[quote='mrbig' pid='14234553' dateline='1491327541']
I agree that Berkman/Pettite could boost recruiting. But that only lasts if they start winning immediately with the recruits. That's where the concern with them never having been head coaches comes in. Additionally, even if they are great baseball coaches (in terms of developing players, in-game decision-making, etc.), do they necessarily want to be driving/flying around the state, region, and/or country doing recruiting? These guys are multi-millionaires. As much as I'm sure they have some attachment to Rice baseball at this point, they both also have kids and lives. I always had the perception that being a D1 athletics coach, particularly for the major sports, takes a huge time commitment. Is that what they really want at this stage in their lives?

Regarding someone like Riser at SELA, while he may not have quite the immediate recruiting impact of someone like Berkman/Pettite, he is a proven winning D1 baseball coach. So if he (or someone like him) came to Rice and started winning, the recruits would follow.

Both paths have some promise. The path to return Rice baseball to greatness isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. But I'd still rather see the 2017 team win-out this season and let Coach Graham ride off into the sunset.
[/quote

It is obvious the few more years.program in in a transition phase. People are correct in that Wayne wants and extension and believes he can coach a few more years. Well documented and not a secret. Where Walt is off base if how current players feel about Graham. They DO NOT like playing for him. It is why so many leave early for low signing bonuses just to get out from a toxic environment in their mind. Perhaps back in the day it was different but look at how few recent grads actually hang around the program. Not many....Walt needs to remove the rose colored glasses. Rice is a premium job that deserves a top notch coach to go forward. Graham does not have the right to stay as long as he wants. No different than a founding CEO of a failing company have the right to drag down the company he or she built. Tough decisions however Wayne is a big boy.

"Every moment is a little bit later" -- Wilco

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:01 AM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:12 AM)OwlBundy Wrote:  I think the Owls should consider Matt Riser, the head coach at Southeastern La. He played at Tulane, and was a real scholar - pre-med though he chose to follow his passion for baseball. He has won big at a school with little resources at SLU. Rice can pay a lot more than SLU and he is familiar with the types of challenges Rice faces. Pardon the pun, but he's a rising star.

If you read the earlier posts in this thread I think you'll find the most of us are in agreement. Riser should be at the top of the list of candidates to replace Wayne. Having said that, Wayne has more than earned the right to stay through next season, afterwhich his current contract expires.

As for those who continue to think Berkman will be the solution to our recent recruiting issues, I say think again. First off, our incoming recruiting classes the past couple years might have fallen off a bit from the past, we hardly ever had a Top 25 recruiting class, largely due to our academic requirements. Second, though Lance no doubt would be an attraction-- a shiny object, if you will-- he would not offset the financial scholarship disadvantage that we currently face, nor would he offset our current CUSA conference affiliation vis-a-vis the Big 12 or SEC (for competing local programs such at UT, A&M, TCU, Baylor and Arkansas).

We have talked about this before. We do not actually have a disadvantage in scholarships. We have the same number as everyone else plus financial aid system exclusive to private universities. Having Berkman AND Pettitte though would absolutely offset our CUSA affiliation.

You're right that we have talked about this before, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to supplement the NCAA scholarship numbers in the same way that other privates or state schools can.

It is insane that people keep saying that this isn't an issue. Heck, even LSU, a large, public school stated that, should their state's scholarship program get axed, that they would be hurting to find a way to fund as many players on the team as they currently do.

Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

(04-04-2017 01:57 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:01 AM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  If you read the earlier posts in this thread I think you'll find the most of us are in agreement. Riser should be at the top of the list of candidates to replace Wayne. Having said that, Wayne has more than earned the right to stay through next season, afterwhich his current contract expires.

As for those who continue to think Berkman will be the solution to our recent recruiting issues, I say think again. First off, our incoming recruiting classes the past couple years might have fallen off a bit from the past, we hardly ever had a Top 25 recruiting class, largely due to our academic requirements. Second, though Lance no doubt would be an attraction-- a shiny object, if you will-- he would not offset the financial scholarship disadvantage that we currently face, nor would he offset our current CUSA conference affiliation vis-a-vis the Big 12 or SEC (for competing local programs such at UT, A&M, TCU, Baylor and Arkansas).

We have talked about this before. We do not actually have a disadvantage in scholarships. We have the same number as everyone else plus financial aid system exclusive to private universities. Having Berkman AND Pettitte though would absolutely offset our CUSA affiliation.

You're right that we have talked about this before, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to supplement the NCAA scholarship numbers in the same way that other privates or state schools can.

