MUScoop

http://blogs.heraldtimesonline.com/iusp/?p=1932

Adios! Have fun not playing next season, Nick!

Business is business and ethics/morals/conscience seems to have long since absented itself from most business transactions. For that reason, I can't really fault Crean too much, even if it does show his true character.

That said, I don't understand why we didn't give this guy a conditional release from his LOI. F*ck Crean. He shouldn't get to reap the rewards of kids backing out of LOI's due to his actions.

I'd like to say I'm shocked, but I'm not at all.  I used to be a big Crean supporter, but now I can't believe I ever defended the guy.  I hope NW has fun running the three-man weave for the next four years.

Disgusting.

Quote from: MUCam on April 21, 2008, 03:11:47 PM
Business is business and ethics/morals/conscience seems to have long since absented itself from most business transactions. For that reason, I can't really fault Crean too much, even if it does show his true character.

That said, I don't understand why we didn't give this guy a conditional release from his LOI. F*ck Crean. He shouldn't get to reap the rewards of kids backing out of LOI's due to his actions.

Exactly.  It's painfully obvious he sold NW on himself rather than Marquette.  I hope he crashes and burns at IU (Crean, that is).

Another kick in the pants from this long, seemingly unending ordeal.

Are we soon going to find out that Crean left a flaming paper bag of dog poop in his office the day he left?

su-prise, su-prise, su-prise.

:P

Not sure why this is shocking or whatever.  He wanted to play for Crean...it is what it is.  If MU had hired someone that brought a recruit with them, I doubt we would be upset. 

Crean also signed another kid today.  And why would Nick not play next year...I don't get that.  He'll play, and he'll be plenty good.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 03:36:33 PM

Crean also signed another kid today. 

He's a 6'2" guard.  I wonder how long it will be before the Indiana fans start complaining that Tanning Cream can't recruit quality bigs.  ;)

Quote from: downtown85 on April 21, 2008, 03:41:01 PM
He's a 6'2" guard.  I wonder how long it will be before the Indiana fans start complaining that Tanning Cream can't recruit quality bigs.  ;)

Not long, look at who's on their list for next year and their are 7 kids 6'8" or larger that have IU in their final schools.

I know people want him to crash and burn, that's to be expected....but I think people better set themselves up for reality right now.  He's going to do well there and he's going to recruit well there.  The state of Indiana is pretty excited about Crean right now, more so about a coach in quite a long time.

F U Crean.

What no more Judas?  Crean, Tom Crean.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 03:44:40 PM
Not long, look at who's on their list for next year and their are 7 kids 6'8" or larger that have IU in their final schools.

I know people want him to crash and burn, that's to be expected....but I think people better set themselves up for reality right now.  He's going to do well there and he's going to recruit well there.  The state of Indiana is pretty excited about Crean right now, more so about a coach in quite a long time.

Good points. Crean is going to be very successful at IU. Williams will be a good player for them. Folks need to move on.

Crean will obviously recruit better at Indiana, that should be a given.

Can he coach them up, run a system that will win with these kids? Can he keep the Zeller/Oden types from leaving the state?

IU fans are in love with him right now, for sure. Like a relationship, any time you start dating a girl you really like, you're going to love mostly everything about her at first.

Crean's true test will be two years from now. If the top talent from the state is still going elsewhere, and IU is finishing in the 4th-6th range in the conference and making one and done trips to the NCAAs, we'll see how long he lasts there. Purdue being a top 5/10 team this year is bad news for Crean. Ohio St, Mich St and the national powers (Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, etc) are always going to recruit Indiana well.

Crean will recruit well compared to what he could do at Marquette. Problem is he better recruit EXCEPTIONALY well or coach exceptionally well (very much up in the air) to be successful at Indiana. After all, success at Indiana is much different from most schools. It is after all Indiana, Indiana.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 03:36:33 PM
Not sure why this is shocking or whatever.  He wanted to play for Crean...it is what it is.  If MU had hired someone that brought a recruit with them, I doubt we would be upset. 

Crean also signed another kid today.  And why would Nick not play next year...I don't get that.  He'll play, and he'll be plenty good.

+1, obvious double standard.  Do you really think buzz wasn't in contact with any of the people he brought his first year?  

When KO left for Tenn. he said he would not take any Mu players or recruits that comitted to MU.  Shame we didn't get the same from TC

Quote from: RawdogDX on April 21, 2008, 04:00:15 PM
+1, obvious double standard.  Do you really think buzz wasn't in contact with any of the people he brought his first year?  

You mean a JUCO and a two-star uncommitted high school junior?

Hardly a double standard.

Here's a good Q & A about the decision:

http://iuplanet.com/forum/iuplanet-hoosier-news/15390-q-alabama-guard-nick-williams-who-signed-iu-today.html

What is it about Coach Crean that made you want to play for him so badly?

NW: Him being a winner. Everybody loves winners. As I think about all the players that he's developed, you can see the kind of talent he has. You can tell that he really loves his kids

Until he sneaks out on them.

Quote from: IU fan on April 21, 2008, 04:13:26 PM
Here's a good Q & A about the decision:

http://iuplanet.com/forum/iuplanet-hoosier-news/15390-q-alabama-guard-nick-williams-who-signed-iu-today.html

Wow....stimulating.

Unless Nick Williams plans on being a 6th year senior at IU, I'll bet the 401k he isn't winning a national championship at IU.

On the other hand, had he said NIT championship....

Quote from: RawdogDX on April 21, 2008, 04:00:15 PM
+1, obvious double standard.  Do you really think buzz wasn't in contact with any of the people he brought his first year?  

I don't know about any "double standard" -- probably because I don't remember a new MU coach ever bringing any significant recruits with him -- but I know why Crean's conduct is burning me.

MU paid Crean an OBSCENE annual salary, in part, to recruit players for MU.  He already collected his salary for 2007-2008, which included payment for recruiting the same players he is now soliciting for Indiana, many of whom had signed letters of intent.

The NCAA recognizes players don't sign to play for coaches -- they sign to play for schools who pay big money to recruit them.  Had I been the MU Athletic Director, I would have forced those recruits to transfer and sacrifice a year of eligibility.

And just because Crean's conduct may not technically violate any NCAA rules, I still find it unethical.

HE IS A EVIL EVIL MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: RawdogDX on April 21, 2008, 04:00:15 PM
+1, obvious double standard.  Do you really think buzz wasn't in contact with any of the people he brought his first year?  

Jilted lovers syndrome is alive and well.   ;)

I think the point is, IF a MU coach brought recruits with him the likliness of people being upset here would not be that high.  People would accept them with open arms.

But to some extent that has happened anyway, and by our own admission.  Cottingham said MU hired Williams for continuity.  Buzz's hire kept Fulce and Otule at MU.  If Buzz wasn't hired, I'd be shocked if Fulce was still coming to MU.  People were thrilled with this announcement just a week ago. Yes, the major difference is that Buzz was still on MU's staff, but these kids are largely playing for a coach, not a university.  Not always, but largely that is the case.  It's usually after they've been at the school for awhile that they become attached to the university and become loyal to it.

Why would a 17 or 18 year old kid be loyal to a university they've spent all of 2 or 3 days on campus for during a recruiting visit?  It's just not going to happen usually.  Williams allegiance is to Bennie Seltzer (at IU) and Tom Crean (at IU).  I don't see what's unethical about it, that's where the kid wants to play that's where the kid said he would be happy.  At some point, don't we want the student athletes to be happy to in their choice of a college \ coach? 

Yeah, but, like mentioned above, MU paid Crean $$$$$$$ last year to recruit kids to MU, not to Crean.  Obviously he didn't do too much recruiting of this kid on IU's dime.

What I wanted and expected was for Crean not to actively interfere with MU's incoming recruiting class -- after having already been paid handsomely by MU to recruit those same players.

There's a difference between (1) a commited recruit deciding for himself to seek a release from his LOI due to a coaching change; and (2) a former coach soliciting committed recruits on behalf of his new employer.

Quote from: 3Mer on April 21, 2008, 04:20:04 PM
He already collected his salary for 2007-2008, which included payment for recruiting the same players he is now soliciting for Indiana, many of whom had signed letters of intent.

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nick Williams is the only player who had signed a LOI that will be going to IU. 

Jamil Wilson is the only other "prize" that Crean may get that he had recruited for Marquette.  Yeah he got Capobianco, but I'm not losing any sleep over that.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on April 21, 2008, 04:39:57 PM
Unless I'm forgetting something, Nick Williams is the only player who had signed a LOI that will be going to IU. 

Jamil Wilson is the only other "prize" that Crean may get that he had recruited for Marquette.  Yeah he got Capobianco, but I'm not losing any sleep over that.

So you think N. Williams, Wilson and Capobianco are the only MU recruits that Crean solicited after cashing his MU paychecks?

Quote from: mr.muskie on April 21, 2008, 04:36:50 PM
Yeah, but, like mentioned above, MU paid Crean $$$$$$$ last year to recruit kids to MU, not to Crean.  Obviously he didn't do too much recruiting of this kid on IU's dime.

Correct, but he's not paid by MU any longer.  Besides, it doesn't matter, the kid doesn't want to play for MU, he wants to play for Crean. 

At the end of the day, if Crean was still at MU, Taylor and Williams would be at MU.

The difference being MU paid Buzz's salary to perform the task of recruiting Fulce, Otule and EW, and MU also picked up all the expenses.  Buzz also used all the phone calls, visits, contacts, etc. alotted to MU for the recruiting period to recruit these players.

On the other hand, Crean recruited all these other players (NW, Capobianco, TT, and Jamil Wilson, plus I'm sure there were others) while on MU's payroll, MU picked up the tab, and the contacts/visits went against MU's total.  Now that Crean is at IU and has various recruiting restrictions, he's getting around the restrictions by poaching MU's recruits.  MU paid for both MU and IU's recruiting budgets this year.  I don't have a problem with NW going to IU, but IU should reimburse MU for the expenses.

You can bring up Fulce as the exception, since Buzz recruited him to UNO, but Fulce didn't come straight here and burned a year of eligibility at the Juco.  So essentially he sat out a year as a penalty, something NW won't have to do.

Quote from: 3Mer on April 21, 2008, 04:44:09 PM
So you think N. Williams, Wilson and Capobianco are the only MU recruits that Crean solicited after cashing his MU paychecks?

When you go to a new job, do you take your Rolodex with you?  I sure as hell do.  I know it's not the same, but we're acting silly on this.  This is big boy basketball and this stuff happens all of the time.  It doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it happens all of the time.

The Stanford example is great for those that want to puff up Trent Johnson, but come on, how many Stanford admitted players (one of the greatest universities in the country) are going to leave that (plus leave California) to go play at LSU?   Not many, if any at all.  Johnson's statement is nice, but doesn't mean a whole lot in the reality of things.

Best wishes to Nick in the NIT, however, . . .

... "when someone leaves, we want to rub it in!" - Dominic  James

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 04:50:57 PM
It doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it happens all of the time.

O.k., Chicos, name 5 recent coaching changes where the coach poached the incoming recruits from the school he left.  And name the players.  I cannot recall any high-profile change or player where that has occurred recently.  I believe that it just doesn't happen that often. 

Case in point, Darryl Arthur an orignal 5 star commit to Oklahoma de-committed from Oklahoma to go to Kansas when Sampson left.  Even the vilified Kelvin Sampson didn't try to poach him to Indiana.  You are a Kansas grad, you must've followed that situation.  i just think that there are certain rules coaches play by and Crean is way over the line on this.   

Here's another way to look at it, especially those of you in sales.  Crean is essentially the lead sales person for his corporation...i.e. IU Hoops.  When companies hire veteran sales folks, especially within the same industry, they are counting on those people to hit the ground running often with the same clients that bought from them at their previous job.  Whether it's as a broker, a wine sales guy, computer servers, television ad sales, etc.

Yes there are "no compete" clauses often and other such protections often put into place for employers, but this happens all the time.  That's part of what you hire a veteran sales guy for...established leads.  Since there aren't any no compete clauses in basketball, I see it as very similar.

Yes, it would be great if Crean didn't do this.  I'd argue if IU wasn't in the total crapper, he probably wouldn't have to do it as much as he is.  But he needs bodies quickly and so he's going to go after kids that want to play for him, just like the newly hired veteran sales guy is going to go to his/her well of leads to get a few quick hits to start off. 

It's only natural and should be expected, whether we like it or not.

We don't like it.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 05:02:45 PM
Here's another way to look at it, especially those of you in sales.  Crean is essentially the lead sales person for his corporation...i.e. IU Hoops.  When companies hire veteran sales folks, especially within the same industry, they are counting on those people to hit the ground running often with the same clients that bought from them at their previous job.  Whether it's as a broker, a wine sales guy, computer servers, television ad sales, etc.

Yes there are "no compete" clauses often and other such protections often put into place for employers, but this happens all the time.  That's part of what you hire a veteran sales guy for...established leads.  Since there aren't any no compete clauses in basketball, I see it as very similar.

Yes, it would be great if Crean didn't do this.  I'd argue if IU wasn't in the total crapper, he probably wouldn't have to do it as much as he is.  But he needs bodies quickly and so he's going to go after kids that want to play for him, just like the newly hired veteran sales guy is going to go to his/her well of leads to get a few quick hits to start off. 

It's only natural and should be expected, whether we like it or not.

I think the sales analogy is a good one.  However, as a customer when you buy the product or service you make a committment to the company, not the sales guy.  Almost always you sign a contract.  Sure you can back out of the contract and follow the sales guy but you will end up in court if you still have obligations under the contract.  In college hoops, since there is no real means of enforcing these commitments on teenagers, it up to the elders (coaches) to try to create rules among themselves and to teach the kids about honor and committment even if it doesn result in short term gratification.  The worst that can happen is that they receive a college education and graduate while living up to their commitment.  If they are NBA talent, most likely they will get discovered if they play division I, especially at a BCA school. Look at the Beasley at Kansas State.  He didn't need to follow huggy to WVA.  He'll still go first in the draft.

MU should've put a no IU clause in all the releases and that would have solved it.  Crean is still a scumbag for going after MU commits/recruits. 

Hey chicos why do you feel the need to come on here and refute every posters claim against our scumbag former coach?  I mean seriously do you get some sort of satisfaction defending our former coach?  
Beyond why you feel the need, there is absolutely and let me state again absolutely no defending Crean.  I have been involved in the game a long time and what coaches such as O'Neil did at MU and most recently Trent Johnson did at Stanford is the high character way of doing it.  There are hundreds of recruiting fish in the sea.  A class individual publicly tells his incoming recruits and any other commits to stick with their commitment.  Now in all fairness to the kid that does not mean they will.  But to not do that and then to actually recruit the kids including calling Erik Williams the day he left and attempt to re-recruit him to Indiana is 100% completely indefensible.  The man is a scumbag, who not only left his players and employers with out the class to left them know before everyone else, but then had the University truck the players to him, then on top of it all chooses to go after his former schools commits.  Now dont get me wrong recruiting guys like Lacy and Wilson, I have absolutely no problem with.  Going after guys like Erik and Nick Williams tho is yet another indication of what most of us knew about our former coach  

If the 145 ranking is accurate, it really is not a big deal. I had an impression that he was going to be really good. Now it may turn out that way, but it is not like we lost a great player at this point.

Quote from: downtown85 on April 21, 2008, 05:21:38 PM
I think the sales analogy is a good one.  However, as a customer when you buy the product or service you make a committment to the company, not the sales guy.  Almost always you sign a contract.  Sure you can back out of the contract and follow the sales guy but you will end up in court if you still have obligations under the contract.  In college hoops, since there is no real means of enforcing these commitments on teenagers, it up to the elders (coaches) to try to create rules among themselves and to teach the kids about honor and committment even if it doesn result in short term gratification.  The worst that can happen is that they receive a college education and graduate while living up to their commitment.  If they are NBA talent, most likely they will get discovered if they play division I, especially at a BCA school. Look at the Beasley at Kansas State.  He didn't need to follow huggy to WVA.  He'll still go first in the draft.

MU should've put a no IU clause in all the releases and that would have solved it.  Crean is still a scumbag for going after MU commits/recruits. 

Not necessarily.  If you like your stock broker and he leaves from AG Edwards to go work at Morgan Stanley, you're going with your broker not with the company.  Happens in the ad agency business a ton.  Obviously there are examples against that analogy but you get the idea.



Mr. Hayward.....no, I don't feel the need to defend Crean.  In fact, I don't think I am defending him necessarily.  I'm just stating the reality of the situation.  I'm actually defending the student athletes to some extent.  No one is putting a gun to their head, they are human beings of free will with many other options to them.  Williams could have stayed at MU, could have gone to Arkansas but chose to go to play for Crean.  Is that Crean's fault?  Or is that Williams choice?   Seriously.  This is a free country, there are no rules being broken.  I get that people don't like it.  I don't like it, but there is nothing against the rules, there is nothing unethical about it.  If it was unethical, please show me where the NCAA states this isn't allowed or even frowned upon.  If you can show me that, it will sway my opinion.

I just think the bitterness is getting old (I was upset for a few days about the process of our hiring, but you move on).  These kids DON'T WANT TO BE AT MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY.  PERIOD.  They're 18 years old, they want to go elsewhere and that's the way it is. 


Williams is 145 in one rating service, in the 90's elsewhere.  I think he was in the top 100 RSCI but I can't recall.  A nice player.  6A Alabama player of the year which probably means he's pretty good.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 06:09:39 PM
Williams is 145 in one rating service, in the 90's elsewhere.  I think he was in the top 100 RSCI but I can't recall.  A nice player.  6A Alabama player of the year which probably means he's pretty good.

He's 145 in Rivals, unranked by Scout, HoopMasters, USA Today and Prepstars.  He was 70 on HoopScoop and 35th on ESPN/Bob Gibbons.  The 35th was basically enough to get him in the RSCI, though he was barely in at #95.

Quote from: bma725 on April 21, 2008, 06:48:58 PM
He's 145 in Rivals, unranked by Scout, HoopMasters, USA Today and Prepstars.  He was 70 on HoopScoop and 35th on ESPN/Bob Gibbons.  The 35th was basically enough to get him in the RSCI, though he was barely in at #95.

Gibbons was the only one to have Dwyane Wade in the top 100...he had him at 55.  Who knows who is right, these guys are typically all over the board.  He's got talent, but not a whole lot of good coaching at the high school level.

Quote from: mr.muskie on April 21, 2008, 04:15:37 PM
What is it about Coach Crean that made you want to play for him so badly?

NW: Him being a winner. Everybody loves winners. As I think about all the players that he's developed, you can see the kind of talent he has. You can tell that he really loves his kids

Until he sneaks out on them.

Yup.

Williams must not have talked to DJ or Lazar.

According to the final report today, Williams chose IU over Arkansas, Kansas State, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Alabama.

Quote from: Ready2Fly on April 21, 2008, 04:07:31 PM
You mean a JUCO and a two-star uncommitted high school junior?

Hardly a double standard.

??? It's exactly a double standard.  If a new coach brings someone here when we hire him we are happy and think more of him for it.  If our coach leaves and brings a recruit to another school then he is a jerk.  It's the same thing.

Not many quality coaches take their recruits to their new gig, unless there is bad blood.  Is there bad blood? 


Can you imagine if this happened to Pitt, Kansas St, WVU, Kansas, etc...

Tan Tommy with the Euro Trash Shades must be over the "flu"

Let Crean take what he wants. If Buzz can recruit we will regroup next season. Buzz has work cut out for himself. My gut still says 12 months from now we will be in agreement MU made a mistake on this hire.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 21, 2008, 06:09:39 PM
These kids DON'T WANT TO BE AT MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY.  PERIOD.  They're 18 years old, they want to go elsewhere and that's the way it is. 

Maybe.  But maybe they don't want to be at MU now because Judas poisoned their minds about MU and trashed Buzz and the program after he slunk out of here.  These teenagers trust Judas, and are looking for guidance.  Don't think for a minute that he's not above doing that.

I think the sales analogy makes sense. If you think of it from the player's perspective it is understandable they would want to follow the coach who recruited you. We're kidding ourselves if we think they aren't making their decision largely based on the coach.

Imagine if you planned to pursue some graduate program where you'd take classes from and work with a particular professor whom you admired and wanted to have as your mentor. But then, before your program starts that professor leaves but offers you the chance to attend their program somewhere else-perhaps somewhere even more prestigious. You wouldn't go?
I acknowledge this may be an unusual scenario, but I know what I would do in those circumstances. Who wouldn't?

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 21, 2008, 05:29:36 PM
Hey chicos why do you feel the need to come on here and refute every posters claim against our scumbag former coach?  I mean seriously do you get some sort of satisfaction defending our former coach? 
Beyond why you feel the need, there is absolutely and let me state again absolutely no defending Crean.  I have been involved in the game a long time and what coaches such as O'Neil did at MU and most recently Trent Johnson did at Stanford is the high character way of doing it.  There are hundreds of recruiting fish in the sea.  A class individual publicly tells his incoming recruits and any other commits to stick with their commitment.  Now in all fairness to the kid that does not mean they will.  But to not do that and then to actually recruit the kids including calling Erik Williams the day he left and attempt to re-recruit him to Indiana is 100% completely indefensible.  The man is a scumbag, who not only left his players and employers with out the class to left them know before everyone else, but then had the University truck the players to him, then on top of it all chooses to go after his former schools commits.  Now dont get me wrong recruiting guys like Lacy and Wilson, I have absolutely no problem with.  Going after guys like Erik and Nick Williams tho is yet another indication of what most of us knew about our former coach 

I posted something thing similar in another thread... and I'll post it again as it seems applicable.


Crean did look out for his own interest (still is)... and Crean did handle the situation poorly.

But, I'm not sure you can make the jump to "he is a complete scumbag". That's a rather large leap.

If he left MU with a bunch of academic problems, wasn't graduating kids, left in the middle of the year, etc. etc. I think then you could make a better claim... but taking a different job and having it leaked early doesn't make him the villain that some people want him to be.

I'm sorry. It just doesn't.

Nick Williams also did what he thought was best, and is attending IU. Good for him.

Hate Crean if you want... but he didn't do anything that hundreds of coaches haven't done before. He accomplished a lot at MU, and the last month has been disappointing... but not enough to erase everything he did.

I really appreciate the passion of some of the fans here (that's encouraging), but I hope this whole ex-girlfriend syndrome that some of you have will go away over time.

I'm still sore at Holmgren.  I doubt if this will pass any time soon, either.

I guess my problem is that he really did have me fooled.  I did not see it coming at all.  I knew he would leave at some point for a better job, which he has every right to do, but the way he bolted and completely turned his back on his players and everyone at MU just went against everything that he had been selling (and I had been buying) for the last 9 years.

Quote from: BrewCity on April 22, 2008, 09:54:05 AM
I'm still sore at Holmgren.  I doubt if this will pass any time soon, either.

Fair enough. Guess I'm just not that way.

I keep hearing that this is done all the time.  Can anyone provide an example of a coach at this level (high-major) that switched schools and took a recruit with him?  Did recruits follow Howland to UCLA?  Self to KU?  Gillespie to UK?  Roy to UNC?  Huggins to WVU?  Matta to OSU?  Leitao to UVa?  any other examples?

