collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

25 YEARS OF THE AP TOP 25 by The Sultan
[Today at 11:35:02 AM]


2025-26 Schedule by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[July 05, 2025, 08:30:08 PM]


Recruiting as of 5/15/25 by DoctorV
[July 05, 2025, 01:45:54 PM]


Marquette NBA Thread by Billy Hoyle
[July 04, 2025, 09:32:02 PM]


More conference realignment talk by DFW HOYA
[July 03, 2025, 07:58:45 PM]


Marquette freshmen at Goolsby's 7/12 by MU Fan in Connecticut
[July 03, 2025, 04:04:32 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

Frenns Liquor Depot

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior. 

If this happens I would fire the coach - still sounding very familiar to a recent situation. 

It is in the best interest of the kids to play often and play well correct - they have a max amount of years to make a name?  Burning bridges is a reality in business, but there is a reason very few do it.  People willing to be malcontents have proven that they are just malcontents - not cunning self-interested stars.

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 24, 2014, 01:02:45 PM
If this happens I would fire the coach - still sounding very familiar to a recent situation. 

It is in the best interest of the kids to play often and play well correct - they have a max amount of years to make a name?  Burning bridges is a reality in business, but there is a reason very few do it.  People willing to be malcontents have proven that they are just malcontents - not cunning self-interested stars.

In the business world, yes.  In the sports world, not as clear cut.  Teams and organizations bend over backwards to get a talented player, often regardless of his past because he's a stud player.  The examples are endless.  Attitude problem...big deal.  Poor teammate...we can make him change.  Selfish...in my program he will learn not to be.  Etc, etc.   


TJ

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior.  Part of the point of having to sit out a year is to have a ramification or consequence in doing so.  Teaching someone you don't just get to run for the hills every time you don't get your way.  In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not.  There are ramifications for quitting.  

It's not a matter of the kid transforming into a model citizen.  The kid might have been a decent citizen from the start, but is rewarded by forcing a coach's hand.  It happens already in some situations.  Hell, it happens in the real world.  A guy wants to quit, but can't because he won't get unemployment benefits.  Boss says too bad, don't like it, quit.  Employee basically works the system until he is let go so he can get those benefits, forces their hand. It happens. Obviously the employee can't just stop doing the work, then again neither will the student athlete.  Don't think this happens?

http://finance.youngmoney.com/careers/get-fired-and-still-qualify-for-unemployment/comment-page-1/
First of all, I never said the kid can quit.  I said IF the school/coach decides not to renew his scholarship the player should not be punished by having to sit out a year.  This is not free agency - the kid does not have the option to cancel the scholarship himself.  That pipe dream was item 2 in my first post and it will NEVER happen.

Second, "In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not.  There are ramifications for quitting." -- this is the real world and that kid might not get another gig either.  No one is forcing the other member institutions to offer the kid a scholarship... if the behavior is that bad then there is a chance that they won't.  Either way it'll be rare that a kid leaves under this rule for a better school.  The world will know that he was cut from his team.

Third, you're creating an extreme hypothetical and I agree with LittleMurs response:
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 24, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
Huge institutions that have banded together through agreements that are not subject to antitrust restrictions being victimized by individual 19 year olds.  Really???
I'm sure that some kids will take advantage of the loophole, but not many.  Very few (none) are going to be released and then go to a better school.  Most (all) will have to play the following year at a lesser institution.  I'm not as worried about the few potential problems as I am about the many potential benefactors.

Why are you always so concerned that the big bad 19 year olds might do something to hurt the poor giant institutions with all the power?

TJ

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 24, 2014, 10:30:43 AM

Clearly they aren't...that's part of the problem.  We hear all about how the school is going to develop the player and that they are in it for the long term.  That's great!  Give them the four year scholarship to prove it.  If the school is only willing to make a one year commitment, the student athlete should get the same benefits from that transaction.
This is not to support of condemn your comments, but I was not suggesting that the player be allowed to terminate the scholarship.  Only that the player not be punished by having to sit out a year if the school/coach terminates the scholarship.

GGGG

Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 03:48:25 PM
This is not to support of condemn your comments, but I was not suggesting that the player be allowed to terminate the scholarship.  Only that the player not be punished by having to sit out a year if the school/coach terminates the scholarship.


Actually I agree with you 100%.  View the scholarship term like a contract term.  Once it is done, the player can go where they want. 

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 03:41:24 PM
First of all, I never said the kid can quit.  I said IF the school/coach decides not to renew his scholarship the player should not be punished by having to sit out a year.  This is not free agency - the kid does not have the option to cancel the scholarship himself.  That pipe dream was item 2 in my first post and it will NEVER happen.

Second, "In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not.  There are ramifications for quitting." -- this is the real world and that kid might not get another gig either.  No one is forcing the other member institutions to offer the kid a scholarship... if the behavior is that bad then there is a chance that they won't.  Either way it'll be rare that a kid leaves under this rule for a better school.  The world will know that he was cut from his team.

Third, you're creating an extreme hypothetical and I agree with LittleMurs response:  I'm sure that some kids will take advantage of the loophole, but not many.  Very few (none) are going to be released and then go to a better school.  Most (all) will have to play the following year at a lesser institution.  I'm not as worried about the few potential problems as I am about the many potential benefactors.

Why are you always so concerned that the big bad 19 year olds might do something to hurt the poor giant institutions with all the power?

I don't think it's an extreme hypothetical at all.  If the loophole is there, one will exploit it.  That's what people do.

As for others offering the kid, it doesn't have to be "that bad" of behavior, only enough to make it unpleasant to the coach.  Hell, he could go to the coach and not behave badly at all and just imply that he will.  "Hey coach, I want out but the only way I can transfer without having to sit a year is if you give me a release.  Either you give me that release or I'm going to make life unpleasant for this team.  Your call".  Merely the threat and you've put the coach in a tough spot.

Those poor giant institutions are the ones providing the $$$, the scholarship, the room and board, the training, etc...they are the one taking a risk and investment on these student athletes.  That's why.  

The idea that they will go to a lesser school is completely turned upside down in free agency.  You now provide reason for kids to switch immediately and for schools to take those kids, when if a kid transfers and sits, they may not be willing to wait.  Plus, on what grounds are you saying they usually go to a lesser school?  Certainly a number of them do, that's typically because they were not as good as they thought they were, but plenty go to an equal or greater school.  MU has benefited from this in the last few years alone in a true "free agency" type approach with the graduate transfer rules.


TAMU, Knower of Ball

Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 01:43:56 AM
1) If the scholarships are 1 year renewable then if a player's scholarship is not renewed by the coach/university then he should be able to transfer without penalty (i.e. play right away).
2) I might be ok with what you said if they made it a 2 way street.  Universities should be held to a certain standard as well and if they are not living up to their end of the bargain then kids should be able to transfer without penalty.  I realize the difficulty of implementing and enforcing, not to mention that the universities themselves would have to create a rule that they wouldn't want created, will mean this never happens.
3) Why do you care if 4 year scholarships exist?  Schools aren't being forced to give them out.  If individual schools want to take on the risk you described that is their decision.  It allows a player to weigh his options as well... "School A is better but riskier; School B offered me a 4 year so I have stability."  Let the market do what it wants, right?

I actually agree with everything you just said. I think players should be able to transfer without penalty. I think an argument can be made for not letting them transfer in conference or to a rival. But other than that I think they should be able to transfer instantly

I also don't care that 4 year scholarships exist. I just don't think I would ever utilize one if I was a coach. Unless I was at a mid major and I was going after a top 50 kid.
Quote from: Goose on January 15, 2023, 08:43:46 PM
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Previous topic - Next topic