I have to wonder when did a man's word become so meaningless? I come from a world where men entrust their very mortal existence on the integrity of a man's word. Monarch should be ashamed but I doubt he has any problems when he shaves in the morning.
Sometimes I wonder if you respond to posts just so that you can tell more of your life story.
Quote from: tommyc6 on July 17, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
Sometimes I wonder if you respond to posts just so that you can tell more of your life story.
Perhaps the story has relevance.
Quote from: Nukem2 on July 17, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
Most of us know people who have taken jobs and left shortly thereafter for many different reasons. This really is no different? On top of that, its his opportunity to get back into Div I, be closer to home and provide better for his family. Poor character...I don't think so.
I think there is a difference between a head coach and an assistant job. Yes, a lot of kids go to certain schools because of their relationships with the assistants, but the head coach is supposed to be the face of a program
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 10:37:31 AM
I suppose many of us know people who have left jobs after a short tenure but Monarch accepted an executive position. He made a commitment which he conveniently shrugged off. Poor character? Absolutely.
Can we get your opinion on Buzz leaving UNO?
Quote from: MUMBA on July 17, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
Can we get your opinion on Buzz leaving UNO?
Significant dissimilarities between the two situations.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 17, 2013, 09:10:56 AM
So somehow because there are 13 player spots on a team and only 4-5 coaching spots on a team, that somehow justifies imposing a penalty on the players who choose to move but not the coaches? Explain that again?
What penalty is imposed...that God forbid they have to sit out again? Sorry, that's not much a penalty in my book.
The argument was that these poor players can't just get up and leave which isn't true. They can. Furthermore, if a coach gets up and leaves, he has to pay a buyout (usually) or deal with other contractual issues. Does the coach have advantages of movement...sure does. Is the player solely without choices to move? Nope. If the players don't like it, then don't play NCAA basketball, go to the D League, go to Europe, play intramurals, play NAIA, play DIII. Lots of options out there. If that doesn't suit their needs, then yes, they can play DI have their education, room and board, training, coaching, etc all paid for AND IF they want to leave, they have to sit out for one year. Boo hoo.
Lastly, I said moving to a HEAD coaching position, not to any coaching position, like the 4 to 5 per team you reference. Big difference, IMO. ;D
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 09:17:37 AM
Is that Queens College/CUNY?
Queens University in Charlotte.
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 17, 2013, 11:57:28 AM
Queens University in Charlotte.
Got it. Not familiar with this school.
Quote from: MUMBA on July 17, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
Can we get your opinion on Buzz leaving UNO?
Apples and Oranges. Buzz signed a 4 year contract but realized almost immediately that there were more issues than he realized. But the degree of difficulty at UNO was not the problem. The school consistently failed to honor the terms of its agreement with Williams. Meal money was not paid to players. Transport for road games didn't happen. Facilities were sub-standard and the promised opening of a home court, a key condition of William's accepting the job, was not met. After a year he sat down with the AD to attempt to resolve UNO's failure to honor his contract. A month later, when Marquette called, he requested and was granted permission by his AD to speak about that opening. Everything was above board. The ensuing legal battle was over the buy out which William's argued was voided by UNO's failure to meet its obligations. There is no similarity between Williams leaving UNO after a year and Monarch ditching Claflin less than two months after joining. And I'm not going to air it here but there is more to the Monarch story at Marquette.
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 17, 2013, 11:02:53 AM
I hear ya on this. I apply the same principles/values in my business too.
I suspect that sports and college athletics play by different rules. Look at Chew for an example. For that matter, look at the time of year Majerus chose to leave MU.
I also suspect that regardless of Monarch's history, if he starts bringing in high caliber recruits, and helps coach UNT to a new level (conf championships, consistent trips to the dance), higher level D1 programs will fight for his services.
I'm not sure sports is different other than key personnel decisions receive far greater play than happens in business. But unfortunately you are correct that nothing breeds forgiveness faster than winning. Calipari is walking proof of that.
