(03-06-2018 11:21 AM)GopherTubby Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:54 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Yahoo too doe

https://sports.yahoo.com/tubby-smiths-ra...48611.html

You realize that all of this negative publicity will benefit you all and Tubby right? Almost 100% of coaches agree with this. Many of the fans agree with this. Media is having a blast because they got something against one of the cleanest coaches ever coaching basketball. Their fun will be momentary and yours will begin soon.

Come on man. It's a bad look. Combine that with the fact that there is no excitement with the program (look at the all time low attendance) and the poor recruiting and it's just a rough situation all the way around.
I just don't think Tubby will be here next year. That would be the best thing for all parties. It's a bad fit and everybody knows it. Part ways and move on.

Ive never seen someone do so poorly at their job and skate by. PR? Horrendous. Recruiting? Some of the worst classes in our history. The 2 worst non-exhibition losses in our history! In the same season!!! How does this guy get by?

Constantly embarrassing himself and our program. Can you imagine another situation where a coach is as clueless about the school he takes over at as Tubby? In his first year, he said we can’t recruit here because it’s not 10 years ago....despite being only a few years removed from a top 5 class? I just can’t...

(03-06-2018 11:21 AM)GopherTubby Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:54 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Yahoo too doe

https://sports.yahoo.com/tubby-smiths-ra...48611.html

You realize that all of this negative publicity will benefit you all and Tubby right? Almost 100% of coaches agree with this. Many of the fans agree with this. Media is having a blast because they got something against one of the cleanest coaches ever coaching basketball. Their fun will be momentary and yours will begin soon.

I don't make the news, I just report it.

Is he the University spokesperson or just speaking for himself?

Sometimes you have to clear what you say with the higher-ups before going on a controversial tangent.

Two days away is the Conference Tourney.

(03-05-2018 11:42 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:18 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  Why shouldn't players be able to transfer from the schools they committed to? Lots of their contemporaries probably won't have to pay back the college loans they agreed to repay. If you join the service and they tell you they're going to deploy you to a combat zone, you can explain to them that you just signed up because of the education benefits and didn't really want to go to war. Commit to more house than you can afford? Get an Obama HAMP refinance.

Commitments aren't what they used to be. It's a new world out there. We gotta keep up. We could even be proactive and get ahead of the curve. Do away with LOI' s at Memphis. Get a better offer before school starts? Take it. It's cool. Think how many looks we'd get then -- and how much they'd mean.

This response is nonsensical. A student taking out a loan can transfer anytime they want, a person committing to a house they can't afford can sell.. war commitments, that's the power dynamic you seriously want to compare college athletics to?

This reply is nonsensical. What the heck does a student with school loans transferring have to do with not honoring his/her commitment to repay the loans?

And you really ought to read up on stuff, like being upside down on a home loan -- which is what the program I referred to if primarily about -- before you claim to have the answer (just sell your house, duh.)

And finally, war commitment? No, joining the service. You know what they do before you join, but yet some snowflake did just what I described when she was called up. The issue is whether or not to honor a commitment.

I tell you what -- why not do away with it all? Coaches can play let's make a deal up to (name a date) and add/drop any players they want until the bell rings. Same with players. Say you'll go here but, then, change your mind and go there. It's all cool. Just drop the whole idea of commitments -- I mean, you know -- if they don't matter.

There are laws against drug possession (the football player dismissed), and laws/bylaws against paying amateur players, and recruiting dead periods, and lots and lots of other rules. And it's a lot easier to say, "Let's forget it" than it is to deal with some of the consequences they were put there to avoid.

Oh well, guess I had my Tubby say-what-you-really-think moment. I'm over it. Carry on.

Coaches leaving for better jobs and players transferring to better programs is essentially the same

Players bailing because they don't feel their talent is being properly used or they are being treated unfairly is completely different than coaches leaving.

But sometimes the players are right and transferring is what a player needs...See Nick King. He likely would have been stuck on the bench underutilized at Alabama.

admittedly, i have no idea what he said, don't care enough to read or watch it

however, with all the comments about this being a bad look for memphis.......does it rise to the level of termination for cause?

If the contract 'we' made with Tubby had been strategerized properly, it would.

But it would be hard to prove his comments had been damaging. lol

We are pretty damaged already.

