2024 Coaching Carousel

[milwaukee ex-pat]

Message board fans are idiots. <waves arms around>

You win the internet today - well done.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't know the answer to that.

I hate to answer a question with a question, but has there ever been a bad of a performance as Payne's first year? 4 wins at Louisville?

That's a fair question.  Only one I can think of in the same neighborhood is Tom Crean at Indiana. 6-25, 1-17 in conference.

Funny enough,  i think IU fans would kill for Tom Crean at this point

[MuggsyB]

Beard will likely be the guy for L'Ville. 

[The Equalizer]

In those 35 years, no coach ever had to sit out a year before being allowed to continue his career. Sorry, but it wasn't a "close" situation at all. Athletes were punished for exercising the little bit of freedom of movement they had.

They don't have greater freedom than coaches now, they have equal freedom. Coaches can and do leave anytime to go anywhere, and the players finally have the same ... and lots of coaches whine about it incessantly.

Greater "freedom" than professional athletes? I'll give you that one, WT. The major sports leagues require a certain number of years of service before athletes become free agents, whereas college athletes now can transfer without penalty. So that's good.

I don't get your fixation on college players needing freedom to change teams.

For the vast majority of HS players, they can't change teams unless their parents sell their house and move--by and large they're locked into the same public school regardless of any coaching changes.  And I know this isn't universal--some jurisdictions you can transfer to a private school and be eligible right away.  But the point is most kids aren't in private schools and can't easily transfer schools.

In the pros, players are committed to a team based on contract--a coach leaves or is fired, the player doesn't have a right to change teams. 

Why is it that *college* players should uniquely deserve mobility that neither HS nor pros enjoy?

And I think the downsides are worse for the sport than the upsides.

The most obvious one is that it shifts the balance of power in favor of the high-major teams.  With the one-year transfer rule, it was the biggest thing stopping wholesale poaching of players from lower levels.  I don't know if guys like Ed Croswell or Tristan Newton or Tyler Kolek would have stayed with LaSalle, East Carolina or GMU respectively--but removing the transfer rule eliminates a huge consideration.

[MUfan12]

Beard will likely be the guy for L'Ville.

https://twitter.com/OleMissMBB/status/1767914768206049438

[MU82]

I don't get your fixation on college players needing freedom to change teams.

For the vast majority of HS players, they can't change teams unless their parents sell their house and move--by and large they're locked into the same public school regardless of any coaching changes.  And I know this isn't universal--some jurisdictions you can transfer to a private school and be eligible right away.  But the point is most kids aren't in private schools and can't easily transfer schools.

In the pros, players are committed to a team based on contract--a coach leaves or is fired, the player doesn't have a right to change teams. 

Why is it that *college* players should uniquely deserve mobility that neither HS nor pros enjoy?

And I think the downsides are worse for the sport than the upsides.

The most obvious one is that it shifts the balance of power in favor of the high-major teams.  With the one-year transfer rule, it was the biggest thing stopping wholesale poaching of players from lower levels.  I don't know if guys like Ed Croswell or Tristan Newton or Tyler Kolek would have stayed with LaSalle, East Carolina or GMU respectively--but removing the transfer rule eliminates a huge consideration.

College athletes are adults. I simply believe they should have the same freedom of movement that the other adults in their field do.

Also, did you know that for decades only college athletes in five sports - football, men's and women's basketball, hockey and baseball - were subject to restrictions on freedom of movement? Why shouldn't a basketball player have the same freedom of movement as his or her peers in wrestling, lacrosse and swimming - sports that are bigger at some universities than baseball or hockey (or even football) are? For that matter, why shouldn't a scholarship athlete have the same freedom of movement as a scholarship dancer or trombone player or student journalist?

What I'm "fixated" on is the idea that coaches preach loyalty to their athletes when it's convenient and beneficial for them to do so, but then often show little to no loyalty themselves. For decades, they believed it was their right to improve their lot in life but that the adult athletes under their charge should not have the same right.