Do you think your experience at GE is exactly analogous to Monarch's situation? Or might that be apples and oranges too?
You elluded to some details that I may not know, so perhaps you have a more informed opinion on Monarch's character than I do. In the absence of such insights, I'm more inclined to withold judgment.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2013, 11:50:03 AM
What penalty is imposed...that God forbid they have to sit out again? Sorry, that's not much a penalty in my book.
The argument was that these poor players can't just get up and leave which isn't true. They can. Furthermore, if a coach gets up and leaves, he has to pay a buyout (usually) or deal with other contractual issues. Does the coach have advantages of movement...sure does. Is the player solely without choices to move? Nope. If the players don't like it, then don't play NCAA basketball, go to the D League, go to Europe, play intramurals, play NAIA, play DIII. Lots of options out there. If that doesn't suit their needs, then yes, they can play DI have their education, room and board, training, coaching, etc all paid for AND IF they want to leave, they have to sit out for one year. Boo hoo.
Lastly, I said moving to a HEAD coaching position, not to any coaching position, like the 4 to 5 per team you reference. Big difference, IMO. ;D
Okay, so you still haven't explained why players have NCAA rules built to limit their movement from program to program but coaches do not. You openly admit that coaches have advantages in moving... why is that okay?
You may not think it is much of a penalty, but then why not have the same rule for coaches? Coaches certainly have the same "abundance" of suitable options available to them. They could be coaches in the D-League, Uruguay, or at NAIA. Coaches buyouts are paid by their new employer and they aren't imposed by the NCAA, so they are quite different.
I'm not saying the players have it so horrible rough, just that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 17, 2013, 02:47:52 PM
I'm not saying the players have it so horrible rough, just that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am all for increased flexibility in allowing player movement, but I you are making a false equivalency. Coaches are coaches. They are employees. There is only one of them on a team, etc. etc. Players are players. They aren't employees.
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 17, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
I am all for increased flexibility in allowing player movement, but I you are making a false equivalency. Coaches are coaches. They are employees. There is only one of them on a team, etc. etc. Players are players. They aren't employees.
Fair distinction to point out, but I think that only further emphasizes that players should be on at least equal footing with coaches. Why does a student have greater restrictions on moving than a university employee?
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 10:37:31 AM
Not sure what could have changed materially within 8 weeks other than he got a better prom date. He gave his word and made a commitment to a number of people. I have always heard of the 1 year minimum after accepting a position.
What are your thoughts on Chew leaving Illinois for MU?
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 17, 2013, 02:47:52 PM
Okay, so you still haven't explained why players have NCAA rules built to limit their movement from program to program but coaches do not. You openly admit that coaches have advantages in moving... why is that okay?
You may not think it is much of a penalty, but then why not have the same rule for coaches? Coaches certainly have the same "abundance" of suitable options available to them. They could be coaches in the D-League, Uruguay, or at NAIA. Coaches buyouts are paid by their new employer and they aren't imposed by the NCAA, so they are quite different.
I'm not saying the players have it so horrible rough, just that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Big distinction is that the coaches are making a living and pursuing their careers while the players are (hopefully) getting an education both off and on the court as they lay a foundation for their future off or on the court careers and ability to make a living.
I left my last job after 1.5 days - I never would have even started but due to circumstances out of my control I had to start it until I found out if my still current job 25 years later was a done deal. After a phonecall at lunch on day 2 I quit upon returning from lunch. It was their choice that I not even give 2 weeks before leaving, don't know why that was. ;D
Quote from: MUMBA on July 17, 2013, 02:34:54 PM
Do you think your experience at GE is exactly analogous to Monarch's situation? Or might that be apples and oranges too?
You elluded to some details that I may not know, so perhaps you have a more informed opinion on Monarch's character than I do. In the absence of such insights, I'm more inclined to withold judgment.
