|
Transfers
Jul 25, 2019 10:28:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lou on Jul 25, 2019 10:28:39 GMT -5
Cousin of an HC alum
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 10:34:59 GMT -5
Diet It is not just for the benefit of coaches, though the mid and low major coaches who discover and develop many of these future transfers to the bigger schools certainly get hurt, and may lose their jobs. In your example, what about Mooney’s teams, schools, fans and coaches at Air Force and South Dakota ? The greater problem is the instability of the college game which hurts most players, schools and fans. Should there not be some loyalty to the school that discovers and develops the player in the college game that does not exist in the professional world ?
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jul 25, 2019 10:45:58 GMT -5
Doreen Ferguson graduated from PC in 1988, so was likely a high school class of 1984.
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 10:55:12 GMT -5
These are good points. The idea of loyalty seems to be the issue that gets brought up the most.
Mooney probably spent 10 years of his life crafting his game to a D1 level before any AF coach saw him play. Along the way, he was probably helped, mentored, and advised by many people in his life. Some may have wished he did not choose AF coming out of high school, but rather another college he was recruited from. By your example, does he not owe them his loyalty as well?
Every spring hundreds of thousands of high school students choose on which college to attend. Oftentimes, parents and their kids are in sharp disagreement about what school. Should these students defer 100% of the time to their parents choice, seeing how their parents dedicated the past 18 years of their lives to raising them? Do kids who choose different schools have no loyalty to their parents?
At the D1 level, college programs are looking out for their best interests. If a coach consistently has players transferring to bigger programs, somebody will notice. He/she will get hired at a big program, because he/she clearly has an eye for finding and developing elite talent that others do not.
Why we expect a 17-18 year old kid to commit four years of his life to an institution that really only cares about his ability to play a sport is beyond me, but I certainly understand the merits of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jul 25, 2019 10:58:35 GMT -5
I personally rather not see college basketball become more similar to the pros (where a handful of players control the league). I guess I'm naïve, but I rather see it become, you know, more of an amateur sport.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 25, 2019 11:07:29 GMT -5
When did she graduate from Wachusett? Doreen Ferguson probably graduated from Wachusett mid to late 80's ------------------------------------------------------- oops - didn't see that the guy with the George Kennedy avatar has a more specific memory than I do before I posted
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 11:15:09 GMT -5
These are good points. The idea of loyalty seems to be the issue that gets brought up the most. Mooney probably spent 10 years of his life crafting his game to a D1 level before any AF coach saw him play. Along the way, he was probably helped, mentored, and advised by many people in his life. Some may have wished he did not choose AF coming out of high school, but rather another college he was recruited from. By your example, does he not owe them his loyalty as well? Every spring hundreds of thousands of high school students choose on which college to attend. Oftentimes, parents and their kids are in sharp disagreement about what school. Should these students defer 100% of the time to their parents choice, seeing how their parents dedicated the past 18 years of their lives to raising them? Do kids who choose different schools have no loyalty to their parents? At the D1 level, college programs are looking out for their best interests. If a coach consistently has players transferring to bigger programs, somebody will notice. He/she will get hired at a big program, because he/she clearly has an eye for finding and developing elite talent that others do not. Why we expect a 17-18 year old kid to commit four years of his life to an institution that really only cares about his ability to play a sport is beyond me, but I certainly understand the merits of the argument. Do Holy Cross and many other like minded schools “only cares about his ability to play a sport “? You seem to be focusing on the power 5-6 conferences where the game is much as you describe. For the most part, they are the beneficiaries of this rampant disease or transferring. The rest of the schools do the discovering and developing, and suffer the consequences. Another cause is the instant gratification of society, and sports in particular, a large topic for another day.
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Jul 25, 2019 13:23:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 14:09:03 GMT -5
hchoops, that is a very fair point but I have to disagree that transferring is crippling to schools outside the power 5. A nuisance surely, but not debilitating. It happens everywhere. Both in sports and in life.
If Harvard/Yale/Princeton offered a HC Professor a position, how many do you think would take it? Certainly some would stay, but I'd venture to say that a majority would leave. As good as HC is, it is not an Ivy and the resources/prestige/career advancement of one of these institutions is surely enough to convince almost anyone to join their ranks. I'd be more surprised a professor would choose to stay at HC than leave to go to H/Y/P, and I think many would agree.
Why do we expect high school kids to practice a devoted sense of loyalty when we wouldn't expect it from professors at the school? If we do not hold our adults to this standard, then we shouldn't expect the kids to toe the line.
