Possible Kentan Facey Eligibility Issues | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Possible Kentan Facey Eligibility Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,376
Reaction Score
23,668
A little bit overdramatic. If our season hinges on an unproven, undersized freshman forward, we're probably doomed to begin with. You can't tell everything from informal settings, but he wasn't that far ahead of Brimah in the Hartford pro-am games.

And then look at our history:
1998-99 - Deng never gets eligible.
2003-04 - MW ineligible after first semester
2005-06 - Bynum goes pro, never shows.
2008-09 - Nate Miles
2010-11 - Wolf has to join mid-year

OK - that last one is a reach. But the point is that when we've had quality teams, we've been able to overcome an incoming role player falling by the wayside.


Maybe this doesn't fall into the category of "incoming role players", but Majok bolting after the 2009-10 season, when he figured to play a huge role in 2010-11, probably fits the bill better than Wolf for that season, especially since his departure forced Roscoe into the four spot, a major deviation from typical Calhoun teams featuring two 6'9+ guys.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,376
Reaction Score
23,668
Anyway, here's my take on Facey possibly being ineligible: it's a big deal, but not a huge deal (i.e., season defining, likely to move us down in the pre-season polls). The biggest question entering the season in regards to Facey was, could he play the five? And frankly, I'm not sure he could have, given he appeared a bit more raw than I had hoped for in what I've seen of him so far and he's as thin as a rail. He would have been a minus offensively and not as impactful as I had hoped for defensively unless he put on a fair amount of weight between now and November. In other words, he would have been a bit of a tweener: not skilled enough to play the four and not physically mature enough to play the five. A few months ago, I thought Facey would scoop up 20-25 minutes a game and play crunch time for us at the five, but the more I thought about it, Nolan's probably more likely to play the lion's share of the minutes at the five due to his extra couple inches and more filled out body. I am not convinced Facey was going to play more than ten minutes a game (assuming everybody was healthy/eligible) with Daniels logging 30+ minutes at the four and Olander likely scooping up the minutes Nolan didn't play at the five.

As for Samuel, I didn't think he'd play much anyway. Where a potential eligibility issue with him would really hurt us would be the following year, when we're relying on him to play minutes at the point and facilitate the offense. Next year, not so much with two all-American caliber point guards in the back court and Calhoun/Kromah capable of filling in at the two. My newest minute projections, assuming the losses of Facey and Samuel, are as follows:

PG - Napier 20 min, Boat 20 min
SG - Boat 14 min, Napier 13 min, Kromah 10 min, Calhoun 3 min (possibly more if he improves his ball-handling)
SF - Calhoun 27 min, Giffey 13 min
PF - Daniels 33 min, Giffey 7 min
C - Nolan 20 min, Olander 15 min, Giffey 5 min

Facey and Olander were going to battle for backup minutes at the five, so worst case scenario, we've lost our backup center. If anybody thinks losing our backup center is going to be the difference between making the final four and not making it, I'd love to hear your rationale on that. And to be honest, I get the feeling Olander would have beaten out Facey for the additional minutes at the five, anyway. He's better offensively and more experienced/savvy defensively. Where these potential losses will really hurt us, is depth. As gurleyman/fleud points out, we now cannot afford to lose a Giffey/Olander/Kromah or Napier/Boat/Calhoun/DD will be forced to log huge minutes.
 

Huskyforlife

Akokbouk
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
12,280
Reaction Score
50,094
Anyway, here's my take on Facey possibly being ineligible: it's a big deal, but not a huge deal (i.e., season defining, likely to move us down in the pre-season polls). The biggest question entering the season in regards to Facey was, could he play the five? And frankly, I'm not sure he could have, given he appeared a bit more raw than I had hoped for in what I've seen of him so far and he's as thin as a rail. He would have been a minus offensively and not as impactful as I had hoped for defensively unless he put on a fair amount of weight between now and November. In other words, he would have been a bit of a tweener: not skilled enough to play the four and not physically mature enough to play the five. A few months ago, I thought Facey would scoop up 20-25 minutes a game and play crunch time for us at the five, but the more I thought about it, Nolan's probably more likely to play the lion's share of the minutes at the five due to his extra couple inches and more filled out body. I am not convinced Facey was going to play more than ten minutes a game (assuming everybody was healthy/eligible) with Daniels logging 30+ minutes at the four and Olander likely scooping up the minutes Nolan didn't play at the five.

