(02-19-2018 09:36 PM)gsloth Wrote: Put me in the block that says goodbye to anyone who wants to go. Put a restriction on someone we're going to compete against? I can see that. But VCU because his coach went there? Not a big deal, IMO.
And VCU may be starting to backslide already. This has not been a pretty season, and it hasn't exactly been dominating the last few, either.
The student-athletes already are on the wrong side of what are essentially annually-renewable contracts for their scholarships, where the institution can pull it if they don't have plans for you anymore (see most of the SEC football factories for this example) but schools can restrict the student's movement for any reason whatsoever (and have to sit out after transferring to a like institution). Sometimes trying to even restrict walk-ons not on scholarship (like Baker Mayfield).
So if there's a competitive issue, then set the restrictions. But this one doesn't hit my threshold.
Ordinarily I agree; VCU by itself isn't an issue. The problem is Rice should have been clear UP FRONT about any attempt to leave and take players will be met with a restriction.
Rhoades is an at-will employee, he can leave as he wishes, but he cannot raid the cupboard on the way out. IMO, that should have been stated clearly to Rhoades, every assistant and every player.
I just think Rice sets poor precedents. So far based on the Greenspan/Bailiff/Braun/Williams/Rhoades/pera situations the precedents set are
1. You won't be fired for sucking at your job
2. You won't be fired outright for being a racist, you will be allowed to resign
3. You can use Rice as your own stepping stone and raid the cupboard on the way out and no one will do anything
4. We have no succession planning in place.
IMO, Rice is stuck in the 50's where companies have loyalty and employees stay happily for 40 years. We have to change 1 thru 4. And yes, it may be a little cutthroat to say no, but Rice needs that - desperately. We need to signal we aren't a walkover anymore and yes, you can use us as a stepping stone but to the mutual benefit of both parties, not just one.
Say we hire the next Phil Jackson. He takes Rice to the dance and then bolts. The precedent we have set is that he can gut the program on the way out. How do we ever improve? We will be stuck in the cycle of terrible and mediocre-trending-good forever.