Wendell

[SFL]

I'm not sure L. Bird v. W. Preadom comparative analysis is the way we want to go right now.

Hell, I thought we were talking about Hatch! :D

[ISASO]

ISASO, in your example about the guy at work did he sign on while being told that he'd be there for 4 years working? Didn't the Dodgers still have to pay Dreifort for 5 years of playing even though he played 1 (or something along those lines)? I know people say a scholarship is a year to year thing, but I've never known anyone who's signed on without expecting it meant they will be given that aid for 4 years. My personal opinion is that it's not ethical if you don't renew it.

In my example, everyone knows that you have a 90-day probation period followed by the need to perform well enough to keep the job beyond that. A scholarship, like a job, is revokable.

[dregn]

For what reasons is it revokable and when? You ask a student to come in, work hard in and out of the classroom, give everything you can to the basketball team, represent the university in a classy matter, and follow the team rules. What has Wendell not done? Is it his fault or someone elses that he isn't as much of a talent of those who asked him to come to school here for 4 years thought he was?

When you cut someones scholarship you aren't just taking away basketball from them. You could be effecting the rest of their life in a negative matter. Your forcing them away from school, friends, and other parts of their life that they found. There is no gurantee that some other school will pay for them or that their education can be completed. I don't see that type of action being worth it. Just like many of us want our players to represent the university with class, I feel that the university needs to act with class towards players.

[RoyalShock]

Think of it this way.

It is expected that a scholarship is actually four years (sometimes five) in duration. For the sake of this scenario, it's worth four.

Multiplied out (13 x 4) you get 52 "scholarship years" for a team of 13 scholarship players. Wendell has already used 3 of those 52. I think we can afford one more.

If a team actually utilized more than 10 players on gameday, I might be inclined to feel differently. But as it is, WP should have the option of using his 4th scholarship year. Even if he doesn't play much next year, he will be a valuable practice player.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There was ample statistical and video evidence that WP was a player with D-1 athleticism, defense and ball-handling, but not D-1 shooting skills. The time to cut the young man was this past summer, at the latest.

I will be disappointed in the coaching staff if he is forced out.

[wu_shizzle]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There was ample statistical and video evidence that WP was a player with D-1 athleticism, defense and ball-handling, but not D-1 shooting skills. The time to cut the young man was this past summer, at the latest.

Total agreement; but with the coaching change, I'm sure HCGM tried to keep as many players as possible.

If the staff would have known last summer what they know now, I'm sure there would have been changes. I know they weren't hot on Evann Baker but I would have taken him over WP in a heartbeat.

[SpanglerFan316]

I suspect WP is a great guy. Marshall also seems like a great guy. Suppose WP is not performing at the level GM requires (and I'm not a coach and don't claim to know GM's mind). What is fair?
1. Taking away WP's scholarship seems unfair to Wendell.
2. Making GM keep MT's poor recruits seems unfair to Gregg.
How is this resolved? The NCAA lets the coach (and school) decide but tracks graduation rates and progress toward graduation.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Cold, graduation is very important. Being a great representative of the school is important. Winning is important.

Anyone on scholarship not able to contribute in a significant way on all three of those levels has no place at WSU.

Marshall's job is to find 13 of those guys. It is the players "job" to perform those three very difficult tasks.

Graduation is very important. Being a great representative of the school is important. Winning is important.

Anyone on scholarship not able to contribute in a significant way on all three of those levels has no place at WSU.

I hate to respond twice to a post but when I reread this it struck me as something that would be perfect to frame and hang in an A.D. or coaches office wall... However it has very little semblance to how a typical college basketball fans prioritizes their wants and expectations.


T


...8)

[rayc]

ISASO:

Maybe an example is in order here:

OK, so there's three guys in your group at work. The boss adds a fourth person to help raise the group's output, and he performed well in the interview so everyone is eager to get cranking. He's a really great guy and he works hard to learn the job. After a year on the job he has learned the job and still works hard at it, but he never seems to finish anything and therefore hasn't really helped the group as much as everyone had hoped.
But, he is a pretty nice guy and doesn't cause any trouble and there are some wicked deadlines coming up so the boss decides to hire a temp person to get the group through this rough time. Well, the temp comes in and despite the handicap of lacking in experience and training he actually performs really well. Eventually, the boss gives the temp one of the assignments the 1-year veteran just wasn't making any progess on. Lo and behold, the job is done within a week and with pretty good quality too.
With the temp's help, the group makes the deadlines and everyone is happy - until the boss has to cut the group back down to four people because the budget just can't support 5 workers.

Who gets the ziggy? The ineffective guy who tries hard or the up-and-comer who has a lot of upside and made the most of an opportunity?

You make the call.

This example may seem to make sense, but I’m having a difficult time understanding the logic.

When you bring in a “temp” in your example, you are either bringing in a temporary “ringer” to play for the team, which of course is not allowed, or using a walk on. So is the solution you are posing to award the job (scholarship) to a walk on?

