2012 Roster

but in a case of coaching change I think ted's idea is pretty reasonable but if no coaching change I'd agree with you

I understand your point but I think the NCAA would then publically be admitting the kid is picking the coach and not the school and I don't think they will do that.

Everyone knows the kids are picking the coach not the school. You think the NCAA is trying to hide the fact that recruits go to SJ because TGAPL is there but didn't go to SJ because Norm was? Who do you think they think they're fooling? If kids picked schools no one would have to recruit at all and everyone would go to Stanford.

The NCAA won't grant releases because you don't give rights to chattel.

And full release from schollies wit no 1-year penalty when they is a coaching change. The end.

Should students athletes also be allowed to drop and replace all of their classes if a professor isn't teaching a class that the student expected him/her to? IMO if the coach leaves, tough cookies. Man up, and go to the school that you chose. If the coach is the ONLY reason you picked a school, maybe you don't belong in school.

Everyone knows the kids are picking the coach not the school. You think the NCAA is trying to hide the fact that recruits go to SJ because TGAPL is there but didn't go to SJ because Norm was?

Everyone does know it but the NCAA is not going to say it. They are going to attempt to spin the image of college athletics being somewhat about academics.

Quote from: Choz4Life on September 17, 2012, 03:23:20 PM

And full release from schollies wit no 1-year penalty when they is a coaching change. The end.

Should students athletes also be allowed to drop and replace all of their classes if a professor isn't teaching a class that the student expected him/her to? IMO if the coach leaves, tough cookies. Man up, and go to the school that you chose. If the coach is the ONLY reason you picked a school, maybe you don't belong in school.

Not sure yo analogy works since kids can drop a class witout penalty fo like the first few weeks. But whateva.

Here's how it works: A player may take an official that consists of 2 or 3 days on a campus. But that same player has already spent months, maybe years, getting to know the HC, the staff on the recruiting trail. Its the coach he commit to, not the school like Foad say.

The player has the short end of the stick here. He is penalized for changing his mind or getting out of the situation. And yet schollies is only a one-year committment for the school. Meaning they is no penalty on the new coach who cuts and guts when he come in.

We seen The Master do it down at SMU. But The Master aint no Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Quote from: sju89tr on September 17, 2012, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: Moose on September 17, 2012, 02:00:25 PM

Quote from: stevep502 on September 17, 2012, 01:56:08 PM

Once you transfer you must normally sit out a year.
So he could have played 1 year @ A&M and 2 @ St Johns or
1/2 @ A&M & 2.5 @ St Johns.  (glad he chose the 2nd)

Either way he plays 3 years. He & Max are both sophomores.
They must both sit 2 semesters (?)
They both will finish eligibility in May 2015 with Greene, Pointer etc

If Branch played the whole year and then came to STJ he would get 3 full years to to play not the 2 or 2.5 you mentioned. 

Max will not finish the same time as Branch.  You get 5 years to play 4 years.  Max is in his 2nd year but his soph 'season' won't start until Fall of 13.

In my opinion they need to make changes to the transfer rules to give a kid the chance to earn the year of eligibility back, such as graduating on time or a GPA for example especially for those who left during their freshman year

   

Nobody loses a year of eligiblity, not sure what that means.  The rule is you get to complete 4 years of playing eligiblity in 5 years.  So assuming you did not burn a year redshirting already then your sit year is not a lost year of eligiblity, it is simply a sit year. 

Secondly Branch will play 4 years.  Yes he will miss some games in 2 different years because he transferred mid-year, a quirky transfer, but that does not mean he did NOT play at all those years.  He will have played in live games last season, this season and then presumably 2 more seasons.  That is 4 seasons.  Remember if he waited and transferred at the end of the school year in May he would be sitting this ENTIRE season out as opposed to just the first few games.

While technically Branch can play in 4 years or seasons in reality he is only actually being eligible to play 3 seasons worth of games numbers wise. Say there are 30 game seasons-4 seasons are 120 games while Branch will play 90 over those 4 seasons because of mid year transfer and he will only be in college for 4 years. So if you REALLY have 5 yrs to play 4 why not change the rule and give the mid year transfer his 5th yr to play a 4th season WORTH of games. Just a suggestion so as not to take games away from a mid year transfer.

Quote from: fordham96 on September 18, 2012, 09:02:02 AM

Quote from: sju89tr on September 17, 2012, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: Moose on September 17, 2012, 02:00:25 PM

Quote from: stevep502 on September 17, 2012, 01:56:08 PM

Once you transfer you must normally sit out a year.
So he could have played 1 year @ A&M and 2 @ St Johns or
1/2 @ A&M & 2.5 @ St Johns.  (glad he chose the 2nd)

Either way he plays 3 years. He & Max are both sophomores.
They must both sit 2 semesters (?)
They both will finish eligibility in May 2015 with Greene, Pointer etc

If Branch played the whole year and then came to STJ he would get 3 full years to to play not the 2 or 2.5 you mentioned. 