It is insane that people keep saying that this isn't an issue. Heck, even LSU, a large, public school stated that, should their state's scholarship program get axed, that they would be hurting to find a way to fund as many players on the team as they currently do.

Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

Bravo and game set match with the people who want the narrative to fit their agenda. The "Wayne can stay as long as he wants camp" will mix and match logic. This isn't a recruiting limitation issue. Plenty of players want to attend Rice for the degree. Watch if we get a good young coach they will come.

(04-04-2017 02:09 PM)lauderdaleowl Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:57 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:01 AM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  We have talked about this before. We do not actually have a disadvantage in scholarships. We have the same number as everyone else plus financial aid system exclusive to private universities. Having Berkman AND Pettitte though would absolutely offset our CUSA affiliation.

You're right that we have talked about this before, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to supplement the NCAA scholarship numbers in the same way that other privates or state schools can.

It is insane that people keep saying that this isn't an issue. Heck, even LSU, a large, public school stated that, should their state's scholarship program get axed, that they would be hurting to find a way to fund as many players on the team as they currently do.

Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

Bravo and game set match with the people who want the narrative to fit their agenda. The "Wayne can stay as long as he wants camp" will mix and match logic. This isn't a recruiting limitation issue. Plenty of players want to attend Rice for the degree. Watch if we get a good young coach they will come.

The thought of a pro superstar coming back to coach at the college level scares me. On the baseball side, Tony Gwynn had a mixed record at SDSU (.500 overall, but 3 conf champs), while in hoops Chris Mullin, Clyde Drexler and Isaiah Thomas were unmitigated disasters. I would not be happy if I was a Georgetown fan now with the Ewing hire. I don't think after living the life in the big time, that a former superstar can shift gears to kiss the butts of 17 year olds that will never be one tenth the player that they were. Most of the great coaches in their playing days were scrappy types, career back-ups, walk-ons and in some cases even team managers.

Wayne turns 81 on Thursday.

the question for the AD is how old will Wayne be when he coaches his last game--*1, 82, or older?

he got a later start than some in college coaching--he was 44 for his first game at San Jac and 55 for his first game at Rice.

He was 72 when he last coached a CWS game.

When we were winning--and we really should have gotten to CWS in 2013 (our AA closer picked a bad time to blow back to back games), it was quaint to have the oldest coach in the country. On current course it's going to start looking silly pretty soon.

(04-04-2017 02:30 PM)OwlBundy Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:09 PM)lauderdaleowl Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:57 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that we have talked about this before, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to supplement the NCAA scholarship numbers in the same way that other privates or state schools can.

It is insane that people keep saying that this isn't an issue. Heck, even LSU, a large, public school stated that, should their state's scholarship program get axed, that they would be hurting to find a way to fund as many players on the team as they currently do.

Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

Bravo and game set match with the people who want the narrative to fit their agenda. The "Wayne can stay as long as he wants camp" will mix and match logic. This isn't a recruiting limitation issue. Plenty of players want to attend Rice for the degree. Watch if we get a good young coach they will come.

The thought of a pro superstar coming back to coach at the college level scares me. On the baseball side, Tony Gwynn had a mixed record at SDSU (.500 overall, but 3 conf champs), while in hoops Chris Mullin, Clyde Drexler and Isaiah Thomas were unmitigated disasters. I would not be happy if I was a Georgetown fan now with the Ewing hire. I don't think after living the life in the big time, that a former superstar can shift gears to kiss the butts of 17 year olds that will never be one tenth the player that they were. Most of the great coaches in their playing days were scrappy types, career back-ups, walk-ons and in some cases even team managers.

Neither Berkman or Pettitte (the combination we have been discussing) had issues "living the life in the big time". Both were students of the game and as I said earlier were praised for their locker room presence. In other words they know how to work and get along with people. Also you cannot compare successful players to other successful players that go into coaching as you did with back ups and "scrappy types" which is not even a quantifiable measurement of someones play. The reason you would resort to that measure is because teams aren't built full of superstars that go into coaching. There are more players that go into coaching because they could not succeed as a player. That does not have any merit on successful players not being able to coach. There are just more failures than there are superstars. Which gives you a larger pool of coaches to pick from that were successful. In fact the success rate would most likely be lower when hiring someone that was not a hall of famer due to the few amount of great coaches there are out there vs everyone else.

If you are worried that he doesn't have enough coaching experience I get it I get it. There is just as much of a gamble there as hiring a coach with experience that is up and coming but has no real connection to the university. For this last point...I would love to hear coach Graham's response to this. You said that you don't see them kissing the butts of 17 year olds? Do you think Graham kisses anyone's butt regardless of their age or talent? The answer is no. He was hard on every stud we have had just as he was with every chump that has come through the system.

