(08-19-2015 04:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 12:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I do understand....
34.5% of all students graduate in 4 years. that's 34,500 if there were 100,000 students entering college.
51.6% of all students have graduated in 5 years. That's 51,600 if there were 100,000 students entering college.

So an additional 17,100 students have graduated in the 5th year.

Your number of 85-90% is complete JUNK..... Sorry that you can't understand that- but that's 100% on you.

So it's just the 15% increase, that you're raving about?

That could equivalently mean 85% of graduates earned their undergrad degrees in four years or less, while 99% earned them in five years or less.

dude you are so lost it's not funny. 85% of graduates don't earn them in 4 years. PERIOD. Sorry I've proven it to everyone but you about 1000 times- but you don't want to admit it.

Ok, we can still do this on your terms.

Assumed facts:

- 35% of students graduate in 4 years
- 50% of students graduate in 5 years
- the graduate transfer rule is not removed or edited
- all men's bball teams refuse to utilize redshirts going forward, meaning each athlete only has a scholarship for four years


Thus:

15% fewer members of each class will graduate by the time their scholarship runs out.

That amounts to 0.15 * (3 to 5 players per class) = 0.45 to 0.75 fewer players per class graduating by the time their scholarship runs out.


Or in other words, 1 additional player every two to three classes will not have graduated by the time his scholarship runs out. Coaches will live with that.

times 350 mens basketball teams and then times all the other sports teams.

also, the difference isn't 15 percent but 17 percent. But of course you want to diminish the difference because well, that's what you do...

Bottom line, the loophole is going to get looked at. And kids will get hurt if the loophole isn't closed, as redshirting will go away to a large degree, and that's going to leave a lot of students from getting their degree as a result.

Sorry ... 17 percent, not 15 percent. But, it won't matter because once you factor in that not every program will abolish redshirts in addition to dozens of other factors that you're ignoring (such as, motivation for the athlete to finish his degree in four years, knowing from the start that his scholarship will only last four years), there will be very little impact.

So I just proved that not many kids are going to be harmed by the decision to do away with redshirts.

Yet you will continue to plow ahead with your faulty hypothesis.


Whatever committee that examines this is going to come to the same conclusion that I do.

(08-19-2015 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You are talking a lot about Football. I don't think the football coaches are looking at it that much. But basketball it's a huge difference. And that's where the coaches have been the most vocal.

Redshirts don't happen very often in basketball. They happen, but not near at the level of football. That was what I thought you were discussing. I apologize for the assumption and confusion. That said, every one of the grad transfers I looked (I only looked at the potential "hired guns") were 3 year graduates or medical redshirts due to injury. So I don't see any reason for change. They won't not medical redshirt someone because they "may" transfer since it would bit their nose to spite their face. Plus the player could STILL redshirt by simply applying for one if they were unable to play.

(08-19-2015 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You are talking a lot about Football. I don't think the football coaches are looking at it that much. But basketball it's a huge difference. And that's where the coaches have been the most vocal.

And 17% of 13 scholarship basketball players is ... 2.21.

Meaning that around two out of 13 guys (4.25 players per class, over four classes) are not going to finish his degree on time, every four years.

That's not something a coach is going to worry about.


And again, dozens of other factors you're ignoring. Such as, the will of the player to finish his degree anyway (even without the athletic scholarship), or the school perhaps granting him an academic scholarship to get him through. Etc.

the thing is, a lot of folks are against it. Not just the mid major coaches but also guys like Coach K and Self and Calipari. NABC is against it. And a lot of folks against it are on the committee that is looking at it.

I know I saw something back in April- that most coaches were going on the assumption that next year the graduate transfer loophole will be closed up- so that was how they are going building their program for next year.

(08-19-2015 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing is, a lot of folks are against it. Not just the mid major coaches but also guys like Coach K and Self and Calipari. NABC is against it. And a lot of folks against it are on the committee that is looking at it.

I know I saw something back in April- that most coaches were going on the assumption that next year the graduate transfer loophole will be closed up- so that was how they are going building their program for next year.

I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

It seems you're conceding that the merits of the rule outweigh the (potential) consequences.

I can totally see the problems with the loopholes. Cases like what happened at Louisville have no place in college basketball. I mean you have programs that are putting together lists of guys that are graduating to see if they can recruit them. That's a joke.

(08-20-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

Um... wait a minute. can we please roll back the video footage?

(08-14-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The tables are turned stever.

Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole.


Good for athletes who graduate. If they have a year left and want to transfer -- no penalty!

Personally I like the rule. I agree it is a reward for those who graduate to look for a new environment if they are not getting what they want at their current locale. However Stever is by far not the only one complaining about it. Many a coach has called for its removal. that is probably why he is saying he thinks it will be removed.

