Mass exodus at Texas Tech. Entire new starting 5.

[HoHum]

Exactly. If you are doing such a poor job recruiting, what makes you think the the replacement players are going to be any better?

Nothing, but you don't not try, because you might end up with another dud. If you KNOW Player X stinks, and will continue to stink, and there is a 10% chance brand new Player Y will be a good player, you take that chance, if you're trying to save your job.

 

[DenverSooner]

Nothing, but you don't not try, because you might end up with another dud. If you KNOW Player X stinks, and will continue to stink, and there is a 10% chance brand new Player Y will be a good player, you take that chance, if you're trying to save your job.

So you would prefer OSU to treat kids poorly? You would support kicking a kid off the OSU basketball team that goes to class, works hard in practice, stays out of trouble with the law and his coaches simply because he was not contributing enough in games?

I like to give OSU fans a hard time but the OSU I know doesn't treat people this way. I hope the vast majority of OSU alumni want OSU to honor scholarships for good kids regardless of whehter the coaching staff made a recruiting mistake.

These young kids matter. They should be treated fairly. If they are signed and follow the rules they should stay on the team and have a chance to earn a degree.

 

[Sawyer]

Nothing, but you don't not try, because you might end up with another dud. If you KNOW Player X stinks, and will continue to stink, and there is a 10% chance brand new Player Y will be a good player, you take that chance, if you're trying to save your job.

From a coach's perspective, that makes sense. But we aren't coaches. There are more important things to us than the job security of one guy.

Like I've said, there are probably other issues at play for any coach who relies on odds to find talent...

 

[SuperHoops]

How did Mizzou get so low on scholarship players last year? I know Bowers got hurt but that still leaves 4-5 spots.

 

[campbest]

So you would prefer OSU to treat kids poorly? You would support kicking a kid off the OSU basketball team that goes to class, works hard in practice, stays out of trouble with the law and his coaches simply because he was not contributing enough in games?

I like to give OSU fans a hard time but the OSU I know doesn't treat people this way. I hope the vast majority of OSU alumni want OSU to honor scholarships for good kids regardless of whehter the coaching staff made a recruiting mistake.

These young kids matter. They should be treated fairly. If they are signed and follow the rules they should stay on the team and have a chance to earn a degree.

This is comical, it's a multi million dollar business. If your employees (that you hired) tried really hard and were great "kids", but were tanking your company at the same time, would you let it sink or get some new employees? It's ok to have one or two guys that fit your model, but it's not realistic for success all the time.

 

[garyeb2]

This is comical, it's a multi million dollar business. If your employees (that you hired) tried really hard and were great "kids", but were tanking your company at the same time, would you let it sink or get some new employees? It's ok to have one or two guys that fit your model, but it's not realistic for success all the time.

Exactly.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

This is comical, it's a multi million dollar business. If your employees (that you hired) tried really hard and were great "kids", but were tanking your company at the same time, would you let it sink or get some new employees? It's ok to have one or two guys that fit your model, but it's not realistic for success all the time.

This is where the "argument" really is on whether BCG is doing the right thing or not. You are 100% right in your statement that it is a business, I think there are just a few of us that wish it wasn't so patently obvious at this point. That being said, and using your analogy, if the business is failing, the employees should have the same right to leave the company and get a new job without any monopolistic restrictions. Would you agree with that?

 

[Sawyer]

This is where the "argument" really is on whether BCG is doing the right thing or not. You are 100% right in your statement that it is a business, I think there are just a few of us that wish it wasn't so patently obvious at this point. That being said, and using your analogy, if the business is failing, the employees should have the same right to leave the company and get a new job without any monopolistic restrictions. Would you agree with that?

If it's a business, and if the employees are failing, then at some point you question the guy who hired them.

It all comes back to Gillispie failing to do his job. This much turnover is a sign of bigger problems.

How did Mizzou get so low on scholarship players last year? I know Bowers got hurt but that still leaves 4-5 spots.

