Big East 2024 -25 Results

[MU82]

This is ridiculous:

https://x.com/DalyDoseOfHoops/status/1875656560502055012

Seriously, screw guys like Larranaga and Pitino for these kind of takes. Larranaga spent LifeWallet money to buy a Final Four, then walks out the door bemoaning the impact of NIL on college sports? Pitino brags about how he'll never have to sit in a high school kid's living room again, how St. John's will just buy success, and he's wondering why the mercenary squad he assembled is prioritizing their own interests over the team?

The same guys complaining about the environment and culture are the ones who created it.

Yep. So sick of these whining multi-millionaire hypocrites.

In addition to the points you made, coaches could "enter the portal" for years while players had to sit out a year. Their new schools happily bought out their contracts and they were gone with more $ in their pockets. The contracts were one way streets.

Yep yep yep.

And many of the same fans who shrugged their shoulders at what you describe are outraged that athletes finally have some freedom and control over their own names, images and likenesses.

[romey]

I have been lurking on the sidelines on scoop for more years than I can count.  I appreciate the dialogue from the sidelines for the most part.  And I know this has been discussed (ad nauseam, perhaps?) elsewhere.  So what is the answer?  Or is there really an "answer"?

I guess we start with what is the question?

Are we in a college basketball world where players can move freely and coaches just build programs with no guarantee of their roster for next year?  Even the pros have a contract.

I'm an old man by the standards of scoop (I think).  Class of 83, so I have adapted to a lot of change in college hoops viewing.  This one is harder to get my arms around.

Talk amongst yourselves. 

[Shooter McGavin]

NIL is a minimal portion of the money they receive.  Just call it like it is, pay for play.  "Control over their name, image and likeness" seems about as antiquated as the concept of amateurism.

[Uncle Rico]

I have been lurking on the sidelines on scoop for more years than I can count.  I appreciate the dialogue from the sidelines for the most part.  And I know this has been discussed (ad nauseam, perhaps?) elsewhere.  So what is the answer?  Or is there really an "answer"?

I guess we start with what is the question?

Are we in a college basketball world where players can move freely and coaches just build programs with no guarantee of their roster for next year?  Even the pros have a contract.

I'm an old man by the standards of scoop (I think).  Class of 83, so I have adapted to a lot of change in college hoops viewing.  This one is harder to get my arms around.

Talk amongst yourselves. 

I'd say, expecting member institutions to work together for a solution is unlikely.  I'm afraid they punt to the government looking for a solution that won't hold up long-term for a variety of reasons and this discussion will continue for a long time.

I've said this before and I'll continue to say it, this all should have been adjudicated a long time ago and the blame lays at the feet of administrators of the schools and the leagues that have chased every dollar they could get. 

I understand the discomfort and dislike of the current landscape.  Conferences are bloated and nonsensical.  Players jumping all over the place make following more difficult and less than easy to grow any allegiance.  These are the results of decades long kicking the can down the road.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Would not have predicted Providence being up 12 on the road at UConn at halftime.

[PGsHeroes32]

Prov up 12 at Uconn at half

[Herman Cain]

Classic Big East battle in Storrs today. Excellent crowd energy for Nationally broadcast game .

[tower912]

Providence is playing out of their minds.  Well done.   And a reminder that conference games are a challenge, regardless of where and whom.  Appreciate every win.

[PGsHeroes32]

College games are 40 min for a reason. Here comes the Huskies

[tower912]

Indeed.  They are UConn at home. 

[PGsHeroes32]

Still 9 minutes to right the ship and steady the momentum swing

But Prov looks about as rattled as they were in that first half vs us right now. Panicked on every dribble

[PGsHeroes32]

Yeah its Uconn domination now. Not sure when Providence last scored even

[tower912]

UConn putting a run on Providence like MU did to Providence and Creighton.

[romey]

I'd say, expecting member institutions to work together for a solution is unlikely.  I'm afraid they punt to the government looking for a solution that won't hold up long-term for a variety of reasons and this discussion will continue for a long time.

I've said this before and I'll continue to say it, this all should have been adjudicated a long time ago and the blame lays at the feet of administrators of the schools and the leagues that have chased every dollar they could get. 

I understand the discomfort and dislike of the current landscape.  Conferences are bloated and nonsensical.  Players jumping all over the place make following more difficult and less than easy to grow any allegiance.  These are the results of decades long kicking the can down the road.

Thanks for the response. I love that Shaka, and a few others (Painter), are accepting the challenge.

[MU82]

Thanks for the response. I love that Shaka, and a few others (Painter), are accepting the challenge.

I'd argue that coaches who build in other ways also are "accepting the challenge."

The landscape is the landscape, and there is more than one way to succeed within the landscape.

For decades and decades, coaches were lords and many of them repeatedly broke rules in pursuit of glory.

Now there are few if any rules, and athletes actually have some power. I get some of the frustration among fans, especially those who only knew the old ways for so long, but I personally have no less love of college basketball today.

[Uncle Rico]

Thanks for the response. I love that Shaka, and a few others (Painter), are accepting the challenge.

There will be a few more old schools coaches that retire and bemoan the state of the game.  That's fine, that's their right.

But like you say with your examples, others will come along and accept the challenge and find success.

[The Equalizer]

Thanks for the response. I love that Shaka, and a few others (Painter), are accepting the challenge.

Presuming the inference here is that Shaka and Painter are doing things in a better and more righteous way by refusing the take transfers. There seems to be a common theme here that refusing the "play the transfer game" is not just making Shaka more successful--it's being presented as a morally superior approach than those lowlifes who *gasp* accept transfers.