My point is that when I made the decision to return to the military I could not wait to get back into the cockpit and begin schwacking rat bastard tangos. But I had to temper that enthusiasm with the understanding that I had to transition out properly out of respect to an outstanding employer who had been very good to me and afforded me many opportunities. More importantly, I felt a very strong obligation to the exceptional group of professionals who had assembled to bring world class drug discovery and development to Asia.
There was no way in hell I would have simply left, even though under American employment law I could leave immediately since it was for military service under exigent circumstances. I had to be comfortable with the manner in which I treated colleagues at all times, including when I left the enterprise. I am comfortable with how I managed my departure and I know that if I met any of those people today they would welcome me warmly. Do you think Scott Monarch has similar relationships with his former employers?
At the end of the day, this is all about how we treat one another. Monarch made a choice and took care of himself.
Quote from: Red Stripe on July 17, 2013, 03:21:34 PM
I left my last job after 1.5 days - I never would have even started but due to circumstances out of my control I had to start it until I found out if my still current job 25 years later was a done deal. After a phonecall at lunch on day 2 I quit upon returning from lunch. It was their choice that I not even give 2 weeks before leaving, don't know why that was. ;D
Since this was likely at the beginning of your career it was probably not a senior executive position. Monarch was the CEO of an enterprise. He owed a lot more.
Quote from: Nukem2 on July 17, 2013, 03:14:07 PM
Big distinction is that the coaches are making a living and pursuing their careers while the players are (hopefully) getting an education both off and on the court as they lay a foundation for their future off or on the court careers and ability to make a living.
Man that is paternalistic... and would be completely bad faith argument if made by the NCAA.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
I think you missed a key part of what I said. There are many openings for players to transfer, very few for coaches. There are 13 spots per team for players with typically 3 to 4 new ones rotating every year, there is one head coaching position per team. There is tons of movement for players due to the number of transfers, there aren't nearly the openings for coaches.
Why do you automatically assume a D1 player is poor and can't afford a D3 school? Why do you assume a D3 school isn't affordable?
well as far as my "assumption" related to D1 players income...it's not an assumption...i remember reading an article a few years back related to paying players, and a large % of players came from poverty...let alone having $$$ to pay for a D3 education. outside of basketball and football, it gets even worse, as numerous reports will outline how much those students often have to pay in expenses beyond what the scholarship money covers.
as far as me missing your part about many openings, i don't think so. first, i'm not sure what the supply and demand would look like. i do know there are more openings for police officers than engineers, but it's easier to move as an engineer. simply stating that there's a lot of movement in college basketball does nothing to create demand...it's just players moving from one school to another. in general...one could probably argue it's easier to become a college coach than a college player.
that said, there's a big difference between adults and college KIDS, and if we aren't treating our kids better than our adults something is wrong. amazing how you can essentially say all coaches are pretty squirmy (in defense of crean), then turn around advocate for their rights. i'm not worried about the coaches, just the kids...
Quote from: avid1010 on July 17, 2013, 05:33:03 PM
well as far as my "assumption" related to D1 players income...it's not an assumption...i remember reading an article a few years back related to paying players, and a large % of players came from poverty...let alone having $$$ to pay for a D3 education. outside of basketball and football, it gets even worse, as numerous reports will outline how much those students often have to pay in expenses beyond what the scholarship money covers.
One of the guys from Marquette's golf team lived on my floor at McCormick. He was on scholars but I suspect his upper middle class folks in Thiensville could have easily footed the tuition bill. His golf kit likely cost more than what his tuition bill would have been.
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 10:37:31 AM
I have made career changes but never after such a short tenure. And whenever I did make a change I made damn sure my exit was executed cleanly and properly. When I decided to leave GE Capital to return to the USAF after 9/11 I needed the better part of a year to transition effectively. I communicated my intentions immediately to my bosses back in CT, we put together a turn over plan, and they involved me in the search for my replacement. There were greater logistics because it was an expat assignment in Singapore with the added complication that it was a JV involving Sun Microsystems, Quintiles, Harvard, and Temasek Holdings. Both GE and the USAF appreciated my need to wrap things up thoroughly and efficiently.
