The Official “Regular Posters of the Basketball Forum” Thread

#24,976
#24,976
There was a hearing on the House vs NCAA settlement Wednesday, the judge once again said she is set to approve it all once the players currently on rosters (walk-ons) are guaranteed slots during this process. That was the only part that is causing any hang-up. The NCAA has been having meetings this week to modify the rule and grandfather those athletes in or go to no limits at all.

Warde Manuel admitted they made a mistake by not grandfathering in those players and cutting them all off at once. Michigan cut 140 kids off rosters, Ohio State 170.

The contrary argument among the NCAA administrators is just going to a no roster/scholarship limits of any kind rule. Some think certain teams would just stockpile talent at that point, but others say we see with the portal now that people will leave if they aren't playing. So basically it's down to does the NCAA decide to set it at a certain number and grandfather certain players (which is apparently a logistical headache) or just go no limits.
 
#24,977
#24,977
VolArmy74 said:
There was a hearing on the House vs NCAA settlement Wednesday, the judge once again said she is set to approve it all once the players currently on rosters (walk-ons) are guaranteed slots during this process. That was the only part that is causing any hang-up. The NCAA has been having meetings this week to modify the rule and grandfather those athletes in or go to no limits at all.

Warde Manuel admitted they made a mistake by not grandfathering in those players and cutting them all off at once. Michigan cut 140 kids off rosters, Ohio State 170.

The contrary argument among the NCAA administrators is just going to a no roster/scholarship limits of any kind rule. Some think certain teams would just stockpile talent at that point, but others say we see with the portal now that people will leave if they aren't playing. So basically it's down to does the NCAA decide to set it at a certain number and grandfather certain players (which is apparently a logistical headache) or just go no limits.
Click to expand...
Headache because some schools have already cut walk on’s and fear that those players will sue? Or want back? Logistically it seems easy, but yes, I’m sure there would be some aggravated coaches and players who already cut/lost spots. Why not add in that players still eligible who played last year and were preemptively cut can be added back and part of those grandfathered in?
 
#24,978
#24,978
Time to start projecting starters?!?!

Here's the starting 5 I'm thinking we see

Ja'Kobi
Abram
Ament
Carey
Felix

top 4 off the bench
Cade
JP
Evans or CM
Bishop (depending on how he improves he might be the lead guard off the bench)

We'll see Brown and Henderson some I think, but probably not a ton both are in pretty good situations though very good players with experience ahead of them to learn from but also know that next season they could be potentially competing to start depending on who leaves (as of now 4 of our 5 starters are projected 1 year guys because of graduation or draft)
 
#24,979
#24,979
Our starting 5 last year averaged 54.1ppg, using the averages of each player from last year our starting 4 averaged 42.1ppg, that’s with a 0 for Ament, so if you gives you that 15ppg that’s been a baseline for similarly ranked prospects that puts you at 57.1ppg. Obviously off the bench we had Gainey, but that was about it from a scoring standpoint, we should have many more scoring options off the bench this year I would think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol
#24,980
#24,980
bleedingTNorange said:
Our starting 5 last year averaged 54.1ppg, using the averages of each player from last year our starting 4 averaged 42.1ppg, that’s with a 0 for Ament, so if you gives you that 15ppg that’s been a baseline for similarly ranked prospects that puts you at 57.1ppg. Obviously off the bench we had Gainey, but that was about it from a scoring standpoint, we should have many more scoring options off the bench this year I would think.
Click to expand...

Yep, plus I think Abram, Felix and Carey you can almost expect increases in scoring. Partly from playing with an elite PG but also another year of experience.
 
#24,981
#24,981
bleedingTNorange said:
Headache because some schools have already cut walk on’s and fear that those players will sue? Or want back? Logistically it seems easy, but yes, I’m sure there would be some aggravated coaches and players who already cut/lost spots. Why not add in that players still eligible who played last year and were preemptively cut can be added back and part of those grandfathered in?
Click to expand...
The schools have cut the players, who've left or transferred in many cases, and they've fired staff members due to smaller team sizes.
 
#24,982
#24,982
VolArmy74 said:
The schools have cut the players, who've left or transferred in many cases, and they've fired staff members due to smaller team sizes.
Click to expand...
Color me skeptical, but let’s use OSU as an example since you mentioned them…if the rosters unlimited I am to believe they wouldn’t love/try to add another 50 football players to their roster and would have zero issues hiring the number of staff they felt was needed?
 
#24,984
#24,984
bleedingTNorange said:
Color me skeptical, but let’s use OSU as an example since you mentioned them…if the rosters unlimited I am to believe they wouldn’t love/try to add another 50 football players to their roster and would have zero issues hiring the number of staff they felt was needed?
Click to expand...
Michigan's a.d was the one saying that about staff/trying to get players back but he was advocating for the grandfathered situation. Nebraska's AD was who wanted unlimited rosters. He's the one who mentioned the transfer portal clearly showing that if players don't get to play, they walk, so he didn't believe roster stacking would happen. That said, there's a cap on how much revenue will be shared. The more players you have the smaller the pie. That should also curtail roster stacking.
 
#24,985
#24,985
VolArmy74 said:
Michigan's a.d was the one saying that about staff/trying to get players back but he was advocating for the grandfathered situation. Nebraska's AD was who wanted unlimited rosters. He's the one who mentioned the transfer portal clearly showing that if players don't get to play, they walk, so he didn't believe roster stacking would happen. That said, there's a cap on how much revenue will be shared. The more players you have the smaller the pie. That should also curtail roster stacking.
Click to expand...
But NIL will still be a thing, no?
 
#24,997
#24,997
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol and VolsAgainstTheWorld15
#24,998
#24,998
TheMookieMonster said:
Between Stute and CBM both playing a 6th year, I’m not sure anything will surprise me when it comes to college eligibility anymore. It’s stupid.
Click to expand...
CBM at least was member cut and dry and expected, that’s the real, JUCO year doesn’t count and neither does COVID, so he gets 1 more. Stute has used up the COVID and didn’t qualify for a medical redshirt, insane to give him another. What’s the line? Could Zeigler try and get one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol and VolsAgainstTheWorld15
#24,999
#24,999
TheMookieMonster said:
Between Stute and CBM both playing a 6th year, I’m not sure anything will surprise me when it comes to college eligibility anymore. It’s stupid.
Click to expand...

Gainey could get one cuz at the Ole Miss game, someone in the crowd threw a tennis ball at him when he was shooting a free throw
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol, Vol49er and TheMookieMonster
#25,000
#25,000
The second the “juco doesn’t count” ruling came down with Diego Pavia, eligibility became so ambiguous that now anyone could construct an argument for more eligibility. Jmo, the court in that lawsuit was incorrect in its ruling and opened a can of worms that never should have been opened.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top