Quaker Fan
maximus
Posts: 282
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: 5th year players...
12-22-04 09:21 PM - Post#1485
In response to
Chuck - many of the kids are getting grad degrees in that time - I am not sure of the details, but I think that is a permissable activity - so it is not a waste of time and money at all - but rather, an investment
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 5th year players...
12-22-04 09:30 PM - Post#1486
In response to Quaker Fan
No - they can't ge getting a grad degree in the Ivies. Some are getting dual major undergraduate degrees which require additional credits. Most are just finishing up.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 5th year players...
12-22-04 10:45 PM - Post#1487
In response to AsiaSunset
Asia, yeah...I know the fin aid continues...but, some significant portion of that is a loan and for some of these kids (if they're being treated the same as everyone else) are paying, or having their parents pay, big bucks to spend an extra year on the team. Despite what someone else posted I don't believe that the league permits grad students to play...
|
NJ Quaker
newbie
Posts: 3
Reg: 12-23-04
|
Re: 5th year players...
12-23-04 01:39 AM - Post#1488
In response to
In other sports, many 5th year athletes enroll as part time students in the semester preceding their season. This reduces costs substantially. Not sure if this is applicable to basketball, though, because the season spans two semesters.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 02:55 PM - Post#1489
In response to SomeGuy
The situation is not much different at Princeton. At the 1,2,3, the Tigers next year return Greenman (Sr.), Sargeant (Soph.), Schafer (Jr.), Buffmire (Jr.), Savage (Soph.) and Owings (Jr.). (If they want to play Owings or Savage as a small 4, more power to them.)
Yet their recruiting class has three shooting guards in it.
Yale returns 11 and already has five commitments.
Columbia has ten returning and already has five commitments.
Dartmouth brings back 11 plus at least four freshmen
Ditto Cornell.
Ditto Harvard.
Brown only has one commitment so far, but they do bring back 14 from this year's squad.
As Asia has pointed out numerous times, until the Ivies change the fin aid/admissions/athletics situation, all the Ivy benches are going to be filled with marginal admits who may be able to play but will get little chance. It neither improves the quality of the team (nor the morale of the team) nor the student body.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23360
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 03:04 PM - Post#1490
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard:
You don't think it improves the quality of the team? Don't you think the increased numbers give you a better shot at a guy who turns into a stud unexpectedly? Who knew Begley or Schiffner would be so good? The extra slots give us a better shot at this kind of outcome.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 03:35 PM - Post#1491
In response to 10Q
Begley and Schiff aren't great examples here. Begley was getting looks/offers from major programs, and was a great get coming in. Schiff was NJ state athlete of the year (an honor given the year before to Jay (then Jason) Williams). Who was the last recruit to toil on the bench and no get much fan fare coming in and then make an unexpected splash?
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 03:35 PM - Post#1492
In response to 10Q
I think Schifner was a bit of a surprise but he came in late as part of a 3 man recruiting class. With him I think the big step up came when he started focusing exclusively on bb. In Begley's case we were all over the kid very early, as was Princeton. Dunphy had him penciled in as a key contributor from the get go.
This year's class is more balanced than most and a bit different because each kid looks to have a shot to be a solid contributor. We don't know all the variables for next year. There are things we don't like to think about like injuries. But - as Howard said - projecting forward, some of these kids will need to be patient as they'll have to at Princeton and the other Ivies. The numbers dictate as much.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 06:07 PM - Post#1493
In response to 10Q
Actually, I think it hurts the quality of the team. There's a reason why the big-time programs generally go with 8-10 players and 2 or 3 walk-ons: crisper practices, more reps for the players and fewer unhappy campers on the bench.
All the time in practice spent on Conor Tolan and Pat Lang over the last three years (for a total of about 20 minutes of varsity play) might have been better spent on Majette and Ebede, for instance. Since it is unlikely that players 11-15 will log any meaningful minutes this year and history shows it's doubtful they'll log any meaningful minutes after that, every practice rep one of those players gets at the expense of players 1-10 is a rep that will have little payoff for the team down the road.
Not to pick on Joe Gill - from what I've seen in practice he's much better than I ever expected and could be a contributor down the road - but in order for him to play at the 3 next year he's going to have to get minutes designated for McMahon, Ebede or Franklin and he'll still have to contend with McMahon and Franklin the following year not to mention the possibility that Penn could also play one of the other guards at the 3 ahead of him. So if McMahon, Ebede or Franklin is playing ahead of him (and they only need be marginally better to play ahead of him) every time Penn runs practice drills for its 3rd team that's time its 1-10 are standing around not getting better.
Granted, the extra bodies allow the coach to take a chance with a project or have an extra practice player when an injury hits, but Penn's coaches are actually quite good at identifying the contributors. While we argue here over the minute allocations and whether Penn should play eight ot ten, we rarely argue that No. 12 should be starting. The only player that I can recall in the last ten years who ascended from nowhere to starter is Garret Kreitz. Can anyone recall anyone else?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-23-04 06:17 PM - Post#1494
In response to 10Q
Echoing what some others have said, I was told while we were recruiting Begley that he was good enough to start for Penn as a senior in high school. Probably a little extreme, but I think there was about as much certainty about his ability coming in as there's been about anyone.
