Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look on the bright side of this. Now that we've seen how "True Blue" Kermit was, we won't have to suffer the curse of rooting for him and Ole Miss.
I think they will be very pleased with their new players. They’ll see Curry being offered by Oklahoma, Clemson and FSU. Also, beating them so much, multiple tournament wins and top 25 rankings will keep that opinion at bay.I wonder if the Ole Miss fans are complaining that CKD can't recruit above MT type players
Very disappointed in our leadership. This should have never happened.
Another reason athletics keeps slipping down in interest for me.
I don't even mind that Fagan decided to go to UGA. I mean he grew up in the shadows of UGA just a couple of hours from his home. He probably dreamed of playing for them his whole life. It sucks for us, but it is at least understandable.
But the other two being allowed to go to an immediate opponent (and follow our head coach there) is unsat.
I do not see any reason to limit any student-athlete from going anywhere they want in between seasons. Coaches can do it, other students can do it, and pretty much everyone else can. Do you all feel bad for employers when people they have spent money on training leave for a rival company? Probably not. Yes this sucks and yes I wish they stayed, but they did not and for all we know they will all be busts or they may lead Ole Miss and UGA to new heights. CKD left here for a pay raise that very few of us would turn down. Also a chance to go to the tourney every year without having to be almost perfect. I think it was actually time for a change to be honest. NCAA tourney last two times play great first round and lay an egg the second round. NIT this year same story. We also have no idea what CNM sees in our current forwards. If he is able to get them to perform up to their potential we will be more than fine. I also think we can play 4 guards when they are all 6'4" to 6'7". We should all calm down and take a wait and see approach.
Actually not true. People can leave non-profit institutions for others, but that is not even my point. By saying you can restrict where a person can go to school and play basketball you are holding them to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else in society. Also other students on scholarship can transfer at any time. A student in a PhD program signs an agreement to do research or teaching in exchange for paid tuition and a small stipend. If that student were to want to transfer could the department restrict where they go? The answer is no. Same exact situation. A student agrees to offer a service to the institution in exchange for an education and small stipend.You are comparing for profit corporations to non-profit institutions with amateur athletes. None of these people are professional employees. That's where your analogy and ostensibly your view on this falls apart. Oh and by the way if they were professional athletes the team would have ownership rights over them for a predetermined amount of time (i.e. NBA up to three years, six years in MLB, etc.).
Actually not true. People can leave non-profit institutions for others, but that is not even my point. By saying you can restrict where a person can go to school and play basketball you are holding them to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else in society. Also other students on scholarship can transfer at any time. A student in a PhD program signs an agreement to do research or teaching in exchange for paid tuition and a small stipend. If that student were to want to transfer could the department restrict where they go? The answer is no. Same exact situation. A student agrees to offer a service to the institution in exchange for an education and small stipend.
Actually not true. People can leave non-profit institutions for others, but that is not even my point. By saying you can restrict where a person can go to school and play basketball you are holding them to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else in society. Also other students on scholarship can transfer at any time. A student in a PhD program signs an agreement to do research or teaching in exchange for paid tuition and a small stipend. If that student were to want to transfer could the department restrict where they go? The answer is no. Same exact situation. A student agrees to offer a service to the institution in exchange for an education and small stipend.
Do you really not think they are not providing a service for us? I agree that the university also provides a service to them. It is not a privilege to play basketball at the college level. This is not high school. There are no victims here. This is two people/organizations agreeing to a mutually beneficial contract and then both agreeing to void that contract. You act like the only side that benefits from basketball is the player and not the university. Pretty sure our win against Michigan State did far more for the university than it did any individual player on that team. Both sides benefit and both sides provide a service.Holy crap! So, they re providing a service for us?? Troll or serious. Hope for your sake you are just trolling. Because - I mean I'm pretty sure number one its a privilege not a service. Second, it's MT providing the service here. They get thousands of dollars of free education just to play ball. You are making them into victims and my only thought is holy crap people actually think like this.
Lastly to address your ridiculous hypothetical example there is no governing body the determines eligibility for the non student athlete to do something else (like athletics). If you want to argue that the NCAA shouldn't have amateur rules and standards then fine. That's a different story so perhaps you should do that. What the NCAA was attempting to do with these rules was to prevent a form of college free agency, but it's already gotten bad enough. If a player wants to transfer or not fulfill his contractual obligation then fine. Transfer anywhere you want. Go to Ole Miss if you want but you should have to sit out a year (not school but the sport) and pay your own way for that year. That rule is the only way to prevent the haves from perpetually taking advance of the have nots. Otherwise schools like MT will become the minor leagues of college sports as P5 secretly recruit our players.
So someone has to be of a certain specific political or philosophical group to have certain opinions on certain issues? I guess that is the political climate today. Everyone has to be put in boxes with labels. I agree that transfer rules do protect smaller schools from having their players taken by bigger ones basically at will. I also agree that the school should have to release the player from a scholarship. I do not agree that the rules should only favor the school. Just because I do not and have not spent every waking moment arguing about things on here that I have no control over does not mean I am not who I say I am. I am an Alumni and BRAA member, so I think I can say "we" and our". I didn't know there was a minimum amount of posts required on an online forum to be able to associate with MTSU athletics.crposton: You make arguments which have been made ad infinitum by those of specific political and philosophical leanings. Regardless, I look at the world through my "$#&-major" filter and support anything which helps schools at our level remain competitive. IMHO current NCAA transfer rules, which may change since "power" schools want more freedom to pluck quality players from less renowned athletic programs, protect schools at MT's level therefore I support such rules wholeheartedly.