Max will not finish the same time as Branch.  You get 5 years to play 4 years.  Max is in his 2nd year but his soph 'season' won't start until Fall of 13.

In my opinion they need to make changes to the transfer rules to give a kid the chance to earn the year of eligibility back, such as graduating on time or a GPA for example especially for those who left during their freshman year

   

Nobody loses a year of eligiblity, not sure what that means.  The rule is you get to complete 4 years of playing eligiblity in 5 years.  So assuming you did not burn a year redshirting already then your sit year is not a lost year of eligiblity, it is simply a sit year. 

Secondly Branch will play 4 years.  Yes he will miss some games in 2 different years because he transferred mid-year, a quirky transfer, but that does not mean he did NOT play at all those years.  He will have played in live games last season, this season and then presumably 2 more seasons.  That is 4 seasons.  Remember if he waited and transferred at the end of the school year in May he would be sitting this ENTIRE season out as opposed to just the first few games.

While technically Branch can play in 4 years or seasons in reality he is only actually being eligible to play 3 seasons worth of games numbers wise. Say there are 30 game seasons-4 seasons are 120 games while Branch will play 90 over those 4 seasons because of mid year transfer and he will only be in college for 4 years. So if you REALLY have 5 yrs to play 4 why not change the rule and give the mid year transfer his 5th yr to play a 4th season WORTH of games. Just a suggestion so as not to take games away from a mid year transfer.

Then don't transfer mid-year. 

And don't equate all games as if playing St. Francis in December is the same as playing Georgetown in January.  He will be eligible for some non-conference in December and the entire conference schedule thereafter.   More then HALF by the way, the conference schedule alone is 18 games.  Your math is wrong.

Forget about transferring.  Let's say you play in 15 games your freshman season and due to injuries or lack of playing time you don't play at all in the 15 other games.  Should you be able to get 1/2 of a season back later on in your career?  And then after you play those 15 games you have to quit the team?  You can't play this total possible games nonsense.

The question was why do you lose eligiblity if you tranfer?  The answer is YOU DON'T.  Period.  There are problems in college basketball but losing eligiblity when transferring is not one of them.

Quote from: Celtics11 on September 18, 2012, 01:34:26 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on September 18, 2012, 09:02:02 AM

Quote from: sju89tr on September 17, 2012, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: Moose on September 17, 2012, 02:00:25 PM

Quote from: stevep502 on September 17, 2012, 01:56:08 PM

Once you transfer you must normally sit out a year.
So he could have played 1 year @ A&M and 2 @ St Johns or
1/2 @ A&M & 2.5 @ St Johns.  (glad he chose the 2nd)

Either way he plays 3 years. He & Max are both sophomores.
They must both sit 2 semesters (?)
They both will finish eligibility in May 2015 with Greene, Pointer etc

If Branch played the whole year and then came to STJ he would get 3 full years to to play not the 2 or 2.5 you mentioned. 

Max will not finish the same time as Branch.  You get 5 years to play 4 years.  Max is in his 2nd year but his soph 'season' won't start until Fall of 13.

In my opinion they need to make changes to the transfer rules to give a kid the chance to earn the year of eligibility back, such as graduating on time or a GPA for example especially for those who left during their freshman year

   

Nobody loses a year of eligiblity, not sure what that means.  The rule is you get to complete 4 years of playing eligiblity in 5 years.  So assuming you did not burn a year redshirting already then your sit year is not a lost year of eligiblity, it is simply a sit year. 

Secondly Branch will play 4 years.  Yes he will miss some games in 2 different years because he transferred mid-year, a quirky transfer, but that does not mean he did NOT play at all those years.  He will have played in live games last season, this season and then presumably 2 more seasons.  That is 4 seasons.  Remember if he waited and transferred at the end of the school year in May he would be sitting this ENTIRE season out as opposed to just the first few games.

While technically Branch can play in 4 years or seasons in reality he is only actually being eligible to play 3 seasons worth of games numbers wise. Say there are 30 game seasons-4 seasons are 120 games while Branch will play 90 over those 4 seasons because of mid year transfer and he will only be in college for 4 years. So if you REALLY have 5 yrs to play 4 why not change the rule and give the mid year transfer his 5th yr to play a 4th season WORTH of games. Just a suggestion so as not to take games away from a mid year transfer.

Then don't transfer mid-year. 