Quote from: Litehouse on April 22, 2008, 10:34:02 AM
I keep hearing that this is done all the time.  Can anyone provide an example of a coach at this level (high-major) that switched schools and took a recruit with him?  Did recruits follow Howland to UCLA?  Self to KU?  Gillespie to UK?  Roy to UNC?  Huggins to WVU?  Matta to OSU?  Leitao to UVa?  any other examples?

I don't know specifically... but let's be honest (going to use some generalizations here):

First, people were mad Crean was leaving.

Then people claimed that they weren't mad that Crean was leaving, but with the way he left (without telling the players first).

Now people are going to claim it's not the previous 2 things, but the fact that Nick Williams went to IU that makes them mad at Crean.

When does it stop? Are people going to keep trying to find ways to justify being upset?

I have no problem with Nick Williams going to play for Crean. IF/When Buzz gets an assistant from another program, the first thing we are all going to ask is "who has he been recruiting? and can we get that guy."

I'm afraid this is just the way things work.

I can't defend the way Crean left... I'm just not as pissed as some others. The guy did a lot for MU. I'm over it. Best of luck to him... but if/when MU ever plays IU, I hope MU crushes them  :) (for the record, I hope MU crushes everybody)

Are people mad that Joseph Fulce followed Buzz here?  He was signed to play for UNO before Buzz left.

I'm beginning to think that 2002mualum is Joani or Riley

Quote from: mu-rara on April 22, 2008, 11:22:21 AM
I'm beginning to think that 2002mualum is Joani or Riley

I think Riley graduates in 2018.

I dunno guys, I don't mean to be a "Crean lover"... I'm just not as bitter as some others. I thought the guy did a hell of a job when he was here, and I can appreciate him for that.


Disappointed? Certainly. His leaving was abrupt and not well handled.

Bitter? Maybe a little. I did believe a lot of what he was selling and I wish he was still here.

Pissed? Not really. The guy did a lot for MU. Now he's gone. That's life. The program is better now than when he found it. I think he was apart of that. I can appreciate that.

Quote from: mu-rara on April 22, 2008, 11:22:21 AM
I'm beginning to think that 2002mualum is Joani or Riley

I'm beginning to think he's a rational person.  As the previous poster said, didn't Buzz bring a committed UNO player (Fulce) to MU?  Where's the uproar?

When Crean came to MU in 1999, he tried like crazy to get a few guys he was recruiting while at Michigan State, if we would have landed them people here would have been ecstatic.  If  remember correctly he was hard after Zach Randolph, Marcus Taylor, Torbet and others.  Yet some people here are upset that he's going after Jamil Wilson?  What's the difference?  Jamil is uncommitted.  Quite frankly, so was Nick Williams.  According to Nick Williams father, they reached out to IU and said he wanted to play up there.  The kid wants to play for Crean, not MU.

Quote from: BrewCity on April 22, 2008, 08:29:02 AM
Maybe.  But maybe they don't want to be at MU now because Judas poisoned their minds about MU and trashed Buzz and the program after he slunk out of here.  These teenagers trust Judas, and are looking for guidance.  Don't think for a minute that he's not above doing that.

Better get used to it Brewcity.  If you were a Big East or Big Ten coach, don't you think you would be telling other recruits about Buzz's record, etc?   That will be something Buzz will have to overcome.  I think he can, but it will be used against him until he can put a winner on the court.

2002mualum....you are completely missing the point.  I was ambivalent when Crean left.  I never liked the guy and felt that apart from his first class and the 3 amigos class that his recruiting as poor. 2 classes in 9 years is not so hot.  This year he had 1 recruit signed in Williams and missed like normal on all his other targets and then Buzz got us some recruits.  Additionally i thought his coaching was mediocre at best.  But as a coach myself I realize 90% of winning is recruiting.  So no I was not bitter Crean left I actaully saw it as a possibility to take it too the next level.  And yes i feel Buzz can get that done.  My hopes on day 1 was fro Sean Miller to be the Next coach with Buzz as my #2 option ahead of Bennett by a long shot. 
Now I thought Crean left in a pethetic manner,  but then i never thought of him all that much and it being Crean surprised me little although I hoped for better at least for the kid's sake. 
What both you and chicos keep focusing on is the leaving.  So what about the leaving, what irks me to no end is calling commits and attempting to disuade them from their commitment!!  Give me a break!!  Many posters have asked you apologists to give examples of other coaches poaching their former schools commits.  I think everyone is still waiting for your examples.  Also, crean called Erik Williams the day he resigned, he is calling a committed player that is absolutely indefensible.  There is a n unwritten rule that you do not call a comitted player, Crean is doing that.  99% of fans across the country would say that is grossly crossing the line and would be furious if it happen to their school from an ex -coach.  yet the Mu Scoop board gets posts ad nauseum from you two defending the coach for his actions.  Why dont you two stuff it?   What he is doing is absolutely wrong in the college basketabll and if either of you two knew anyone in the business they would tell you it is dead wrong.  Crean is a self centered piece of s#!t, who needs players and hasnt the character, class, or loyalty to not steal from his past employer!!  No one wants to hear your bullcrap defense of the excoach.  Shove it!

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2008, 12:05:16 PM
No one wants to hear your bullcrap defense of the excoach.  Shove it!

Yikes.

Sorry to touch a nerve with you.

#1 As far as Crean's ability, I know a lot of people weren't thrilled with him, but I thought he did a very good job... maybe that's why I'm not so bitter. He did well. He is gone. So long. It was a good run. We obviously disagree on Crean's abilities, but that's fine.

#2 "What both you and chicos keep focusing on is the leaving.  So what about the leaving, what irks me to no end is calling commits and attempting to disuade them from their commitment!!  Give me a break!!"

Fair enough, however in previous posts, you have blasted Crean for several things about his leaving (see this thread:    http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8021.msg64894#msg64894)

Sooooo, which is it? Were you mad because he left? Or are you just getting mad now because N. Williams is going to IU? I suspect it's both, which is perfectly fine. But, let's not climb up onto some high ground and say "it's not because he left, its about the recruits". You didn't like Crean when he was here, you ripped him when he left, and now you're ripping him again. You're entitled to any opinion you want, but let's just be clear about how you have felt.

#3 As far as contacting other recruits, I know I've read it here on the boards, but I don't know if I have read it from a credible news or recruiting source (that information may exist, but I just don't recall).

Some of you guys certainly could be right... I'm just not sure. Again, TC has had a 9 year history of running a clean program. I'm not sure that leaving for another school and having a recruit come to IU is enough to convince me the guy is completely corrupt. I'm sorry (*shrug*), I'm just not sure it's the smoking gun you guys are looking for (at least to me).

#4 Again, I'm certainly disappointed with what has gone down. But, I'm just not sure that TC is the villain that some of you seem to want him to be. He's had a good track record at MU and accomplished a lot. The program is in better shape now than when he found it. I'm just having trouble hating the guy as much as you guys seem to.

I'm really not trying to piss anybody off...I'm just trying to remove as much emotion as possible and look objectively. Some may agree with me, so may still think I'm way off base... but I assure you I'm not trying to incite people here.

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2008, 12:05:16 PM
2002mualum....you are completely missing the point.  I was ambivalent when Crean left.  I never liked the guy and felt that apart from his first class and the 3 amigos class that his recruiting as poor. 2 classes in 9 years is not so hot.  This year he had 1 recruit signed in Williams and missed like normal on all his other targets and then Buzz got us some recruits.  Additionally i thought his coaching was mediocre at best.  But as a coach myself I realize 90% of winning is recruiting.  So no I was not bitter Crean left I actaully saw it as a possibility to take it too the next level.  And yes i feel Buzz can get that done.  My hopes on day 1 was fro Sean Miller to be the Next coach with Buzz as my #2 option ahead of Bennett by a long shot. 
Now I thought Crean left in a pethetic manner,  but then i never thought of him all that much and it being Crean surprised me little although I hoped for better at least for the kid's sake. 
What both you and chicos keep focusing on is the leaving.  So what about the leaving, what irks me to no end is calling commits and attempting to disuade them from their commitment!!  Give me a break!!  Many posters have asked you apologists to give examples of other coaches poaching their former schools commits.  I think everyone is still waiting for your examples.  Also, crean called Erik Williams the day he resigned, he is calling a committed player that is absolutely indefensible.  There is a n unwritten rule that you do not call a comitted player, Crean is doing that.  99% of fans across the country would say that is grossly crossing the line and would be furious if it happen to their school from an ex -coach.  yet the Mu Scoop board gets posts ad nauseum from you two defending the coach for his actions.  Why dont you two stuff it?   What he is doing is absolutely wrong in the college basketabll and if either of you two knew anyone in the business they would tell you it is dead wrong.  Crean is a self centered piece of s#!t, who needs players and hasnt the character, class, or loyalty to not steal from his past employer!!  No one wants to hear your bullcrap defense of the excoach.  Shove it!

What evidence do you have that he disuaded anyone from a commitment?  Williams wanted out about 4 nanoseconds after Crean left.  No phone call was necessary.  In fact his father indicated that they contacted IU, not the other way around.  Sounds to me like the player disuaded himself.

Did he call Fulce and Otule?  I've seen no evidence of that.  Did he call Erik Williams...probably did, is Erik Williams a committed player?  Verbally yes, but that's as good as the paper it's written on.  That stuff happens all the time and happened with Nick Williams verbal to MU by SEC schools up until the very end when he signed.  Welcome to reality.

Did he call Jamil Wilson....yes, he sure as hell did.  Guess what, Jamil Wilson isn't committed.  He's fair game.

Did you ever think it's the players that want to play for that coach?  I'm not defending Crean at all, I'm just going with reality.  There is an ignore button, you don't like what I post...USE THE IGNORE BUTTON.

Simple question for you....do you want players to be here because they want to be here or because they were forced to be here due to NCAA rules on LOIs?   

Look, Crean is gone....good riddance.  9 fun years, plenty of great memories and a few low ones, but he's gone.  The fact that you ignore the reality of what is happening because you're bitter at him leaving is your problem.  I'm just calling it the way it is.  No one likes it, including me, but the feigned shock and outrage is a bit much, especially when you darn well know if we had signed Sean Miller or Tony Bennett and he brought recruits with him or signed recruits the following year that he was recruiting ("on their dime" while at the previous school) no one would blink an eye at all.  We would welcome them with open arms.

It's hypocritical to say the least.  Better get used to it, because Crean was recruiting kids all the way down to freshman year of high school so there are multiple classes ahead that he's going to touch that he touched previously at MU.  That's the way it goes in the REALITY of DI athletics.

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2008, 12:05:16 PM
My hopes on day 1 was fro Sean Miller to be the Next coach with Buzz as my #2 option ahead of Bennett by a long shot. 

You are aware that Miller recruited Terrell Holloway.  Doesn't that show a lack of class?  Shouldn't Miller have said "you belong at Indiana?"

I suppose you'll try and make a big deal about the fact that Miller was not Holloway's first choice.

Holloway signed with Indiana and was every bit as committed there as Nick Willams was to MU.  If the right thing to do is to tell the player that he belongs where he committed, does it make much difference whether you won the recruiting battle or came in 2nd place?

Nobody here said that Ben-Eze belongs at Harvard or Holloway belongs at Indiana--the popular sentiment here is that it would be great news for us to land those players who decommitted from another program.  I seriously doubt there would have been much consternation (if any) if Miller came and brought his 6'11 4-star recruit with him.  

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on April 22, 2008, 11:00:40 AM
Are people mad that Joseph Fulce followed Buzz here?  He was signed to play for UNO before Buzz left.