Regardless, you have made several references to "we" and to "our" in your, now 4, posts. What is the impetus for your recent interest is supporting "your" school by posting in this forum? Could it be that you're not what you are insinuating?
I never said they were victims. In fact I said there were no victims. They were the highest rated recruits maybe, but we have no idea how they will turn out. I think we will be very successful with our new coaching staff who seems to be liked by the players and recruits. I never said I was not upset the three players left and Kermit got two of them at Ole Miss. I am not going to act like it i the end of the basketball program because of one year of losing good recruits.You can agree or disagree all you want but the NCAA gives the school the option of protecting itself and these players can bring a lawyer or read the scholarship over before they sign it. They are not victims. If they sign it, it's on them and yes, these guys were the best crop of recruits we've ever had at this school.
Honestly I would have had no problem restricting them to CUSA and maybe future opponents but we didn't. I was mad and still am mad that 2 of the 3 ended up at Ole Miss. Oh and the WKU scenario is far fetched, but I still would say we do not limit them. By not limiting them we are showing future recruits we put their needs first and in the long run it may be more beneficial to us than these three recruits we are not getting anyway would have been. We should not be arguing amongst ourselves and should be behind the players that are here and want to be here. I know Scurry may not play this year and is only 6'5", but he has a 7'3" wingspan. For comparison Bridges from Michigan State is a hair under 6'6" with around a 6'10" wingspan. I can also see this Crump kid at 6'7" being a third guard that will be able to pay with forwards. For all we know CNM did not recruit these kids that hard after they left because they would not fit his system as well. I don't think any of us would have passed the increases in pay Kermit and the assistants got or would have wanted our kids to go to a school where the coach may not be the best fit anymore. If I am thinking purely of being a fan of MT I am pissed and want restrictions. If I put myself in current and future recruits shoes I see the benefits of letting them go without restrictions.FWIW I do get the point of view that restricting these guys is somehow unethical in a sense. Unfortunately, this whole issue is actually a big problem for college athletics with clear solutions not evident. It's unfortunate that college athletics has created this problem. But we can't simply ignore the impact to MT and this is where I come down on it. When kids sign their LOI they know it's a one year minimums commitment. We should always release them 100% of the time but we also have to be smart and do so in a way that doesn't negatively impact us as well. We have a lot of financial resources - resources that are extremely finite for us - invested in these three. It is detrimental to MT to not slightly limit them to immediate competitors/opponents. MT did not create this problem yet we are certainly feeling the brunt of it - as do all schools outside the power construct.
Honestly I would have had no problem restricting them to CUSA and maybe future opponents but we didn't. I was mad and still am mad that 2 of the 3 ended up at Ole Miss. Oh and the WKU scenario is far fetched, but I still would say we do not limit them. By not limiting them we are showing future recruits we put their needs first and in the long run it may be more beneficial to us than these three recruits we are not getting anyway would have been. We should not be arguing amongst ourselves and should be behind the players that are here and want to be here. I know Scurry may not play this year and is only 6'5", but he has a 7'3" wingspan. For comparison Bridges from Michigan State is a hair under 6'6" with around a 6'10" wingspan. I can also see this Crump kid at 6'7" being a third guard that will be able to pay with forwards. For all we know CNM did not recruit these kids that hard after they left because they would not fit his system as well. I don't think any of us would have passed the increases in pay Kermit and the assistants got or would have wanted our kids to go to a school where the coach may not be the best fit anymore. If I am thinking purely of being a fan of MT I am pissed and want restrictions. If I put myself in current and future recruits shoes I see the benefits of letting them go without restrictions.
I've seen this said before about future recruits. I just don't see it. If I'm considering MT as a recruit the last thing on my mind is what happens if the head coach leaves. Like as a 17 or 18 old I'm going to be like not sure I want to go there. If the coach leaves they might not let me transfer to one of their opponents. No one thinks like this. We did absolutely nothing to boost our recruiting stature across the country. It's a non thing.
Personally, I have no problem with the releases. It's the fact that there were no restrictions on them that irks me. Should not have let them sign with Ole Miss, any C-USA school or any other future opponent.Agreed. The fact that we released these kids without restrictions has already been forgotten by everyone but us and the 3 kids who actually benefited from it.
I can tell you that CKD did not use his time here at MTSU in the last month to recruit to Ole Miss. I can also tell you it was highly likely that if Massaro and McPhee would have hired Coach Grensing, the recruiting class would have stayed in tact as well as the top player in a nearby state would have signed. We really know very little about CNM. He captivated Massaro and McPhee so fingers crossed. I can also tell you that it's a constant SMH when it comes to MTSU athletics ( more than you can really comprehend).
I'm asking from a serious strategic standpoint, in wanting what is best for MT Athletics. What is the benefit we derive from restricting them?
CKD offered to take him in a non-recruiting spot. As you see CKD filled his staff with minorities. We did not want to move to Oxford. We are happy in Murfreesboro! We have a son that will be in 6th grade and one daughter finishing up at MTSU. Greg has coached successfully for 36 years. He is retiring happily and finally able to spend time with his family and more. Thanks for asking.