Schiffner is a better example, but again he was described to me as a "Langel clone" while we were recruiting him, which is pretty high praise, as well. Even BRF was all over Schiff.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why do our recruits make such dumb decisions?
12-23-04 09:54 PM - Post#1495
In response to
Don't forget that Fran has 50 minutes to distribute when Begley and Fikiel graduate, and if Os elects to graduate on time, Fran will have closer to 80 minutes to distribute. There is definitely room for new blood if the freshman is truly talented. Fran played Begley and Zoller as freshmen and allowed them to start over upper classmen, and I expect that he won't hesitate to do it again if the freshman has special skills to offer, shares the ball, and knows how to avoid turnovers.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Why do our recruits make such dumb decisions?
12-24-04 01:02 AM - Post#1496
In response to
Barring injury, or some inexplicable benching, Oz is coming back. Why wouldn't he? He didn't transfer from Utah to play ten minutes a game behind Charlie Copp and then one season as a starter.
Fikiel's minutes don't free up any time for a guard. His minutes will go to Votel or Lewis or Pettinella - or Zoller will play 35 a game.
As for Begley's 36 minutes on the perimeter, there will be McMahon, Franklin, Cohen and Egee battling for them with Ebede, Kach, Whitehurst, Grandieri, Gill and Manthey.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why do our recruits make such dumb decisions?
12-24-04 05:43 AM - Post#1497
In response to AsiaSunset
Wasn't Hadden's situation complicated by an injury which required surgery?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why do our recruits make such dumb decisions?
12-24-04 07:40 PM - Post#1498
In response to
Here is another thought. Typically, we enroll one recruit or possibly two out of a total of four years of recruiting that top level D-1 schools shwed any serious interest in, yet we hope and expect to beat them on the court. These one or two players whom we recruited successfully were not necessarily the top or near the top of the recruiting list for the schools that we like to measure ourselves against, e.g. Villanova, Vandy, etc. How, then can we hope to be competitive with a team filled with students who were not recruited at any of the big time schools unless we look for players who fly below the radar but who have some potential? Not too many of the low flyers will ever soar like eagles, but occasionally some do, e.g. Koko. Therefore, of necessity Fran and the other Ivy coaches have to bring in five players per year on average if they hope to find one per year who will emerge to play along side the occasional 3 star player who comes to play for us. As for the others who had some potential but never quite developed to the level where they could help us beat Nova once in awhile, at least they had the chance to be on a D-1 team(which no major D-1 or mid-major school was offering them) and they received admission to an Ivy League school which may set them up for life. There is something in it for everybody, so I don't think that the Ivy system takes advantage of them in any way. The same holds true for our football teams, wrestling teams, etc. Yes there are disappointments along the way if someone with a passion for the game never sees significant playing time, but assuredly they would not see time either at the schools we are trying to be competitive with? Also, when we do land the occasional scholarship level player, that player may commit to us late in the recruiting season and by then to be a little self-protective, we would have had to load up with players with potential who are not being recruited widely or risk ending up with nobody. Having said all of that, I prefer scholarships limited to 3 per year with very rigorous acedemic requirements tacked on to them. It's not going to happen that way, however, so let's content ourselves with what is working pretty well as is. Happy holidays to all.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so dumb?
12-24-04 11:51 PM - Post#1499
In response to Howard Gensler
Quote:
The only player that I can recall in the last ten years who ascended from nowhere to starter is Garret Kreitz. Can anyone recall anyone else?
While it is a little more than 10 years out now.....Barry Pierce would be the perfect answer to your question. He was probably the least heralded of the five recruits in that class.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so d
12-25-04 02:56 PM - Post#1500
In response to
You're right about Pierce as a recruit, but I seem to recall he was in the rotation pretty early on, was starting as a sophomore, was a star as a junior and was captain as a senior. I don't think he was ever No. 11 on the depth chart. Anyone have an old media guide to confirm?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so d
12-27-04 12:11 PM - Post#1501
In response to Howard Gensler
As I recall, Barry Pierce got some minutes immediately on a very weak Penn team, and stepped up to major minutes when Will McAllister ran into some academic roadblocks. Pierce had starters' minutes from the time he was a soph until his graduation. Not exactly a Moxley type case.
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so d
12-27-04 01:01 PM - Post#1502
In response to
Cedric Laster ascended from nowhere to starter.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Better question: Why is the League policy so d
12-27-04 04:18 PM - Post#1503
In response to Howard Gensler
You're right Howard...Barry was starting by the Ivy games his freshman year (His starting had nothing to do with McAlister's troubles...as those didn't come until Will's sophomore year, where Pierce was already in the starting lineup...Will's troubles opened the door for Jerome). My point was mainly to bring up an unheralded recruit who came to prominence, but you're right that he was never No. 11 on the depth chart. I think Kreitz and Stu's mention of Cedric Laster are good analogies there.
|