Anyhoo, we can debate this all we want ... the fact is that the rules have changed and college athletes finally have the freedom of movement a large swath of society believes they always should have had. And the genie ain't going back into the bottle. So coaches (and fans, for that matter) can either embrace it and deal with it, or get out.

[The Sultan]

I don't get your fixation on college players needing freedom to change teams.

For the vast majority of HS players, they can't change teams unless their parents sell their house and move--by and large they're locked into the same public school regardless of any coaching changes.  And I know this isn't universal--some jurisdictions you can transfer to a private school and be eligible right away.  But the point is most kids aren't in private schools and can't easily transfer schools.

In the pros, players are committed to a team based on contract--a coach leaves or is fired, the player doesn't have a right to change teams. 

Why is it that *college* players should uniquely deserve mobility that neither HS nor pros enjoy?

And I think the downsides are worse for the sport than the upsides.

The most obvious one is that it shifts the balance of power in favor of the high-major teams.  With the one-year transfer rule, it was the biggest thing stopping wholesale poaching of players from lower levels.  I don't know if guys like Ed Croswell or Tristan Newton or Tyler Kolek would have stayed with LaSalle, East Carolina or GMU respectively--but removing the transfer rule eliminates a huge consideration.

High school kids are not adults. That's just a silly comparison.

NBA athletes are employees and are *willingly* bound to the restrictions placed on their movement by a collective bargaining arrangement with the teams. The reason they have done so is in return for other items they benefit from - compensation, working arrangements, etc.

College athletes are not employees. They have not willingly restricted their movement based on a collective bargaining arrangement. These are rules that were placed upon them.

And the shift towards high-major teams has happened LONG before the one year transfer rule. Conference consolidation, and the media rights deals that major conferences have earned in the process, have shifted the power to the major schools to a MUCH greater degree than player movement has. The amount that schools like Marquette can pay its coach, not to mention how the team travels, is supported, etc. created different tiers of programs long ago. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not sure the high school argument even works. Most of the top players can hand pick which prep school they want to go to nowadays

[SaveOD238]

I'm not sure the high school argument even works. Most of the top players can hand pick which prep school they want to go to nowadays

Prep schools may be a different story, but there are still significant hurdles to players changing schools and being eligible to play right away in high school athletics.  There is a sit-out rule for varsity players in the WIAA (I.e. you can't play for another school the next year if you played varsity at the previous school) with limited exceptions.

[tower912]

Honest question,  when was the last time a coach was fired after a single season without off the court issues? Has it ever happened?

Les Moss.

[WhiteTrash]

College athletes are adults. I simply believe they should have the same freedom of movement that the other adults in their field do.

Also, did you know that for decades only college athletes in five sports - football, men's and women's basketball, hockey and baseball - were subject to restrictions on freedom of movement? Why shouldn't a basketball player have the same freedom of movement as his or her peers in wrestling, lacrosse and swimming - sports that are bigger at some universities than baseball or hockey (or even football) are? For that matter, why shouldn't a scholarship athlete have the same freedom of movement as a scholarship dancer or trombone player or student journalist?

What I'm "fixated" on is the idea that coaches preach loyalty to their athletes when it's convenient and beneficial for them to do so, but then often show little to no loyalty themselves. For decades, they believed it was their right to improve their lot in life but that the adult athletes under their charge should not have the same right.

Anyhoo, we can debate this all we want ... the fact is that the rules have changed and college athletes finally have the freedom of movement a large swath of society believes they always should have had. And the genie ain't going back into the bottle. So coaches (and fans, for that matter) can either embrace it and deal with it, or get out.

I just don't understand this hatred of college coaches. Plus, they were not responsible for the old system, they just worked in it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I just don't understand this hatred of college coaches. Plus, they were not responsible for the old system, they just worked in it.

