Don’t be players already get a cost of attendance stipend.  I thought that passed a few years ago.

GWRising wrote:

danjsport's reasoning is exactly why we have 1000+ transfers. You should work in AAU and tell players how they've been disrespected when the coach doesn't let them play the minutes they think they should play, the position they think they should play or the the offense doesn't run through them.

That said, at GW, the players always hold the cards. GW will not pull a scholarship absent a rules or academic violation. So it is almost always the player's decision to stay or leave despite the fictions we hear here.

GWRising, you have made statements like this one in the past and it leaves me shaking my head every time.  Let's ask Shandon Brown and Marcus Littles whether they felt they were holding the cards.

Yes, in the most literal sense possible, no GW coach I am aware of has ever, shall we say, pulled a Hoiberg.  Amir Harris can speak to this as his scholarship was rescinded (along with two other players) by Fred Hoiberg when he became the Nebraska head coach.  So if your definition of holding the cards is literally your scholarship will not be taken away, then you are factually correct.

However, let's now venture into the real world.  In the real world, Jamion Christian gets the GW job, sits down with Shandon and Marcus, and essentially explains that his plan really does not include them.  He points out that if they would like to play meaningful minutes, it would be better to transfer and JC even offers to help (as he did with Mezie to MSM).  Incidentally, I am not picking on JC at all, simply using him as an example.  College coaches are faced with these tough conversations all the time.

Simply put, to suggest that a player can get told that he's not likely to play much and is encouraged to transfer but in the end, the decision is up to the player represents a very loose translation of players holding the cards.  This is why I think it's very misleading to suggest that players always hold the cards at GW.  While the final decision is of course literally made by the player, the fact is the decision is really often made by the coach's influence, with the player agreeing to move on given the circumstances.  

The defense improved over the balance of the season; we were no longer giving up uncontested 3s with no defender within 10 feet of the shooter by the end. We competed on the boards even though we were outsized by most teams. We also have a scoring point guard, which is always exciting to watch. Also no sex scandals or athletic directors stalking players, that we know of, this year.

Last edited by Mentzinger (3/06/2021 6:15 pm)

Your behavior effects people-how it effects them belongs to them.

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

I would like to think that receiving a free college education that is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars is a fair tradeoff for playing basketball for the school team.   Once you start paying players dollars, it stops being an amateur sport and becomes a professional league.  But I do agree that the current system needs  tweaking.

Sorry it needs a lot more than tweaking IMO.. Everyone else is treated like professionals and are paid CASH they can do anything they want with. The players are treated as AMATEURS upon whom the whole thing rest are reduced to BARTER.

If you all get a chance read up on all the preparations for the tourney in Indianapolis. The costs are significant. Hardly an amateur event.

Mentzinger wrote:

On paying players, they do get paid. Free education, free coaching, free exposure, free meals, free room and board. Probably $200,000 all in for playing a game for four years, as well as all the fringe benefits.
It's actually really simple.
Want to get paid? Go pro.
Want a future, either in professional basketball or something else? Play in college.

But they get all that everywhere.  The transfer "problem" is due to the things they can't get everywhere:  playing time, greater attention than their current school, a student body and coaching staff with whom they feel comfortable, etc.

B.

GWRising, maybe you can help me understand your point when you say that at GW, players always hold the cards.  From what you've subsequently been saying, it sounds like you feel players in general always hold the cards in that they can accept their role, compete for more playing time, or transfer.  So why say "at GW?"  

Is the line drawn when the scholarship is pulled, like with what happened to Amir?  Anything short of this means the player should be expected to stay with his current team rather than transfer?

By the way, I also think your analysis is by no means a "one size fits all."  If you look at the end-of-bench players at a highly successful major program, these players are often far less talented than many of their teammates.  These guys might be starters at a GW but would not likely be starters at say a Wichita State.  So, they have to decide between being part of a great program and barely playing vs. playing at a lower level and receiving playing time.  They are willingly selecting the great program because that's presumably the best decision for them.  When they receive hardly any playing time, they do not become disgruntled because they knew what they signed up for.  

You seem to be choosing to ignore the enormous influence a coaching staff has.  While a coach will not say to a player that "you're never going to play here", he is likely to say something like "maybe you'll surprise me but as of now, I don't see a clear path for you to play much here."  The disconnect here is that you're saying that a player hears that from a coach, and the player is still holding the cards, while implying that in many cases, the player should stick it out and compete for playing time.  Whereas I look at this scenario and conclude that the coach does not have faith in me so if I want to play, the coach is basically telling me to go play somewhere else, without formally or officially saying so..

If I am misconstruing your position, please let me know.

A couple of points. I used "at GW" because I was using that as a specific current example. I do agree that is different than say a situation where the scholarship is being pulled or there are other issues such as say someone like Gregg Marshall causes you to leave a situation you otherwise wouldn't have left.

Coaches almost never say "you are never going to play here" unless you are a character/academic problem. They are more likely to say things like "You will have to significantly improve at X, Y or Z to get minutes," "We are bringing in other guards next year so you will have to compete for minutes" or "You've expressed that you expect to be a starter and right now I don't see that happening". The message comes across perhaps the same way if you fear competition, don't believe you can improve enough at some skill or you are not being considered for a starting role.

I guess what I am saying is that these coach-player conversations are often more nuanced but if a coach doesn't say the magic words, it is a problem.

The main problem today again is that most of these kids are conditioned mainly by the high school and AAU process to expect they should play as much as they want. The first coach that tells them "no" causes a crisis. Because we have made transferring much easier, they now have a lifeline to avoid what years ago was called competition. When 25%-30% of scholarship kids are transferring in a year, it can't all be on the coaches. As I said before the 13 to 5  nature of the game is well known. It's just that nobody believes they won't eventually be part of the 5 when they go to a school. That's the other guy's problem not mine. And suddenly it's your problem for maybe the first time in your life and you are completely unprepared to deal with it.

Last edited by GWRising (3/08/2021 10:43 am)

GW0509 wrote:

Battle showed he's not just a shooter and should continue develop into a possible first team all-conference player when it's all said and done.

Nevermind!