Fulce also didn't come here directly.  He sat out of D-I basketball for a year and burned a year of eligibility, which NW won't have to do.

MU could have put limitations on the release, they didn't.  If MU didn't, then why is anyone getting upset?  By not putting conditions on the release, you're inviting this very thing to happen. 

Is this a PR move on the school's part? I would have thought Wild was so ticked off with the way Judas left that he would have told Cottingham, "Under no circumstances is he taking recruits with him."

MU did not put restrictions on the release because Mu is a high character institution and would never do that to a young man.  Good Grief!!

ahhhhhh...not sure about my post from the day of the press conference having anything to do with me being mad at him leaving??  I simply pointed out that he is a liar, a fake and completely insincere.  Where in that post did i say I was upset he was leaving??  I simply predicted what he would say and was dead on.  i know him for what he is.   Some newbies thought Crean was bigger than the school, they will soon find they were dead wrong and Crean was no where near what he sold himself as.  Great PR guy not so great recruiter and an even worse coach and person. 

Honestly, my biggest problem with Crean poaching our recruits is that it's a loophole for him to get around the self-imposed sanctions and recruiting restrictions at Indiana.  The sanctions were put in place to show Indiana was punishing itself for the violations and placing themselves at a disadvantage.  With Crean using MU's recruiting budget, visits, contacts, etc. to bring in IU's recruiting class, these sanctions have no consequences for IU.

Quote from: Marquette84 on April 22, 2008, 12:59:53 PM
You are aware that Miller recruited Terrell Holloway.  Doesn't that show a lack of class?  Shouldn't Miller have said "you belong at Indiana?"

I suppose you'll try and make a big deal about the fact that Miller was not Holloway's first choice.

Holloway signed with Indiana and was every bit as committed there as Nick Willams was to MU.  If the right thing to do is to tell the player that he belongs where he committed, does it make much difference whether you won the recruiting battle or came in 2nd place?

Nobody here said that Ben-Eze belongs at Harvard or Holloway belongs at Indiana--the popular sentiment here is that it would be great news for us to land those players who decommitted from another program.  I seriously doubt there would have been much consternation (if any) if Miller came and brought his 6'11 4-star recruit with him.  

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the coach that recruited Holloway to Indiana fired for recruiting violations?

I never was happy w/ crean's self-promotion and over-pay while he was here, but liked his relationship to players, students, previous players, fans and the MU community.  When he didn't show at the M club golf outing last spring I was curious.  When he acquiesed to Mbakwe at the end of season I was puzzled.  When he bolted in the night to Indiana I was NOT surprised at the move;  I was surprised at Indiana.  My only dissappointment in crean is that he never earned the winner's salary he demanded all those years.  

Those of you w/ anger at crean are the ones that swallowed the bilge he was spewing.  Some of us saw him as the slick salesman he is.  His actions are true to his persona.

He, and all other coaches, have every right to go after uncommitted recruits (Wilson, etc.), but ethical coaches will not harrass committed recruits (Erik Williams).

Honestly, my biggest problem with Crean poaching our recruits is that it's a loophole for him to get around the self-imposed sanctions and recruiting restrictions at Indiana.  The sanctions were put in place to show Indiana was punishing itself for the violations and placing themselves at a disadvantage.  With Crean using MU's recruiting budget, visits, contacts, etc. to bring in IU's recruiting class, these sanctions have no consequences for IU.


+1

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2008, 01:45:54 PM
MU did not put restrictions on the release because Mu is a high character institution and would never do that to a young man.  Good Grief!!

Then if you make that argument, you have to also understand that if the young man wants to play for a certain coach then why not let him.  You can't have it both ways.  The kid wants to play for Crean, not MU.  Good Grief!!

And once they are out of their LOI, which we let them out of, they are free game...no ties to any school.

Chicos again completely misses or glosses over the point his ability to do that is Murp-esque.  he posts:

Did he call Erik Williams...probably did, is Erik Williams a committed player?  Verbally yes, but that's as good as the paper it's written on.  That stuff happens all the time and happened with Nick Williams verbal to MU by SEC schools up until the very end when he signed.  Welcome to reality.

Are you freaking kidding me Cico!!  Are those SEC coaches Two weeks removed from coaching at the school Williams committed to!!??

Give em a freaking break...no where have I said what he is doing is illegal and no where have i said i had a problem with him contacting Lacy, wilson, etc.  

Calling Erik Williams is a s classless and void of character as one can be.  It is indefensible and to come on here and defend it is a total joke!!  Its pathetic on your part!!

Quote from: mr.muskie on April 22, 2008, 01:59:31 PM
Honestly, my biggest problem with Crean poaching our recruits is that it's a loophole for him to get around the self-imposed sanctions and recruiting restrictions at Indiana.  The sanctions were put in place to show Indiana was punishing itself for the violations and placing themselves at a disadvantage.  With Crean using MU's recruiting budget, visits, contacts, etc. to bring in IU's recruiting class, these sanctions have no consequences for IU.


+1

The sanctions put in place were around the number of calls and in home visits, but it didn't limit calls entirely.

As someone pointed out, we got Fulce on UNO and Texas A&M's recruiting budget.   These things are going to happen.

Quote from: BrewCity on April 22, 2008, 09:54:05 AM
I'm still sore at Holmgren.  I doubt if this will pass any time soon, either.

I guess my problem is that he really did have me fooled.  I did not see it coming at all.  I knew he would leave at some point for a better job, which he has every right to do, but the way he bolted and completely turned his back on his players and everyone at MU just went against everything that he had been selling (and I had been buying) for the last 9 years.

I wasn't fooled. I knew he was as phoney as a 3 dollar bill from day 1 and took a lot of heat from my muscoop brothers and sisters for my stance which never wavered.

Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on April 22, 2008, 02:03:13 PM
Chicos again completely misses or glosses over the point his ability to do that is Murp-esque.  he posts:

Did he call Erik Williams...probably did, is Erik Williams a committed player?  Verbally yes, but that's as good as the paper it's written on.  That stuff happens all the time and happened with Nick Williams verbal to MU by SEC schools up until the very end when he signed.  Welcome to reality.

Are you freaking kidding me Cico!!  Are those SEC coaches Two weeks removed from coaching at the school Williams committed to!!??

Give em a freaking break...no where have I said what he is doing is illegal and no where have i said i had a problem with him contacting Lacy, wilson, etc.  

Calling Erik Williams is a s classless and void of character as one can be.  It is indefensible and to come on here and defend it is a total joke!!  Its pathetic on your part!!

Sigh.  I didn't say you had a problem with Wilson, but others here and elsewhere have.

You may not like that he called Erik Williams, I don't like it either....all I said is it happens.  Coaches in the SEC were trying to sway Nick Williams from taking the MU offer up until he signed.  But I'll look at it another way, is it classless for a coach to call a player that recruited to play for him to say ask where his allegiances are?  Some will say yes, some will say no.  I wasn't on the phone, I don't know what was said.  I believe Erik's dad said we knew it was going to come down to IU and MU after the change, that pretty much tells me that the kid was considering IU also....don't you think?  Wouldn't a rational person assume that he was going to call Crean or vice versa since that's who he committed to play for as his coach?

If my kid committed and the coach left, I would want at the very least for my kid to at least have a call with the previous coach, weigh his options, etc.  That sounds like what Erik did and he's coming to MU.  I don't think we should fault him or anyone else in the process.

For those so angry they could spit, you're going to see things differently.  That's fine, but don't rip on others because we don't hold your vitriol....afterall, we have Buzz to save the day.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2008, 02:10:47 PM
I wasn't fooled. I knew he was as phoney as a 3 dollar bill from day 1 and took a lot of heat from my muscoop brothers and sisters for my stance which never wavered.

There are now 3 types of MU fans:

Those who weren't fooled and couldn't stand him
Those who weren't fooled and put up with it
Those who were fooled and can't believe it.

The last group really amazes me.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 22, 2008, 02:14:37 PM
....afterall, we have Buzz to save the day.

I think that's what we're afraid of / p.o.'d about.

The last major conference coach that I recall "poaching" committed recruits is...

Kelvin Sampson of IU.  First thing Sampson did was call Eric Gorden (who had verballed to Illinois) and convinced him that It's Indiana.

Coincidence? 

Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2008, 02:10:47 PM
I wasn't fooled. I knew he was as phoney as a 3 dollar bill from day 1 and took a lot of heat from my muscoop brothers and sisters for my stance which never wavered.

LOL.  Many people knew he was an ass and a salesman, but we liked the results.  You also said he couldn't coach, it would be easy to find a replacement, etc....that's where many of us didn't see eye to eye with you.  I could care less if the coach is a guy I like....does he win, does he not cheat with the NCAA, that's what I want to know.

We'll see if it's as easy as you laid it out, that someone will just come in here and coach their ass off with no problems and be that nice guy you wanted to.  I have my concerns.

Come on, JD, you of all people defended that prick till the very end and only recently have come out to say, "I always knew he was a jerk."
Hiring his replacement could have and should have been a cake walk, but MU may have f'ed that up as well which happens when you become a whore to the donors. One of the main reasons Crean has wanted out of here so badly since 2003 was he didn't want to be Strong's homeboy any longer.
All of that said, I have an open mind toward Buzz' hiring and am willing to give him the chance he's been afforded.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 22, 2008, 02:07:43 PM
As someone pointed out, we got Fulce on UNO and Texas A&M's recruiting budget.   These things are going to happen.

Once again, I see Fulce's situation as different since he didn't come straight here.  Fulce had to burn a year of eligibility, which is arguably a harsher punishment than sitting out a year.

The fact we're already 4 pages into this thread and nobody can come up with another example of a head coach leaving and taking a recruit to his new school shows how rare this is.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2008, 02:55:34 PM
Come on, JD, you of all people defended that prick till the very end and only recently have come out to say, "I always knew he was a jerk."
Hiring his replacement could have and should have been a cake walk, but MU may have f'ed that up as well which happens when you become a whore to the donors. One of the main reasons Crean has wanted out of here so badly since 2003 was he didn't want to be Strong's homeboy any longer.
All of that said, I have an open mind toward Buzz' hiring and am willing to give him the chance he's been afforded.

Yes I did defend him to the end, but also go back and look how many times I said he was prick, a jack to work for, etc....and yes I also looked the other way at times (shame on me).  But as long as he was winning and not cheating, you bet I could live with it.  And I certainly wasn't buying the complete crap by some that he couldn't coach or recruit.

5 NCAA appearances in 7 years including a Final Four, a conference title, a conference runner-up suggested otherwise.

For all the people who said he couldn't recruit and couldn't coach, how in the hell did we have the success we did?  Hmmm.

But he's gone....time for Buzz to save the day. 

Crean did the job better than any coach since McGuire. Therefore, I appreciate the 9 years he put in, and I don't feel like I was "taken for a ride" or "fooled".

I've gotten great entertainment from the MU program over the past 9 years, and the players have ALWAYS represented the university well.

I was entertained by the product. I was proud of my school.

That's it.

I'm sorry if that is pissing some of you off.

Quote from: 2002mualum on April 22, 2008, 04:33:38 PM
Crean did the job better than any coach since McGuire. Therefore, I appreciate the 9 years he put in, and I don't feel like I was "taken for a ride" or "fooled".

I've gotten great entertainment from the MU program over the past 9 years, and the players have ALWAYS represented the university well.

I was entertained by the product. I was proud of my school.

That's it.

I'm sorry if that is pissing some of you off.

+1

New Nickname proposal for Nick Williams: JJ.