I suppose many of us know people who have left jobs after a short tenure but Monarch accepted an executive position. He made a commitment which he conveniently shrugged off. Poor character? Absolutely.
I have to wonder when did a man's word become so meaningless? I come from a world where men entrust their very mortal existence on the integrity of a man's word. Monarch should be ashamed but I doubt he has any problems when he shaves in the morning.
You're a patriot and an executive! Please tell us more about your ability to execute transferring positions cleanly and effectively and be sure to include as many possible impressive sounding other companies as possible.
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 03:22:46 PM
My point is that when I made the decision to return to the military I could not wait to get back into the cockpit and begin schwacking rat bastard tangos.
My America erection is growing...
Quote from: 314warrior on July 17, 2013, 08:07:41 PM
My America erection is growing...
"But isn't it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?"
-- David Niven
Quote from: keefe on July 16, 2013, 07:10:48 PM
Pretty sh1tty switch on Monarch's part. He is already off the web roster but still listed on the landing page.
Character Revealed.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on July 17, 2013, 09:05:23 PM
Character Revealed.
Some people thrive on pressure but the key is to ensure one's thinking remains consistent with one's values. It is easy to lose sight of one's moral compass.
Quote from: jmayer1 on July 17, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
What are your thoughts on Chew leaving Illinois for MU?
The material difference is that Chew is an Asst while Monarch was the CEO. But I still maintain that one has an obligation to see through at least a year unless there are ethical, legal, or moral issues at play. I don't know the details but if Chew accepted at Illinois he should have stayed for the season.
Quote from: keefe on July 17, 2013, 05:45:02 PM
One of the guys from Marquette's golf team lived on my floor at McCormick. He was on scholars but I suspect his upper middle class folks in Thiensville could have easily footed the tuition bill. His golf kit likely cost more than what his tuition bill would have been.
i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????
Interesting comments from their fans in that forum.
Quote from: avid1010 on July 17, 2013, 10:45:20 PM
i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????
I knew a kid that played basketball at Marquette that could have paid full tuition for half the team.
Quote from: avid1010 on July 17, 2013, 10:45:20 PM
i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????
Your point is well taken. I was only underscoring the different demographics for the various sports. I am guessing that student golfers at the various universities tend be vote Republican.
Local SC press coverage of Monarch's departure
http://thetandd.com/sports/claflin-men-s-basketball-coach-leaves-for-north-texas-state/article_3de84958-ee97-11e2-a4e7-001a4bcf887a.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 18, 2013, 07:11:17 PM
I knew a kid that played basketball at Marquette that could have paid full tuition for half the team.
hey, i'm not sure i really care to hear from you until fox sports has a deal with direct tv....back to work please.
Quote from: avid1010 on July 17, 2013, 05:33:03 PM
that said, there's a big difference between adults and college KIDS, and if we aren't treating our kids better than our adults something is wrong. amazing how you can essentially say all coaches are pretty squirmy (in defense of crean), then turn around advocate for their rights. i'm not worried about the coaches, just the kids...
The NCAA is downright loose with transfers compared to HS and the NBA.
If a public HS coach leaves, in most cases the kid is stuck unless his parents sell their house and move. And in some cases, he can't even play if he chooses to transfer to a private school and pay his own way.
And what would you do with the NBA coaches that leave (or are fired), and the players are under contract. Should those contracts be nullified if the coach leaves for whatever reason?
Neither before nor after college can a player decide unilaterally for which coach he is willing to play, with absolute freedom to move if his preferred coach is no longer with the team he is with. If they want to leave after their coach leaves, they get no choice unless they (or their parents) are willing to suffer some pretty significant consequences.
Quote from: The Equalizer on July 18, 2013, 09:22:05 PM
The NCAA is downright loose with transfers compared to HS and the NBA.
If a public HS coach leaves, in most cases the kid is stuck unless his parents sell their house ove. And in som cases, he can't even play if he chooses to transfer to a private school and pay his own way.
