Why is coach being all guard happy?

[xazshox]

More on Hatch

Wushock, I sure hope you are right about Graham Hatch being on scholarship. It makes sense to honor the committment that MT made to him. However, there was a whole thread on here 2-4 wks ago to the contrary and I never saw anyone contradict the fact. I lived in Mesa when he helped lead Mesa Hi to the AZ state championship. Several wks ago, I was at a WSU open scrimmage when he walked by to get his pic taken for an article in the paper so we had a conversation then. A week or two after that, I went to a SASO Ice Cream social and met him again. I really like his attitude, & was impressed with what he had to say then.

[rayc]

Maggie wrote:
Sorry if this annoys people but I was curious about how all this really works.

It is a good question you ask; it’s a puzzle to me as well. It was somewhat discussed earlier in the recruiting season, but has never been answered satisfactorily, at least for me.

It appears to be a gray area, where legally the scholarships are for one year and may or may not be renewed each year, while morally most of us see a four year commitment by both parties. I think that by and large, the four year commitment is a view most schools still honor. I sincerely hope that WSU continues in that fashion. Basketball is great, the drive to a title is exciting but the end still does not justify the means, at least for me, no matter how old fashion that may seem these days.

[Maggie]

I tend to agree with you -- at the very least, I would like WSU perceived that way. I hope it is not "old fashion".

But on the other hand, if they are only promised by CGM a one year deal renewable at his discretion – then that is what they bargained for and I have less of an issue with asking any player to leave. However, I seriously doubt that is CGM's message to the kid and his parents.

[RoyalShock]

Re: More on Hatch

Wushock, I sure hope you are right about Graham Hatch being on scholarship. It makes sense to honor the committment that MT made to him. However, there was a whole thread on here 2-4 wks ago to the contrary and I never saw anyone contradict the fact. I lived in Mesa when he helped lead Mesa Hi to the AZ state championship. Several wks ago, I was at a WSU open scrimmage when he walked by to get his pic taken for an article in the paper so we had a conversation then. A week or two after that, I went to a SASO Ice Cream social and met him again. I really like his attitude, & was impressed with what he had to say then.

I think you're referring to the Shocker Madness topic. All the walk-on discussion was referencing Bret Micheal. I can't find any topics within the past few months that discuss Hatch as a walk-on.

[wsu789]

I've never heard or read that Hatch is a walk on. I don't think that is correct.

Maggie, I think the 'how things work out' issue is different depending on the coach and the coach's tenure with the program.

I think there are coaches that say "you are not good enough and we are not renewing your scholarship for next year." I don't think Coach Turgeon did that, nor do I believe Coach Marshall will.

However, I think either one of those two might say, "Look, you're a good kid and a decent player but you don't fit into our plans. I just don't see you getting any playing time next year. If you want to leave the program, I will help place you get in a situation (lower D1, JC, DII) where you'll get a good education and your talent will allow you to be on the floor."

I think that conversation happens significantly more often with players that the current coach did not recruit (for next year that would include Wendell, Gal, Hatch, Durley and Butler unless I'm missing someone) than with players the coach brought in, although the latter happens as well (in fact, I think MT had a similar conversation with at least five post players in the last few years, including the big kid from western Kansas whose name escapes me, Calvin Walls, Ryan Bradley, Chris Brown, and Butler.)

I assume your employee at will question was based on the idea that a scholarship is a multi-year deal. As noted, it is more like a one-year employment agreement than employment at will. I think it would be hard to argue that the contracts are illusory given that the committment is for one year.

In regard to the message, I think there are probably elements of the need for players to play hard, act right, go to class, etc. in order to retain their scholarship. But I assume you are correct that the message is not, you better perform or we'll pull your scholarship.

It would not surprise me one iota if we are still recruiting and if there are underclassmen that do not return next year. That is simply the nature of the beast, particularly when a new coach inherits a program.