(04-04-2017 04:31 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:30 PM)OwlBundy Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:09 PM)lauderdaleowl Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:57 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

Bravo and game set match with the people who want the narrative to fit their agenda. The "Wayne can stay as long as he wants camp" will mix and match logic. This isn't a recruiting limitation issue. Plenty of players want to attend Rice for the degree. Watch if we get a good young coach they will come.

The thought of a pro superstar coming back to coach at the college level scares me. On the baseball side, Tony Gwynn had a mixed record at SDSU (.500 overall, but 3 conf champs), while in hoops Chris Mullin, Clyde Drexler and Isaiah Thomas were unmitigated disasters. I would not be happy if I was a Georgetown fan now with the Ewing hire. I don't think after living the life in the big time, that a former superstar can shift gears to kiss the butts of 17 year olds that will never be one tenth the player that they were. Most of the great coaches in their playing days were scrappy types, career back-ups, walk-ons and in some cases even team managers.

Neither Berkman or Pettitte (the combination we have been discussing) had issues "living the life in the big time". Both were students of the game and as I said earlier were praised for their locker room presence. In other words they know how to work and get along with people. Also you cannot compare successful players to other successful players that go into coaching as you did with back ups and "scrappy types" which is not even a quantifiable measurement of someones play. The reason you would resort to that measure is because teams aren't built full of superstars that go into coaching. There are more players that go into coaching because they could not succeed as a player. That does not have any merit on successful players not being able to coach. There are just more failures than there are superstars. Which gives you a larger pool of coaches to pick from that were successful. In fact the success rate would most likely be lower when hiring someone that was not a hall of famer due to the few amount of great coaches there are out there vs everyone else.

If you are worried that he doesn't have enough coaching experience I get it I get it. There is just as much of a gamble there as hiring a coach with experience that is up and coming but has no real connection to the university. For this last point...I would love to hear coach Graham's response to this. You said that you don't see them kissing the butts of 17 year olds? Do you think Graham kisses anyone's butt regardless of their age or talent? The answer is no. He was hard on every stud we have had just as he was with every chump that has come through the system.

"every chump that has come through the system". ???????????????

At any rate, Joe Torre, Gil Hodges and other very successful players have become good managers and coaches.

Not joining sides in any direction, but there are no absolutes when it comes to coaching success or failure. Not every backup catcher becomes manager of the year.

(04-04-2017 04:52 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 04:31 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:30 PM)OwlBundy Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:09 PM)lauderdaleowl Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:57 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  You guys really do not know what you are talking about. Because we have a higher tuition that plays into our favor of giving financial aid scholarships. As I stated months ago in another thread some of our best recent players (Rendon, Duffey, Chargois, Lemond) were all part of that system and did not count against our 11.7 scholarships. Now you are saying next year's recruiting class could be one of the best so that renders this whole scholarship issue a moot point. The topic of scholarship restrictions has seemed like an excuse more than anything when it has nothing to do with our drop in recruiting the past few years.

Bravo and game set match with the people who want the narrative to fit their agenda. The "Wayne can stay as long as he wants camp" will mix and match logic. This isn't a recruiting limitation issue. Plenty of players want to attend Rice for the degree. Watch if we get a good young coach they will come.

The thought of a pro superstar coming back to coach at the college level scares me. On the baseball side, Tony Gwynn had a mixed record at SDSU (.500 overall, but 3 conf champs), while in hoops Chris Mullin, Clyde Drexler and Isaiah Thomas were unmitigated disasters. I would not be happy if I was a Georgetown fan now with the Ewing hire. I don't think after living the life in the big time, that a former superstar can shift gears to kiss the butts of 17 year olds that will never be one tenth the player that they were. Most of the great coaches in their playing days were scrappy types, career back-ups, walk-ons and in some cases even team managers.

Neither Berkman or Pettitte (the combination we have been discussing) had issues "living the life in the big time". Both were students of the game and as I said earlier were praised for their locker room presence. In other words they know how to work and get along with people. Also you cannot compare successful players to other successful players that go into coaching as you did with back ups and "scrappy types" which is not even a quantifiable measurement of someones play. The reason you would resort to that measure is because teams aren't built full of superstars that go into coaching. There are more players that go into coaching because they could not succeed as a player. That does not have any merit on successful players not being able to coach. There are just more failures than there are superstars. Which gives you a larger pool of coaches to pick from that were successful. In fact the success rate would most likely be lower when hiring someone that was not a hall of famer due to the few amount of great coaches there are out there vs everyone else.