Now consider that stance in light of the hard-won rights of players to transfer with limited restrictions.

What would happen now if all coaches start to adopt the same position espoused by Shaka (and Painter) and simply stop taking transfers (except in very rare instances)? 

It seems to me that if someone is going to argue that Shaka's way is better for the coaches, teams and players, then the NCAA's mistake was not "kicking the can down the road so long" but rather not holding firm to the previous restrictive rules on transfers. 

In other words, if transfers are a bad thing, then then rules that made them more difficult should have been maintained for the good of the players, teams and coaches.

And if transfers are a good thing, we shouldn't single out and lionize the coaches that refuse to take them.

[Its DJOver]

Presuming the inference here is that Shaka and Painter are doing things in a better and more righteous way by refusing the take transfers. There seems to be a common theme here that refusing the "play the transfer game" is not just making Shaka more successful--it's being presented as a morally superior approach than those lowlifes who *gasp* accept transfers.

Now consider that stance in light of the hard-won rights of players to transfer with limited restrictions.

What would happen now if all coaches start to adopt the same position espoused by Shaka (and Painter) and simply stop taking transfers (except in very rare instances)?

It seems to me that if someone is going to argue that Shaka's way is better for the coaches, teams and players, then the NCAA's mistake was not "kicking the can down the road so long" but rather not holding firm to the previous restrictive rules on transfers. 

In other words, if transfers are a bad thing, then then rules that made them more difficult should have been maintained for the good of the players, teams and coaches.

And if transfers are a good thing, we shouldn't single out and lionize the coaches that refuse to take them.

I think you're reading way to much into things.  There's no right or wrong way. There's different ways. Shaka and Painter are in the minority and have both had success.  There are coaches that have relied heavily on transfers that have had success. I don't think anyone here has displayed a "more righteous" mindset because we haven't taken a transfer recently, and if there are, they shouldn't have that mindset since we've pursued transfers both of that last two off-seasons.

[Nukem2]

There is no right way or wrong way. Head coaches need to do what fits their programs. Doing it Shaka's way takes a lot of hard work and "stick-to-it every moment" frame of mind.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Presuming the inference here is that Shaka and Painter are doing things in a better and more righteous way by refusing the take transfers. There seems to be a common theme here that refusing the "play the transfer game" is not just making Shaka more successful--it's being presented as a morally superior approach than those lowlifes who *gasp* accept transfers.

Now consider that stance in light of the hard-won rights of players to transfer with limited restrictions.

What would happen now if all coaches start to adopt the same position espoused by Shaka (and Painter) and simply stop taking transfers (except in very rare instances)?

It seems to me that if someone is going to argue that Shaka's way is better for the coaches, teams and players, then the NCAA's mistake was not "kicking the can down the road so long" but rather not holding firm to the previous restrictive rules on transfers. 

In other words, if transfers are a bad thing, then then rules that made them more difficult should have been maintained for the good of the players, teams and coaches.

And if transfers are a good thing, we shouldn't single out and lionize the coaches that refuse to take them.

Youre reading into things that are not present on this board.

Saying something is a challenge is not inferring that it is righteous.

[MU82]

Besides, Shaka HAS taken transfers. His most decorated player during his time at Marquette so far - a popular, pass-first PG who turned out to be an All-American - arrived at Marquette as a transfer. Two of the three players he put in the NBA so far were transfers. They were "different" transfers than those being brought into programs now because they predated NIL, but they were transfers.

And as many have said, Shaka has continued to look at D1 transfers every offseason. He has weighed what each might bring - and what each might cost and/or how each might affect chemistry - and so far he has opted not to sign any. But he might.

And Painter has.

[GoldenEagles03]

13.5 point favorites against the Hoyas.

[romey]

Besides, Shaka HAS taken transfers. His most decorated player during his time at Marquette so far - a popular, pass-first PG who turned out to be an All-American - arrived at Marquette as a transfer. Two of the three players he put in the NBA so far were transfers. They were "different" transfers than those being brought into programs now because they predated NIL, but they were transfers.

And as many have said, Shaka has continued to look at D1 transfers every offseason. He has weighed what each might bring - and what each might cost and/or how each might affect chemistry - and so far he has opted not to sign any. But he might.

And Painter has.

And when/if Shaka signs a transfer, it seems that player will have received full disclosure - we have a "system" here and you should consider if it's a system you fit into.  Obviously Shaka has recruits that have bought in and understand the heirarchy/meritocracy here. If you want big time NIL money, this is not necessarily the destination for you (so far anyway).

[Billy Hoyle]

It seems to me that if someone is going to argue that Shaka's way is better for the coaches, teams and players, then the NCAA's mistake was not "kicking the can down the road so long" but rather not holding firm to the previous restrictive rules on transfers. 

In other words, if transfers are a bad thing, then then rules that made them more difficult should have been maintained for the good of the players, teams and coaches.

And if transfers are a good thing, we shouldn't single out and lionize the coaches that refuse to take them.

Blame the courts for that, not the NCAA.

[wisblue]

Besides, Shaka HAS taken transfers. His most decorated player during his time at Marquette so far - a popular, pass-first PG who turned out to be an All-American - arrived at Marquette as a transfer. Two of the three players he put in the NBA so far were transfers. They were "different" transfers than those being brought into programs now because they predated NIL, but they were transfers.

And as many have said, Shaka has continued to look at D1 transfers every offseason. He has weighed what each might bring - and what each might cost and/or how each might affect chemistry - and so far he has opted not to sign any. But he might.

And Painter has.

Shaka's first year at MU was obviously a special case because without transfers he would've had trouble fielding a team, much less a competitive team.