[wsu789]

Incidentally, I have never seen a study done, but the number of transfers from D1 programs every year leads me to believe that there are many, many circumstances when one or the other parties decides to end the deal before four years are up.

In fact, I would be curious to know how many of the top 100 programs in the country did not have a transfer in the last five years. If there are more than a handful, it would surprise me.

I think the ncaa is tracking this now in regard to graduation rates, but I don't know enough about it to do the research.

[rayc]

Maggie wrote:
…if they are only promised by CGM a one year deal renewable at his discretion – then that is what they bargained for and I have less of an issue with asking any player to leave.

True, and the increased occurrence of early departures by players has probably undermined the general value of their side of a four year moral commitment. This in turn makes it easier for schools to rethink their end of the same moral commitment.

[Maggie]

Maggie, I think the 'how things work out' issue is different depending on the coach and the coach's tenure with the program.

I think either one of those two might say, "Look, you're a good kid and a decent player but you don't fit into our plans. I just don't see you getting any playing time next year. If you want to leave the program, I will help place you get in a situation (lower D1, JC, DII) where you'll get a good education and your talent will allow you to be on the floor."

I assume your employee at will question was based on the idea that a scholarship is a multi-year deal. As noted, it is more like a one-year employment agreement than employment at will. I think it would be hard to argue that the contracts are illusory given that the committment is for one year.

In regard to the message, I think there are probably elements of the need for players to play hard, act right, go to class, etc. in order to retain their scholarship. But I assume you are correct that the message is not, you better perform or we'll pull your scholarship.

It would not surprise me one iota if we are still recruiting and if there are underclassmen that do not return next year. That is simply the nature of the beast, particularly when a new coach inherits a program.

Good post.

You are correct, I missed the one-year aspect, therefore, the letters of intent and not likely to be illusory and the players are not similar to employees at will.

Most of the time, telling a model player that he "does not fit into the programs plans going forward" is simply a tactful way of telling the kid – you are not good enough – which is probably what happened to Chris Brown. It does happen a lot with players that the new coach didn't recruit – which is slightly more palatable because in that case it may be true.

[Maggie]

Maggie wrote:
…if they are only promised by CGM a one year deal renewable at his discretion – then that is what they bargained for and I have less of an issue with asking any player to leave.

True, and the increased occurrence of early departures by players has probably undermined the general value of their side of a four year moral commitment. This in turn makes it easier for schools to rethink their end of the same moral commitment.

Excellent point. I admit, I had not thought about that angle. But WSU has not had that problem in a very, very long time.

[rayc]

wsu789, very well said as usual, nice to see you jump in with your professional view point. You don’t post enough!

[MikeShox]

Re: More on Hatch

Wushock, I sure hope you are right about Graham Hatch being on scholarship. It makes sense to honor the committment that MT made to him. However, there was a whole thread on here 2-4 wks ago to the contrary and I never saw anyone contradict the fact. I lived in Mesa when he helped lead Mesa Hi to the AZ state championship. Several wks ago, I was at a WSU open scrimmage when he walked by to get his pic taken for an article in the paper so we had a conversation then. A week or two after that, I went to a SASO Ice Cream social and met him again. I really like his attitude, & was impressed with what he had to say then.

I am in agreement with the others. I have never seen this thread you talk of saying that Graham is a walk-on. If Royal cannot find such a thread, I think you are confused. I for one have never seen anything saying he walked on.

According to this info from goshockers.com, he is one of the schollie players. http://www.goshockers.com/ViewArticl...51&SPSID=61179

[jigga5]

Do you guys think any of the walkons this year will be able to earn a scholly for next season? ... specifically Brett Burley?

[pinstripers]

Lots of us don't even think all the existing scholarship players will earn a scholarship for next year............

[McShocker]

Do you guys think any of the walkons this year will be able to earn a scholly for next season? ... specifically Brett Burley?

No

[goshocks]

No.
________
Girlfriend Pic