You know, like the Fab 5 did at Michigan.-- da Coach
But the Michigan situation was an anomoly -- and the introduction of the rule was an inference that coaches would recruit a bunch of kids, then run off the ones that didn't pan out, you know the way we used to accuse Kevin O'Neil of recruiting.
At the Big 10 Basketball media day, NU's present coach, Bill Carmody, implied that many of NU's recent transfers revolved around kids wanting more playing time. He also hinted that maybe some of the parent's attitudes about the recruiting process, academics, etc. isn't always about going to college, but starring at a school in the Big 10. [my analysis]
Its interesting that virtually every recent NU scholarship player transfer has gone on to play and graduate at a smaller school. [Jimmy Maley apparently headed to Holy Cross and doesn't want to play anymore?]
Right Now every Division I coach has 13 scholarships available for Basketball. As far as recruiting and scholarships, I have to agree with Wisconsin's Bo Ryan -
"Just let me have my 13 scholarships and let me manage them the best way I can. If I'm not getting it done, I'm going to be let go anyway."So here's my modest proposal.
1. Dump the 5 and 8 rule completely - coaches can sign as many kids as they can get as long as they stick within 13 schollies.
2. Coaches are on the hook for the graduation of their recruits - regardless of where they are playing or where you are coaching today. If you recruit a class of 10 and 5 don't graduate in 5 years, your present school loses 5 scholarships the next year.
It will put pressure on head coaches to be certain that the kids they recruit finish school, and it penalizes the coaches that recruit like crazy to advance in the coaching ranks. No college will hire a coach who carries a potential scholarship limitation with him to a new school.
Its like Bo said, let the coaches manage their scholarships, but put some teeth into the graduation requirements.
What do you think?
|Talk about it on the Purple Boards