As for Samuel, I didn't think he'd play much anyway. Where a potential eligibility issue with him would really hurt us would be the following year, when we're relying on him to play minutes at the point and facilitate the offense. Next year, not so much with two all-American caliber point guards in the back court and Calhoun/Kromah capable of filling in at the two. My newest minute projections, assuming the losses of Facey and Samuel, are as follows:

PG - Napier 20 min, Boat 20 min
SG - Boat 14 min, Napier 13 min, Kromah 10 min, Calhoun 3 min (possibly more if he improves his ball-handling)
SF - Calhoun 27 min, Giffey 13 min
PF - Daniels 33 min, Giffey 7 min
C - Nolan 20 min, Olander 15 min, Giffey 5 min

Facey and Olander were going to battle for backup minutes at the five, so worst case scenario, we've lost our backup center. If anybody thinks losing our backup center is going to be the difference between making the final four and not making it, I'd love to hear your rationale on that. And to be honest, I get the feeling Olander would have beaten out Facey for the additional minutes at the five, anyway. He's better offensively and more experienced/savvy defensively. Where these potential losses will really hurt us, is depth. As gurleyman/fleud points out, we now cannot afford to lose a Giffey/Olander/Kromah or Napier/Boat/Calhoun/DD will be forced to log huge minutes.
we had no depth or centers before wolf left. without facey we have no depth at all at either the 4 or 5. and as much as i like Giffey, he won't play any time at the 5. in a situation where we have to go small,DD would play the 5 and NG 4
 

CTBasketball

Former Owner of the Pizza Thread
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
9,767
Reaction Score
32,028
Is there a possibility Jordan Fuchs can gain eligibility?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,505
Reaction Score
9,607
Listen to you all....acting like it's over.

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

(Germans?)
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,734
Reaction Score
9,065
So reading through this thread one would assume that Kentan Facey is ineligible, and its a done deal.

I'm assuming that is just normal BY insanity, yes? We do not have an official word on this.

I mean for Christ sake the kid is on campus and has started taking classes? Right?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,052
Reaction Score
19,075
we had no depth or centers before wolf left. without facey we have no depth at all at either the 4 or 5. and as much as i like Giffey, he won't play any time at the 5. in a situation where we have to go small,DD would play the 5 and NG 4

Depth isn't necessarily a problem. Even without Facey, we're three deep at the 5 (Olander, Nolan, Brimah) and two deep at the four (Daniels, Giffey when small). Quality of the depth might be a problem, especially if TO and Nolan aren't any better than last year and Brimah isn't ready. Last year, we had depth at the five with TO, Wolf and Nolan (who wasn't ready) - but we didn't have much quality. It felt like a rotation in the sense of the wheels of an exercise bike, rotating but not going anywhere. Add Facey and you probably still have the same depth in numbers - just someone falls out of the rotation.

If Facey actually turned out to be, say, freshman year Okafor, everything would look different. He'd get 30 minutes a night - maybe TO would get 15 minutes a night to back up the 4 and the 5, maybe Giffey would never play the 4, and maybe Nolan and Brimah wouldn't even be rotation guys. So we'd in a way have less depth in the rotation (three guys playing two spots), but we'd be better. I'm just not certain that Facey adds that sort of immediate quality.