(03-06-2018 11:21 AM)GopherTubby Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:54 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Yahoo too doe

https://sports.yahoo.com/tubby-smiths-ra...48611.html

You realize that all of this negative publicity will benefit you all and Tubby right? Almost 100% of coaches agree with this. Many of the fans agree with this. Media is having a blast because they got something against one of the cleanest coaches ever coaching basketball. Their fun will be momentary and yours will begin soon.

awesome -- coaches LOVE Tubby! -- If they change the rules to only allow coaches to play, maybe Tubby can get those coaches to commit to us to play... otherwise other coaches admiration is no worth Jack Shot.

(03-06-2018 02:52 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:42 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:18 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  Why shouldn't players be able to transfer from the schools they committed to? Lots of their contemporaries probably won't have to pay back the college loans they agreed to repay. If you join the service and they tell you they're going to deploy you to a combat zone, you can explain to them that you just signed up because of the education benefits and didn't really want to go to war. Commit to more house than you can afford? Get an Obama HAMP refinance.

Commitments aren't what they used to be. It's a new world out there. We gotta keep up. We could even be proactive and get ahead of the curve. Do away with LOI' s at Memphis. Get a better offer before school starts? Take it. It's cool. Think how many looks we'd get then -- and how much they'd mean.

This response is nonsensical. A student taking out a loan can transfer anytime they want, a person committing to a house they can't afford can sell.. war commitments, that's the power dynamic you seriously want to compare college athletics to?

This reply is nonsensical. What the heck does a student with school loans transferring have to do with not honoring his/her commitment to repay the loans?

And you really ought to read up on stuff, like being upside down on a home loan -- which is what the program I referred to if primarily about -- before you claim to have the answer (just sell your house, duh.)

And finally, war commitment? No, joining the service. You know what they do before you join, but yet some snowflake did just what I described when she was called up. The issue is whether or not to honor a commitment.

I tell you what -- why not do away with it all? Coaches can play let's make a deal up to (name a date) and add/drop any players they want until the bell rings. Same with players. Say you'll go here but, then, change your mind and go there. It's all cool. Just drop the whole idea of commitments -- I mean, you know -- if they don't matter.

There are laws against drug possession (the football player dismissed), and laws/bylaws against paying amateur players, and recruiting dead periods, and lots and lots of other rules. And it's a lot easier to say, "Let's forget it" than it is to deal with some of the consequences they were put there to avoid.

Oh well, guess I had my Tubby say-what-you-really-think moment. I'm over it. Carry on.

1) When you take out a loan to attend a school you aren't forced to continue attending that school if you don't like it there. The loan is an economic exchange that is entirely separate from attending the school. I don't know what your scenario has to do with this at all..... You usually take the loan out semester by semester and pay for the semesters for which you enrolled - when you repay the loan you are paying for a service you already received (payment for service). If a college athlete plays a year and chooses to transfer after the year he/she already "paid" his commitment by playing.

2) Again, the loan is an economic exchange entirely separate from the house you choose to buy. You are free to move on from a house and still owe a loan if you would like... you take out a loan for value received (payment for goods). Same here - a college athlete "paid" for any goods he/she received by playing, what does he/she owe?

I fully don't understand how lending as a form of economic exchange is related at all to the NCAA.. are you arguing that a transferring student athlete should have to pay back the year of scholarship that they already played for? I think that would be a step in the wrong direction here. What exactly are they owing here and why do they owe it? If they transfer schools they are now receiving a service at a different school (similar to a student transferring schools and taking out loan at new school).

3) A "service" commitment is literally a state power exerting the ultimate threat on you (being imprisoned) if you don't fulfill the commitment... If you think the NCAA should have that kind of power over student athletes then we just have to agree to disagree because that is exactly what I'm against

(03-05-2018 11:40 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:32 PM)jamammy Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:04 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:45 PM)jamammy Wrote:  That said.

I oppose the amount of turnover in CBB.

The system is flawed.

Please explain why the amount of turnover is bad and who it is bad for.

I don't know where I said it was bad.

I said I oppose the amount or percentage of turnover as far as players go.

If the recruiting process is thorough and everything is upfront then a commitment should stand.

I would assume a normal recruiting cycle would last a few years I.E. more than one.

So, if a player has grown into the culture of a staff or a program, why would he leave?

Because nothing is upfront, relationships are not being built, and sometimes coaches or players are busts.

The numbers are just extreme to me and getting larger.

Are you suggesting that it should be a pay for play situation and everybody becomes a free agent after second semester?

Or maybe a you can transfer after first semester deal with no penalty next year, you just miss playing second semester but don't lose any further eligibility and don't have to sit out a year, just a semester?

I've said nothing about pay for play. Nothing you just said leads to a conclusion that there should be artificial barriers to a player leaving a school where he/she doesn't feel it's a good fit/isn't getting playing time/isn't happy.

