Wendell

[ISASO]

I guess you're lumping me in with Cold, which isn't fair as I never discarded the academic component.

And I don't see why anyone assumed the veteran in my example was nearing retirement age. In the case study, the veteran could easily be a 28-year-old in his 2nd year with the company. He was only veteran in comparison to the temp...nothing more, nothing less. The temp could easily be a 60-year-old person. It isn't relevant to the example. Performance was the variable.

My statement will be this:

While working within the guidelines of the APR and the spirit of college athletics, it is Marshall's job to find the 13 best scholarship players he can and put them on the floor in an effort to win as many games as possible. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[ShockerEngr]

The only way i would support not renewing WP scholly is if he throws in the towel and gives up.

[1972Shocker]

The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I don't see this as being descriptive of a college basketball team.

All the links in a chain have to do exactly the same amount and type of work.

I have never seen a college basketball team where the #13 and weakest link is, or is even expected to be, as strong as the #1 and strongest link. A college basketball team is actually as strong as its strongest links. It's weakest links have much less impact on the team, unless you are very short-handed as the Shockers are this year.

Furthermore, College basketball teams need various links to have different kinds of strengths in varying degrees and beyond that it is important that the links get along with each other (team chemistry).

You can have a link that brings only limited skills to the basketball floor
but can still be an important link (i.e. Cameron Ledord and Nick Rogers).

I could be the #13 player on the roster of Memphis, Duke, KU and UNC and I am pretty sure they would still be pretty good teams.

[ShockerNut2305]

I fully agree with that last statement for 1. team chemestry is huge and i personally believe that is what tore down last years team

[DaShox]

Gregg and Jim don't care whether you approve or disapprove of the dismissal of a non-contributing player. They know fans do not cancel season tickets when a player of WP's caliber is let go. Judging by the home attendance, nobody cancelled their tickets when Ryan Bradley left for Newman. And if .000001% of the fan base does cancel, other fans are waiting to step in and take their seats. When a 6'7" three star replaces WP, the fan says "Wendell who?"

Just because you get hired, you are not a guaranteed job for life. The same is true of an athletic or academic scholarship.

[SpanglerFan316]

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.

It think this post is misguided. The ethical issue has been discussed and decided by the NCAA; it is the responsibility of the coach and school to renew or not renew scholarships each year. It is not unethical to withdraw a student-athlete's scholarship. The NCAA makes the school responsible for treating student-athletes "fairly" through, for example, the use of the NCAA Division I Federal Graduation Rate (GSR). The following links are interesting:

http://chronicle.com/stats/ncaa/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/28/gradrates

http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2007/d1_school_grad_rate_data.html

http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/gsr/index.html

The voting body of the NCAA consists of the college and university presidents of NCAA member institutions. One would hope that they have considered the ethical and academic implications of the NCAA rules and made fair and reasonable decisions. The coaches and schools have to live with these rules. They also have to live with whatever reputations they gain by keeping or cutting scholarship players. We do not know anything about private discussions between a student-athlete and a coach, the academic progress of a student-athlete, the level of performance in practice of a student-athlete, etc. We don't know squat. If WP is back next year, we won't know why. If he is not back, we won't know why. Of course, this will not keep us from guessing.

[shockfan89]

The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I don't think anyone is saying that the team has to be made up of all burger boys, but we are all aware HCGM is having to play the hand he was dealt this year. His hands may also be tied a bit next year depending on how many players we sign, who returns to the team, who is asked to move on....

My opinion is that WP should get a scholarship next year if one is available but I also do not feel he is owed one. This is a team still in transition from a coaching change. If we don't have a scholarship to give it should be explained to WP the reasons why and he should be allowed to stay on the team if he chooses. Now if there are team chemistry issues, HCGM has to do what he thinks is best.

[Snapshot9]

Although an arguable analogy, I also indicated the graduation rate was, indeed, important, nor did I indicate that we should cross moral or ethical lines, but I did say that a senior on scholarship on the bench that doesn't see playing time does not belong on the team, for one of 2 reasons, the prior coaching misjudged the player's talent level to begin with, or they failed to develop what they thought they saw there to begin with. And there is a distinct difference between walk-on players vs a player on a schollie.

I am not advocating 'winning at all costs', but, indeed, one can not stick their head in the sand, and say it is not an important driving factor in the equation either.

The Coach, and AD, should make decisions that are in the best interest of the program and the team, in the long run. Wendall Preadom should be allowed to finish his education without a doubt, but whether he should be on the team next year while doing that I would question.

And like it or not, that student will be out in the business world shortly, and have to live by the business world's current rules, even though I don't agree with the direction they have taken the last 10-15 years either.

[Dan]

WP

No matter how many scholarships you give out, there will always be a certain number of players each year that sit the bench and get no playing time. In an ideal world, there would only be about 9 players each year that get the minutes. In the case of next year, would you rather give the scholarship to a 21 year old player that's been in the program for 3 years, even though you know not to expect a lot of production, or a brand new, possibly 18 year old, where you know you won't get much production, and you can not guarantee what sort of player he will turn out to be. My vote would be to keep WP on the team - it's only one more year and we need as many veterans on the team as possible. We already have a good crop of freshman coming in and WPs minutes will probably be few any way. His scholarship will go to a current high school junior that is being heavily recuruited by the coaches, IMO.

[calfan]

I think Wendell bill be back next year. Did I mention that WSU is recruiting PGs for the 2009 class.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

calfan...what do we need a PG for? :whistle:

[ShockerFever]

You can have a link that brings only limited skills to the basketball floor but can still be an important link (i.e. Cameron Ledord and Nick Rogers).

I can definitely agree to this. However, I don't even think WP brings leadership like those two to the table. Ledford and Rogers proved they could at least show signs of offensive life and were leaders on the team. No offense, but WP is walking liability when on the floor. He is no offensive threat. His defense can be good at times, and horrible at times. He turns the ball over on occasion and I even wonder if he can make a pass into the interior without getting the ball stolen.

Honestly, now that I think about it, I really only see WP make passes to the outside and to the guards. That's about it.

Sometimes the truth hurts sometimes.

No matter how good of a man WP is, sometimes good, nice guys have to be cut for the sake of the program. If he was a good man, he'd understand that and take it for the team.

[Sundevil Shox]

wendell

Interesting debate. I would interested to know how much of Marshall's incentives are tied to non on the court results. In other words, does he get an bonus for academic achievement, kids that stay out of trouble? I would guess it is a very modest if any component of his incentives or his evaluation in general. That is where the rubber meets the road.

[forevershockerfan]

My spin on WP is as follows: He should be invited back next year because he has worked hard to help this Program and he would be a Senior. Oviously, HCGM will inform him what he needs to work on the offseason. If these areas do not improve, his playing time will decrease but he should still be welcomed on this team. If he so chooses not to return, that is his right. Otherwise, I hope he returns for his Senior year. We could use some vetern players next year because 'Shocker Programs' will be at an all time high before the games as we reload for the future.

[rrshock]

Re: WP

No matter how many scholarships you give out, there will always be a certain number of players each year that sit the bench and get no playing time. In an ideal world, there would only be about 9 players each year that get the minutes. In the case of next year, would you rather give the scholarship to a 21 year old player that's been in the program for 3 years, even though you know not to expect a lot of production, or a brand new, possibly 18 year old, where you know you won't get much production, and you can not guarantee what sort of player he will turn out to be. My vote would be to keep WP on the team - it's only one more year and we need as many veterans on the team as possible. We already have a good crop of freshman coming in and WPs minutes will probably be few any way. His scholarship will go to a current high school junior that is being heavily recuruited by the coaches, IMO.

I'm sorry, but I feel your logic is incorrect here. If I had the chance to give a new guy a scholarship so that he can learn the system and possibly be productive sometime in the next 4 years, I would choose this route. Not the "let's just give the guy that we know won't produce" one more try.

A veteran that does nothing for the team, at least appears that way, is just like having a freshman. So bring in another freshman or whoever that can help the team out in the long term.