Judas Junior.  ;)

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 22, 2008, 04:12:36 PM
Yes I did defend him to the end, but also go back and look how many times I said he was prick, a jack to work for, etc....and yes I also looked the other way at times (shame on me).  But as long as he was winning and not cheating, you bet I could live with it.  And I certainly wasn't buying the complete crap by some that he couldn't coach or recruit.

5 NCAA appearances in 7 years including a Final Four, a conference title, a conference runner-up suggested otherwise.

For all the people who said he couldn't recruit and couldn't coach, how in the hell did we have the success we did?  Hmmm.

But he's gone....time for Buzz to save the day. 

I recall that often in Chicos posts in the past that his defense of Crean was not that he was a nice guy or a great Xs and Os coach but it was more or less based on the fact that should he leave we wouldn't necessarily get someone better. At the time, I took that to mean that Chicos had some insight into the decision-making process of the University adminstration without Cords.  In other words, the same administration that brought us the "Gold" would be responsible for selecting the next coach and would likely botch it.  Chicos has proven absolutely correct in terms the adminstration's performance in selecting the next coach.  The jury is out on Buzz but I do not think ANY of us were happy with the selection process. 

But whether or not Crean was good for MU, I just think he is a classless scumbag and he is now proving it.  When he left he had a choice. Act with class and integrity or screw everyone he could for his own personal gain. Help preserve the program he built or steal from it.  Build bridges or burn them. 

Crean signed up for a difficult situation at Indiana.  Now MU's program must help pay for its rebuilding.  From what I understand there are certain unwritten rules about poaching other program's recruits.  Once a recruit verbals other programs and coaches are supposed to lay off them.  The Erik Williams situations clearly crosses this line.  Because some SEC programs did it with Nick, doesn't mean they aren't scumbags.  However, there is no evidence of this other than Nick said he felt some pressure to change his mind.  I am not sure the "pressure" came from the coaches of those programs. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 23, 2008, 09:39:31 AM
Once a recruit verbals other programs and coaches are supposed to lay off them.  The Erik Williams situations clearly crosses this line. 

I don't know all of the unwritten rules of college hoops... so you could be right... but what if Erik Williams wanted to talk to Crean and hear about a possible opportunity at IU?

What if Nick Williams wanted to follow Crean to IU?

It's speculation that Crean was calling these kids and pressuring them... maybe these kids wanted to hear from him.

Again, given Crean's overall clean track record... I don't know that it's a slam dunk conclusion that he's a slime ball calling all of these kids and trying to change their minds. I realize that people dislike him for his recent actions, but his overall track record is clean.

I see where you are coming from... but I'm just not sure I can make that leap with as much certainty as some people on this board.

Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2008, 09:59:27 AM
I don't know all of the unwritten rules of college hoops... so you could be right... but what if Erik Williams wanted to talk to Crean and hear about a possible opportunity at IU?

What if Nick Williams wanted to follow Crean to IU?

I think Crean should have called them and say what Trent Johnson said to the incoming recruits when he left Stanford. They all recommitted by the way.  It is about integrity and it is about what is best for the kids.  Integrity because those kids committed to the University not the coach.  It is best for the kids to attend MU at this point since the program is in better shape than IU's with sanctions and all.  They are likely to benefit more for the next few years by being at MU.  Crean has no integrity and doesn't give a sh!t what is best for the kids, in the end. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 23, 2008, 10:23:01 AM
I think Crean should have called them and say what Trent Johnson said to the incoming recruits when he left Stanford. They all recommitted by the way.  It is about integrity and it is about what is best for the kids.  Integrity because those kids committed to the University not the coach.   

Trent Johnson didn't do that because he has integrity, or because it was the right thing to do.  He did it because he said the type of players he had at Stanford and could get at Stanford were not the type you need to get to the final four.  He didn't want the kids to follow him because he's convinced they can't compete in the SEC.  Heck, he's already started talking about how his former players(like Mitch Johnson) just weren't good enough to get to the next level.

Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps such a thing as "doing the right thing" and integrity no longer exist in the college game.  Perhaps college basketball is just an extension of the NBA and the almighty $ rules.  It is sad if true. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 23, 2008, 10:36:53 AM
Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps such a thing as "doing the right thing" and integrity no longer exist in the college game.  Perhaps college basketball is just an extension of the NBA and the almighty $ rules.  It is sad if true. 

That's right on.

And that's why people root for the Davidsons and George Masons...the teams that lack the big money other schools have for their sports programs.

Underdogs are alive and well in the NCAAs.

Quote from: downtown85 on April 23, 2008, 10:23:01 AM
I think Crean should have called them and say what Trent Johnson said to the incoming recruits when he left Stanford. They all recommitted by the way.  It is about integrity and it is about what is best for the kids.  Integrity because those kids committed to the University not the coach.  It is best for the kids to attend MU at this point since the program is in better shape than IU's with sanctions and all.  They are likely to benefit more for the next few years by being at MU.  Crean has no integrity and doesn't give a sh!t what is best for the kids, in the end. 

I have to be honest.

I HAVE NOT IDEA WHAT IS BEST FOR THESE KIDS.

I don't know if it is better for them to come to MU, or to go to IU.

So, I'm not sure I can say that Crean should recommend that they go to MU... maybe MU sans Crean isn't the best for the kid.

Maybe IU is a better fit.

I don't know any of these recruits, so I can't say.

Quote from: 2002mualum on April 23, 2008, 01:15:55 PM
I have to be honest.

I HAVE NOT IDEA WHAT IS BEST FOR THESE KIDS.

I don't know if it is better for them to come to MU, or to go to IU.

So, I'm not sure I can say that Crean should recommend that they go to MU... maybe MU sans Crean isn't the best for the kid.

Maybe IU is a better fit.

I don't know any of these recruits, so I can't say.

If the kid has asperations to go to the NBA or play in Europe, you're probably going to push him to Crean over Buzz.  Crean has that track record, Buzz doesn't.  That's why I agree with you 2002alum, how can anyone say what's best for the kids.  Shouldn't the kids and their families figure that out?

Of course now will come the accusations I'm defending Crean...but seriously.  If your kid has dreams of playing pro ball in Europe or the NBA and your choices were Buzz or Crean, the surer bet is going to be Crean.  Doesn't mean Buzz can't or won't be able to develop your son, but the reality is that Crean has.  Parents and kids are going to listen to that and if that's what they want, isn't that really what's best for the kids?  I have to laugh at all of the folks that are putting themselves in the players minds and determining what is best for them.  Somehow, I think maybe the kids and their parents should be doing that.  Call me crazy.

I'm not saying I know what's best for each of these kids.  What's best is going to be different for each kid.  I just don't want Judas going from one day, on March 31st, telling them that MU is the best place for them, to on April 1st telling them that MU is all wrong for them just because Judas is now gone. 

Quote from: BrewCity on April 23, 2008, 01:53:50 PM
I'm not saying I know what's best for each of these kids.  What's best is going to be different for each kid.  I just don't want Judas going from one day, on March 31st, telling them that MU is the best place for them, to on April 1st telling them that MU is all wrong for them just because Judas is now gone. 

I think Crean was probably saying the best place for them is with him...on March 31st that would be at MU, on April 1st that would be at IU.  That's what I'm sure the parents and players are asking as well.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2008, 02:05:00 PM
I think Crean was probably saying the best place for them is with him...

You hit the nail on the head there.  It is about him and always was.  Everything else was B.S.  I said before he has no principles.  Actually I was wrong, he does.  His one and only principle is what is best for Tom Creans is best. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 23, 2008, 02:46:44 PM
You hit the nail on the head there.  It is about him and always was.  Everything else was B.S.  I said before he has no principles.  Actually I was wrong, he does.  His one and only principle is what is best for Tom Creans is best. 

As Mike Deane told me several times, he was a contract employee.  The university wouldn't hesitate to fire him in a second.  He had to look out for number 1 just as other coaches have to do the same thing.  As I've heard many coaches say, give me a lifetime contract and then we're talking.   Whether it's lack of principles or not, it's reality with most coaches especially in today's age with the dollars that are being thrown around.

Too Tan Tommy's official apologist has spoken again. 

Quote from: PJDunn on April 23, 2008, 05:46:36 PM
Too Tan Tommy's official apologist has spoken again. 

Nice insight.

 I don't like it, but there is nothing against the rules, there is nothing unethical about it.  If it was unethical, please show me where the NCAA states this isn't allowed or even frowned upon.  If you can show me that, it will sway my opinion.

I'm amazed that we can compare ethics to rules. I could have sworn that we learned the difference in our philosophy and religion classes at MU. It's obviously not against the "rules". We might as well start recruiting kids like Oden and let them take one or two classes if they know they are going pro!


There is no question in my mind that Crean is doing harm to his former employer. I don't blame him for leaving MU and going to IU. It was a very good business decision for him. It allowed him to make more money and take his show to a different town with a fresh audience. Even guys like Denny Crum get shoved off the stage over time.

Crean's leaving and theft of commits reminds me of Gary Barnett(Northwestern football). He said he wasn't looking to leave numerous times and then went to Colorado with a number of commits. They both talked a great game and then leave in the middle of the night.

I haven't bashed Crean for leaving but believe the Nick William's jobbing by Crean is a huge insult. It's possible he got jobbed on IU press release but this is a well thought out decision to hurt us and help himself. Screw you Tanny!

I feel NCAA coaches run around like wild dogs and the players get screwed. However, I don't think a player like Williams should be able to follow Crean. I don't have a problem with them being released from their LOI but don't allow them to follow the former coach. This promotes all kinds of illegal activities and is detrimental to schools like MU.

I agree with fellow posters that Fulce following Buzz is not a problem if they make a stop in between. He gave up a year of eligibility at D-1 after all was said and done.

Simple, MU should have put a condition on the release and that ends it right there.  I don't know why MU didn't do that....unless....wait for it....the kid wanted to play for Crean and not MU.  Which is the case.  MU allowed the kid to fulfill his wishes and that's what he is doing.

Shouldn't the kids have a say in all this?

That's the one question that no one has answered for me.  It's the kid's life, it's his playing career...why is anyone bitter about the kid choosing to go play for the coach he wanted to play for at the very beginning?  I just don't get it.  Everyone's thinking with their MU heart but not about what the student athlete wants. It's his choice, he doesn't want MU, he wants to play for Crean...at least today.  Maybe in a year he'll be sick of Crean, but it's the kid's life we're talking about.  MU would not have released Williams so damn quickly if they didn't know from the get-go that the kid had absolutely ZERO intention of playing for MU sans Crean.  NONE.  They released him very quickly which is all one needs to know about the NW situation. 

Once MU released him from the LOI, is he not fair game?  Seriously?  Sure looks to me like he is. IU made their pitch along with 5 other schools.  The player, of sound body and mind, chose to hook back up with the original guy he wanted in the first place.  His decision.  No gun to his head, he chose to play for Crean.

To follow-up, exactly what is unethical?  I'm being serious.  It happens in college football almost every year, it happens in college basketball more then it should.  I know we all hate it, but shouldn't the NCAA just shut it down if it's so unethical?

I recall John Tiller of Missouri doing this a few years ago after he committed to UAB and then Mike Anderson got the job with Missouri...he followed him to Columbia and UAB fans were all fired up.  Of course then several IU players left IU to follow Mike Davis down to UAB.  Heck, how many times have we seen kids over the years transfer out and follow their coach to a new job.

Unethical to me is promising a kid a 4 year scholarship and running him off after 1 year...that's unethical.  Unethical is getting your dad a job as an assistant coach on the team (which is legal) and then canning him as soon as junior's eligibility is up.

But recruiting a kid that is no longer tied to a LOI?  Sorry, I don't see it.

Last week Marist recruit (6'10" Trevon Flores) decommitted from Marist and went to...wait for it...James Madison where Madison's new coach is none other then Marist's old coach (Matt Brady) from only a few weeks earlier.  It looks like Andrey Semenov who committed to Marist will do the exact same thing and follow Brady to JMU.

Kids want to play for coaches and I just don't get the uproar and why adults would want to hold back these kids from choosing their path in life.  I really don't. 

Whether it's the stud QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) that signed with June Jones who wanted to be taught by a great QB coach who just decommitted from Hawaii to enroll at SMU to be with Jones, or Robert Griffin decommitting from Houston to follow Houston's ex-coach (Briles) to Baylor.

Or Dairese Gary last year who committed to Iowa....he decommitted and followed Alford to New Mexico.

Or Darrington Hobson who committed to Pepperdine, but when Ryan Miller of Pepperdine quit to become an assistant at New Mexico, Hobson decommitted and followed Miller to New Mexico.  He wanted to play for a coach he knew, Miller.

These kids want to play for coaches they committed to, why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Seriously, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2008, 11:58:04 PM
Simple, MU should have put a condition on the release and that ends it right there.  I don't know why MU didn't do that....unless....wait for it....the kid wanted to play for Crean and not MU.  Which is the case.  MU allowed the kid to fulfill his wishes and that's what he is doing.

Shouldn't the kids have a say in all this?

That's the one question that no one has answered for me.  It's the kid's life, it's his playing career...why is anyone bitter about the kid choosing to go play for the coach he wanted to play for at the very beginning?  I just don't get it.  Everyone's thinking with their MU heart but not about what the student athlete wants. It's his choice, he doesn't want MU, he wants to play for Crean...at least today.  Maybe in a year he'll be sick of Crean, but it's the kid's life we're talking about.  MU would not have released Williams so damn quickly if they didn't know from the get-go that the kid had absolutely ZERO intention of playing for MU sans Crean.  NONE.  They released him very quickly which is all one needs to know about the NW situation. 

Once MU released him from the LOI, is he not fair game?  Seriously?  Sure looks to me like he is. IU made their pitch along with 5 other schools.  The player, of sound body and mind, chose to hook back up with the original guy he wanted in the first place.  His decision.  No gun to his head, he chose to play for Crean.

I did answer in another post.  Sometimes the wants and needs of a 17-year-old is not what the world (or the NCAAs) should base what is ethical or what is not.  If you have kids, you will completely understand me there.  Signing a LOI is probably the biggest decision and commitment of his life to that point and it should mean something.  

In one instance, some posters act like NCAA basketball is about dollars and ethics have disappeared altogether.  In the next instance, if the University acts in a way to preserve its interest and act like a business (by putting conditions on his release) then it is cold hearted by not letting a kid play where he wants to play.  You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.  

My problem is not with Nick Williams by the way.  My problem is the behavior of Crean.  BTW, i looked at Trent Johnson's 2008 recruiting class.  It is a very good class and certainly at the level to compete in the SEC.  He had every chance to try to poach them and he didn't.  If ethics doesn't exist anymore in college basketball, nobody has answered to me why Johnson behaved in an ethical way upon his exit and Crean did not?  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2008, 12:19:48 AM
To follow-up, exactly what is unethical?  I'm being serious.  It happens in college football almost every year, it happens in college basketball more then it should.  I know we all hate it, but shouldn't the NCAA just shut it down if it's so unethical?

I recall John Tiller of Missouri doing this a few years ago after he committed to UAB and then Mike Anderson got the job with Missouri...he followed him to Columbia and UAB fans were all fired up.  Of course then several IU players left IU to follow Mike Davis down to UAB.  Heck, how many times have we seen kids over the years transfer out and follow their coach to a new job.

Unethical to me is promising a kid a 4 year scholarship and running him off after 1 year...that's unethical.  Unethical is getting your dad a job as an assistant coach on the team (which is legal) and then canning him as soon as junior's eligibility is up.

But recruiting a kid that is no longer tied to a LOI?  Sorry, I don't see it.

Last week Marist recruit (6'10" Trevon Flores) decommitted from Marist and went to...wait for it...James Madison where Madison's new coach is none other then Marist's old coach (Matt Brady) from only a few weeks earlier.  It looks like Andrey Semenov who committed to Marist will do the exact same thing and follow Brady to JMU.

Kids want to play for coaches and I just don't get the uproar and why adults would want to hold back these kids from choosing their path in life.  I really don't. 

Whether it's the stud QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) that signed with June Jones who wanted to be taught by a great QB coach who just decommitted from Hawaii to enroll at SMU to be with Jones, or Robert Griffin decommitting from Houston to follow Houston's ex-coach (Briles) to Baylor.

The kids want to play for coaches they committed to, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Once MU released Nick from his LOI.  He was fair game.  There had to be a reason why the release was unconditional and that was so Indiana could recruit him.  The University should have put a condition in his release and been done with it.  Nobody would have batted an eye, except Chicos.  He would have complained that the University wasn't allowing a 17-year-old to do what he wants. 

Actually Downtown, if they would have put conditions on it then at least it would have ended all the hand wringing and for that I would be happy.

You mentioned in your previous post that a commitment by a 17 year old should mean something...yeah, I agree.  Then again, he's 17.  The kid can't go to 7-11 and buy a beer or vote for President of the United States yet so I guess I'm willing to cut him some slack IF (only IF) the guy he committed to left.

Do you think I want NW or TT to leave MU?  Of course not.  Do you think I want them to go to IU?  HELL NO!  But that's THEIR CHOICE.   In one sentence you say their commitment should mean something, but didn't the terms of their commitment change....the coaching staff changed, the one (and perhaps only) group of trusted people that you know at that school left.  Yes I know the LOI is with the school, but the reality of the situation is that kids commit to coaches often and shouldn't that be part of the equation, or should that matter not one iota?

If you were hired to go work for someone you greatly respected and wanted to work for, and the day before you started (or even 2 months after you started), he/she left for whatever reason, do you think you might want to get out of that job?  Knowing that your guy wouldn't be there to mentor you or protect you while you got up to speed.  I'll bet you would strongly consider it.  I don't see any difference in this situation.  This is someone's LIFE we're talking about.  And we're holding a 17 year old kid to a commitment that essentially doesn't mean anything close to what it originally meant because the guy that sold him on coming is GONE.

Downtown..I do have kids and I suspect you do too.  If you were going to send your kid off 2000 miles to a school that you just spent the last 2 years being recruited by one coach, and that coach left...would you feel as comfortable sending your kid to a school not knowing that coach?  Not knowing anything about them, their philosophy, their style, their character, their experience?  You don't think you and your kid wouldn't have serious reservations?  Your trust is with the other guy...the guy you spent 2 years getting to know.  That doesn't factor in....really?


Personally, I think the NCAA should make this real easy.  If the coach leaves, your LOI is null and void and you're open to be re-recruited again.

I know you guys don't like Hurley but he makes some interesting points, including that pesky detail that many of these kids signing a LOI are 17 and their status as a minor.


"We have a minor entering into a contract with a university based on the influence the coach had over this child to make him decide to sign with this school over somewhere else," said Bob Hurley, who has produced more than 125 Division I prospects while coaching more than three decades at St. Anthony in Jersey City, N.J. "A very persuasive adult with a basketball reputation convinced this minor to enter a contract because of all the things he's going to do for him. Then the coach goes to another situation, and now you're going to have another person coach the kid who (the recruit) doesn't even know."

Hurley doesn't expect changes to be made to the process anytime soon because he figures nobody wants to rock the boat at a time when college basketball is thriving. But that hasn't stopped him from asking that prospects receive more rights in the college selection process, even if it means inserting a clause in the letter-of-intent that allows student-athletes to look elsewhere when they've signed with a school that experiences a coaching change.

"Maybe we have to get an addendum to it," Hurley said. "I can't believe we're getting to that point, but it's necessary."

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2008, 12:57:18 AM
I know you guys don't like Hurley but he makes some interesting points, including that pesky detail that many of these kids signing a LOI are 17 and their status as a minor.

Except TT's mom also signed the LOI....and we have kids of a similar age signing up for the armed forces to go fight (and die) for our freedom.  Hurley needs to get off his high alter and enter the real world.  Is it so bad MU offered his kid a $160k free ride at a great school where his odds of graduating are almost 100%?  TT was granted his release after ALL the appropriate papers (i.e., his mom signed not his high school AD).  Frankly, Hurley needs to act more like a teacher and less like a pimp.  I have lost total respect for the man...and Hurley and his so called Catholic HS  have been exposed here as the basketball meat market they are.  They are what is wrong with college basketball today.

Should MU have granted him his release?  Yes, when he and his parents agreed in writing to it as is the responsible thing to do.  Would there be a 1000 other hs seniors eager to have his free ride to MU for academics?  Yes.   And, who, if granted , btw, had to sign a scholarship commitment form so they don't take a spot from another kid?  Yes.  Woe is Hurley.  He has proven unreliable and to be a hypocrite...and has done harm to his student athletes by not representing them in a responsible manner.

Yes.  It is unfair that the coach can leave and the kid is theoretically stuck in an LOI.  I really have no problem with a kids being released from his LOI when a coach leaves.  

What I have a problem with is Crean's apparant behavior.  Look at MU's program.  TC had a lot to do with the recovery of the basketball program here.  However, a lot of it was the Marquette community's (adminstration, alums, and fans) committment to rebuild the program and to provide the resources so it could be competitive.  TC walked into a really good situation when he was hired and he made the best of it (according to his ability).   However, it is still MU's basketball program and not TC's.  I do not think our former coach has one ounce or recognition or gratitude for what MU has given him.    

What I would expect of a normal moral human being (e.g., Trent Johnson) when he leaves is to tell the kids that he recruited that 1) he is sorry that he is leaving MU, 2) their committment is to MU and not to him, 3) Buzz Williams is a great coach and you will do you fine with him,  and 4)  MU is a great program, he should know, he helped build it.  Then TC should then leave our recruits alone.  If the kid searches high and low and he still wants to play for him, so be it.  I wouldn't have a problem with it then.  

HOWEVER, what I think really happened was that TC went to "It's Indiana" and said "Oh sh!t, I can't recruit here due to restrictions and I have no real class signed for 2008 or 2009 and I need to get some decent players in.  Let's raid Marquette".  I do believe that TC called our committed recruits.  I do not believe he made a case to them to remain committed to MU.  It is actually shameful.  Given now what we know about his character, it shouldn't have come as a surprise.  

I have less of a problem with the Nick Williams situation than the Erik Williams situation.  From what I understand Crean called EW and tried to persuade him to go to Indiana.  I know we are not privy to what was actually said but everything indicates that Slimeball called him and tried to get him to follow him to Indiana.  I am glad EW could see through his slimy, tan exterior.  

While we are proposing NCAA rules changes.  How about this:  "Any coach who leaves before the end of his contract must wait 1 year before coaching an NCAA team again."   This would put coaches and players on more equal footing.  However, as Huggy's year off indicated, he wasn't coaching anywhere and he could basically call recruits and visit them as much as he wanted since he wasn't subject to NCAA rules.  For every rule proposed, there are consequences and outcomes which may not be desireable.  

Chicos, you think calling committed recruits from his former employer with the aim of getting them to follow is perfectly moral and ethical. I don't.  That is the difference.  

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 07:26:46 AM


From what I understand Crean called EW and tried to persuade him to go to Indiana.  I know we are not privy to what was actually said but everything indicates that Slimeball called him and tried to get him to follow him to Indiana.  I am glad EW could see through his slimy, tan exterior. 

See, I actually agree with you ... We are NOT privy to any of the conversations... so I guess I just haven't made the leap to "tan slimeball" like others have.