If you are worried that he doesn't have enough coaching experience I get it I get it. There is just as much of a gamble there as hiring a coach with experience that is up and coming but has no real connection to the university. For this last point...I would love to hear coach Graham's response to this. You said that you don't see them kissing the butts of 17 year olds? Do you think Graham kisses anyone's butt regardless of their age or talent? The answer is no. He was hard on every stud we have had just as he was with every chump that has come through the system.

"every chump that has come through the system". ???????????????

At any rate, Joe Torre, Gil Hodges and other very successful players have become good managers and coaches.

Not joining sides in any direction, but there are no absolutes when it comes to coaching success or failure. Not every backup catcher becomes manager of the year.

That may have come off wrong. The point was he was just as hard on players who are highly talented as he is with players who clearly did not have the same level of talent. He expects the same from all.

(04-04-2017 04:55 PM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  That may have come off wrong. The point was he was just as hard on players who are highly talented as he is with players who clearly did not have the same level of talent. He expects the same from all.

From personal experience, this statement is as accurate as it gets!

(04-04-2017 12:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 12:27 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:01 AM)DirtyBirds52 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  If you read the earlier posts in this thread I think you'll find the most of us are in agreement. Riser should be at the top of the list of candidates to replace Wayne. Having said that, Wayne has more than earned the right to stay through next season, afterwhich his current contract expires.

As for those who continue to think Berkman will be the solution to our recent recruiting issues, I say think again. First off, our incoming recruiting classes the past couple years might have fallen off a bit from the past, we hardly ever had a Top 25 recruiting class, largely due to our academic requirements. Second, though Lance no doubt would be an attraction-- a shiny object, if you will-- he would not offset the financial scholarship disadvantage that we currently face, nor would he offset our current CUSA conference affiliation vis-a-vis the Big 12 or SEC (for competing local programs such at UT, A&M, TCU, Baylor and Arkansas).

We have talked about this before. We do not actually have a disadvantage in scholarships. We have the same number as everyone else plus financial aid system exclusive to private universities. Having Berkman AND Pettitte though would absolutely offset our CUSA affiliation.

You're right that we have talked about this before, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to supplement the NCAA scholarship numbers in the same way that other privates or state schools can.

It is insane that people keep saying that this isn't an issue. Heck, even LSU, a large, public school stated that, should their state's scholarship program get axed, that they would be hurting to find a way to fund as many players on the team as they currently do.

Thank you. Not only do we not offer the supplemental scholarships that most of our competitors do, but as a private, elite college, our tuition is considerably higher than most of our primary competitors. And let's not kid ourselves, while it may not be as significant a factor as it is in football and basketball recruiting, our higher academic requirements is also a limitting factor in recruiting. Again, Berkman and Petitte would certainly be an attraction, but I think you're crazy to think that they'd be the gating factor in anyone selecting Rice over a UT, TCU or A&M.

And as I mentioned earlier, save for the past 2 seasons, our incoming recruiting classes have not been any worse than previous years during the Graham era, and next year's is shaping up to potentially be one of our best.

Whatever Vanderbilt is doing in baseball, Rice needs to also do. That's the firm message Karlgaard needs to deliver to the administration.

Once upon a time I spent 6 months of every year for several years dragging young players all over the country for the coaches to see.....one of those was Tim Corbin. A personable individual that didn't care about my baseball lineage or lack thereof. He already knew who was a player and who was not. His question to me on several occasions was "what was the mental makeup of the player". In a particular noteworthy conversation several years ago this question was asked. My response was that they young man in question had stayed with me on multiple road trips as well as my home.....he was welcome anytime. Corbin's response was "good enough for me". The young man had a stellar career at Vandy. That's what Corbin's secret is.

(04-05-2017 09:54 AM)justahooter Wrote:  Once upon a time I spent 6 months of every year for several years dragging young players all over the country for the coaches to see.....one of those was Tim Corbin. A personable individual that didn't care about my baseball lineage or lack thereof. He already knew who was a player and who was not. His question to me on several occasions was "what was the mental makeup of the player". In a particular noteworthy conversation several years ago this question was asked. My response was that they young man in question had stayed with me on multiple road trips as well as my home.....he was welcome anytime. Corbin's response was "good enough for me". The young man had a stellar career at Vandy. That's what Corbin's secret is.

Ah so maybe the OG should have been hosting sleep overs all along!?

In all seriousness though, that is a cool story. Kudos to you for being a part of that player's career.