Scott Monarch joins Tony Benford at UNT

[314warrior]

My point is that when I made the decision to return to the military I could not wait to get back into the cockpit and begin schwacking rat bastard tangos.

My America erection is growing...

[keefe]

My America erection is growing...

"But isn't it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?"

-- David Niven

[77ncaachamps]

Pretty sh1tty switch on Monarch's part. He is already off the web roster but still listed on the landing page.

Character Revealed.

[keefe]

Character Revealed.

Some people thrive on pressure but the key is to ensure one's thinking remains consistent with one's values. It is easy to lose sight of one's moral compass.

[keefe]

What are your thoughts on Chew leaving Illinois for MU?

The material difference is that Chew is an Asst while Monarch was the CEO. But I still maintain that one has an obligation to see through at least a year unless there are ethical, legal, or moral issues at play. I don't know the details but if Chew accepted at Illinois he should have stayed for the season.

[avid1010]

One of the guys from Marquette's golf team lived on my floor at McCormick. He was on scholars but I suspect his upper middle class folks in Thiensville could have easily footed the tuition bill.  His golf kit likely cost more than what his tuition bill would have been.

i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????

[ChicosBailBonds]

Interesting comments from their fans in that forum. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????

I knew a kid that played basketball at Marquette that could have paid full tuition for half the team. 

[keefe]

i know a kid that plays basketball at marquette and he's poor...his mom couldn't afford tuition at uw-fond du lac?????

Your point is well taken. I was only underscoring the different demographics for the various sports. I am guessing that student golfers at the various universities tend be vote Republican.

[keefe]

Local SC press coverage of Monarch's departure

http://thetandd.com/sports/claflin-men-s-basketball-coach-leaves-for-north-texas-state/article_3de84958-ee97-11e2-a4e7-001a4bcf887a.html

[avid1010]

I knew a kid that played basketball at Marquette that could have paid full tuition for half the team. 

hey, i'm not sure i really care to hear from you until fox sports has a deal with direct tv....back to work please. 

[The Equalizer]

that said, there's a big difference between adults and college KIDS, and if we aren't treating our kids better than our adults something is wrong.  amazing how you can essentially say all coaches are pretty squirmy (in defense of crean), then turn around advocate for their rights.  i'm not worried about the coaches, just the kids...

The NCAA is downright loose with transfers compared to HS and the NBA. 

If a public HS coach leaves, in most cases the kid is stuck unless his parents sell their house and move.  And in some cases, he can't even play if he chooses to transfer to a private school and pay his own way.

And what would you do with the NBA coaches that leave (or are fired), and the players are under contract. Should those contracts be nullified if the coach leaves for whatever reason?

Neither before nor after college can a player decide unilaterally for which coach he is willing to play, with absolute freedom to move if his preferred coach is no longer with the team he is with.  If they want to leave after their coach leaves, they get no choice unless they (or their parents) are willing to suffer some pretty significant consequences. 

[Pakuni]

The NCAA is downright loose with transfers compared to HS and the NBA. 

If a public HS coach leaves, in most cases the kid is stuck unless his parents sell their house ove.  And in som cases, he can't even play if he chooses to transfer to a private school and pay his own way.

And what would you do with the NBA coaches that leave (or are fired), and the players are under contract. Should those contracts be nullified if the coach leaves for whatever reason?

Neither before nor after college can a player decide unilaterally for which coach he is willing to play, with absolute freedom to move if his preferred coach is no longer with the team he is with.  If they want to leave after their coach leaves, they get no choice unless they (or their parents) are willing to suffer some pretty significant consequences. 

Awful comparisons.
NBA players work  under contracts in which both parties have relatively equal and collectively bargained obligations. Player is obligated to play for the team that holds the contract and the team that holds the contract has certain obligations - chief among them  compensation - to the player for the term of the deal. Even if a team decides the player's performance is not worth the compensation called for in the contract, they're still obligated to pay him.
College programs and players do not have these equal and collectively bargained obligations. While players can be cut loose from their scholarship at the end of a season for any reason,  they are not simply free to leave. If they underperform, the school owes them nothing.  If they get hurt, the school owes them nothing. If the coach has a personal issue with him, the school owes him nothing.

Look, I think allowing unrestricted transferring wouwould be a bad idea because it would create a host of problems like in-season recruiting,  etc. But let's not be stupid and pretend the system is fair or that college players have it good compared to those poor saps in the NBA.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Okay, so you still haven't explained why players have NCAA rules built to limit their movement from program to program but coaches do not. You openly admit that coaches have advantages in moving... why is that okay?

You may not think it is much of a penalty, but then why not have the same rule for coaches? Coaches certainly have the same "abundance" of suitable options available to them. They could be coaches in the D-League, Uruguay, or at NAIA. Coaches buyouts are paid by their new employer and they aren't imposed by the NCAA, so they are quite different. 

I'm not saying the players have it so horrible rough, just that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Because coaches sign an employment contract with the employer...the university.  Student athletes are under the jurisdiction of the NCAA and the rules set for the members.

Apples to oranges.  One is an employee, the other is not.

[ChicosBailBonds]

hey, i'm not sure i really care to hear from you until fox sports has a deal with direct tv....back to work please. 

Out of our hands right now

[The Equalizer]

Awful comparisons.

Because we should probably compare college basketball players to fast food workers or American Idol contestants, right?

The comparision is not only not awful, but the only valid comparision possible.  All three involve a) a player playing basketball and b) his relative freedom to switch teams.

Are there other differences?  Of course.  That doesn't mean the comparison can't be made.

NBA players work  under contracts in which both parties have relatively equal and collectively bargained obligations. Player is obligated to play for the team that holds the contract and the team that holds the contract has certain obligations - chief among them  compensation - to the player for the term of the deal. Even if a team decides the player's performance is not worth the compensation called for in the contract, they're still obligated to pay him.
College programs and players do not have these equal and collectively bargained obligations. While players can be cut loose from their scholarship at the end of a season for any reason,  they are not simply free to leave. If they underperform, the school owes them nothing.  If they get hurt, the school owes them nothing. If the coach has a personal issue with him, the school owes him nothing.

This isn't necessarily true.  The player could insist on a 4-year scholarship from the college, in which case the player would still receive a degree from that school. 

If the school doesn't want to offer a 4-year schoarship, the player can either look at different schools or accept the tradeoff that he's asking something that the school isn't willing to offer.

Look, I think allowing unrestricted transferring wouwould be a bad idea because it would create a host of problems like in-season recruiting,  etc. But let's not be stupid and pretend the system is fair or that college players have it good compared to those poor saps in the NBA.

The problem with statements like this is that there is no objective definition of "fair".

Some think fair means letting the players transfer
Some think fair means holding players to the concept that they signed with a school, not a coach.

However, regardless of what one thinks is fair, the objective fact is that college players have more options to change teams than they would at either the HS or NBA level.  They might be more highly compensated and have more leverage in the NBA compared to college--just as they have more leverage and compensation (considering the six-figure scholarship offer) in college than in HS.

BTW, nobody argued that college players "have it good" compared to those "poor saps" in the NBA--just that they have more freedom to change teams.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Because coaches sign an employment contract with the employer...the university.  Student athletes are under the jurisdiction of the NCAA and the rules set for the members.

Apples to oranges.  One is an employee, the other is not.

Trust me, I grasp the fact that coaches are employees and players are students. The question is why does the NCAA place more restrictions on students who are not being compensated with a salary than they do on coaches who are being paid. Simplest answer: students have less bargaining power and influence than the coaches. Occam's Razor.

[77ncaachamps]

Local SC press coverage of Monarch's departure

http://thetandd.com/sports/claflin-men-s-basketball-coach-leaves-for-north-texas-state/article_3de84958-ee97-11e2-a4e7-001a4bcf887a.html

Looking at the comments for the article and considering it's Claflin...they'll get mad, shrug their shoulders, and move on.

I guess I don't fault Scott. He ...we... are not getting any younger. Make the move when you can.
But that word "commitment" and that he went through the pomp and circumstance of being introduced to their community as the new HC keep nagging...

[keefe]

Looking at the comments for the article and considering it's Claflin...they'll get mad, shrug their shoulders, and move on.

I guess I don't fault Scott. He ...we... are not getting any younger. Make the move when you can.
But that word "commitment" and that he went through the pomp and circumstance of being introduced to their community as the new HC keep nagging...

And it should bother you. A decent, well brought up person should be distressed by what Monarch did. As I mentioned earlier, this can always be distilled down to how we treat one another. Monarch's empathy for others is wanting.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Trust me, I grasp the fact that coaches are employees and players are students. The question is why does the NCAA place more restrictions on students who are not being compensated with a salary than they do on coaches who are being paid. Simplest answer: students have less bargaining power and influence than the coaches. Occam's Razor.

In my opinion the simplest answer is the protection of the sport and trying to have some notion of some competitive balance, however weak it is.  If student athletes came and went on a whim with no restrictions, you would already have an alarming transfer rate today explode even more.  The HAVES would get even richer.  Imagine a team that has all the parts but is just missing an outside shooter so they deplete someone else's roster at the last minute leaving them high and dry.  At least in the pros there are compensatory picks to address that....not in the NCAA.  Schools that would be left with roster dilution at the whims of those that are only a player or two away.  Or you would have some teams potentially not even bothering to recruit certain kids because they would just have other schools be their farm system.  Play a year or two at MU  and then come on up to UNC or Duke or UK.

The sitting out a year is a legitimate ask (call it what you will, a penalty or whatever) to make sure the student athlete TRULY wants to transfer.  It also allows these kids to take a second look and perhaps not take the easy way out, put in the extra work and get that additional playing time...earn it.

