Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?

  • 92 replies
  • 14998 views

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #60 on: February 14, 2016, 07:23:16 PM »
Re: Fortune, has there been something recently indicating he would leave Boulder? This is from December;

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-josh-fortune-1218-20151218-story.html

And more recently;

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_29482833/josh-fortune-wesley-gordon-return

I'm told Fortune is a goner if Xavier Johnson, who is currently practicing with the team, takes a medical redshirt and returns for a 5th year, barring a surprise departure from someone else. It makes sense when you see that Colorado has two soph guards starting over him that both shoot near 50% from three--his most valuable skill--two junior forwards that play 21-26 mpg and a stud SG transfer redshirting this year. And he's only getting 22 mpg this year without Johnson and the transfer.

As for the intraconference transfer rule (if it was adopted) I'd imagine that the grad-transfer rule overrides it like it does with the long-standing one-year residency requirement. It would be interesting to see if Fortune would go back to  Providence if he does transfer. I trust Matt A is well informed on the situation and probably that of several other potential transfers.
How could the grad-transfer rule supercede a conference rule?  The grad transfer rule is an NCAA rule, which allows players who have graduated to transfer right away, if the school will have them. The intra conference rule is imposed by the Big East, so the Big East schools can't have him. This is, of course, if the old rule carried over to the new charter. If it wasn't, we would be free to recruit him.

The old Big East required all transfers to sit out one year before playing--no exceptions. The NCAA subsequently passed a rule allowing eligible grads to transfer and play immediately thereby  superseding the Big East's (and that of other conferences) residency requirement. Regardless, I think a reasonable interpretation of the situation under the old rule (if adopted) is that he's washed his hands of Providence and forbidding him to play a year after graduating and being removed two years is not in the spirit of the rule.
No, the Big East forbade any player who "previously signed an LOI with a Big East school" to sign one with someone else. Period." No exceptions". It doesn't have anything to do with sitting a year, or where you eventually transfer from. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with this intra conference restriction.  And neither does the NCAA's (this is not a Big East rule) of sitting out one year for regular transfers.

The old Big East also had no exceptions to the residency requirement. It forbade every transfer from playing immediately.  The NCAA has the power to override a conference rule.  It's not really worthwhile to keep discussing this as we don't even know if the conference adopted the old rules and we don't know if Fortune or SJU have interest in the other.  I'm sure if there is interest on SJU's part, Matt A is all over it and already has an answer regarding the rule.



I thought you alluded to there being interest

The message I was attempting to convey was that he is almost certainly going to be available. 


hnk

  • *****
  • 1681
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #61 on: February 14, 2016, 07:23:50 PM »
Upper body....lower body........somebody.....anybody.....with  heft...and muscle......and big time rebounding ability.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #62 on: February 14, 2016, 07:35:24 PM »
Re: Fortune, has there been something recently indicating he would leave Boulder? This is from December;

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-josh-fortune-1218-20151218-story.html

And more recently;

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_29482833/josh-fortune-wesley-gordon-return

I'm told Fortune is a goner if Xavier Johnson, who is currently practicing with the team, takes a medical redshirt and returns for a 5th year, barring a surprise departure from someone else. It makes sense when you see that Colorado has two soph guards starting over him that both shoot near 50% from three--his most valuable skill--two junior forwards that play 21-26 mpg and a stud SG transfer redshirting this year. And he's only getting 22 mpg this year without Johnson and the transfer.

As for the intraconference transfer rule (if it was adopted) I'd imagine that the grad-transfer rule overrides it like it does with the long-standing one-year residency requirement. It would be interesting to see if Fortune would go back to  Providence if he does transfer. I trust Matt A is well informed on the situation and probably that of several other potential transfers.
How could the grad-transfer rule supercede a conference rule?  The grad transfer rule is an NCAA rule, which allows players who have graduated to transfer right away, if the school will have them. The intra conference rule is imposed by the Big East, so the Big East schools can't have him. This is, of course, if the old rule carried over to the new charter. If it wasn't, we would be free to recruit him.

The old Big East required all transfers to sit out one year before playing--no exceptions. The NCAA subsequently passed a rule allowing eligible grads to transfer and play immediately thereby  superseding the Big East's (and that of other conferences) residency requirement. Regardless, I think a reasonable interpretation of the situation under the old rule (if adopted) is that he's washed his hands of Providence and forbidding him to play a year after graduating and being removed two years is not in the spirit of the rule.
No, the Big East forbade any player who "previously signed an LOI with a Big East school" to sign one with someone else. Period." No exceptions". It doesn't have anything to do with sitting a year, or where you eventually transfer from. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with this intra conference restriction.  And neither does the NCAA's (this is not a Big East rule) of sitting out one year for regular transfers.

The old Big East also had no exceptions to the residency requirement. It forbade every transfer from playing immediately.  The NCAA has the power to override a conference rule.  It's not really worthwhile to keep discussing this as we don't even know if the conference adopted the old rules and we don't know if Fortune or SJU have interest in the other.  I'm sure if there is interest on SJU's part, Matt A is all over it and already has an answer regarding the rule.
The NCAA may have the power to override a conference rule, but they certainly did not do it with the grad transfer rule.  The graduate transfer rule, as it is written, does not address intraconference transfer rules at all. So it only overrides the one year residency requirement for graduates who want a grad program that their current school does not offer. It doesn't address other transferring players. It says that in this case, the one year residency requirement is waived. There may be other reasons why you can't transfer somewhere that are not addressed here.

It says nothing about restrictions on players signing LOI's with two different conference teams.  And the Big East will never let you have a scholarship with two different conference schools no matter how long you sit out.  So the grad transfer rule has nothing to do with this situation with Josh Fortune signing with two different Big East teams.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 07:42:22 PM by WillieG »

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #63 on: February 14, 2016, 07:40:23 PM »
Re: Fortune, has there been something recently indicating he would leave Boulder? This is from December;

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-josh-fortune-1218-20151218-story.html

And more recently;

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_29482833/josh-fortune-wesley-gordon-return

I'm told Fortune is a goner if Xavier Johnson, who is currently practicing with the team, takes a medical redshirt and returns for a 5th year, barring a surprise departure from someone else. It makes sense when you see that Colorado has two soph guards starting over him that both shoot near 50% from three--his most valuable skill--two junior forwards that play 21-26 mpg and a stud SG transfer redshirting this year. And he's only getting 22 mpg this year without Johnson and the transfer.

As for the intraconference transfer rule (if it was adopted) I'd imagine that the grad-transfer rule overrides it like it does with the long-standing one-year residency requirement. It would be interesting to see if Fortune would go back to  Providence if he does transfer. I trust Matt A is well informed on the situation and probably that of several other potential transfers.
How could the grad-transfer rule supercede a conference rule?  The grad transfer rule is an NCAA rule, which allows players who have graduated to transfer right away, if the school will have them. The intra conference rule is imposed by the Big East, so the Big East schools can't have him. This is, of course, if the old rule carried over to the new charter. If it wasn't, we would be free to recruit him.

The old Big East required all transfers to sit out one year before playing--no exceptions. The NCAA subsequently passed a rule allowing eligible grads to transfer and play immediately thereby  superseding the Big East's (and that of other conferences) residency requirement. Regardless, I think a reasonable interpretation of the situation under the old rule (if adopted) is that he's washed his hands of Providence and forbidding him to play a year after graduating and being removed two years is not in the spirit of the rule.
No, the Big East forbade any player who "previously signed an LOI with a Big East school" to sign one with someone else. Period." No exceptions". It doesn't have anything to do with sitting a year, or where you eventually transfer from. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with this intra conference restriction.  And neither does the NCAA's (this is not a Big East rule) of sitting out one year for regular transfers.

The old Big East also had no exceptions to the residency requirement. It forbade every transfer from playing immediately.  The NCAA has the power to override a conference rule.  It's not really worthwhile to keep discussing this as we don't even know if the conference adopted the old rules and we don't know if Fortune or SJU have interest in the other.  I'm sure if there is interest on SJU's part, Matt A is all over it and already has an answer regarding the rule.



I thought you alluded to there being interest

The message I was attempting to convey was that he is almost certainly going to be available.
Not to us though, as long as that provision was carried over to the new charter. Which, admittedly, it might not have been.  But I think it probably was.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #64 on: February 14, 2016, 08:04:50 PM »
Re: Fortune, has there been something recently indicating he would leave Boulder? This is from December;

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-josh-fortune-1218-20151218-story.html

And more recently;

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_29482833/josh-fortune-wesley-gordon-return

I'm told Fortune is a goner if Xavier Johnson, who is currently practicing with the team, takes a medical redshirt and returns for a 5th year, barring a surprise departure from someone else. It makes sense when you see that Colorado has two soph guards starting over him that both shoot near 50% from three--his most valuable skill--two junior forwards that play 21-26 mpg and a stud SG transfer redshirting this year. And he's only getting 22 mpg this year without Johnson and the transfer.

As for the intraconference transfer rule (if it was adopted) I'd imagine that the grad-transfer rule overrides it like it does with the long-standing one-year residency requirement. It would be interesting to see if Fortune would go back to  Providence if he does transfer. I trust Matt A is well informed on the situation and probably that of several other potential transfers.
How could the grad-transfer rule supercede a conference rule?  The grad transfer rule is an NCAA rule, which allows players who have graduated to transfer right away, if the school will have them. The intra conference rule is imposed by the Big East, so the Big East schools can't have him. This is, of course, if the old rule carried over to the new charter. If it wasn't, we would be free to recruit him.

The old Big East required all transfers to sit out one year before playing--no exceptions. The NCAA subsequently passed a rule allowing eligible grads to transfer and play immediately thereby  superseding the Big East's (and that of other conferences) residency requirement. Regardless, I think a reasonable interpretation of the situation under the old rule (if adopted) is that he's washed his hands of Providence and forbidding him to play a year after graduating and being removed two years is not in the spirit of the rule.
No, the Big East forbade any player who "previously signed an LOI with a Big East school" to sign one with someone else. Period." No exceptions". It doesn't have anything to do with sitting a year, or where you eventually transfer from. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with this intra conference restriction.  And neither does the NCAA's (this is not a Big East rule) of sitting out one year for regular transfers.

The old Big East also had no exceptions to the residency requirement. It forbade every transfer from playing immediately.  The NCAA has the power to override a conference rule.  It's not really worthwhile to keep discussing this as we don't even know if the conference adopted the old rules and we don't know if Fortune or SJU have interest in the other.  I'm sure if there is interest on SJU's part, Matt A is all over it and already has an answer regarding the rule.
The rule instituting a residency requirement was an NCAA rule to begin with. The BE has nothing to do with it.  It was a universal limitation affecting all conferences. The NCAA overrode their own residency requirement rule with the grad transfer exception.  It never said anything about intra conference transfer limitations so this has nothing to do with any BE rules concerning intra conference transfers. The grad transfer exception only addresses the one year in residency requirement.

The BE will never let the player attempting to transfer within his own conference do it, no matter how long he sits out, so the NCAA waiving the one year residency requirement has no bearing whatsoever on the intra conference transfer restrictions.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 08:23:15 PM by WillieG »

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #65 on: February 14, 2016, 08:09:08 PM »
Sorry, Marillac, for the redundant posting.  Computer glitches. Thought posts got deleted.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 08:14:21 PM by WillieG »

Moose

  • *****
  • 12322
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #66 on: February 14, 2016, 08:17:38 PM »
Just an idea why doesn't someone tweet Stu Jackson or Val?
Remember who broke the Slice news

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2016, 08:48:07 PM »
Brett Bisping of Siena would be a great grad option if he were to go that route.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/61426/brett-bisping



Curious as to your reasoning

If he were to leave I would want him but would hope he stayed at Siena. No inside info just something I thought of.  Youve seen him, what do you think?

Nice role player on a team ready to make a run. I don't think that ST John's just yet, 1 more year. Siena should be the favorite in the Maac next year, ahead of Monmouth. I think he has a better chance to dance there

hnk

  • *****
  • 1681
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2016, 08:55:08 PM »
If we get a big who can rebound, defend and not be a zero on offense and we get lucky, we'll have a chance to dance next year.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2016, 09:08:23 PM »
http://georgiabasketballblog.com/top-10-possible-graduate-transfers-for-2016-17/

jimmie hall of kent st fits the bill and is a brooklyn kid also
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 09:10:24 PM by valgoth »

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #70 on: February 14, 2016, 09:14:33 PM »
Interesting.  Bernardi went to Mullin's high school and played for Jack Alese.  But what we really need is one of those 6'8'' bruisers inside.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #71 on: February 14, 2016, 10:25:15 PM »
Interesting.  Bernardi went to Mullin's high school and played for Jack Alese.  But what we really need is one of those 6'8'' bruisers inside.

Bernardo already transferred once

Moose

  • *****
  • 12322
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #72 on: February 14, 2016, 10:48:16 PM »
Interesting.  Bernardi went to Mullin's high school and played for Jack Alese.  But what we really need is one of those 6'8'' bruisers inside.

Bernardo already transferred once

Don't think that matters
Remember who broke the Slice news

goredmen

  • *****
  • 5066
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #73 on: February 14, 2016, 11:29:28 PM »
Interesting.  Bernardi went to Mullin's high school and played for Jack Alese.  But what we really need is one of those 6'8'' bruisers inside.

Bernardo already transferred once

So did Sterling Gibbs but that didn't stop him from being a 5th year transfer

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2016, 12:50:30 AM »
http://georgiabasketballblog.com/top-10-possible-graduate-transfers-for-2016-17/

jimmie hall of kent st fits the bill and is a brooklyn kid also
Transferred from Hofstra to Kent St after getting caught up in the scandal involving criminal charges for burglary with several other Hofstra players.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2016, 07:28:53 AM »
yeah just talked to a friend of mine who is insider at hofstra, he said he is a thanks but no thanks - problem waiting to happen

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2016, 10:31:49 AM »
Is this the same board that tore Lavin a new one for just considering the kid from Oregon? Now we want a player from the Hofstra scandal where's the players actually stole from their head coach? Ruined that poor guy's career. None of those people should be playing D1 ball anywhere.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2016, 01:01:18 PM »
Is this the same board that tore Lavin a new one for just considering the kid from Oregon? Now we want a player from the Hofstra scandal where's the players actually stole from their head coach? Ruined that poor guy's career. None of those people should be playing D1 ball anywhere.

You keep saying you want a wide body that is tough and plays defense.  Well, he's 240,  not even afraid of his coach, and can rack up steals.

Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2016, 03:56:52 PM »
We need a 5th year guy who can score 30 a game

Moose

  • *****
  • 12322
Re: Remaining Needs for Remaining Scholarship(s)?
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2016, 04:15:01 PM »
We need a 5th year guy who can score 30 a game

35
Remember who broke the Slice news