|
Post by siena7127 on Feb 5, 2024 17:43:00 GMT -5
Sad to say, but unless there are some serious discussions with players that lead to the better players staying and the non-DI players deciding to leave nothing will change. The better players will end up leaving and the rest of the roster stays and any new talent just replaces the few current DI players. That leaves the bottom-line unchanged. Siena needs to lose all the Non DI group and get at least 1-9 who can compete at the DI level. Unless that happens you still only have 1-3 DI and the rest not able to compete. That is what we have now and even if you had a HOF coach at the helm it wouldn't help. Siena has to adopt a strictly transactional business model and not the more "charitable" approach of the past and honestly, I don't see that happening. So this raises a question I asked awhile back and didn’t get an answer….even though scholarships are ‘year to year’ is the school tying Carms hand and not letting him run off kids because it’s not the Franciscan thing to do (especially the 1 for 3 kids that had to pay a year)? Does anyone know if it’s Carm or the school that if push came to shove and a kid didn’t want to leave, will they not renew the scholarship? Whoever it is, they need to understand this is a whole new world and with kids jumping every year it has to swing both ways. Ships are year to year…although the school would prefer that coaches recruit players they want to keep, there is no written rules that says they have to keep them. It’s like at will employment, performance matters.
|
|
OneIndian
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,689
Dislikes:
|
Post by OneIndian on Feb 5, 2024 18:22:45 GMT -5
So this raises a question I asked awhile back and didn’t get an answer….even though scholarships are ‘year to year’ is the school tying Carms hand and not letting him run off kids because it’s not the Franciscan thing to do (especially the 1 for 3 kids that had to pay a year)? Does anyone know if it’s Carm or the school that if push came to shove and a kid didn’t want to leave, will they not renew the scholarship? Whoever it is, they need to understand this is a whole new world and with kids jumping every year it has to swing both ways. Ships are year to year…although the school would prefer that coaches recruit players they want to keep, there is no written rules that says they have to keep them. It’s like at will employment, performance matters. Absolutely. That policy might have been all well and good with the old rules but it’s a different landscape today. Players can leave at will, so institutions should not feel guilty when having to move on when necessary. Amateur athletics are over, this is a business more than ever. In addition Carm needs to learn you can’t replace transfers with freshmen. It a losing proposition.
|
|
|
Post by knicksaint on Feb 5, 2024 19:18:07 GMT -5
It is my understanding that there is a new rule that will be effective in August which will make all scholarships offered thereafter four year offers, eliminating the one year renewable existing status. All the more reason to be more proactive this spring.
|
|
|
Post by saints15 on Feb 5, 2024 20:38:17 GMT -5
It is my understanding that there is a new rule that will be effective in August which will make all scholarships offered thereafter four year offers, eliminating the one year renewable existing status. All the more reason to be more proactive this spring. Hadn’t heard this and don’t agree with a rule that binds the school to a kid for 4 years but the kid can leave at any time. I suggested awhile back that scholarships should have multiple options…..1, 2, 3 or 4 years and it is binding on both sides. You accept a 2,3, or 4 year offer you are bound for that many years, or if you leave you sit. That way coaches have some roster certainty and kids can get more security, if they want it.
|
|
OneIndian
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,689
Dislikes:
|
Post by OneIndian on Feb 5, 2024 20:51:03 GMT -5
It is my understanding that there is a new rule that will be effective in August which will make all scholarships offered thereafter four year offers, eliminating the one year renewable existing status. All the more reason to be more proactive this spring. That makes no sense whatsoever. The institutions are on the hook for 4 years and the player can walk at at anytime? We’re living in the land of the upside down!
|
|
|
Post by marshotel on Feb 5, 2024 21:12:12 GMT -5
|
|
hoopjunkie
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 12,500
Dislikes:
|
Post by hoopjunkie on Feb 5, 2024 23:03:45 GMT -5
It is my understanding that there is a new rule that will be effective in August which will make all scholarships offered thereafter four year offers, eliminating the one year renewable existing status. All the more reason to be more proactive this spring. That make no sense whatsoever. The institutions are on the hook for 4 years and the player can walk at at anytime? We’re living in the land of upside down! That rule will KILL HS recruits. Why roll the dice on a HS kid that you're forced to keep for 4 years when you can just keep signing proven transfers for 1 or 2 years??
|
|
|
Post by billmurray on Feb 6, 2024 11:23:46 GMT -5
That make no sense whatsoever. The institutions are on the hook for 4 years and the player can walk at at anytime? We’re living in the land of upside down! That rule will KILL HS recruits. Why roll the dice on a HS kid that you're forced to keep for 4 years when you can just keep signing proven transfers for 1 or 2 years?? I just read that the Dartmouth basketball players won a court case the ruled that the players are employees of the school. If the court ruled that players are employees, it doesn't follow that they cannot be let go for non performance. If that were the case, no company could ever fire non-performing employees.
|
|
|
Post by hardwood on Feb 6, 2024 11:48:49 GMT -5
That rule will KILL HS recruits. Why roll the dice on a HS kid that you're forced to keep for 4 years when you can just keep signing proven transfers for 1 or 2 years?? I just read that the Dartmouth basketball players won a court case the ruled that the players are employees of the school. If the court ruled that players are employees, it doesn't follow that they cannot be let go for non performance. If that were the case, no company could ever fire non-performing employees. Time to make sure the at will employment is in the loi
|
|