In Anderson's last year, we had 12 scholarship players (Tony Mitchell was supposed to be 13) and only one senior. Anderson spent the majority of his time recruiting for the 2011 class as if he would only have one scholarship to give. But then Mitchell failed to qualify and Jonathan Underwood left mid-season, and suddenly we had three. Anderson's main target had long decided to wait until the late signing period, so we were holding our one spot for a guy everyone thought was a Mizzou lock and hadn't been actively recruiting anyone else. Anderson had no backup plans.

Then Anderson left and we didn't even land that one guy (Otto Porter, who had an excellent freshman year at Georgetown). Haith came in and wasn't able to land any recruits with immediate eligibility (he instead opted to sign a couple transfers in Ross and Bell). So we went from a hopeful 13 to 10 eligible players and two guys sitting out.

Then Ricky Kreklow (Columbia native and son of MU volleyball coaches) decided he wanted to get away from home (understandable decision, and one I believe he would have made regardless of who was coaching at MU). That put us at 9. Laurence Bowers got hurt and Kadeem Green (who sat out the prior year with an achilles injury and never regained his athleticism) transferred a couple weeks into the season (despite only two other guys taller than 6-6, Green still never left the bench; he was awful and knew he'd never play). That put us down to 7 eligible and healthy scholarship players.

 

[HoHum]

If it's a business, and if the employees are failing, then at some point you question the guy who hired them.

It all comes back to Gillispie failing to do his job. This much turnover is a sign of bigger problems.

Sure, but Gillispie isn't just going to sit on his thumbs and accept the inevitability of getting fired, because he's "hired bad employees", he's going to try to replace those employees, even if there is a inordinate amount of turnover.

He's going to do what he can to save the job, and as a fan, (or maybe a stockholder, if we're keeping this analogy going I LOVE ANALOGIES!) I'd hope he would.

 

[campbest]

This is where the "argument" really is on whether BCG is doing the right thing or not. You are 100% right in your statement that it is a business, I think there are just a few of us that wish it wasn't so patently obvious at this point. That being said, and using your analogy, if the business is failing, the employees should have the same right to leave the company and get a new job without any monopolistic restrictions. Would you agree with that?

I have been pretty clear in other threads on my stance that student athletes should be allowed to transfer without restrictions as long as they fulfill the requirements at their current university. Scholarships are a one year contract.

 

[DenverSooner]

This is comical, it's a multi million dollar business. If your employees (that you hired) tried really hard and were great "kids", but were tanking your company at the same time, would you let it sink or get some new employees? It's ok to have one or two guys that fit your model, but it's not realistic for success all the time.

It most certainly isn't a business to the student athletes. They are not paid. I have also not encountered many employees that try hard, follow the rules and are fired. That is a rare occurrence. At tech apparently that happens with 50% of the scholarship players.

Furthermore, if you enter into a contract with an employee you are required to honor it. Regardless of the technical rule that a kids scholarship is an annual deal, it is a four year commitment and should be treated as such by the University and coaching staff unless the kid does something wrong.

Finally the NCAA and Universities can't have it both ways. It cannot be a business when it suits the desires of the University but not a business when it comes to paying the players or allowing the players to earn money for endorsements. If we are going to say it is a business, then pay the kids.

 

[garyeb2]

Since when is room,board,books, and tuition not considered compensation? An athletic scholarship is a one year contract. Mayby it should be something else. But, it isn't.

The University has made the investment in realestate, facilities, staff and infrastructure that allows for the existance of a basketball program. Basketball loses money at all but a small handfull of schools. Places like OU and Texas Tech certainly lose money with their programs.

So, where is this compensation above the current level suppose to come from? And of course the players do have another option. If they don't like their deal, they could always forego the freeroll thru college, the perks and celebrity and get a job.