The NCAA is big business. We all know this. Therefore, I am not surprised that the drivers of the business, the athletes themselves, treat it the same way business is approached by regular working adults.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 15:16:35 GMT -5
1- I did not use the words “crippling or debilitating”. I stated that the non power 5 schools receive most of the negative consequences. That is a fact. 2- there are many ways HS teenagers are different from a HYP type professor, too numerous to mention. I find your analogy faulty. The reality remains that the system is set up to benefit the power 5-6 conferences. The fact that some athletes(rarely students) benefit does not outweigh the harm it does to the vast majority of schools
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 25, 2019 15:47:01 GMT -5
1- I did not use the words “crippling or debilitating”. I stated that the non power 5 schools receive most of the negative consequences. That is a fact. 2- there are many ways HS teenagers are different from a HYP type professor, too numerous to mention. I find your analogy faulty. The reality remains that the system is set up to benefit the power 5-6 conferences. The fact that some athletes(rarely students) benefit does not outweigh the harm it does to the vast majority of schools That's the way it seems to work with every change the NCAA makes...
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 15:56:19 GMT -5
1- I did not use the words “crippling or debilitating”. I stated that the non power 5 schools receive most of the negative consequences. That is a fact. 2- there are many ways HS teenagers are different from a HYP type professor, too numerous to mention. I find your analogy faulty. The reality remains that the system is set up to benefit the power 5-6 conferences. The fact that some athletes(rarely students) benefit does not outweigh the harm it does to the vast majority of schools 1. You may have not used those specific words, but you called the current state of transferring a "rampant disease". A rampant disease is crippling/debilitating. Agree that non power 5 schools pay most of the negative consequences, no disagreement there. 2. I understand your disagreements with the analogy, the argument was never about HC Professors. But you fail to address the fundamental point of the analogy. We don't ask players in the NBA to devote complete loyalty to their teams. We don't ask professionals to devote complete loyalty to their companies. We don't even ask a regular student who is thinking of transferring to devote loyalty to his/her original institution. So then why do we ask a college athlete to play by different rules than everyone else? College athletics is not what is was fifty years ago. It far more resembles professional athletics than amateur athletics. The NCAA profits hundreds of millions of dollars off these athletes and we do not even afford them the decency to choose a different school for their own advancement. Edit: Grammar
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 16:08:17 GMT -5
To answer the bold question The athlete has committed for a 4 year scholarship worth between $100 and 250,000. The school has committed to him for 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 17:20:42 GMT -5
To answer the bold question The athlete has committed for a 4 year scholarship worth between $100 and 250,000. The school has committed to him for 4 years. These four year contracts are so heavily skewed in favor of the school/NCAA that their legality is consistently questioned. The NCAA just recently lost an antitrust case and owes qualifying college athletes a $208 million dollar settlement. Here is a link if you're interested. Additionally, not all college athletes on scholarship are on four year scholarships. In fact, most are not. They usually come in the form of one year scholarships. If you suffer a career ending injury under a one-year scholarship, the school is not obligated to provide you with a scholarship past that year. This is a classic example of when a kid's ability to receive an education is directly tied to his ability to play a sport. If he/she cannot afford college on their own and they get hurt, the school can decide not to renew their scholarship and all their hopes of a college education are gone. And then we go and ask these kids for four years of loyalty. Do you see why I don't mind if these kids look out for themselves? Because schools/NCAA have clearly proven that they won't.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jul 25, 2019 17:44:30 GMT -5
"some" schools have clearly proven that they won't, I would say....
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 18:01:28 GMT -5
"some" schools have clearly proven that they won't, I would say.... Agreed. There are likely many examples of schools helping their athletes out, but it is by no means a sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jul 25, 2019 18:05:55 GMT -5
This just seems to be a rather weird place to be having this kind of discussion (as opposed to Power 5 U.). I mean, over the last 15 years or so, which number would be larger: 1) the number of HC student athletes who have been wronged by unethical coaching behavior, or 2) the number of regular students who graduated sporting student loans of at least 50K and up? I'm fully against kids being run off at this level, and I believe they should have some flexibility in regards to transferring. However, as much as I love our guys, I don't believe any in recent memory brought in millions for the school. And I don't believe any of them were forced to sign LOIs. The real world is no picnic; sometimes some life lessons during the college years can be a blessing in disguise. Anyway, welcome, dietpepsi, and post often.
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 18:27:14 GMT -5
Appreciate the welcome Dave, happy to be here.
