AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4366
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-30-11 03:16 PM - Post#110220
On Twitter
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 10-30-11 08:50 PM - Post#110237
In response to AsiaSunset
First Cotton, now Sears. We got the 7-2 Lawrence over Yale, but the Bulldogs have now taken two highly-touted potential SFs from us in as many years. Ouch.
Gotta tip my cap to James Jones, though.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2818
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: Justin Sears to Yale 11-08-11 07:09 PM - Post#110688
In response to gokinsmen
Sears must have had a special recruiting relationship with Sydney Johnson. Otherwise it is difficult to explain, from a basketball standpoint, why he would go with Yale which already has someone ahead of him. Mitch is getting off to a rough start recruiting wise. This could be our fourth consecutive class without headliners save for Ian Hummer who was already family. We could have a couple of tough years when this year's juniors graduate.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Re: Justin Sears to Yale 11-08-11 08:45 PM - Post#110692
In response to Tiger69
1. Sears actually has a pretty good situation at Yale since he's going to play a Maddox-role at SF. I can see why he went there, especially once SJ left.
2. I think MH has done a solid job so far. Lawrence is a huge pickup with enormous upside (puns intended). Brase is a perfect fit for the Princeton system. Don't know much about Washington, though. I think Joe McDonald could be that "headliner" pickup at PG (as much or more than Sears).
3. It would be great to have more headliners like Hummer, but they're not necessary to win. You need great players, not great recruits. Were Wittman, Foote and Dale "headliners"? Meanwhile, a team with Schroeder, Finley and Buzcak went 11-3 and twice fell a bucket short of Cornell's 2010 team. And who was our best player last season? Maddox...not a headliner. Not like Smith and Hummer anyway.
4. If I'm totally wrong and Princeton can't maintain the requisite level of talent, then that'll force the program to make the changes SJ wanted (e.g. eliminate the transfer ban). So the problem will self-correct. I think the reason the administration refused this time was that, "Hey, Princeton just won a title and pushed UK to the limit. We're fine." Not saying I fully agree with that opinion, but I understand it. It's harder to win...but it's still very doable. And that's fine for an Ivy athletics program.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2818
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: Justin Sears to Yale 11-12-11 06:08 PM - Post#111100
In response to gokinsmen
Do you have any evidence that the transfer ban was an issue in Sydney's case rather than the higher hurdle that a recruit must clear at Princeton than Harvard or Penn (or possibly Yale)?
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3781
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-12-11 10:48 PM - Post#111126
In response to Tiger69
I get the impression that no one single thing was the issue for Johnson. I think it was the cumulative effect of at least a half dozen things. That said, it seems likely to me that the transfer ban was one of them.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-12-11 11:49 PM - Post#111139
In response to Silver Maple
Yeah, it was probably more than one thing, but for the record, during the UK halftime interview, SJ took an unprompted dig at the transfer ban -- "Darius Miller is great -- I wish we accepted transfers so we could get him." Miller wasn't even a transfer himself! Not exactly evidence in a court of law, but come on. It's clear SJ was annoyed by that.
Also, Keegan Hyland (Princeton recruit, Gonzaga signee, UVM transfer) was looking to transfer a second time -- and was considering Ivies. And then surprise, he ended up at Fairfield. Again, not hard evidence, but it's not encouraging circumstantial stuff either.
I keep mentioning the transfer-ban because it seems like the easiest, most logical change to make. It's snobbish and could really help the team if removed.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-12-11 11:51 PM - Post#111141
In response to gokinsmen
that darius miller quote makes no sense as a dig. it's not a dig. it's a compliment towards the guy with a joke. If he WAS a transfer, then it'd be a dig.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-14-11 12:52 AM - Post#111249
In response to Jeff2sf
It's a dig either way. Neither SJ nor anyone before him has ever mentioned the transfer ban in public like that. The way he did it there was very clunky and pointed -- i.e. complimenting Miller was an excuse to bring it up.
I mean, the guy did leave Princeton right after, so clearly it was on his mind. Unless you think recruiting limitations like that had nothing to do with his departure.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-14-11 01:04 AM - Post#111250
In response to gokinsmen
I think you way overexaggerate the transfer ban as the reason he bolted. Even if he did not like the transfer ban, and why would you, that doesn't mean a throwaway comment like that means anything.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-14-11 01:43 AM - Post#111256
In response to Jeff2sf
There were several factors, but it's only logical to think that's one of them. And it's a particularly infuriating one at that.