[GGGG]

In my opinion the simplest answer is the protection of the sport and trying to have some notion of some competitive balance, however weak it is.  If student athletes came and went on a whim with no restrictions, you would already have an alarming transfer rate today explode even more.  The HAVES would get even richer.  Imagine a team that has all the parts but is just missing an outside shooter so they deplete someone else's roster at the last minute leaving them high and dry.  At least in the pros there are compensatory picks to address that....not in the NCAA.  Schools that would be left with roster dilution at the whims of those that are only a player or two away.  Or you would have some teams potentially not even bothering to recruit certain kids because they would just have other schools be their farm system.  Play a year or two at MU  and then come on up to UNC or Duke or UK.

If the student wants to go, let him go.  Throughout history, nightmare scenarios usually aren't proven right.  Just a new paradigm that people would have to adjust to.

Honestly, let's say that Kentucky or Duke thought they just needed one more player to make a run this year.  A low post scoring threat and they both targeted Davante.  Do you think that DG would leave?  I don't.  I think loyalty to a coach and a program that nurtured you for three years is deeper than you think for most players. 

And he wants to leave...fine...see ya.  Life goes on.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I'm not sure freedom of transferring would disproportionately advantage the blue bloods at the expense of the rest of the schools.

Yes, some players who have success at the mid-major level would be tempted by the prospect of playing at an elite school. But I would venture to guess that an equal number also hold grudges against the schools that didn't bother to recruit them out of high school. If you are Steve Taylor and Tom Izzo comes knocking at your door after this season, aren't you a little suspicious of him after he saw you so many times in hs while recruiting Jabari?

And conversely, freeing up transfers would make it easier for talented kids who just can't break the lineup at a school like Kentucky transfer to another program and actually play. All in all, my bet would be that the effect on competitive balance would be a wash. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the student wants to go, let him go.  Throughout history, nightmare scenarios usually aren't proven right.  Just a new paradigm that people would have to adjust to.

Honestly, let's say that Kentucky or Duke thought they just needed one more player to make a run this year.  A low post scoring threat and they both targeted Davante.  Do you think that DG would leave?  I don't.  I think loyalty to a coach and a program that nurtured you for three years is deeper than you think for most players. 

And he wants to leave...fine...see ya.  Life goes on.

That sounds like a throw away line.  Sometimes things proven worse, sometimes less.  I'm not aware of a tracking mechanism on that stuff, but there are rules, guidelines, laws, regulations, policies put into all practices of real life for reasons.  Some are overreaching, some are fantastic, some totally inconsequential.  I would rate the sit out a year requirement to be a good rule, not overreaching.  IMO.

Do I think DG would not leave because he has to sit out a year vs not having to sit out a year....I put the odds far more with not having to sit out a year. 

Imagine the fun it would be to spend 12 months to 18 months recruiting some kids to play at your school for 2 spots.  You are concentrating on 4 kids for two spots and you are able to get that done.  Then, in May (or late June for some schools on quarter system), you find out that 6 guys are transferring...or make it 3...whatever you wish.  Because there is no penalty or guardrail, your roster can be completely destroyed in a moment's notice.  Now let's throw in the 800lb gorilla and the monetary under the table BS that would be going on (even more so than today) to get kids to transfer to their schools...no penalty, come on over and make a quick $XXX and you don't have to sit out.

This is so ripe for abuse and completely crushing a school's roster.  Even pro sports, which so many people here think these student athletes should be compensated for in a similar fashion (not amount), doesn't allow this.  You're under contract, just like a student athlete is as part of his\her agreement to accept a scholarship and accept the rules of transfer.

[GGGG]

This is so ripe for abuse and completely crushing a school's roster.  Even pro sports, which so many people here think these student athletes should be compensated for in a similar fashion (not amount), doesn't allow this.  You're under contract, just like a student athlete is as part of his\her agreement to accept a scholarship and accept the rules of transfer.

No one is arguing that they aren't under the rules of transfer.  They are arguing that the rules of transfer are unfair.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure freedom of transferring would disproportionately advantage the blue bloods at the expense of the rest of the schools.

Yes, some players who have success at the mid-major level would be tempted by the prospect of playing at an elite school. But I would venture to guess that an equal number also hold grudges against the schools that didn't bother to recruit them out of high school. If you are Steve Taylor and Tom Izzo comes knocking at your door after this season, aren't you a little suspicious of him after he saw you so many times in hs while recruiting Jabari?

And conversely, freeing up transfers would make it easier for talented kids who just can't break the lineup at a school like Kentucky transfer to another program and actually play. All in all, my bet would be that the effect on competitive balance would be a wash. 

I don't know, but this idea screams Be Careful What You Wish For.....or the law of unintended consequences.  IMO

Interesting comments from Izzo on transfers in a Q&A.  Worth the read.

http://spartannation.com/2013/05/03/tom-izzo-addresses-the-growing-number-of-transfers-inside-college-basketball-if-he-plans-on-recruiting-them-more/