menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Groce
Page: 2 of 3
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 4:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
By penalty I meant not have to sit out a year.  I'll just have to respectfully disagree that kids don't leave if the coach does.  We lost a basketball player to Michigan when JG went to Illinois.  Sure that's one player but how many more have or have wanted to do the same thing?  Coaches recruit kids who they think can play for them.  Those same coaches can leave at the drop of a hat.  Is it a stretch that kids go to a school to play for a coach?  I don't think so.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 5:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Are coaches and kids similarly situated?  Perhaps the kids don't have enough worldview and perspective on their relative ability.  Ought this to be a consideration...ought kids to be given some guidance or held to their choices more than coaches?  Or less?



 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
By penalty I meant not have to sit out a year.  I'll just have to respectfully disagree that kids don't leave if the coach does.  We lost a basketball player to Michigan when JG went to Illinois.  Sure that's one player but how many more have or have wanted to do the same thing?  Coaches recruit kids who they think can play for them.  Those same coaches can leave at the drop of a hat.  Is it a stretch that kids go to a school to play for a coach?  I don't think so.


i know it is not......that's part of  the point, As a parent I tell every other parent and child who ask me ....you are going to a school. If that coach leaves you are still gonna need to make sure you like the school.

Too many coaches make themselves the destination rather than the school. I totally agree with you that they are gone.

I will be hard pressed knowing what these guys go through in moving schools to say that they would be ready with their new team to play and juggle school to come off of the 1 year rule. The team and the individuals, in my opinion,  need time to acclimate to each other. Most any kid who transfers is not going to be a lottery pick anyway. Those kids that have graduated and have 1 year of eligibilty left are a bit different as they are older, more mature and sought after in most cases for the leadership they bring to the locker room, Kane at Iowa State being an exception more than the rule. That boy is just there on sheer talent.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I think it's funny Borna complains about "bleeding hearts" and then lists a whole bunch of bleeding heart in loco parentis and/or pie in the sky reasons to support his opinion.

In first place by miles is player wanting to play for specific coach. Way way back in second is the kid playing for the school. This is the vast majority of the time now. Sure an Ohio kid may want to play for State or Carolina kid for Carolina, but that's an exception these days. How many kids playing for Kentucky or Arizona are from those states?

I think they should give each school the choice up front. Make a university policy adopted by each Board regarding whether a student can get a full release and play right away or have to sit out a year. Then let the recruits enroll knowing ahead if time what each schools rules are.

What's the harm in that?

Also - in some sports (dominated by white folk) you don't have to sit out. Hmmmmm.......
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
I think it's funny Borna complains about "bleeding hearts" and then lists a whole bunch of bleeding heart in loco parentis and/or pie in the sky reasons to support his opinion.

In first place by miles is player wanting to play for specific coach. Way way back in second is the kid playing for the school. This is the vast majority of the time now. Sure an Ohio kid may want to play for State or Carolina kid for Carolina, but that's an exception these days. How many kids playing for Kentucky or Arizona are from those states?

I think they should give each school the choice up front. Make a university policy adopted by each Board regarding whether a student can get a full release and play right away or have to sit out a year. Then let the recruits enroll knowing ahead if time what each schools rules are.

What's the harm in that?

Also - in some sports (dominated by white folk) you don't have to sit out. Hmmmmm.......


That is a good idea in italics. I am still not sure why an extra year of school for nothing is a penalty. .

Not sure what you consider pie in the sky. Kids going to school to get an education? IN a specific area of study? That transferring involves credits not going with you?

Are you referring to top 100 guys or the majority of the players who make up the teams in D1? We know thosae top 100 5 stars are not in school for school while the other 12 or so players that make up the 351 teams (say 3510 players for a nice round number ) are not there for the exposure.

My argument was about the penalty.....which I do not consider a penalty. The next school gives you an extra year of school.

And by WHITE sports are you referring to the NON REVENUE sports are are you pulling the race card for a reason? 
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 7:47 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Borna....I may be misreading, but the biggest problem for me is that they can lose a year of eligibility by having to sit out.  If they didn't lose that year, I wouldn't hate the rule as much.  I still hate the rule.  It is obnoxiously hypocritical that players can have their scholarships terminated, yet they can't transfer freely.  
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:08 PM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
Borna....I may be misreading, but the biggest problem for me is that they can lose a year of eligibility by having to sit out.  If they didn't lose that year, I wouldn't hate the rule as much.  I still hate the rule.  It is obnoxiously hypocritical that players can have their scholarships terminated, yet they can't transfer freely.  