And don't equate all games as if playing St. Francis in December is the same as playing Georgetown in January.  He will be eligible for some non-conference in December and the entire conference schedule thereafter.   More then HALF by the way, the conference schedule alone is 18 games.  Your math is wrong.

Forget about transferring.  Let's say you play in 15 games your freshman season and due to injuries or lack of playing time you don't play at all in the 15 other games.  Should you be able to get 1/2 of a season back later on in your career?  And then after you play those 15 games you have to quit the team?  You can't play this total possible games nonsense.

The question was why do you lose eligiblity if you tranfer?  The answer is YOU DON'T.  Period.  There are problems in college basketball but losing eligiblity when transferring is not one of them.

Actually, you do Fordham.  The math is simple.  Because Branch transferred mid season, he lost his second semester eligibility at A&M and his first semester here.  Since he was not allowed to play 2 semesters while sitting iut and he lost that time on the court, he effectively lost an entire season of eligibility..  There's no way to misconstrue that. 

Quote from: fordham96 on September 18, 2012, 02:09:04 PM

Quote from: Celtics11 on September 18, 2012, 01:34:26 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on September 18, 2012, 09:02:02 AM

Quote from: sju89tr on September 17, 2012, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: Moose on September 17, 2012, 02:00:25 PM

Quote from: stevep502 on September 17, 2012, 01:56:08 PM

Once you transfer you must normally sit out a year.
So he could have played 1 year @ A&M and 2 @ St Johns or
1/2 @ A&M & 2.5 @ St Johns.  (glad he chose the 2nd)

Either way he plays 3 years. He & Max are both sophomores.
They must both sit 2 semesters (?)
They both will finish eligibility in May 2015 with Greene, Pointer etc

If Branch played the whole year and then came to STJ he would get 3 full years to to play not the 2 or 2.5 you mentioned. 

Max will not finish the same time as Branch.  You get 5 years to play 4 years.  Max is in his 2nd year but his soph 'season' won't start until Fall of 13.

In my opinion they need to make changes to the transfer rules to give a kid the chance to earn the year of eligibility back, such as graduating on time or a GPA for example especially for those who left during their freshman year

   

Nobody loses a year of eligiblity, not sure what that means.  The rule is you get to complete 4 years of playing eligiblity in 5 years.  So assuming you did not burn a year redshirting already then your sit year is not a lost year of eligiblity, it is simply a sit year. 

Secondly Branch will play 4 years.  Yes he will miss some games in 2 different years because he transferred mid-year, a quirky transfer, but that does not mean he did NOT play at all those years.  He will have played in live games last season, this season and then presumably 2 more seasons.  That is 4 seasons.  Remember if he waited and transferred at the end of the school year in May he would be sitting this ENTIRE season out as opposed to just the first few games.

While technically Branch can play in 4 years or seasons in reality he is only actually being eligible to play 3 seasons worth of games numbers wise. Say there are 30 game seasons-4 seasons are 120 games while Branch will play 90 over those 4 seasons because of mid year transfer and he will only be in college for 4 years. So if you REALLY have 5 yrs to play 4 why not change the rule and give the mid year transfer his 5th yr to play a 4th season WORTH of games. Just a suggestion so as not to take games away from a mid year transfer.

Then don't transfer mid-year. 

And don't equate all games as if playing St. Francis in December is the same as playing Georgetown in January.  He will be eligible for some non-conference in December and the entire conference schedule thereafter.   More then HALF by the way, the conference schedule alone is 18 games.  Your math is wrong.

Forget about transferring.  Let's say you play in 15 games your freshman season and due to injuries or lack of playing time you don't play at all in the 15 other games.  Should you be able to get 1/2 of a season back later on in your career?  And then after you play those 15 games you have to quit the team?  You can't play this total possible games nonsense.

The question was why do you lose eligiblity if you tranfer?  The answer is YOU DON'T.  Period.  There are problems in college basketball but losing eligiblity when transferring is not one of them.

Actually, you do Fordham.  The math is simple.  Because Branch transferred mid season, he lost his second semester eligibility at A&M and his first semester here.  Since he was not allowed to play 2 semesters while sitting iut and he lost that time on the court, he effectively lost an entire season of eligibility..  There's no way to misconstrue that.

No I did not.  He chose to transfer mid-season.  But again the season's are not split in half equally between when you transfer or when you are eligible.  That is simply not fair to say.


He lost games he did not lose a season.  You can mix and match and add games from DIFFERENT seasons all you want, but I can do that thru injury and say player X played 4 years for ABC and because of injuries he missed a total of 30 games over 4 years.  Does that mean player X missed the equivalent of 1 full season even though he actively participated in 4 FULL seasons despite not playing in every game?  Should he then get a 5th season of eligibility?