The guy (Crean) is a great marketer and salesman, but throughout his history he's been never accused of being dirty with players or recruiting (outside of the very few who accused him of "running players off").

I guess that's why I give him the benefit of the doubt... I don't know what the conversations were... and his history is pretty clean.

Oh well.

I am not making it up. Look at the link below:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739841

For those of you who were too lazy, here is the quote from Rosiak:

"In the meantime, he (E. Williams) and coach John Harmatuk heard from Crean, who made it known he still desired his services in Bloomington, Ind."

Scumbag.

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 07:26:46 AM

Chicos, you think calling committed recruits from his former employer with the aim of getting them to follow is perfectly moral and ethical. I don't.  That is the difference. 

Now it's a moral question?   :o

Because none of us were on the phone it all seems like a bit of a reach.  At the end of the day, the kid deciding to go play for the immoral and unethical coach, so maybe we don't want the kid anyway.   ;)  Or, perhaps in a more realistic viewpoint, the kid and his family were more comfortable playing for a coach that they know the last 2 years during the recruiting process.

For Nick, he went with Crean.  For Erik, he went with Buzz.  By the way, Erik Williams had not signed any LOI, he's free game.

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 09:35:39 AM
I am not making it up. Look at the link below:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739841

For those of you who were too lazy, here is the quote from Rosiak:

"In the meantime, he (E. Williams) and coach John Harmatuk heard from Crean, who made it known he still desired his services in Bloomington, Ind."

Scumbag.

Hmmm I do trust Rosiak's reporting, so thanks for sharing.

It's all speculation and hearsay, but it certainly doesn't sound good... I agree with you there.

Oh well. He's gone... no need to dwell.

This horse has been beaten to death many times.  We all agree that it is a moral/ethical issue and some of us have different moral thresholds than others.  In Crean's case I am not sure he knows what morality or ethics is.  But so be it.  Let's move on.

I do say that if a coach does not respect verbals from our recruits to us/our coach then we should not reciprocate the courtesy to the other school/coach. 

How does it make it a  MORAL issue?  What harm is being done to the student athlete....a scholarship offer?

I'm surprised someone hasn't gone to the next step and labeled it criminal.

There is nothing immoral at all about this.  People are upset because the kid left MU, that's what this is about.

What I find "immoral" is forcing a kid to go to a school for a coach he has no relationship with or who didn't recruit him.  That I find immoral, that's not the case with Buzz but often the case at these schools where a coach is brought in from the outside and some poor kid is forced to play there site unseen for the new staff

O.k., I will try to explain.

When you work for someone, you create value for your employer and your employer has certain rights to the fruits of your labor.  In exchange for those rights, your employer gives you a paycheck.  Over time, the benefits from work grow and accrue to your employer and your pay hopefully rises as your employer recognizes this.  However, the moment you leave, the fruits of your labor stay with your employer. BTW, in another post you talked about rolodexes etc.  I have worked at jobs where the rolodex (or equivelent) has been impounded as soon as someone announces they are leaving.  The guy is literally shown the door in minutes of the announcement since the stuff he was just working on was so sensitive.  Also, in my profession, it is common to have "gardening leave" which amounts to a cooling off period where you can't go into competition with your former employer.   But you may say that TC acted within the law and written rules.  Just because sometimes there is no legal backing in an agreement doesn't mean that those rights don't exist on some moral level.  That is what I mean by moral.   

Now we would all agree that TC helped rebuild the program.  We all agree that recruiting is the key to success in upper tier college hoops.  I would say that the recruiting relationships that TC created while at MU are MU's.   If not legally, then morally.   Where do we draw the line? I would draw the line at commits.  Those with LOIs and those who have verbally committed.  I think it is reasonable place to draw the line and one that most coaches (and fans) would agree.   BTW, i scanned an Indiana message board and while most fans were esctatic about Crean getting NW, some questioned whether it was ethical going after MU recruits so hard.   It makes some feel queasy because they recognize that he recruited these kids on MU's dime and now IU is reaping the rewards of that. 

Like I said in another post, what a 17 year old kids wants doesn't make something moral or not.  I am sorry. 

Chicos, your argument is a bit of a red herring.  I am not talking about keeping NW committed to his LOI.  I am talking about TC's crossing the line and calling the likes of EW after he has verbally committed to MU and trying to get him to come to IU.  That is just sleazy.   If you don't think that TC crossed some line by calling one of our verbal commits and trying to get him to IU, then we will never agree. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 10:36:26 AM
I would say that the recruiting relationships that TC created while at MU are MU's.   If not legally, then morally.

You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 24, 2008, 11:04:36 AM
You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

Exactly

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 24, 2008, 11:04:36 AM
You can say what you want, but you're not the one in the relationship.  However you feel about what Crean did (and you're clear on that point), it is abundantly clear from what has transpired that the "relationship" was between Crean and Nick Williams.  Stating otherwise does not make it so.  MU does not own the relationship.

In your other comments, you stated that "I have worked at jobs..." and "...in my profession..."  What you're essentially saying there is that these things are contextual.  In my profession, when someone leaves a job, he takes the rolodex with him and fights like hell for the clients too.  Even in your profession, you seem to acknowledge that sometimes the employer doesn't enforce the "gardening leave."  If there is no "gardening leave" is it immoral for the ex-employee to compete?  I suspect not.  These are all rules/contract issues.  If an employer wants to prevent an ex-employee from competing, the employer forces the employee to sign an agreeemnt to that effect.  No agreement?  Go ahead and compete.  It's neither immoral nor unethical.  You're not breaking any rules (subject to trade secret rules -- which also are written, by the way).  Same deal here.  Marquette let Nick Williams out of his LOI.  Didn't have to do that.  Once they did, he's fair game.  Erik was a verbal.  No rules against what Crean did.  If MU wanted to have Crean sign a non-compete, they probably could have.  Absent such an agreement, I don't have any moral/ethical concerns about what he did.  I think it sucks, but I'm not at all surprised and don't think it's wrong.

I think in a court of law or an NCAA rules committee.  He would get off scott free.  In a jury of his coaching peers.  I think he would be guilty as charged, especially by calling EW.  If his jury were MU fandom, it might turn into a lynch mob.  

You may think TC owns the relationship and TC may think he owns the relationship and a recruit may even feel his relationship is with TC but morally TC doesn't own it.  It was developed while doing his job at MU.  Similar to a software programmer or salesperson.  The ownerhip of the intellectual property or the relationship is with the company and property of the company because it was developed using company resources.  TC wasn't out on the recruiting trail doing volunteer work on his own nickel.  He was paid for it.  The relationships are MU's.  

Whether a rule is written or not doesn't change its moral nature--i.e. whether or not it is fair.  Laws and rules are supposed to be a reflection of morality or what is fair, not the other way around.  I don't want to get into a metaphysical/epistomological debate comparing legal codes and moral codes.  This is a basketball forum!

Frankly, I am tired of discussing it.  TC crossed the line calling Erik Williams.  I think he acted like a sh!thead with NW.  But so be it.  We kept EW. NW is gone.  We all know TC's true stripes now.  

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 11:32:04 AM
You may think TC owns the relationship and TC may think he owns the relationship and a recruit may even feel his relationship is with TC but morally TC doesn't own it.  It was developed while doing his job at MU.  Similar to a software programmer or salesperson.  The ownerhip of the intellectual property or the relationship is with the company and property of the company because it was developed using company resources.  TC wasn't out on the recruiting trail doing volunteer work on his own nickel.  He was paid for it.  The relationships are MU's.

I know you're tired of discussing this, but you keep saying ridiculous things and I can't help taking the bait.  In one sense, you are right:  MU owned the relationship with Nick Williams by virtue of the signed LOI.  But MU gave it away.  MU could have enforced the LOI, but chose not to.  Therefore, what MU owned, MU gave away.  We can question the wisdom of that decision (although I don't), but I think it's silly to say that Crean acted immorally by accepting something that MU freely gave away.

Intellectual property rights and the work for hire doctrine are very specific rules that were created for very specific purposes.  They are not moral obligations, they are legal ownership rules.  If I create intellectual property while I am employed by you, you own the IP rights because the law says that you own them; not because you have a moral claim to them.  If I contract with you to create intellectual property and we do not have an assignment agreement, I own the intellectual property rights because the law says that I own them; not because I have a moral claim to them.  If you hire me as an independent contractor (as opposed to as an employee) for the sole purpose of creating intellectual property, and even if you pay me to create the intellectual property, I still own it unless we have a work for hire agreement that transfers the intellectual property rights to you.  Even though I did it on your nickel and I did it for you, it's mine.  In my humble opinion, your example makes it very clear that this is an issue or rules, not morals or ethics.

As for the saleperson, similar result.  The reason people have salemen sign non-competition agreements is that absent such agreements, they can compete.  Under applicable laws, they cannot steal trade secrets (including  customer lists), but they can compete.  Employers that want to prevent that competition will obtain an agreement.  The employer's failure to obtain such an agreement does not make it unethical or immoral to compete.  Before you go there, customer lists are considered trade secrets because they are not generally known or available to the public.  Basketball recruits are not particularly secretive.  Everyone knows who these recruits are and who is recruiting them.  There are literally thousands of message board like this one that identify the recruits.  In the non-competition arena, it's all about the economics and relative bargaining power of the parties.  If Marquette wanted to get an non-competition agreement from its coach, I'm sure it could.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the only candidates willing to accept that offer would be entirely  unknown/unqualified coaches (please, PRN, no Buzz jokes) or Marquette would have to pay substantially more to get someone to agree to that type of restrictions.  Marquette weighs the risk of competition against the costs of getting a coach willing to sign to such an agreement and opts to do what pretty much everyone else in that industry does:  hire a coach and understand that when he leaves, he will be working in a competitive enterprise.

Downtown, doesn't the kid own half the relationship?  Shouldn't he be at least 50% of the equation on the relationship?  If he chooses to continue that relationship with the former coach (he doesn't have to take the call, he doesn't have to follow him), isn't that his choice?

I know I hate saying this, but the NCAA needs to legislate.....

If a kid makes a verbal commitment, schools should not be allowed to contact the kid unless the kid contacts them first.  After all, the main reason kids verbal early is to stop the daily barrage of mailings, phone calls, etc.

I have no problem with Nick going to IU. Or heck, even if Tyshawn would have chosen IU, or even if Erik would have backed out of his verbal (as long as the former coach had not contacted him yet). But the former coaching calling a verbally committed kid just does not pass the smell test.

Quote from: indeelaw90 on April 24, 2008, 12:52:59 PM
I know I hate saying this, but the NCAA needs to legislate.....

If a kid makes a verbal commitment, schools should not be allowed to contact the kid unless the kid contacts them first.  After all, the main reason kids verbal early is to stop the daily barrage of mailings, phone calls, etc.

I have no problem with Nick going to IU. Or heck, even if Tyshawn would have chosen IU, or even if Erik would have backed out of his verbal (as long as the former coach had not contacted him yet). But the former coaching calling a verbally committed kid just does not pass the smell test.

We have agreement.  But if the NCAA isn't going to do that, then what has happened is fine because the NCAA has essentially said it's fine by not doing anything.  Hell, on the football front it's nearly become part of signing day as these kids switch their commitments the day of, the verbal means nothing.

NCAA either legislates or it allows it. 

But the one thing Indee I'd like your take on is during a coaching change.  In my viewpoint, when there is a coaching change, the LOI should be abolished.  The kid has the relationship with the previous coach, whether he moved on or was fired, he still isn't there.  Forcing a kid to go to a school to play for a coach he doesn't want to play for...well, it sounds like something out a policy written 200 years ago.

In a perfect world, players would choose a school because of how much they liked the curriculum, faculty, etc.  However, kids choose a basketball program for a few select reasons, the mian ones being the coach, the facilities, or the cheerleaders ;D

I think the LOI should be binding, but the kid should be able to include a clause, that if the coach leaves, the LOI is void (ala Ebanks at IU).  Also, I think the school the kid originally signed with should be allowed to have the kid have another "official" visit, if the recruiting is opened back up.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2008, 12:46:38 PM
Downtown, doesn't the kid own half the relationship?  Shouldn't he be at least 50% of the equation on the relationship?  If he chooses to continue that relationship with the former coach (he doesn't have to take the call, he doesn't have to follow him), isn't that his choice?

Yes he does.  The university owns the other half. 

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 24, 2008, 12:20:53 PM
I know you're tired of discussing this, but you keep saying ridiculous things and I can't help taking the bait.  In one sense, you are right:  MU owned the relationship with Nick Williams by virtue of the signed LOI.  But MU gave it away.  MU could have enforced the LOI, but chose not to.  Therefore, what MU owned, MU gave away.  We can question the wisdom of that decision (although I don't), but I think it's silly to say that Crean acted immorally by accepting something that MU freely gave away.

Intellectual property rights and the work for hire doctrine are very specific rules that were created for very specific purposes.  They are not moral obligations, they are legal ownership rules.  If I create intellectual property while I am employed by you, you own the IP rights because the law says that you own them; not because you have a moral claim to them.  If I contract with you to create intellectual property and we do not have an assignment agreement, I own the intellectual property rights because the law says that I own them; not because I have a moral claim to them.  If you hire me as an independent contractor (as opposed to as an employee) for the sole purpose of creating intellectual property, and even if you pay me to create the intellectual property, I still own it unless we have a work for hire agreement that transfers the intellectual property rights to you.  Even though I did it on your nickel and I did it for you, it's mine.  In my humble opinion, your example makes it very clear that this is an issue or rules, not morals or ethics.

As for the saleperson, similar result.  The reason people have salemen sign non-competition agreements is that absent such agreements, they can compete.  Under applicable laws, they cannot steal trade secrets (including  customer lists), but they can compete.  Employers that want to prevent that competition will obtain an agreement.  The employer's failure to obtain such an agreement does not make it unethical or immoral to compete.  Before you go there, customer lists are considered trade secrets because they are not generally known or available to the public.  Basketball recruits are not particularly secretive.  Everyone knows who these recruits are and who is recruiting them.  There are literally thousands of message board like this one that identify the recruits.  In the non-competition arena, it's all about the economics and relative bargaining power of the parties.  If Marquette wanted to get an non-competition agreement from its coach, I'm sure it could.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the only candidates willing to accept that offer would be entirely  unknown/unqualified coaches (please, PRN, no Buzz jokes) or Marquette would have to pay substantially more to get someone to agree to that type of restrictions.  Marquette weighs the risk of competition against the costs of getting a coach willing to sign to such an agreement and opts to do what pretty much everyone else in that industry does:  hire a coach and understand that when he leaves, he will be working in a competitive enterprise.

you took the bait I will reel you in :)

Legalistically you are correct.  Are you a lawyer.  Morally or practically you are off base.  Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms.  From what I understand there are certain norms that govern situations like trying to recruit verbal commits.  From what I understand, standard practice is to lay off them until the renounce their verbal committment.   It is frowned upon what Kelvin Sampson did to Illinois last year which was recruiting a verbal commit to Illinois.  That may not be against the written rules but I am sure it did not endear Sampson to the coaching fraternity which has other ways of enforcing the unwritten rules. 

So answer me the following two questions:

Was Kelvin Sampson (and Tom Crean) right (i.e., on moral high ground) to call and recruit someone who had verballed someone else? 

Was Trent Johnson stupid to tell his commits to stay committed to Stanford?

O.k., i can't resist a 3rd question,  Should the Florida and Michigan democratic delegates be seated at the convention?

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 02:25:18 PM
Legalistically you are correct.  Are you a lawyer.  Morally or practically you are off base.  Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms.  From what I understand there are certain norms that govern situations like trying to recruit verbal commits.  From what I understand, standard practice is to lay off them until the renounce their verbal committment.   It is frowned upon what Kelvin Sampson did to Illinois last year which was recruiting a verbal commit to Illinois.  That may not be against the written rules but I am sure it did not endear Sampson to the coaching fraternity which has other ways of enforcing the unwritten rules. 

Wow, lot's of interesting things to discuss.  First, "Most relationships between human beings are not dominated by legal rules and fine print but on both societal and moral norms."  In general, I'm not sure that I disagree with this statement.  But, I think it has some real implications that I'm not entirely sure would apply here.  You have referred to both "societal" and "moral" norms.  Sometimes these are exactly the same.  Often, they differ completely; sometimes to the point of being mutually exclusive.  This, I believe, is at the heart of our debate.  I believe that the issue here in dealing with these recruits relate to societal norms -- not moral norms.  Specifically, we're talking about a very small subset of societal norms -- high level college recruiting.  When you start talking about how things are viewed in the "coaching fraternity" you are talking about social norms -- the industry standard among college basketball coaches.  That is not an issue of morality, but an issue of expectations developed over years of practice in a particular industry.  Never mind the fact that I really don't know for sure if that is even the norm among coaches.  I'm sure the Illinois coach was pissed at Sampson, but I have no idea if there would be general condemnation of such an act in the "coaching fraternity."

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 02:25:18 PMSo answer me the following two questions:

Was Kelvin Sampson (and Tom Crean) right (i.e., on moral high ground) to call and recruit someone who had verballed someone else?

I honestly don't know, because I am not well versed in the "societal norms" of college basketball coaches.  But, I don't think it was an immoral thing to do.  It might well have been a taboo thing for a coach to do, but I think that's between Tom Crean and his peers, not between Tom Crean and his Maker. 

Quote from: downtown85 on April 24, 2008, 02:25:18 PMWas Trent Johnson stupid to tell his commits to stay committed to Stanford?

I think it was a classy thing for Johnson to have done, but I don't think he was morally obligated to have done so.  I would have thought more highly of Crean if he'd have done the same, but I don't think he's immoral because he did not do it.

Ok, I'll accept that.  Crean did the taboo thing and Johnson did the classy thing.  However, if you have ever been within a group largely dominated by the societal norms (i.e., a trading pit) you know that most rules are unwritten and those who don't follow the rules become "cheaters and scumbags"  even though to outsiders they did nothing wrong "morally."   Perhaps the Kelvin Sampson official investigation was partly triggered by stepping outside the bounds of the unwritten rules.  I have no evidence of that but some coaches who felt wronged might have complained. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2008, 12:19:48 AM
To follow-up, exactly what is unethical?  I'm being serious.  It happens in college football almost every year, it happens in college basketball more then it should.  I know we all hate it, but shouldn't the NCAA just shut it down if it's so unethical?

I recall John Tiller of Missouri doing this a few years ago after he committed to UAB and then Mike Anderson got the job with Missouri...he followed him to Columbia and UAB fans were all fired up.  Of course then several IU players left IU to follow Mike Davis down to UAB.  Heck, how many times have we seen kids over the years transfer out and follow their coach to a new job.

Unethical to me is promising a kid a 4 year scholarship and running him off after 1 year...that's unethical.  Unethical is getting your dad a job as an assistant coach on the team (which is legal) and then canning him as soon as junior's eligibility is up.

But recruiting a kid that is no longer tied to a LOI?  Sorry, I don't see it.

Last week Marist recruit (6'10" Trevon Flores) decommitted from Marist and went to...wait for it...James Madison where Madison's new coach is none other then Marist's old coach (Matt Brady) from only a few weeks earlier.  It looks like Andrey Semenov who committed to Marist will do the exact same thing and follow Brady to JMU.

Kids want to play for coaches and I just don't get the uproar and why adults would want to hold back these kids from choosing their path in life.  I really don't. 

Whether it's the stud QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) that signed with June Jones who wanted to be taught by a great QB coach who just decommitted from Hawaii to enroll at SMU to be with Jones, or Robert Griffin decommitting from Houston to follow Houston's ex-coach (Briles) to Baylor.

Or Dairese Gary last year who committed to Iowa....he decommitted and followed Alford to New Mexico.

Or Darrington Hobson who committed to Pepperdine, but when Ryan Miller of Pepperdine quit to become an assistant at New Mexico, Hobson decommitted and followed Miller to New Mexico.  He wanted to play for a coach he knew, Miller.

These kids want to play for coaches they committed to, why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Seriously, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I certainly have nothing against Nick Williams decision. I have a problem with the process. I think if you want to be released from your LOI, then you shouldn't be able to follow the coach that left the school you committed to. There are 300+ D1 schools that you can choose from. As far as the kid's having a choice in the process. Is it that hard to tell a kid that he can have any flavor of ice cream but one? I don't want the kid to sit out and I  don't want coaches to take them along like animals in a travelling circus. The coaches and top players end up with too much power in the process. The NCAA's choice to do nothing basically puts them in charge of a basketball factory. Academics don't enter the thought process of the NCAA when they are dealing with STUDENT athletes it appears.
We all know that these kids commit to schools but in essence are committing to coaches. The problem with MU putting a restriction on a release from a LOI is that it attaches a stigma to MU. MU will get a bad rap that they don't allow you out of your contract and you can't follow guys like Crean. This means that top players will shy away from a school that has a good coach who might leave because they perceive greener pastures.
Let's have the NCAA put better rules in place so that the schools are in charge instead of the coaches. The fact that stronger rules are not in place does not make it ethical. There are reasons you can't sell $500 dollar hammers to the government. People did it and they changed laws. Does that mean it was ethical to do it before they changed the laws? Just because it happens in football doesn't make it right. We know how well these arguments held up  with our mothers when we were kids.
I like downtown 85's example of a trading pit and societal norms. I come from a trading background and I realize unethical practices carry on because people don't want to be stigmatized for questioning a gray or worse area. There aren't  many people who want to jeopardize their livelihood in order to do the right thing. There might be coaches who want to speak out but are afraid of the ramifications. I certainly don't think ESPN would be willing to hire a guy who bucked the system that makes them money.
The NCAA needs to change the rules so that the schools are in charge, the players get fair treatment, and the coaches have repercussions for their decisions.

77fan, I understand your point (and Downtown's).  I just don't feel like punishing a 17 year old is the "moral" thing to do.   ;)

In other words, if he committed to play for a coach and that coach leaves, why shouldn't he be allowed to follow them?  It's his life, he wants to be mentored by that coach.

Say that coach was the best guard coach in the country and the player was a guard.  And that guard coach left and the new coach was a big man coach, doesn't it seem silly to essentially regress this kid's ability by forcing him to stay with a coach he never had a desire to play for?  I think he should be allowed to go wherever he wants in the situation where a coach is fired or leaves.  This is a kid's life we're talking about.

How about he follows the coach and sits out a year retaining 4 years of eligibilty.? He can still follow the coach and receive the same coaching with the exception of games. Otherwise, he can choose among over 300 colleges and not miss a year.

Quote from: 77fan88warrior on April 25, 2008, 10:36:48 AM
How about he follows the coach and sits out a year retaining 4 years of eligibilty.? He can still follow the coach and receive the same coaching with the exception of games. Otherwise, he can choose among over 300 colleges and not miss a year.

That, I believe, is the answer and one the NCAA should seriously consider.  Follow your coach, sit out a year but you still get to play for him and for 4 years.  Otherwise go to any number of other 300 schools.  Also agree with Indee that they should allow the kid to come back to the original committed school for another official visit.

See, we've solved the NCAA's issue, now we just need to get the presidents on board and it's a done deal.   ;)