Which coaches are saying they want the rule removed?

(08-20-2015 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

Um... wait a minute....

(08-14-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The tables are turned stever.

Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole.


Good for athletes who graduate. If they have a year left and want to transfer -- no penalty!

Personally I like the rule. I agree it is a reward for those who graduate to look for a new environment if they are not getting what they want at their current locale. However Stever is by far not the only one complaining about it. Many a coach has called for its removal. that is probably why he is saying he thinks it will be removed.

Which coaches are saying they want the rule removed?

what- Bison is changing his story? That's never happened before.

(08-20-2015 09:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I can totally see the problems with the loopholes. Cases like what happened at Louisville have no place in college basketball. I mean you have programs that are putting together lists of guys that are graduating to see if they can recruit them. That's a joke.

Sure, the active recruiting part of it seems dishonest. I can see that. And I would be fine with rules against it.

But I don't get the desire to punish the graduate, because of something coaches are doing to game the system.

(08-20-2015 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

Um... wait a minute. can we please roll back the video footage?

(08-14-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The tables are turned stever.

Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole.


Good for athletes who graduate. If they have a year left and want to transfer -- no penalty!

Personally I like the rule. I agree it is a reward for those who graduate to look for a new environment if they are not getting what they want at their current locale. However Stever is by far not the only one complaining about it. Many a coach has called for its removal. that is probably why he is saying he thinks it will be removed.

Which coaches are saying they want the rule removed?

What's your point? I asked a question. That's not making a claim.

That is not a question. It is a statement. "The tables are turned Stever. Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole." I don't see a question there. Or even a question mark

(08-20-2015 12:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is not a question. It is a statement. "The tables are turned Stever. Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole." I don't see a question there. Or even a question mark

Oh, that one. You should've quoted that one, then.

That was was one of the first posts I made, in this discussion. I was giving stever a hard time, is all. No harm, no foul.

He's given plenty of links showing coaches who have opinions about graduate transfers, anyway.

So it should be clear that we moved past that point pretty early on.

(08-20-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 12:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is not a question. It is a statement. "The tables are turned Stever. Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole." I don't see a question there. Or even a question mark

Oh, that one. You should've quoted that one, then.

That the **** are you talking about? It was IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

(08-20-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

Um... wait a minute. can we please roll back the video footage?

(08-14-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The tables are turned stever.
Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole.
Good for athletes who graduate. If they have a year left and want to transfer -- no penalty!

Personally I like the rule. I agree it is a reward for those who graduate to look for a new environment if they are not getting what they want at their current locale. However Stever is by far not the only one complaining about it. Many a coach has called for its removal. that is probably why he is saying he thinks it will be removed.

Which coaches are saying they want the rule removed?

What's your point? I asked a question. That's not making a claim.

............

(08-20-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That was was one of the first posts I made, in this discussion. I was giving stever a hard time, is all. No harm, no foul.

He's given plenty of links showing coaches who have opinions about graduate transfers, anyway.

So it should be clear that we moved past that point pretty early on.

So instead of admitting you were wrong (and no you never moved past it, as that has been the gist of most of his posts), after you said "I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it." when obviously you did, you now claim it was all just you joking with him? Really?

(08-20-2015 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 12:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is not a question. It is a statement. "The tables are turned Stever. Now it's your personal crusade. No one but you sees a problem with the rule, as it's written. It's not a loophole." I don't see a question there. Or even a question mark

Oh, that one. You should've quoted that one, then.

That the **** are you talking about? It was IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

(08-20-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it.

We were discussing the merits of the rule.

Um... wait a minute. can we please roll back the video footage?

(08-14-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I like the rule. I agree it is a reward for those who graduate to look for a new environment if they are not getting what they want at their current locale. However Stever is by far not the only one complaining about it. Many a coach has called for its removal. that is probably why he is saying he thinks it will be removed.

Which coaches are saying they want the rule removed?

What's your point? I asked a question. That's not making a claim.

............

(08-20-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That was was one of the first posts I made, in this discussion. I was giving stever a hard time, is all. No harm, no foul.

He's given plenty of links showing coaches who have opinions about graduate transfers, anyway.

So it should be clear that we moved past that point pretty early on.

So instead of admitting you were wrong (and no you never moved past it, as that has been the gist of most of his posts), after you said "I wasn't trying to claim that it is impossible for the rule to be modified or that no one has spoken publicly against it." when obviously you did, you now claim it was all just you joking with him? Really?

A quoted chain of posts refers to the last quoted post, unless otherwise specified. Which you didn't. Thus, the last quote was me asking a question.

I'm not going to participate in your little "gotcha" game. It adds nothing and proves nothing.