You do not lose a year of eligibility

Transfer guide NCAA Publication  This is what athletes considering transfer are to read. 

You do need to establish residency and be a full time student
For your academic year in residence to count toward your eligibility to compete, you must sit out only at the school
where you intend to compete and you must be a full-time student. You cannot meet this requirement by attending the
school part time or by not being enrolled in school at all.
For a semester or quarter to count toward your one academic year in residence, you must be enrolled full time (which is
generally at least 12-credit hours) and you must be enrolled before the 12th day of class.
Full-time enrollment
= Each school determines the meaning of full-time status on its own.
I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the loss of schollies and I was adamantly opposed  when Sayles lost his for no reason, especially after all the good work he put in both on and off the court That action in Indiana is known as "Creaning" the roster it is practiced so frequently. Unfortunate for the kid. 

I was happy that Natzgaam was able to finish out his 4 years in spite of his injury. We did right by that one IMO compared to most school who would have just sent him packing. 

Interesting that the average for transfers in sports are much less than the general student body which see 1 in 3 students transfer according to a study in 2010 by the National Association for College Admission Counseling  while 9 -11% of athletes are the numbers that are generally cited. I am not sure if that says more about the singular focus of athletes, the impediments to transfer or really what it means.

In any case they do not lose the year... they must be in good academic standing to transfer and school must sign off ( the part of the rule I do not like much)...in conferences like the Big Ten they do force a kid to pay for a year on his own if he transfers in conference but that is a conference rule not the NCAA.  

The sports on the men's side that require a year of sit are ICE HOCKEY and BASEBALL in addition to foot and hoop. Reading several articles that refer to the reason for those sports is, ostensibly, that those sports are singled out due to their chronic underachieivement academically.
 
Last Edited: 2/17/2014 8:12:51 PM by bornacatfan
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 9:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If you transfer to a school you have to sit out a year.  Unless you have a redshirt available, that counts against your eligibility.  Are you trying to say it doesn't?  Or are we talking about 2 different issues?
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/17/2014 9:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
If you transfer to a school you have to sit out a year.  Unless you have a redshirt available, that counts against your eligibility.  Are you trying to say it doesn't?  Or are we talking about 2 different issues?


You have to sit a year in those 4 sports. You do not lose a year of eligibility. YOu still get 4 years to play. If you have an injury at your new school you may get another year. I know of guys who have been playing 6 years out from HS.

EDIT I did not think about the redshirt being used. Sorry. This transfer pdf makes it more confusing by talking about the 5 year clock....yet i know of guys with a redshirt transfer and then an injury
Last Edited: 2/17/2014 9:31:46 PM by bornacatfan
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 8:46 AM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
I think it's funny Borna complains about "bleeding hearts" and then lists a whole bunch of bleeding heart in loco parentis and/or pie in the sky reasons to support his opinion.

In first place by miles is player wanting to play for specific coach. Way way back in second is the kid playing for the school. This is the vast majority of the time now. Sure an Ohio kid may want to play for State or Carolina kid for Carolina, but that's an exception these days. How many kids playing for Kentucky or Arizona are from those states?

I think they should give each school the choice up front. Make a university policy adopted by each Board regarding whether a student can get a full release and play right away or have to sit out a year. Then let the recruits enroll knowing ahead if time what each schools rules are.

What's the harm in that?

Also - in some sports (dominated by white folk) you don't have to sit out. Hmmmmm.......


That is a good idea in italics. I am still not sure why an extra year of school for nothing is a penalty. .

Not sure what you consider pie in the sky. Kids going to school to get an education? IN a specific area of study? That transferring involves credits not going with you?

Are you referring to top 100 guys or the majority of the players who make up the teams in D1? We know thosae top 100 5 stars are not in school for school while the other 12 or so players that make up the 351 teams (say 3510 players for a nice round number ) are not there for the exposure.

My argument was about the penalty.....which I do not consider a penalty. The next school gives you an extra year of school.

And by WHITE sports are you referring to the NON REVENUE sports are are you pulling the race card for a reason?


OK - More in loco parentis than pie in the sky.  Couldn't resist ribbing you a bit.