And what would you do with the NBA coaches that leave (or are fired), and the players are under contract. Should those contracts be nullified if the coach leaves for whatever reason?
Neither before nor after college can a player decide unilaterally for which coach he is willing to play, with absolute freedom to move if his preferred coach is no longer with the team he is with. If they want to leave after their coach leaves, they get no choice unless they (or their parents) are willing to suffer some pretty significant consequences.
Awful comparisons.
NBA players work under contracts in which both parties have relatively equal and collectively bargained obligations. Player is obligated to play for the team that holds the contract and the team that holds the contract has certain obligations - chief among them compensation - to the player for the term of the deal. Even if a team decides the player's performance is not worth the compensation called for in the contract, they're still obligated to pay him.
College programs and players do not have these equal and collectively bargained obligations. While players can be cut loose from their scholarship at the end of a season for any reason, they are not simply free to leave. If they underperform, the school owes them nothing. If they get hurt, the school owes them nothing. If the coach has a personal issue with him, the school owes him nothing.
Look, I think allowing unrestricted transferring wouwould be a bad idea because it would create a host of problems like in-season recruiting, etc. But let's not be stupid and pretend the system is fair or that college players have it good compared to those poor saps in the NBA.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 17, 2013, 02:47:52 PM
Okay, so you still haven't explained why players have NCAA rules built to limit their movement from program to program but coaches do not. You openly admit that coaches have advantages in moving... why is that okay?
You may not think it is much of a penalty, but then why not have the same rule for coaches? Coaches certainly have the same "abundance" of suitable options available to them. They could be coaches in the D-League, Uruguay, or at NAIA. Coaches buyouts are paid by their new employer and they aren't imposed by the NCAA, so they are quite different.
I'm not saying the players have it so horrible rough, just that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Because coaches sign an employment contract with the employer...the university. Student athletes are under the jurisdiction of the NCAA and the rules set for the members.
Apples to oranges. One is an employee, the other is not.
Quote from: avid1010 on July 18, 2013, 08:58:44 PM
hey, i'm not sure i really care to hear from you until fox sports has a deal with direct tv....back to work please.
Out of our hands right now
Quote from: Pakuni on July 18, 2013, 09:49:42 PM
Awful comparisons.
Because we should probably compare college basketball players to fast food workers or American Idol contestants, right?
The comparision is not only not awful, but the only valid comparision possible. All three involve a) a player playing basketball and b) his relative freedom to switch teams.
Are there other differences? Of course. That doesn't mean the comparison can't be made.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 18, 2013, 09:49:42 PM
NBA players work under contracts in which both parties have relatively equal and collectively bargained obligations. Player is obligated to play for the team that holds the contract and the team that holds the contract has certain obligations - chief among them compensation - to the player for the term of the deal. Even if a team decides the player's performance is not worth the compensation called for in the contract, they're still obligated to pay him.
College programs and players do not have these equal and collectively bargained obligations. While players can be cut loose from their scholarship at the end of a season for any reason, they are not simply free to leave. If they underperform, the school owes them nothing. If they get hurt, the school owes them nothing. If the coach has a personal issue with him, the school owes him nothing.
This isn't necessarily true. The player could insist on a 4-year scholarship from the college, in which case the player would still receive a degree from that school.
If the school doesn't want to offer a 4-year schoarship, the player can either look at different schools or accept the tradeoff that he's asking something that the school isn't willing to offer.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 18, 2013, 09:49:42 PM
Look, I think allowing unrestricted transferring wouwould be a bad idea because it would create a host of problems like in-season recruiting, etc. But let's not be stupid and pretend the system is fair or that college players have it good compared to those poor saps in the NBA.
The problem with statements like this is that there is no objective definition of "fair".
Some think fair means letting the players transfer
Some think fair means holding players to the concept that they signed with a school, not a coach.
However, regardless of what one thinks is fair, the objective fact is that college players have more options to change teams than they would at either the HS or NBA level. They might be more highly compensated and have more leverage in the NBA compared to college--just as they have more leverage and compensation (considering the six-figure scholarship offer) in college than in HS.
