Anything involving SMU basketball belongs here.
No unfortunately they are not eligible to play immediately someplace else. I believe if a schools cuts you loose you should get to play elsewhere immediately. I don't believe that kids should get to transfer immediately if your coach leaves for another job or gets fired.
Good luck to all of them. Hate that they got caught in the crossfire, but that is the system. I hope they all find a good place to finish their careers and get a good education.
An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and
doesn't care who wins.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Considering subsequent events, perhaps it would be best to take down the video of Jeremiah talking about the hire of Larry Brown that's part of the top post on this board. Not telling you how to run your site, but watching that video makes me feel really bad for Jeremiah.
Not trying to be an a-hole here, but you don't have to click on the link. 99% of us would never look to embarrass any of our players, but I think it should stay.
That being said, I haven't watched it yet.
Derail the offseason!
this is the ugly part of D-1 sports, especially mens bball. Don't like the move, but suppose it had to be done. If Brown didn't intend to play those guys, he might have done them a favor. Hope they land someplace where their degrees will be at least almost as good as a degree from SMU because none of these guys are pro prospects obviously.
The ugly side of big-time college basketball. Why even pretend that education comes first. Just bring in the recruits and if they don't pan out after a year tell them they can stay and their scholarships will be honored but they will never play and/or be part of the team. What player would want to stay in that scenario. Football coaches do the same thing, sometimes with early committments. As they get better committments they go back and renig on their early offers. Any ideas for a clever marketing campaign? A new version of "one and done".
In one of Brown's interviews he describes informing the 4 kids of their release as one of the hardest things he has ever done. At the same time, he indicated he wanted to be totally honest with the kids that they simply were not going to play in his system and that it was in their best interest to know the exact situation and let them have time to make choices.
Which is more dishonest or cruel? Not telling a man and having him sit on the bench the rest of his career (which does no one any good) or letting him know the truth so he can decide to stay and graduate or go play somewhere else?
Long live Inez Perez!
But they were honoring their scholarships. Your conclusion doesn't match the facts here.
It's not "honoring a scholarship." Scholarships are year-to-year. Similarly, these young men can leave whenever they want to, and don't have to "honor" the "commitment" they make to the school. The rules are about as fair as they can be, unfortunately.
It would take ten minutes to change the rules to allow transferring players to play immediately. All the rules were written by college teams to protect their interests over the players.
Do unto others before they do unto you!!
Agree with this, though I would change it just a bit to where if a student leaves mid-season for whatever reason, he/she is eligible for the start of the next season. So, maybe a 15 minute fix to the rule. The whole concept of forcing a student to sit out an entire year upon transfer has always seemed pretty dumb to me, as does the amount of say a school has over to which school the kid can transfer and still play. Given the power a school has to decide to keep or cut a player, the athlete should have greater flexibility to move on when the separation is not of his/her choosing.
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." - Ulysses S. Grant
So then you'd have every successful player transferring to power schools, and every guy who didn't start by his sophomore year transferring to another school that needs his position... it would create mass chaos. I think if you let a player go on his own volition, they should be able to play immediately. The grey areas are there tho... what if a player just tanks and you let him go because he's not helping the team, not upholding his end of the bargain? Should he get to go anywhere immediately? What about a guy like Turner who has off the court issues? Why should he get to play immediately?
As most on this board are aware, frosh were ineligible until 1968. The primary reason was for frosh to prove themselves academically. It also allowed an athlete to adjust to college life, determine whether or not he liked the school, the coaching style/staff, gain maturity, realistically adjust to the level of competition for playing time....etc. It also allowed the coaching staff to assess the athlete without pressure and ease them into the various systems of the sport. Many of the concerns with kids like Turner would be surfaced and handled if he had been operating under the old frosh ineligible system where he had to prove himself without immediate pressure to perform both athletically and in the class room. The would also vastly change the "one and done" situation, wash kids out early on for what ever reasons and either speed up the transfer situation to immediately after the frosh year or casuse kids to adjust and remain in the program for only 3 eligible years.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests