Curry also to Ole Miss
- Thread starter altshauf
- Start date
So, for the two weeks that Kermit was masquerading as MT's coach I'm sure he didn't talk up these signees about reneging on their contractual obligation to join him at Ole Miss at all.
I'm now pleased to announce that MT's entire recruiting budget for the past year was spent on those less fortunate schools at Ole Miss and Georgia. It warms my heart to know that we could - you know - provide a level of mercy and grace to these less fortunate programs that aren't nearly as financially well off as we are and - as Massaro put it - "do the right thing."
Though our recruiting budget is probably only a whopping $150K or so - by the time you break down expenses and salaries that went to the coaches while recruiting these players we probably blew three or four hundred thousand. But again it was for a good cause. Clearly those SEC schools needed our help. Perhaps we should just institutionalize this and create a scholarship fund for the SEC for perpetuity. For every dollar you donate MT will send 10 cents to the SEC as a gesture of faith and good will.
I'm now pleased to announce that MT's entire recruiting budget for the past year was spent on those less fortunate schools at Ole Miss and Georgia. It warms my heart to know that we could - you know - provide a level of mercy and grace to these less fortunate programs that aren't nearly as financially well off as we are and - as Massaro put it - "do the right thing."
Though our recruiting budget is probably only a whopping $150K or so - by the time you break down expenses and salaries that went to the coaches while recruiting these players we probably blew three or four hundred thousand. But again it was for a good cause. Clearly those SEC schools needed our help. Perhaps we should just institutionalize this and create a scholarship fund for the SEC for perpetuity. For every dollar you donate MT will send 10 cents to the SEC as a gesture of faith and good will.
I wonder if the Ole Miss fans are complaining that CKD can't recruit above MT type players
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 can guarantee you that come this next season when we play kermit's rebels/bears/sharks-whatever name they are going by this week, there will be dozens if not more MT 'fans' pregame, in game, and post game, kissing his ass, cheering his ass, applauding his ass. I can almost predict by name who those will be. True Blue, my ass.
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.
Very disappointed in our leadership. This should have never happened.
Another reason athletics keeps slipping down in interest for me.
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.
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.
Let's see how you feel when Ole Miss beats us by 35. Kermit basically used our recruiting budget to set him up at Ole Miss. Everybody knows I disagreed with letting them go to opponents on our schedule and most schools don't let that happen. Well, we did and KD now gets the cash and the players.
Bullcrap. These are rules and options within NCAA and concerns sports not education. It's a different ballgame entirely and these options are put in place to limit coaches leaving and taking everything not bolted down with them and thats what KD did thanks to Massaro. We could have restricted them and should have. Just about every school does this which is why those kids need a lawyer to look at the scholarship before they sign it. Once you sign, it's a legal obligation at that point. Massaro let them out of it. That was nice and now our former coach gets to beat us down on national TV with the players he used our money to recruit with. It's a loser move and we now get to lose to them while we play them with 12 point guards.
Last edited:
Why are we acting like Curry and Buffen are 5 star recruits? Buffen was rated a 4 star by ESPN, but a 3 star by everyone else. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and think Ole Miss will go from losing to us by 19 and 15 points the last two years to beating us by 35 based solely on getting two 3 star recruits. It is also a slap in the face to our current players basically saying we need 3 unproven freshmen to remain competitive. On the basis of how to treat student athletes we will just have to agree to disagree.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
What you wrote initially is that you saw no reason why to limit them. And then used bad analogies to try to prove your opinion was better. However, removing emotional reasoning I have provided very specific and logical thoughts on why we should have as allowed under the rules.
Look, if you want to believe what you've stated about it fine. It's your opinion, so just state it as such. But I really don't care about some half assed rationale or analogies that have holes the size of the Grand Canyon that I can only be assumed are an attempt to influence others views. And while I can't fathom how anyone who is BRAA member is ok with what has transpired given the massive disadvantages we inherently and already have to live with compared to a school like Ole Miss you are still welcome to your view even as ludicrous as it is. So perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that there is a vast majority of us who would rather see us protect MT instead of the former head coach who we face in a matter of months.
Oh and btw I have asked several people who have your view if they would be ok with the following scenario. One or more of these recruits decided to sign with Stansbury and wkcc beats us twice in the regular season killing our at large chance and then beats us in the conference tournament championship with the automatic bid on the line as Curry drops 30 on us. You still ok with no restrictions because at MT we said we are completely fine with this exact situation playing out that way no matter how remote or plausible it is. So far I've never gotten a yes to that question.
Look, if you want to believe what you've stated about it fine. It's your opinion, so just state it as such. But I really don't care about some half assed rationale or analogies that have holes the size of the Grand Canyon that I can only be assumed are an attempt to influence others views. And while I can't fathom how anyone who is BRAA member is ok with what has transpired given the massive disadvantages we inherently and already have to live with compared to a school like Ole Miss you are still welcome to your view even as ludicrous as it is. So perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that there is a vast majority of us who would rather see us protect MT instead of the former head coach who we face in a matter of months.
Oh and btw I have asked several people who have your view if they would be ok with the following scenario. One or more of these recruits decided to sign with Stansbury and wkcc beats us twice in the regular season killing our at large chance and then beats us in the conference tournament championship with the automatic bid on the line as Curry drops 30 on us. You still ok with no restrictions because at MT we said we are completely fine with this exact situation playing out that way no matter how remote or plausible it is. So far I've never gotten a yes to that question.
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.
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.
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.
I'll jump in here. BRAA member, alumnus, etc... (just in case folks feel the need to undercut positions based on that sort of thing) I'm also one of the biggest advocates for programs like ours getting as fair of a shake as possible in the current system of college athletics that you'll come across.
It obviously sucks that we lost them, and it especially sucks that they went to Ole Miss. But...what is the point of restricting them? I'm asking an honest question, because I can't come up with an answer other than one of pettiness, or "that's the way things are done."
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? If they wanted to stay, they would stay. Restricting them would not (IMO) make them more likely to stay, at least not without some animus that could manifest itself in their attitudes within the program.
I was pumped, jacked, over the moon about this recruiting class from the outset. And I'm just as disappointed as the rest of you that they won't be wearing the blue and white. But it's time to turn the page. Who cares where they went? It stings a little more than 2/3 ended up following Kermit, sure, but now that they aren't going to be here, I really don't care that much where they ended up. Sure, maybe they will end up playing against us in the next couple of years. Big whoop.
tldr: I want guys that want to be here. If these guys really wanted to be here they would have stayed, restrictions or no. If they aren't here, I don't really care where they are. This happens all the time; we've just been insulated from it because we've held on to our coaches.
It obviously sucks that we lost them, and it especially sucks that they went to Ole Miss. But...what is the point of restricting them? I'm asking an honest question, because I can't come up with an answer other than one of pettiness, or "that's the way things are done."
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? If they wanted to stay, they would stay. Restricting them would not (IMO) make them more likely to stay, at least not without some animus that could manifest itself in their attitudes within the program.
I was pumped, jacked, over the moon about this recruiting class from the outset. And I'm just as disappointed as the rest of you that they won't be wearing the blue and white. But it's time to turn the page. Who cares where they went? It stings a little more than 2/3 ended up following Kermit, sure, but now that they aren't going to be here, I really don't care that much where they ended up. Sure, maybe they will end up playing against us in the next couple of years. Big whoop.
tldr: I want guys that want to be here. If these guys really wanted to be here they would have stayed, restrictions or no. If they aren't here, I don't really care where they are. This happens all the time; we've just been insulated from it because we've held on to our coaches.
Buffen and Curry remind me of Uriah Hethington who never did anything in his one disappointing year at MT.
They may be successful at old piss but not likely to make an impact as freshmen - if they are even on the old piss team as freshmen.
Uriah Hethington
They may be successful at old piss but not likely to make an impact as freshmen - if they are even on the old piss team as freshmen.
Uriah Hethington
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).
Why did CKD not take Grensing to Ole Miss? Coaches/recruiters that connected with recruits don't get left out in the rain... Grensing coaching anywhere now? Curious...
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.
Putting restrictions on them had nothing to do with trying to retain them. Obviously, by restricting them, they're going to be even less likely to re-sign....but at that point....when they're already asking for a release, it's EXTREMELY unlikely they are resigning anyway, so you restrict to future opponents and in-conference. That still leaves 95%, or around 328 other D-1 schools that they can sign with. Not our fault Ole Miss is on the schedule the next few seasons.
Restricting is a more than fair compromise. Why does MT have to bite the bullet and take it in the @$$ and these kids get a total new lease on life with zero repercussions. These are not children. They are young men learning valuable life lessons. You sign a contract to play for Middle Tennessee, not Coach Davis. His name isn't anywhere on the contract. You want out of that contract? Sure, but there's going to be a very, very mild compromise.
Seems more than fair in my eyes. Letting them walk and re-sign with 328 other Division 1 schools? If I was in their shoes, I'd be beyond grateful for a second chance to play elsewhere after having a change of heart.
So what's the benefit for MT, you ask?
Can't believe I have to actually type this out, but I guess I will. It's so that we don't face them for, potentially, the next 4 years. Could you imagine if 2 of the 3 went to WKU? You want a freak like Carlos Curry playing for WKU and MT having to deal with him 2 or 3 times a season for 4 years? No thanks.
It's not uncommon at all for schools to restrict players. At the very least you restrict for in-conference. I don't follow basketball as closely, but I can tell you from a football perspective that the majority of transfers where a release is required come with in-conference restrictions.....
I hope Buffen and Curry each go for Double Doubles and Ole Miss blows MT out the next 2 years we play them. Maybe some of your eyes will open up then.
Last edited:
Good for you for standing up for family but a public forum like this probably isn't the place to do it.
You know Greg and Kermit didn't have a great relationship. We all knew he wasn't going with Kermit to Ole Miss.
And Greg, while a good coach and great @ practice, didn't fulfill his end of the bargain on the recruiting end. He just didn't.
Similar threads