BTW, nobody argued that college players "have it good" compared to those "poor saps" in the NBA--just that they have more freedom to change teams.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 18, 2013, 10:39:33 PM
Because coaches sign an employment contract with the employer...the university. Student athletes are under the jurisdiction of the NCAA and the rules set for the members.
Apples to oranges. One is an employee, the other is not.
Trust me, I grasp the fact that coaches are employees and players are students. The question is why does the NCAA place more restrictions on students who are not being compensated with a salary than they do on coaches who are being paid. Simplest answer: students have less bargaining power and influence than the coaches. Occam's Razor.
Quote from: keefe on July 18, 2013, 08:28:26 PM
Local SC press coverage of Monarch's departure
http://thetandd.com/sports/claflin-men-s-basketball-coach-leaves-for-north-texas-state/article_3de84958-ee97-11e2-a4e7-001a4bcf887a.html
Looking at the comments for the article and considering it's Claflin...they'll get mad, shrug their shoulders, and move on.
I guess I don't fault Scott. He ...we... are not getting any younger. Make the move when you can.
But that word "commitment" and that he went through the pomp and circumstance of being introduced to their community as the new HC keep nagging...
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on July 19, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
Looking at the comments for the article and considering it's Claflin...they'll get mad, shrug their shoulders, and move on.
I guess I don't fault Scott. He ...we... are not getting any younger. Make the move when you can.
But that word "commitment" and that he went through the pomp and circumstance of being introduced to their community as the new HC keep nagging...
And it should bother you. A decent, well brought up person should be distressed by what Monarch did. As I mentioned earlier, this can always be distilled down to how we treat one another. Monarch's empathy for others is wanting.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 19, 2013, 11:04:31 AM
Trust me, I grasp the fact that coaches are employees and players are students. The question is why does the NCAA place more restrictions on students who are not being compensated with a salary than they do on coaches who are being paid. Simplest answer: students have less bargaining power and influence than the coaches. Occam's Razor.
In my opinion the simplest answer is the protection of the sport and trying to have some notion of some competitive balance, however weak it is. If student athletes came and went on a whim with no restrictions, you would already have an alarming transfer rate today explode even more. The HAVES would get even richer. Imagine a team that has all the parts but is just missing an outside shooter so they deplete someone else's roster at the last minute leaving them high and dry. At least in the pros there are compensatory picks to address that....not in the NCAA. Schools that would be left with roster dilution at the whims of those that are only a player or two away. Or you would have some teams potentially not even bothering to recruit certain kids because they would just have other schools be their farm system. Play a year or two at MU and then come on up to UNC or Duke or UK.
The sitting out a year is a legitimate ask (call it what you will, a penalty or whatever) to make sure the student athlete TRULY wants to transfer. It also allows these kids to take a second look and perhaps not take the easy way out, put in the extra work and get that additional playing time...earn it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 19, 2013, 12:27:41 PM
In my opinion the simplest answer is the protection of the sport and trying to have some notion of some competitive balance, however weak it is. If student athletes came and went on a whim with no restrictions, you would already have an alarming transfer rate today explode even more. The HAVES would get even richer. Imagine a team that has all the parts but is just missing an outside shooter so they deplete someone else's roster at the last minute leaving them high and dry. At least in the pros there are compensatory picks to address that....not in the NCAA. Schools that would be left with roster dilution at the whims of those that are only a player or two away. Or you would have some teams potentially not even bothering to recruit certain kids because they would just have other schools be their farm system. Play a year or two at MU and then come on up to UNC or Duke or UK.
If the student wants to go, let him go. Throughout history, nightmare scenarios usually aren't proven right. Just a new paradigm that people would have to adjust to.
Honestly, let's say that Kentucky or Duke thought they just needed one more player to make a run this year. A low post scoring threat and they both targeted Davante. Do you think that DG would leave? I don't. I think loyalty to a coach and a program that nurtured you for three years is deeper than you think for most players.