If you really think it's a total coincidence that he mentioned not taking transfers in a boilerplate halftime interview (not exactly your typical coach-speak), then I guess we're at an impasse.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-14-11 08:02 AM - Post#111260
In response to gokinsmen
That is TOTAL coachspeak. I've heard that same interview a million times. "Man 22 is great, I wish we had him" "14 comes off the bench for those guys? We'd be glad to take him as a transfer" etc.
You're too sensitive. Don't get me wrong, I'd be embarrassed if my coach left me for Fairfield too. But he didn't telegraph his actions in a 20 second throwaway interview.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-14-11 08:37 AM - Post#111263
In response to Jeff2sf
It may not be uncommon for other coaches, but it is for a program that doesn't accept transfers. The fact is that SJ has never said anything of that ilk. And he didn't say, "I wish we had him." He said, "I wish we took transfers so we could have him." He went out of his way to mention the transfer ban.
Also, this isn't something he said in January. It's something he said in his final game when rumors were already brewing about his departure and he had already quietly made known his displeasure about recruiting rules. Funny time to crack a joke about not accepting transfers for the first time...but maybe you're right and it's a total coincidence.
It seem more likely that you don't want to admit that Princeton has a handicap that Penn doesn't have to deal with. A handicap has hasn't stopped them from from winning more titles than Penn despite your lower AI standards and acceptance of transfers. Or maybe it's that Keegan Hyland visited Penn but turned you down.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-14-11 10:28 AM - Post#111277
In response to gokinsmen
Princeton has a handicap that Penn doesn't have.
That wasn't hard to admit at all. I find the ban moronic and elitist, but we didn't put the rule in, your school did.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3781
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-14-11 12:07 PM - Post#111289
In response to Jeff2sf
I'll second that. I admit it too. But I'd phrase it differently. I'd say that Princeton has handicapped itself in several ways for reasons that seem elitist and asinine.
But you have to admire Princeton's newfound desire for consistency. What with all the handicaps they've put in place for basketball recruiting, they're obviously no longer content to suck only on a conceptual level. They're now clearly committed to sucking on a practical level as well.
I do wonder how long this stance is going to last. Eventually the fans are going to get restless. Even for elitist snobs, moral victories aren't nearly as fun as victory victories.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Justin Sears to Yale 11-15-11 04:25 PM - Post#111474
In response to gokinsmen
It seem more likely that you don't want to admit that Princeton has a handicap that Penn doesn't have to deal with. A handicap has hasn't stopped them from from winning more titles than Penn despite your lower AI standards and acceptance of transfers. Or maybe it's that Keegan Hyland visited Penn but turned you down.
Were you a Princeton Math major? Since the League formulated the AI, following Penn's Final Four run, Penn has won 14 titles and Princeton 13.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 11-15-11 04:26 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-15-11 09:31 PM - Post#111512
In response to Howard Gensler
Good fact-checking, but the point remains the same -- whether it's Princeton or Penn up one. Virtual deadlock in titles despite the former's recruiting handicaps. Yes, they're self-inflicted (and the transfer ban is just snobby and dumb), but they exist and Princeton has overcome them...so far.
Anyway, I'd much rather talk about actual basketball than dwell on these silly extracurricular flame-wars.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-15-11 09:48 PM - Post#111513
In response to gokinsmen
The transfer ban is not a problem. It's a small campus and they decided to let in as many freshmen as possible and not take transfers. There are too many legacies and recruited athletes. Need slots for a few freshmen who are academically excellent.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3678
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Justin Sears to Yale 11-15-11 10:00 PM - Post#111518
In response to Brian Martin
Those are correct points that explain why the ban exists, but it's still a problem from a basketball standpoint.
Still, I'm not talking about a mass/regular influx of transfers. I'm talking about a rare exception every now and then -- you can even offer one less HS recruit to make up for it.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-17-11 03:32 AM - Post#111603
In response to Brian Martin
There are too many legacies and recruited athletes. Need slots for a few freshmen who are academically excellent.
This point needs emphasis. The university long ago made a decision to give preference to tons of athletes in non-revenue sports. Maybe it's a positive for the community that such a significant percentage of the undergraduate population are recruited athletes, but the revenue sport(s) (how much money do football and hockey actually pull relative to hoops?) do get penalized under that approach, don't they?
|