You're right, not a conversation that is particularly relevant to HC athletes, but a change in transfer rules in some form or another will affect all schools.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 25, 2019 20:41:50 GMT -5
Please remember that HC honored a 4 year commitment to Reilly Cristwell after he signed his LOI and then was injured his senior year in high school.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jul 25, 2019 21:17:36 GMT -5
1- I did not use the words “crippling or debilitating”. I stated that the non power 5 schools receive most of the negative consequences. That is a fact. 2- there are many ways HS teenagers are different from a HYP type professor, too numerous to mention. I find your analogy faulty. The reality remains that the system is set up to benefit the power 5-6 conferences. The fact that some athletes(rarely students) benefit does not outweigh the harm it does to the vast majority of schools 1. You may have not used those specific words, but you called the current state of transferring a "rampant disease". A rampant disease is crippling/debilitating. Agree that non power 5 schools pay most of the negative consequences, no disagreement there. 2. I understand your disagreements with the analogy, the argument was never about HC Professors. But you fail to address the fundamental point of the analogy. We don't ask players in the NBA to devote complete loyalty to their teams. We don't ask professionals to devote complete loyalty to their companies. We don't even ask a regular student who is thinking of transferring to devote loyalty to his/her original institution. So then why do we ask a college athlete to play by different rules than everyone else? College athletics is not what is was fifty years ago. It far more resembles professional athletics than amateur athletics. The NCAA profits hundreds of millions of dollars off these athletes and we do not even afford them the decency to choose a different school for their own advancement. Edit: Grammar Two comments: 1. One big difference when it comes to college athletes at the Patriot League level is that athletes are virtually guaranteed a four-year ride. That is true even if an athlete suffers a career-ending injury - which has been demonstrated on a number of occasions. Many of the players receiving this four year "guarantee" will contribute very little their first couple of years but will repay the school by becoming productive athletes their final couple of years. That assumes they don't decide to leave the school at the point where they are becoming valuable commodities. 2. When you talk of the millions of dollars of profit from athletics, that really is not relevant to Holy Cross or the Patriot League. All schools at this level lose millions of dollars on athletics - and they lose money in every sport.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 21:27:17 GMT -5
Well said, Bison. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 21:59:24 GMT -5
Hi Bison,
1. I never said PL athletes are systematically denied four years of scholarship money. I said it's silly to expect college athletes to commit to four years at one specific institution when rules exist that allow colleges/universities to drop students after career ending injuries. Like it or not, these rules exist in the PL too. Happy to hear HC does not regularly engage in this practice, but it is certainly within their right to do so.
As uncomfortable of a reality as that is, it is the truth. I am trying to explain why kids don't feel an overwhelming sense of loyalty to a particular program.
2. I did not say HC or any other college profit off their sports. I said the NCAA does. There is a huge difference there.
I am very well aware of how college athletics are a losing business, save for a few programs. I have even run regressions on data published through the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which requires all institutions receiving federal aid to publish general information pertaining to athletic spending. As a side note, a few of these regressions showed how HC overspends given its current level of athletic success, but that is for another time.
I think there is a little mischaracterization of my original statement, likely my own fault. My encouragement of flexible transfer rules is not an indictment on HC (I did not once mention HC in the original post) but on college athletics as a whole. I have never understood the disdain of allowing these kids to transfer between schools. Especially given how lopsided the current relationship is between athletes and schools/NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 25, 2019 22:02:41 GMT -5
Marcellis Perkins is another good example. HC doesn't take advantage of it's student athletes.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 25, 2019 22:11:43 GMT -5
Hi Bison, 1. I never said PL athletes are systematically denied four years of scholarship money. I said it's silly to expect college athletes to commit to four years at one specific institution when rules exist that allow colleges/universities to drop students after career ending injuries. Like it or not, these rules exist in the PL too. Happy to hear HC does not regularly engage in this practice, but it is certainly within their right to do so. As uncomfortable of a reality as that is, it is the truth. I am trying to explain why kids don't feel an overwhelming sense of loyalty to a particular program. 2. I did not say HC or any other college profit off their sports. I said the NCAA does. There is a huge difference there. I am very well aware of how college athletics are a losing business, save for a few programs. I have even run regressions on data published through the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which requires all institutions receiving federal aid to publish general information pertaining to athletic spending. As a side note, a few of these regressions showed how HC overspends given its current level of athletic success, but that is for another time. I think there is a little mischaracterization of my original statement, likely my own fault. My encouragement of flexible transfer rules is not an indictment on HC (I did not once mention HC in the original post) but on college athletics as a whole. I have never understood the disdain of allowing these kids to transfer between schools. Especially given how lopsided the current relationship is between athletes and schools/NCAA. I do not see that you have yet to make a clear distinction between the relatively small number of schools, in mostly power conferences, who primarily benefit from the liberal transfer rules and the many other colleges who get consistently hurt by these rules and the players who take advantage of them.
|
|
|
Post by dietpepsi on Jul 25, 2019 22:27:42 GMT -5
Sure, here is the distinction.
Power 5 always wins at the expense of all the small schools. For ever and ever.
This happened before the transferring became at the levels it is now and it will only continue. You seem to suggest tightening transfer rules will somehow restore balance to the D1 landscape between Power 5 and non-Power 5 schools. It will not. It was never balanced to begin with. There is no scenario in which the Power 5 does not come out on top.
At least with liberal transfer rules we can allow kids who are late bloomers to play at the best level of competition, and hopefully propel them to a professional level. It is very possible Matt Mooney wouldn't have played in the NBA Summer League and a chance at a NBA contract if there were a more restrictive transfer policy.
|
|