The example does not seem, to me at least, to be a good apple to apple comparison. In the “real world”, whatever that is, an annual review would follow your first paragraph. The employee retention issue would/should be addressed at that time, especially if you foresaw “wicked deadlines” coming up that the employee would be unable to help meet.

If these “wicked deadlines” are a regular occurrence, then I suspect the problem is more widespread than the single employee and may require major staff changes. Attempting to resolve the problem by replacing the one employee would probably prove futile.

On the other hand, if it is a one-time deadline problem, and you have over the years continually renewed the employment contract with the employee, dumping him in his retirement year is probably not a good motivational move. It could certainly cause new and even prospective employees to dismiss any thoughts of loyalty to the company or perhaps any desire to be employed there.

It complicates the issue even more, if it is your first year as the boss and the employee has years on the job. Your fresh eyes may see flaws that weren’t deemed critical before. It is not a situation I would wish on anyone, ... but you just don’t fire someone entering their retirement year in hopes that it may be a small part of a larger solution you seek.

All my humble opinion, of course.

[Snapshot9]

That's funny because that is exactly what companies will do today. I worked for a company for 18 1/2 years, considered part of the skeleton crew, got 'downsized', and told to box up and get off company premises in 20 minutes.
Likewise, my old boss, who I worked for when I was hired there, worked 30 years there, had been off six weeks for major surgery, and the first day back, his 30th anniversay, they laid him off. The surgery was the first time he ever took off like that.

If a senior is sitting on the bench, they don't belong on the team. They are there for the their basketball talent, and if they don't 'pan out', then other arrangements should be made in their behalf. I agree something should have been done earlier, probably after his sophmore year, but it wasn't, and that's why we are saddled with the problem currently.

CGM is here to produce a quality basketball program and to put a winning team on the floor, it is as simple as that. Those are the prime directives, as they say, whatever needs to be done to do that should be his main concerns.

One other lil thorn in my side, I am sick and tired of Creighton and SIU getting higher rated recruits than we do.

[ISASO]

The decision has already been made, apparently, with one twist to the original scenario. The temp was brought on full-time and given many of the responsibilities handled previously by the "veteran". The twist? The "veteran" was transferred to a different department - where they sharpen #2 pencils 8 hours a day. Still an important job, but one that might be more suited to the individuals abilities.

Interestingly, the "veteran" did transfer jobs at the same rate of pay, while the temp only got to work a higher-profile position for the same rate of pay.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I don't want higher rated recruits. I want, and expect that Coach Marshall will deliver, better basketball players.

[shockball]

The NCAA's Academic Progress Rates dictate that graduation is an emphasis for WSU. Recruits with a sole emphasis of getting to the next level can be a disaster. Enough 18 year olds get lost along the way to beign with.

Players leave a progarm and they are no longer in the monitoring system yet their progress counts for WSU. The meat market days are a thing of the past. Player graduation is important. As it should be.

[ShockRef]

Cold needs to change his allegiance and start supporting UNLV. Maybe he should become a Kelvin Sampson fan, wherever he ends up. Or how about a D-League team that trips his trigger and go from there. Those are true basketball factories.
Check the numbers - how many college basketball players actually make it to the NBA? Very few and to only care about whether a kid can dribble and shoot is both juvenile and short sighted.
Fortunately Cold is not in charge or WSU would be on probation before sundown and stay that way until the next solar eclipse. 8)

[Shocker Rocker]

As a person who studies ethics for a living, it has been interesting to watch this thread develop. When it comes down to it, it seems that the discussion is about fundamental views of right and wrong.

On the one hand, there is one group of people who say that the rightful and sole purpose of the team is to win games. In support of their position they make comparisons to the business world where the "bottom line" is what really matters in the end. In this way of looking at things, which has a long history, businesses (and in this case, basketball programs at Division I universities) are places where "morality" is relatively invisible or absent. It's a cutthroat, competitive world, and if you aren't fit, you don't survive.

On the other hand, there is another group who disputes whether basketball programs can be entirely reduced to the model of the business world. They argue that the educational component (among other things) makes it a comparison of apples to oranges. Additionally, they state that even if one were to make that comparison, the business world is a place where certain ethical standards should be followed (i.e. you don't fire someone just before they are about to retire), even if it affects "the bottom line."

I would have to say that I agree most with the second group, and add that even the business world is forced to abide by certain moral standards (i.e. we have child labor laws to keep our 10-year-old children out of the factories that they used to work in a century ago). While I think that no one can dispute that there exists (most of the time) a "dog eat dog" quality to modern economic life, some of us also believe that it is sick.

My question is to the first group: If you were a coach of a Division 1 basketball team, would you see your only consideration as one of "winning as many games as possible" and what sorts of moral lines would you NOT cross in order to do that (and I'm not just talking about NCAA guidelines here)? For me, even if my job and 750K salary depended on it, there are some lines that I would not cross, and giving a senior such as Wendell Preadom the boot (assuming that he wants to stay) is one of them.

[pinstripers]

Everybody makes good points, and most take their arguments to the extreme. The botten line is, if 5 years from now, Coach is still going 8-16, he will be fired whether he has a 100% graduation rate or not.