I think BG is a train wreck. And that his chances of building a winning program at Tech are in the slim to none category. But, he did come in late and thought that Knight left the cupboard completly bare. He ran off a few and brought in a few. Then, starting his second year, he did it again.

Kruger, on the other hand, took his beating the 1st year with the old coach's leftovers. And then was alittle less severe with his run offs. He has been thru this type of rebuilding process enough that he understands running off marginal talent just to replace them with talent just as marginal doesn't speed the process up much.

If BG continues on with his revolving door stategy, the program will suffer and he will lose his job. But, he was the one they hired to get things turned around and he should be able to do it how he sees fit.

 

[campbest]

It most certainly isn't a business to the student athletes. They are not paid. I have also not encountered many employees that try hard, follow the rules and are fired. That is a rare occurrence. At tech apparently that happens with 50% of the scholarship players.

Just depends on the industry, can assure you an I-Banker that tries hard and follows the rules, but can't get the job done will be fired.

Furthermore, if you enter into a contract with an employee you are required to honor it. Regardless of the technical rule that a kids scholarship is an annual deal, it is a four year commitment and should be treated as such by the University and coaching staff unless the kid does something wrong.

It is not a four year commitment, it is a one year commitment. It's not a "technical rule", it's the rule and the contract between the two parties is for one year. Should it be different? I think so, but the system doesn't operate under that premise.

Finally the NCAA and Universities can't have it both ways. It cannot be a business when it suits the desires of the University but not a business when it comes to paying the players or allowing the players to earn money for endorsements. If we are going to say it is a business, then pay the kids.

See my stance in other threads.

 

[DenverSooner]

The University has made the investment in realestate, facilities, staff and infrastructure that allows for the existance of a basketball program. Basketball loses money at all but a small handfull of schools. Places like OU and Texas Tech certainly lose money with their programs.

In the case of public schools, I would contend the taxpayers and alumni pay for this stuff not the University. When OU wants knew facilities they raise moeny from the alumni, including me. It should be noted that I am extremely immaterial but as a group alumni like me are important - our $100 or $1,000 donations add up. If I had millions, I might donate more but the simple fact of the matter is I don't have the money to be a major donor.

I also don't think OU loses money on basketball. They might in some years but they get a lot of TV revenue, plus ticket sales, plus concessions, plus donations, etc. With attendence being so low the last few years they might have posted a loss but it is my understanding men's basketball is revenue positive. (I could be wrong about this, it is just what I have always believed.)

 

[garyeb2]

In the case of public schools, I would contend the taxpayers and alumni pay for this stuff not the University. When OU wants knew facilities they raise moeny from the alumni, including me. It should be noted that I am extremely immaterial but as a group alumni like me are important - our $100 or $1,000 donations add up. If I had millions, I might donate more but the simple fact of the matter is I don't have the money to be a major donor.

I also don't think OU loses money on basketball. They might in some years but they get a lot of TV revenue, plus ticket sales, plus concessions, plus donations, etc. With attendence being so low the last few years they might have posted a loss but it is my understanding men's basketball is revenue positive. (I could be wrong about this, it is just what I have always believed.)

The most recent data I could find showed that OU's men basketball lost just over $8000 on revenues of over 8.4 million. Womens basketball lost 1.8 million.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I have been pretty clear in other threads on my stance that student athletes should be allowed to transfer without restrictions as long as they fulfill the requirements at their current university. Scholarships are a one year contract.

Then I think that you and I agree and as I said before, you are right on a practical level, I still just don't like how blatant its become. Glad this was a rational conversation.

 

[campbest]

I also don't think OU loses money on basketball. They might in some years but they get a lot of TV revenue, plus ticket sales, plus concessions, plus donations, etc. With attendence being so low the last few years they might have posted a loss but it is my understanding men's basketball is revenue positive. (I could be wrong about this, it is just what I have always believed.)

You are wrong about this.

 

[DenverSooner]

You are wrong about this.

That is a persuasive argument. I will be sure to site you in the future.