If they want to give a transfer another year, do it at the end.  Still give him 5 to play 4.  But, the last year can be a total academic focus year.  Maybe that last year would be taken much more seriously than the in-between year once the kid knows he's not going to make it rich (or any $ at all) playing basketball and its time to take life seriously.  Hell give him 6.....  Could placate those who say the deal is too one sided in favor of the coaches wallets and schools bank accounts.

Even the 2 and 3 star kids are picking schools based on the coaching staff first and foremost.  This just seems obvious to me.  The coach leaves and the program retreats.  Happens over and over at all levels.  Why?  Because the kids were there -- all of them - primarily due to the coach.  Hell this happens at division 3 schools where there is allegedly no scholarships.

I always bring up the difference in transfer rules among sports dominated by whites vs minorities.  I am continually surprised this isn't a bigger topic among sports talking heads.  Swimmers don't sit out.  Middle linebackers sit out.  Any and all talk of academic reasons die right then and there.  I don't think its direct discrimination.  But, the law doesn't care if its not on purpose.  Disparate impact exists here.
Last Edited: 2/18/2014 8:49:10 AM by Ohio69
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,763
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 8:55 AM
settings_applications edit_note
With the recent group of football players from Northwestern organizing into a union, you're going to see the start of some big changes in football and basketball, this transfer rule among them. The kids want more of a voice to balance the power that is very skewed against them. I know many of you will say that you would have given your right arm to play on scholarship and what are these kids complaining about, but times and circumstances have changed dramatically. Money is one thing, but the long outdated transfer rules and health and safety issues are being considered. check out these articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/sports/ncaafootball/nor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/opinion/nocera-a-union-...
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 9:31 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Saw this on Twitter: First 5-game home losing streak in 40 years for the Illini. Haven't lost 7 in a row since 1908. 

Here's an article on the dilemma Groce got into when a Top 50 PG recruit bailed on him: O'Brien: How Illinois got back in the race for Stevenson's Jalen Brunson

 


interesting but often times true quote from the dad.  Kids should be able to move without penalty if the coach leaves.

“My son is going to play for a coach, not a university. You go to play for a coach, you adjust to the university. So there needs to be trust.” 


And coaches should be required to honor contracts that they have signed as well, right? 

I have to say, someone on a radio show mentioned the way it's done with baseball players, and I think that would be a good way to go.  Or how about this:  Kid leaves early for the pro's, he or she pay back their scholarship dollars?
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 10:41 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
  I always bring up the difference in transfer rules among sports dominated by whites vs minorities.  I am continually surprised this isn't a bigger topic among sports talking heads.  Swimmers don't sit out.  Middle linebackers sit out.


I think you may be confusing "white" and "black" with "green."  The sports that generally engage the traditional transfer rule are those that Universities make their dollars and reputations.  There is more of an effort to hold onto their "assets" in these sports.  Unless you think the NCAA is using the transfer rule in hockey to "keep the man down."
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 6:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
cc cat wrote:expand_more
I always bring up the difference in transfer rules among sports dominated by whites vs minorities. I am continually surprised this isn't a bigger topic among sports talking heads. Swimmers don't sit out. Middle linebackers sit out.


I think you may be confusing "white" and "black" with "green." The sports that generally engage the traditional transfer rule are those that Universities make their dollars and reputations. There is more of an effort to hold onto their "assets" in these sports. Unless you think the NCAA is using the transfer rule in hockey to "keep the man down."
Doesn't matter why in the end if the result is a protected class being treated differently. I think that's happening now. The NCAA would just make everyone sit a year instead of reforming hoops and football though.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 2/18/2014 9:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Let's get this thread back on track - "Groce too..............."
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 8:22 AM
settings_applications edit_note
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
Let's get this thread back on track - "Groce to..............."


Groce to Kent State.
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 2:37 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
If you transfer to a school you have to sit out a year.  Unless you have a redshirt available, that counts against your eligibility.  Are you trying to say it doesn't?  Or are we talking about 2 different issues?


You have to sit a year in those 4 sports. You do not lose a year of eligibility. YOu still get 4 years to play. If you have an injury at your new school you may get another year. I know of guys who have been playing 6 years out from HS.

EDIT I did not think about the redshirt being used. Sorry. This transfer pdf makes it more confusing by talking about the 5 year clock....yet i know of guys with a redshirt transfer and then an injury

Ya so that is my issue.