I hope he gets squared away, and I hope I'm underestimating the quality he can provide, and he turns out to be a vital cog as our best rebounder. That's the best case for us.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,376
Reaction Score
23,668
we had no depth or centers before wolf left. without facey we have no depth at all at either the 4 or 5. and as much as i like Giffey, he won't play any time at the 5. in a situation where we have to go small,DD would play the 5 and NG 4


I'm not really concerned with having depth at the four because Daniels is going to play 80% of the minutes there, and if God forbid Daniels gets hurt, we can easily slide Giffey into that slot and have him play 80% of the minutes. If one of them goes down and Tolksdorf has to play ten minutes a game at the four, I don't think that's the end of the world.

As for the center position, we won twenty games last season with Olander starting there. Our situation is not as dire as some make it out to be - no, center is not a strong suit on this team, but there are not a lot of good centers in college basketball and the rest of our roster is more than strong enough to make up for it. Duke's starting center next season - Amile Jefferson - averaged four points and three rebounds last year. I think they are going to be alright. As last season established, if Olander is your best option at center, you're in trouble. But that's why the ceiling of next year's team hinges on the development of Phil Nolan - if he can play twenty minutes a game, and Olander backs him up, we'll be fine. We act like losing Wolf is earth-shattering when in reality there was no noticeable drop-off in our play last season once he was suspended. Losing Facey, in addition to Wolf, would be a bit of a blow, but not something we cannot overcome.

Giffey is capable of playing center for a couple minutes here and there, as he proved last season. It isn't ideal, but against teams with smaller front lines, I would love to see a lineup of Bazz-Boat-Omar-DD-NG.
 

Huskyforlife

Akokbouk
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
12,280
Reaction Score
50,094
I'm not really concerned with having depth at the four because Daniels is going to play 80% of the minutes there, and if God forbid Daniels gets hurt, we can easily slide Giffey into that slot and have him play 80% of the minutes. If one of them goes down and Tolksdorf has to play ten minutes a game at the four, I don't think that's the end of the world.

As for the center position, we won twenty games last season with Olander starting there. Our situation is not as dire as some make it out to be - no, center is not a strong suit on this team, but there are not a lot of good centers in college basketball and the rest of our roster is more than strong enough to make up for it. Duke's starting center next season - Amile Jefferson - averaged four points and three rebounds last year. I think they are going to be alright. As last season established, if Olander is your best option at center, you're in trouble. But that's why the ceiling of next year's team hinges on the development of Phil Nolan - if he can play twenty minutes a game, and Olander backs him up, we'll be fine. We act like losing Wolf is earth-shattering when in reality there was no noticeable drop-off in our play last season once he was suspended. Losing Facey, in addition to Wolf, would be a bit of a blow, but not something we cannot overcome.

Giffey is capable of playing center for a couple minutes here and there, as he proved last season. It isn't ideal, but against teams with smaller front lines, I would love to see a lineup of Bazz-Boat-Omar-DD-NG.

i agree i think our best lineup would be going small with NG at the 4, but i don't think KO is going to play that lineup for long stretches of time. i was also not aware that jefferson started at the 5 for duke, thought it was MP but maybe he played 4. you are right however that there is a lack of good 5s in college BB, we should be lucky though that UL lost Deing(sp?)
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,376
Reaction Score
23,668
i agree i think our best lineup would be going small with NG at the 4, but i don't think KO is going to play that lineup for long stretches of time. i was also not aware that jefferson started at the 5 for duke, thought it was MP but maybe he played 4. you are right however that there is a lack of good 5s in college BB, we should be lucky though that UL lost Deing(sp?)


Sorry for the confusion, I meant Jefferson was going to start at the five for Duke next year.
 

CTBasketball

Former Owner of the Pizza Thread
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
9,767
Reaction Score
32,028
I laugh at this Giffey-center thing. He's 6'6" and people expect him to give minutes at the 5. We sound like Quinnipiac or Marist fans wanting a 6'6" shooting small forward to be our emergency center.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
3,533
Reaction Score
8,123
I think this is just another example of why the NCAA no longer should have any moral authority at all. Messing with a kid's life over some BS about how he came to the USA? IF the US Gov has allowed him to stay and be in school and play ball- that should be good enough. Find some other kids to $%#& with- this seems petty.
 

