|
Post by n00b on Feb 8, 2016 18:26:12 GMT -5
Even if we accept your premise -- that one coach is taking advantage of the rules -- that is still ONE school. Seems like word would get around and there would be recruiting consequences for that school. My point is still that, overall, the system seems to work fine. Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. With over 300 division 1 programs, I think the odds are very much against you in that statement. There are almost certainly coaches who find ways to make the life of athletes miserable who they want to transfer and use their scholarship on somebody else.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Feb 8, 2016 18:37:04 GMT -5
Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. With over 300 division 1 programs, I think the odds are very much against you in that statement. There are almost certainly coaches who find ways to make the life of athletes miserable who they want to transfer and use their scholarship on somebody else. You must have missed the word "systematically."
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Feb 8, 2016 18:38:09 GMT -5
Seems like a faulty "business" model, doesn't it? Of course. If it were true it'd be impossible to recruit for future rosters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 19:01:54 GMT -5
Seems like a faulty "business" model, doesn't it? Of course. If it were true it'd be impossible to recruit for future rosters. Not only that, but you would THINK a more efficient method would be 1) recruit better and/or 2) develop the players you do recruit. If you're constantly using replacement parts made by another business, something's seriously wrong with your own business.
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Feb 8, 2016 19:36:57 GMT -5
Even if we accept your premise -- that one coach is taking advantage of the rules -- that is still ONE school. Seems like word would get around and there would be recruiting consequences for that school. My point is still that, overall, the system seems to work fine. Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. Oh my word! That is fact, not a premise. But I don't have a problem with Cookie doing it. It's part of the rules, and a necessity for developing the best talent/roster possible. Happens in football at virtually every school. Sumlin at Texas A&M is the best recruiter in the country for other schools. Every year, since he got the job, he places more former Aggies on other school's rosters than it takes to change a lightbulb!
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Feb 8, 2016 20:11:00 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct. +1,000 The coaches in big ten are making 6 figure salaries and recruiting 14-16 year olds. If the recruit gets to college and the situation isn't working, they should be able to leave and find somewhere they can be happy...Have NEVER understood any other argument. ALL the POWER should be with the athlete....not the school or the six figure coach.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Feb 8, 2016 20:42:18 GMT -5
Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. Oh my word! That is fact, not a premise. But I don't have a problem with Cookie doing it. It's part of the rules, and a necessity for developing the best talent/roster possible. Happens in football at virtually every school. Sumlin at Texas A&M is the best recruiter in the country for other schools. Every year, since he got the job, he places more former Aggies on other school's rosters than it takes to change a lightbulb! In this post you demonstrate you don't know what the word 'fact' means.
|
|
|
Post by vbfanantic on Feb 8, 2016 20:55:20 GMT -5
Even if we accept your premise -- that one coach is taking advantage of the rules -- that is still ONE school. Seems like word would get around and there would be recruiting consequences for that school. My point is still that, overall, the system seems to work fine. Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. I am not sure what you mean by systematically, but I would say that it is a very common practice to make it as miserable as possible for athletes that coaches no longer want on scholarship. Some might define that as systematic.
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Feb 8, 2016 22:57:55 GMT -5
Oh my word! That is fact, not a premise. But I don't have a problem with Cookie doing it. It's part of the rules, and a necessity for developing the best talent/roster possible. Happens in football at virtually every school. Sumlin at Texas A&M is the best recruiter in the country for other schools. Every year, since he got the job, he places more former Aggies on other school's rosters than it takes to change a lightbulb! In this post you demonstrate you don't know what the word 'fact' means. And by your post you demonstrate you don't know what the word "reality" means. Much less are you in touch with it, Hopeless Homer.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 9, 2016 16:38:08 GMT -5
Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster. I am not sure what you mean by systematically, but I would say that it is a very common practice to make it as miserable as possible for athletes that coaches no longer want on scholarship. Some might define that as systematic. As to who is being forced off, fleeing a hostile situation, or leaving willingly, I doubt anyone knows, other than the coach, the player and her parents, and maybe teammates. I do think it is naive to believe that all transfers are leaving willingly, especially where 15 NLI signees have transferred out over ten years. Yes, this approach ("winners in/losers out") is common at many top football programs. Nick Saban at Alabama was the one who started it in earnest (or "systematically", if you will). It can be effective because it can significantly increase the number of recruits that can be brought in. You then let them fight it out over who gets to stay and who has to leave. Personally, if this becomes common for volleyball, it'll be a huge step down.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Feb 9, 2016 18:56:10 GMT -5
In this post you demonstrate you don't know what the word 'fact' means. And by your post you demonstrate you don't know what the word "reality" means. Much less are you in touch with it, Hopeless Homer. What's it like to be stupid? I imagine it's an amazing freedom. I envy you. I don't envy you in terms of following a team that can't win championships, just the "being stupid" thing.
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Feb 9, 2016 18:57:40 GMT -5
Yo momma!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 19:43:33 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by systematically, but I would say that it is a very common practice to make it as miserable as possible for athletes that coaches no longer want on scholarship. Some might define that as systematic. As to who is being forced off, fleeing a hostile situation, or leaving willingly, I doubt anyone knows, other than the coach, the player and her parents, and maybe teammates. I do think it is naive to believe that all transfers are leaving willingly, especially where 15 NLI signees have transferred out over ten years. Yes, this approach ("winners in/losers out") is common at many top football programs. Nick Saban at Alabama was the one who started it in earnest (or "systematically", if you will). It can be effective because it can significantly increase the number of recruits that can be brought in. You then let them fight it out over who gets to stay and who has to leave. Personally, if this becomes common for volleyball, it'll be a huge step down. I do not think you can compare what has to happen to control a group of 105 highly aggressive men (more in season), 85 of whom are paid to be there to managing 15 women. Maybe when a couple volleyball players stab each other over a stolen laptop in the team dinner hall, I will agree that coaching VB is as stressful and demanding. BUT, with 105 year round players, variability does not kill you as much as only having 15.... So, volleyball coaches, in theory, should need to "punt" a higher percentage of players...
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 9, 2016 21:04:55 GMT -5
BUT, with 105 year round players, variability does not kill you as much as only having 15.... So, volleyball coaches, in theory, should need to "punt" a higher percentage of players... For the program referenced, not counting the most recent class, 64% of NLI signees (14 out of 22) transferred out since 2007. That is a much "higher percentage" than is to be found even among the worst offenders in football. In his entire time at UW dating back to 2002, McLaughlin had only one NLI-signee transfer out, and that was to play sand, not indoor, volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Feb 9, 2016 22:31:44 GMT -5
BUT, with 105 year round players, variability does not kill you as much as only having 15.... So, volleyball coaches, in theory, should need to "punt" a higher percentage of players... For the program referenced, not counting the most recent class, 64% of NLI signees (14 out of 22) transferred out since 2007. That is a much "higher percentage" than is to be found even among the worst offenders in football. In his entire time at UW dating back to 2002, McLaughlin had only one NLI-signee transfer out, and that was to play sand, not indoor, volleyball. What volleyball program has had 64% of its players transfer out?? That is CRAZY....
|
|