Year 1: School A. Redshirt
Year 2. School A. Play. Coach leaves. Transfer.
Year 3. Transfer and sit out
Year 4. Play
Year 5. Play

That is my issue with sitting out a year.  It doesn't typically hurt basketball players as much because there tends to be less redshirts.  Football transfers get crushed by this.


 
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 3:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
the123kid wrote:expand_more
If you transfer to a school you have to sit out a year.  Unless you have a redshirt available, that counts against your eligibility.  Are you trying to say it doesn't?  Or are we talking about 2 different issues?


You have to sit a year in those 4 sports. You do not lose a year of eligibility. YOu still get 4 years to play. If you have an injury at your new school you may get another year. I know of guys who have been playing 6 years out from HS.

EDIT I did not think about the redshirt being used. Sorry. This transfer pdf makes it more confusing by talking about the 5 year clock....yet i know of guys with a redshirt transfer and then an injury

Ya so that is my issue.

Year 1: School A. Redshirt
Year 2. School A. Play. Coach leaves. Transfer.
Year 3. Transfer and sit out
Year 4. Play
Year 5. Play

That is my issue with sitting out a year.  It doesn't typically hurt basketball players as much because there tends to be less redshirts.  Football transfers get crushed by this.

 

Based on this, you've only used 3 years of eligibility (Years 2, 4, 5) so you should be eligible to play in Year 6.

 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Doesn't matter why in the end if the result is a protected class being treated differently. I think that's happening now. The NCAA would just make everyone sit a year instead of reforming hoops and football though.


Weren't the majority of players white when the rule was instituted (and isn't the racial divide in football fairly even)? I imagine you'd have a very hard time proving this, especially because the rule affects everyone.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 9:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
You are probably right JSF. Nobody ever agrees with me when I bring up that theory.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 2/19/2014 11:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Let's get this thread back on track - "Groce to..............."


Groce to Kent State.

With a couple more paragraphs in his contract than Geno had.

I would say more likely Testicle Tech.
Last Edited: 2/19/2014 11:56:05 PM by RSBobcat
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/20/2014 8:00 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ha RS. You think Groce will end up at Balls. Nahhh. WHen guys leave Illinois they end up pretty well off. Even Lon Kreuger landed in a pretty good spot. 

I kept thinking of  this thread and how much Western looked like a protected class sport the other night. 



Groce got a big win at Minnesota last night. POst game thread reflects the fans bipolarity after talking about the seat getting warm following the tO$U loss. 


I was thinking all day of whom the Minny coach reminded me of....finally got it figured out. 

Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
Doesn't matter why in the end if the result is a protected class being treated differently. I think that's happening now. The NCAA would just make everyone sit a year instead of reforming hoops and football though.


Weren't the majority of players white when the rule was instituted (and isn't the racial divide in football fairly even)? I imagine you'd have a very hard time proving this, especially because the rule affects everyone.


I agree with JSF on this.  Race has nothing to do with this rule. 

The big deal is keeping vultures from recruiting students when they are in college.  You know damn well it would happen constantly in football and basketball if students didn't need to sit out a year. 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/20/2014 10:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Doesn't matter why in the end if the result is a protected class being treated differently. I think that's happening now. The NCAA would just make everyone sit a year instead of reforming hoops and football though.


Weren't the majority of players white when the rule was instituted (and isn't the racial divide in football fairly even)? I imagine you'd have a very hard time proving this, especially because the rule affects everyone.


I agree with JSF on this.  Race has nothing to do with this rule. 

The big deal is keeping vultures from recruiting students when they are in college.  You know damn well it would happen constantly in football and basketball if students didn't need to sit out a year. 
\

    
While the NCAA maintains the rule is there to ensure academics are stressed in those transfers I agree with your first assertion. 



 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 2/20/2014 10:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FWIW

message board fodder from Illinois regarding Paul




889835 wrote:expand_more
The Paul situation is completely different. He was brought here to contribute a year away from even being eligible. He played in a bad conference but he was Freshman of the Year, so atleast he was the best freshman in the bad conference. Obviously I know every player the staff brings in isnt going to be a home run, I was just saying the staff probably has an easier time projecting what he will do since he's already played at the Division 1 level. I'm sure that's true of most transfer situations.
 
Ill admit, I'm a little biased. I was a big BP fan and maybe I have a little bit of the Head Syndrome you mention earlier. I think he's an established player at the Division 1 level who can make a pretty big impact here right away.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 56
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)