I didn't pick up any hate for college coaches in 82's post. Just hate that college athletes used to get punished for transferring

[Uncle Rico]

I didn't pick up any hate for college coaches in 82's post. Just hate that college athletes used to get punished for transferring

Coaches were quite happy with the old system and maintaining the status quo.  Some of them were fine with change but they were in the minority

[WhiteTrash]

Coaches were quite happy with the old system and maintaining the status quo.  Some of them were fine with change but they were in the minority

I'm quite happy with our democratic republic but I take no credit for creating it, I just live in it. 

[MU82]

I just don't understand this hatred of college coaches. Plus, they were not responsible for the old system, they just worked in it.

I don't hate college coaches, and I know they weren't responsible for the old system.

I didn't (and don't) have much respect for college coaches who whined (or are still whining) about athletes having freedom of movement even as they have taken advantage of their own right to move freely.

It's a criticism, and a rather mild one at that. Do you "hate" everybody you criticize?

[Uncle Rico]

I'm quite happy with our democratic republic but I take no credit for creating it, I just live in it.

Apples and oranges

[WhiteTrash]

I didn't pick up any hate for college coaches in 82's post. Just hate that college athletes used to get punished for transferring

Go back and read 82's posts. His vitriol is aimed at college coaches because they are hypocritical about loyalty.

 

[WhiteTrash]

I don't hate college coaches, and I know they weren't responsible for the old system.

I didn't (and don't) have much respect for college coaches who whined (or are still whining) about athletes having freedom of movement even as they have taken advantage of their own right to move freely.

It's a criticism, and a rather mild one at that. Do you "hate" everybody you criticize?

No, I don't hate everyone I criticize. I know there are bad actors in the college coaching ranks (same with players and honestly every where). I just think there are a lot of good people who coach in college, and now some who make less than players, that should not be lumped in with the bad actors.

[MU82]

Go back and read 82's posts. His vitriol is aimed at college coaches because they are hypocritical about loyalty.

Correct. Thanks for pointing out that I don't "hate" college coaches, as you had claimed.

No, I don't hate everyone I criticize. I know there are bad actors in the college coaching ranks (same with players and honestly every where). I just think there are a lot of good people who coach in college, and now some who make less than players, that should not be lumped in with the bad actors.

Which is why I didn't make a blanket criticism of all coaches. I have friends who are coaches, and great people. Maybe you do, too.

Few (if not zero) men's college basketball coaches make less $$$ than any of their players do in NIL. Caitlin Clark probably makes more than Lisa Bluder, but I'd be surprised if there were many other examples in women's hoops.

[WhiteTrash]

Few (if not zero) men's college basketball coaches make less $$$ than any of their players do in NIL. Caitlin Clark probably makes more than Lisa Bluder, but I'd be surprised if there were many other examples in women's hoops.

Which is why I didn't say 'their' players, just 'some' players. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a large number of college football players that make more than some coaches on their team.

Coaches and players bitch about loyalty when one or the other leaves for more money. Fans play the game too. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Is any group innocent of being hypocrites?   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Go back and read 82's posts. His vitriol is aimed at college coaches because they are hypocritical about loyalty.

At some college coaches, not all college coaches. Some are hypocritical about loyalty not all or even most

[Uncle Rico]

At some college coaches, not all college coaches. Some are hypocritical about loyalty not all or even most

Plus, most coaches can't leave jobs because of buyouts and lack of tenure

[lawdog77]

At some college coaches, not all college coaches. Some are hypocritical about loyalty not all or even most

I like Pittino's complaint that Iona's conference was raided prior to this season. He failed to mention he led the raid.

[Scoop Snoop]

I like Pittino's complaint that Iona's conference was raided prior to this season. He failed to mention he led the raid.

Yeah. I found that comical too. 

[MU82]

Coaches and players bitch about loyalty when one or the other leaves for more money. Fans play the game too. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Is any group innocent of being hypocrites?

Head coaches have the power, not to mention a ton of money. Head coaches are the ones who talk endlessly about putting team and loyalty above all else.