And he wants to leave...fine...see ya. Life goes on.
I'm not sure freedom of transferring would disproportionately advantage the blue bloods at the expense of the rest of the schools.
Yes, some players who have success at the mid-major level would be tempted by the prospect of playing at an elite school. But I would venture to guess that an equal number also hold grudges against the schools that didn't bother to recruit them out of high school. If you are Steve Taylor and Tom Izzo comes knocking at your door after this season, aren't you a little suspicious of him after he saw you so many times in hs while recruiting Jabari?
And conversely, freeing up transfers would make it easier for talented kids who just can't break the lineup at a school like Kentucky transfer to another program and actually play. All in all, my bet would be that the effect on competitive balance would be a wash.
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM
If the student wants to go, let him go. Throughout history, nightmare scenarios usually aren't proven right. Just a new paradigm that people would have to adjust to.
Honestly, let's say that Kentucky or Duke thought they just needed one more player to make a run this year. A low post scoring threat and they both targeted Davante. Do you think that DG would leave? I don't. I think loyalty to a coach and a program that nurtured you for three years is deeper than you think for most players.
And he wants to leave...fine...see ya. Life goes on.
That sounds like a throw away line. Sometimes things proven worse, sometimes less. I'm not aware of a tracking mechanism on that stuff, but there are rules, guidelines, laws, regulations, policies put into all practices of real life for reasons. Some are overreaching, some are fantastic, some totally inconsequential. I would rate the sit out a year requirement to be a good rule, not overreaching. IMO.
Do I think DG would not leave because he has to sit out a year vs not having to sit out a year....I put the odds far more with not having to sit out a year.
Imagine the fun it would be to spend 12 months to 18 months recruiting some kids to play at your school for 2 spots. You are concentrating on 4 kids for two spots and you are able to get that done. Then, in May (or late June for some schools on quarter system), you find out that 6 guys are transferring...or make it 3...whatever you wish. Because there is no penalty or guardrail, your roster can be completely destroyed in a moment's notice. Now let's throw in the 800lb gorilla and the monetary under the table BS that would be going on (even more so than today) to get kids to transfer to their schools...no penalty, come on over and make a quick $XXX and you don't have to sit out.
This is so ripe for abuse and completely crushing a school's roster. Even pro sports, which so many people here think these student athletes should be compensated for in a similar fashion (not amount), doesn't allow this. You're under contract, just like a student athlete is as part of his\her agreement to accept a scholarship and accept the rules of transfer.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 19, 2013, 02:53:14 PM
This is so ripe for abuse and completely crushing a school's roster. Even pro sports, which so many people here think these student athletes should be compensated for in a similar fashion (not amount), doesn't allow this. You're under contract, just like a student athlete is as part of his\her agreement to accept a scholarship and accept the rules of transfer.
No one is arguing that they aren't under the rules of transfer. They are arguing that the rules of transfer are unfair.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 19, 2013, 02:16:25 PM
I'm not sure freedom of transferring would disproportionately advantage the blue bloods at the expense of the rest of the schools.
Yes, some players who have success at the mid-major level would be tempted by the prospect of playing at an elite school. But I would venture to guess that an equal number also hold grudges against the schools that didn't bother to recruit them out of high school. If you are Steve Taylor and Tom Izzo comes knocking at your door after this season, aren't you a little suspicious of him after he saw you so many times in hs while recruiting Jabari?
And conversely, freeing up transfers would make it easier for talented kids who just can't break the lineup at a school like Kentucky transfer to another program and actually play. All in all, my bet would be that the effect on competitive balance would be a wash.
I don't know, but this idea screams Be Careful What You Wish For.....or the law of unintended consequences. IMO
Interesting comments from Izzo on transfers in a Q&A. Worth the read.
http://spartannation.com/2013/05/03/tom-izzo-addresses-the-growing-number-of-transfers-inside-college-basketball-if-he-plans-on-recruiting-them-more/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 19, 2013, 02:53:14 PM
Imagine the fun it would be to spend 12 months to 18 months recruiting some kids to play at your school for 2 spots. You are concentrating on 4 kids for two spots and you are able to get that done. Then, in May (or late June for some schools on quarter system), you find out that 6 guys are transferring...or make it 3...whatever you wish. Because there is no penalty or guardrail, your roster can be completely destroyed in a moment's notice. Now let's throw in the 800lb gorilla and the monetary under the table BS that would be going on (even more so than today) to get kids to transfer to their schools...no penalty, come on over and make a quick $XXX and you don't have to sit out.
Imagine the fun it is to spend years honing your basketball skills, go through the entire recruiting process, commit to a school, sign a letter of intent, and then have the coach you committed to walk for 500k extra a year at another university.
I'm not necessarily saying the world would be a better place if we allowed free transfers, I don't know that for a fact (although I'm dubious of your catastrophe scenarios). What I am saying is that it is blatantly hypocritical for the NCAA to allow anyone and everyone to swap schools except for the student athletes they are so adamant about protecting.
Lots of criticism for Monarch for bolting.
How about Benford? He knew Monarch was under contract, yet seemed to have no qualms about trying to entice him to UNT. Seems like if Monarch did something wrong, Benford was complicit.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on July 19, 2013, 04:12:00 PM
Imagine the fun it is to spend years honing your basketball skills, go through the entire recruiting process, commit to a school, sign a letter of intent, and then have the coach you committed to walk for 500k extra a year at another university.
I'm not necessarily saying the world would be a better place if we allowed free transfers, I don't know that for a fact (although I'm dubious of your catastrophe scenarios). What I am saying is that it is blatantly hypocritical for the NCAA to allow anyone and everyone to swap schools except for the student athletes they are so adamant about protecting.
I think this is a far different scenario...in this case you are talking about a coach leaves maybe the players leave. I'm open to that one. It's when a coach doesn't leave and a kid just isn't willing to gut it out beyond one year that I have the problem. We're teaching kids to bailout early, not toughen up. I think the Izzo commentary hits that on point.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on July 19, 2013, 04:14:22 PM
Lots of criticism for Monarch for bolting.
How about Benford? He knew Monarch was under contract, yet seemed to have no qualms about trying to entice him to UNT. Seems like if Monarch did something wrong, Benford was complicit.
If you read through that thread there is a lot of discontent with Benford. Not at all sure how representative or warranted that is however
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 19, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
I think this is a far different scenario...in this case you are talking about a coach leaves maybe the players leave. I'm open to that one. It's when a coach doesn't leave and a kid just isn't willing to gut it out beyond one year that I have the problem. We're teaching kids to bailout early, not toughen up. I think the Izzo commentary hits that on point.
Its not a far different scenario because that is the status of the rule. I guess you are just supporting a portion of the rule. It would go a long way to quieting my objections if players were free to transfer if their coach left (but not all the way).
Izzo's probably coming from good intentions, but it is quite hypocritical for coaches to bemoan the modern day athlete's tendency to transfer in search for a better opportunity when they themselves bolt the door for the bigger program/money.
It may be in players' best long term interest to be forced to stick it out at their current school: they may learn valuable life lessons/be precluded from making misguided choices. But it also may be in a coaches' best long term interests to be forced to do the same: they may end up having success at their school/have a better work-life balance/maintain family roots. The paternalism just comes off as self-serving when it is applied unequally by parties in a position of power in the NCAA.
Maybe, but I think there is a lot of truth to what Izzo is saying. We tend to mold those behaviors as youngsters and if we keep permitting them to leave when the going gets tough, they will do so throughout their lives.
I understand the hypocrisy argument, but I don't think they are an apples to apples comparison when looking at coaches vs players. Whether it is from the perspective of adult vs young adult, employee vs non employee, coach vs pupil, etc. Plus there is enough tampering going on today, allowing full free agency will make that nonsense get totally out of hand.