You could argue that but again when does it stop.  There is no such thing as a 1/2 of a season or a 1/3 of a season for obvious reasons I detailed.  You could play that game until you are blue in the face. 

Suck it up.  It ain't that bad. 

Quote from: Poison on September 18, 2012, 09:32:41 AM

Quote from: Choz4Life on September 17, 2012, 03:23:20 PM

And full release from schollies wit no 1-year penalty when they is a coaching change. The end.

Should students athletes also be allowed to drop and replace all of their classes if a professor isn't teaching a class that the student expected him/her to? IMO if the coach leaves, tough cookies. Man up, and go to the school that you chose. If the coach is the ONLY reason you picked a school, maybe you don't belong in school.

Not sure yo analogy works since kids can drop a class witout penalty fo like the first few weeks. But whateva.

Here's how it works: A player may take an official that consists of 2 or 3 days on a campus. But that same player has already spent months, maybe years, getting to know the HC, the staff on the recruiting trail. Its the coach he commit to, not the school like Foad say.

The player has the short end of the stick here. He is penalized for changing his mind or getting out of the situation. And yet schollies is only a one-year committment for the school. Meaning they is no penalty on the new coach who cuts and guts when he come in.

We seen The Master do it down at SMU. But The Master aint no Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Excuse me for a moment while I pull out my violin. Yes, I'm aware, the coach has far more freedom when it comes to coming and going. The thing is, that's his job. He's not in school working towards a college degree.

If you sign on w a school and the coach leaves, I suggest you grow up and give the new guy a chance. It also might be healthy to take a look at what else that school has to offer since the likelihood of you playing in the league is slim to none. 

If it doesn't work out, and you want to look elsewhere, you're allowed to. Sure there's a penalty for that, but is it really so bad?

He can sit out the entire year and have 3 years left if he wanted to but he chose not to do that so he could play sooner.  I dont think it's a good idea to give players 1/2 year eligibilty credits.  Either you use a whole year of eligibilty our you don't.

Excuse me for a moment while I pull out my violin. Yes, I'm aware, the coach has far more freedom when it comes to coming and going. The thing is, that's his job. He's not in school working towards a college degree.

If you sign on w a school and the coach leaves, I suggest you grow up and give the new guy a chance. It also might be healthy to take a look at what else that school has to offer since the likelihood of you playing in the league is slim to none. 

If it doesn't work out, and you want to look elsewhere, you're allowed to. Sure there's a penalty for that, but is it really so bad?

Thing is this is a job for a player as much as it is for a coach. 'Cept the coach got a multi-year contract while the player only has a one-year contract.

You think its fair for a new coach to jettison the prior regime's players? Happens all the time. Why not make it more fair for the players - that they is a level playin field evrytime they is a coaching change.... is that really so bad?

And Im not into the violin music. More a bass man myselves.

He can sit out the entire year and have 3 years left if he wanted to but he chose not to do that so he could play sooner.  I dont think it's a good idea to give players 1/2 year eligibilty credits.  Either you use a whole year of eligibilty our you don't.

Thanks, I was going to make that point but wanted to finish the thread first.

Also, A kid who transfers mid year is also putting the school he's leaving in a difficult situation since he can't be replaced.  For that reason alone there should be rules to dissuade the practice.  Trust me, you don't want to make that easier given the way transfers are already a plague to the game.

Quote from: Poison on September 18, 2012, 03:18:14 PM

Excuse me for a moment while I pull out my violin. Yes, I'm aware, the coach has far more freedom when it comes to coming and going. The thing is, that's his job. He's not in school working towards a college degree.

If you sign on w a school and the coach leaves, I suggest you grow up and give the new guy a chance. It also might be healthy to take a look at what else that school has to offer since the likelihood of you playing in the league is slim to none. 

If it doesn't work out, and you want to look elsewhere, you're allowed to. Sure there's a penalty for that, but is it really so bad?

Thing is this is a job for a player as much as it is for a coach. 'Cept the coach got a multi-year contract while the player only has a one-year contract.

You think its fair for a new coach to jettison the prior regime's players? Happens all the time. Why not make it more
fair for
the players - that they is a level playin field evrytime they is a coaching change.... is that really so bad?

And Im not into the violin music. More a bass man myselves.

If the ship is revoked, I'm in agreement with you, that's not fair. If the player is still welcome to attend the college,
I really don't see how it's unfair. Yes, the coach makes millions, and the players are only given college tuition, food and board. I would vote to keep it that way. I certainly do not have any sympathy for those who treat it like a job, and not like school.

It's student athlete. The student part is first. Like I said earlier, it's a great time to grow up, but maybe not really,
because you're still going to be treated like a king on campus.

The coach paid his dues. Student athletes need to as well.