Is this going to be a trend --

[Shox21]

"On Monday, guard Nick Williams, the top player in Alabama, signed with the Hoosiers. Williams initially signed with Marquette but was released by the school after Crean accepted the Indiana job on April 1."


Unless I'm reading this wrong, it seems Turgeon isn't the only one.
Seems Indiana is relaxing some of their self-imposed sanctions as well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3368290

[SubGod22]

Despicable

[Ricky Del Rio]

While I would not go so far as to describe it as despicable, I am not too happy about the practice of "taking recruits with you."

If the affected universities, coaches and player are in agreement, then I suppose it is all right.

Nevertheless, university A bears the recruiting expense and university B enjoys the benefit of the player.

[7hottamales]

This will no doubt be a trend. As I pointed out in our previous thread regarding this, there were rules in place that prevented this that have recently been removed. It is unrealistic to expect coaches to not do what is in the best interest of their current employer and their own careers if there is no associated cost. Basic human behavior.

[Ricky Del Rio]

There is another point, which I forgot to mention.

If a university signs a quality player A, it may not sign another quality player B, who wanted to attend the university.

If the coach of the university leaves and takes player A with him, then the university takes a double hit. The university loses players A and B.

So then the university has invested resources in recruiting two players and has received nada.

Not good.

[McShocker]

Does anybody know why the conditional release rule has been changed? Unless there are other factors that I am missing, I think it should be reinstated ASAP.

[SubGod22]

I don't remember the reasoning for it. It's not like they limited where a kid could go really. Usually you couldn't follow coach or sign with someone it that conference. At least I think that's how they worked.

That would still leave around 300 D1 schools to choose from :D

[60Shock]

There is another point, which I forgot to mention.

If a university signs a quality player A, it may not sign another quality player B, who wanted to attend the university.

If the coach of the university leaves and takes player A with him, then the university takes a double hit. The university loses players A and B.

So then the university has invested resources in recruiting two players and has received nada.

Not good.

Ricky, I got lost somewhere along the line. Are you saying that if the losing university signs quality Player A, and then releases that player to follow the departing coach or to transfer somewhere else, that the losing university cannot sign another quality player (B) to replace A?

If so, just what is the NCAA definition of "A Quality Player?"

[SubGod22]

Once you sign quality Player A, quality Player B moves on and signs elsewhere. As does Player C and Player D. Once Player A leaves and follows coach, the University is out of a lot.

[7hottamales]

Once you sign quality Player A, quality Player B moves on and signs elsewhere. As does Player C and Player D. Once Player A leaves and follows coach, the University is out of a lot.

The argument assumes that Player A would stay with the university if the option to follow the recruiting coach did not exist. That is obviously not the case most often. This is all the risk and cost of doing business...The university could always refuse to release Player A if they feel the benefit outweighs the cost.

Besides it should be pointed out that the new coach would prefer to not have the scholarship tied up with player B, C, and D in many if not most cases. They generally love the opportunity to have plenty of scholarships to fill with "their" players in the first couple of years.

We may have had struggles this past year, but I think GM deep down likes having the excuse and ability to completely retool the team in his image rather than MT's. They look for completely different styles and skill sets.

[Ricky Del Rio]

There is another point, which I forgot to mention.

If a university signs a quality player A, it may not sign another quality player B, who wanted to attend the university.

If the coach of the university leaves and takes player A with him, then the university takes a double hit. The university loses players A and B.

So then the university has invested resources in recruiting two players and has received nada.

Not good.

Ricky, I got lost somewhere along the line. Are you saying that if the losing university signs quality Player A, and then releases that player to follow the departing coach or to transfer somewhere else, that the losing university cannot sign another quality player (B) to replace A?

If so, just what is the NCAA definition of "A Quality Player?"

60,

I think Sub and 7 Hot has straightened out my muddled discourse. If not, let me know.

I thought of another point.

Coaches usually leave immediately after the NCAA Championship, either in March or April.

Suppose a coach takes another job and takes a player with him, who is slated to enroll in summer or fall of the current year.

If the new incoming coach has an immediate necessity to fill the newly available scholarship because of the player defection, then he has very limited quality prospects for recruitment. The recruiting process for most quality players begins at least two years in advance of their enrollment and they have already committed to other universities.

[rrshock]

This is going to start a trickle down effect. If one guy leaving takes players with him, the new coach is gonna be forced to do the same thing, just to fill his roster. This will cause lots of problems for the smaller schools.

[Shox21]

This is going to start a trickle down effect. If one guy leaving takes players with him, the new coach is gonna be forced to do the same thing, just to fill his roster. This will cause lots of problems for the smaller schools.

And the bigger schools care why? The NCAA seems to be geared to what's best or what's wished for by the BCS schools. Why was the rule changed to begin with? If it was because it wasn't "fair" to the student athlete if he signed with a coach that left a program, either voluntarily or elsewise, so what? He's still getting a free ride. If he wants out of his LOI to "follow" his coach, what's wrong with making him sit out a year just like a normal transfer. (And when you jump all over me, please do it gently 'cause I'm still kinda new to all this.)

[60Shock]

Seems to me the tendency of late is that the Shocks get screwed no matter what whenever our coach leaves for whatever purpose.

Didn't the two Florida Juco players who were playing for Randy's dad opt out and were granted their release when Randy got fired. And of course we all know what happened when MT left. Some left, but some stayed.

And if the trend holds true, WSU will graciously give all GM's incoming recruits wavers when he leaves in 2030. Does not really matter whether the players go with GM or to other schools. Their departure is our loss no matter how you cut it. Let's face the facts. It has happened in the past and it will unfortunately happen again and again and again.

So, it would appear from our standpoint that we would be a lot better off if our future new incoming coaches (albeit from smaller schools) would be allowed to bring those desired new recruits with them.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[SubGod22]

I would NOT be happy if a new coach of ours brought in players who had committed to his previous school.