Of course if there isn't a reason to leave, the player likely won't leave - but if they don't want to be there then why force them.

The situation Tubby is supporting has a very clear power dynamic. Players make a commitment to a school and in return they get ... What exactly - not a 4 year scholarship outside of power 5, not a promise not to be recruited over or forced out? Grit? A lesson well learned?

It's complete nonsense.

I agree with you.

That is why I keep saying the system is flawed.

(03-06-2018 03:22 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 02:52 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:42 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:18 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  Why shouldn't players be able to transfer from the schools they committed to? Lots of their contemporaries probably won't have to pay back the college loans they agreed to repay. If you join the service and they tell you they're going to deploy you to a combat zone, you can explain to them that you just signed up because of the education benefits and didn't really want to go to war. Commit to more house than you can afford? Get an Obama HAMP refinance.

Commitments aren't what they used to be. It's a new world out there. We gotta keep up. We could even be proactive and get ahead of the curve. Do away with LOI' s at Memphis. Get a better offer before school starts? Take it. It's cool. Think how many looks we'd get then -- and how much they'd mean.

This response is nonsensical. A student taking out a loan can transfer anytime they want, a person committing to a house they can't afford can sell.. war commitments, that's the power dynamic you seriously want to compare college athletics to?

This reply is nonsensical. What the heck does a student with school loans transferring have to do with not honoring his/her commitment to repay the loans?

And you really ought to read up on stuff, like being upside down on a home loan -- which is what the program I referred to if primarily about -- before you claim to have the answer (just sell your house, duh.)

And finally, war commitment? No, joining the service. You know what they do before you join, but yet some snowflake did just what I described when she was called up. The issue is whether or not to honor a commitment.

I tell you what -- why not do away with it all? Coaches can play let's make a deal up to (name a date) and add/drop any players they want until the bell rings. Same with players. Say you'll go here but, then, change your mind and go there. It's all cool. Just drop the whole idea of commitments -- I mean, you know -- if they don't matter.

There are laws against drug possession (the football player dismissed), and laws/bylaws against paying amateur players, and recruiting dead periods, and lots and lots of other rules. And it's a lot easier to say, "Let's forget it" than it is to deal with some of the consequences they were put there to avoid.

Oh well, guess I had my Tubby say-what-you-really-think moment. I'm over it. Carry on.

1) When you take out a loan to attend a school you aren't forced to continue attending that school if you don't like it there. The loan is an economic exchange that is entirely separate from attending the school. I don't know what your scenario has to do with this at all..... You usually take the loan out semester by semester and pay for the semesters for which you enrolled - when you repay the loan you are paying for a service you already received (payment for service). If a college athlete plays a year and chooses to transfer after the year he/she already "paid" his commitment by playing.

2) Again, the loan is an economic exchange entirely separate from the house you choose to buy. You are free to move on from a house and still owe a loan if you would like... you take out a loan for value received (payment for goods). Same here - a college athlete "paid" for any goods he/she received by playing, what does he/she owe?

I fully don't understand how lending as a form of economic exchange is related at all to the NCAA.. are you arguing that a transferring student athlete should have to pay back the year of scholarship that they already played for? I think that would be a step in the wrong direction here. What exactly are they owing here and why do they owe it? If they transfer schools they are now receiving a service at a different school (similar to a student transferring schools and taking out loan at new school).

3) A "service" commitment is literally a state power exerting the ultimate threat on you (being imprisoned) if you don't fulfill the commitment... If you think the NCAA should have that kind of power over student athletes then we just have to agree to disagree because that is exactly what I'm against

OK, one last attempt. The current movement to forgive student loans = excusing people from commitments they've made. HAMP/HARP = excusing people from commitments they've made. (I never heard how this one ended up, but let's just say) CONSIDERING letting a service member bow out of a set of orders = excusing people from commitments they've made. That's the comparison.

The commitment players make who accept athletic scholarships is a one-year commitment. Historically, however, the student, once committed, could expect to graduate from that school without having to pay tuition, room or board. That's why parents get excited about their sons or daughters getting scholarships, not because they expect to get a free year of school.

It seems like that worked pretty well, to me, but that's not the way things are any more. I don't think it's a change for the better. Part of the reason is that I think kids need to learn to stick it out. That, to me, is the main lesson you learn from getting an undergraduate degree. Anything else is icing on the cake. Can you learn that transferring at the drop of a hat? I would say not so much. Your ideals may differ, and that's OK, too. Have a good day.