CTBasketball

Former Owner of the Pizza Thread
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
9,767
Reaction Score
32,028
I think this is just another example of why the NCAA no longer should have any moral authority at all. Messing with a kid's life over some BS about how he came to the USA? IF the US Gov has allowed him to stay and be in school and play ball- that should be good enough. Find some other kids to $%#& with- this seems petty.
To an extent I agree, but if a kid is staying here illegally and gets a fake birth certificate then I have no problem in deeming a kid ineligible. I would deport him.
 

caw

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,213
Reaction Score
13,465
I laugh at this Giffey-center thing. He's 6'6" and people expect him to give minutes at the 5. We sound like Quinnipiac or Marist fans wanting a 6'6" shooting small forward to be our emergency center.

He played center a few games last year an was probably the teams best defender at the spot. He's not ideal at all but he could theoretically play a minute or two if needed during some conference games. I wouldn't want him playing any center in the NCAAT of course. There is a huge gap between the two. The conference games are going to be close to Marist in a few instances.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,909
Reaction Score
10,536
I don't think Giffeys guarding a 5 full time but he sure could switch on to one during some possessions. Great defensive IQ and hands
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,841
Reaction Score
30,180
Giffey played most of the 2nd half and all of OT at C against Georgetown and was rotating on defensive rotations and defending shots at the rim better than I saw from Tyler the entire year. He also played it against Prov when Tyler and Wolf fouled out and its not like they were providing any help on the boards when we got ate up that game. Nobody is saying he should start there but in a pinch he can provide minutes.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,495
Reaction Score
6,817
To an extent I agree, but if a kid is staying here illegally and gets a fake birth certificate then I have no problem in deeming a kid ineligible. I would deport him.

Thankfully, deportation is one power the NCAA does not yet have. I'm sure Emmert would gladly take it though.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,764
Reaction Score
143,893
Dom Amore@AmoreCourant
Kevin Ollie says NCAA is examining Kentan Facey eligibility. Confident it will work out, but not sure. #uconnmen

Neill Ostrout@NeillOstrout
Ollie on Kentan Facey (who is on campus but facing eligibility issue): "I don't see it being a problem."

Neill Ostrout@NeillOstrout
UConn coach Kevin Ollie on Terrence Samuel's eligibility: "I think he'll be on campus this fall...still some NCAA issues going on."

Dom Amore@AmoreCourant
Terrence Samuel had to take a couple of classes over summer. Ollie expects he will be okay for fall #uconnmen

David Borges@DaveBorges
Kevin Ollie concerned but doesn't seem overly worried about Facey, Samuel eligibility issues. #uconn

David Borges@DaveBorges
Ollie on Facey: once he's able to tell his side, why he decided to come over when he did, formality of him being placed in certain grade I think that'll put case on our side. Think we'll see him with #uconn jersey on in the fall. And if not, we've gotta move on like always
 
K

Kemballin'

Thankfully, deportation is one power the NCAA does not yet have. I'm sure Emmert would gladly take it though.

Hold one there Emmert's not that bad.




...Couldn't even type that with a straight face.
 

intlzncster

i fart in your general direction
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
28,935
Reaction Score
60,240
Dom Amore@AmoreCourant
Kevin Ollie says NCAA is examining Kentan Facey eligibility. Confident it will work out, but not sure. #uconnmen

Neill Ostrout@NeillOstrout
Ollie on Kentan Facey (who is on campus but facing eligibility issue): "I don't see it being a problem."

Neill Ostrout@NeillOstrout
UConn coach Kevin Ollie on Terrence Samuel's eligibility: "I think he'll be on campus this fall...still some NCAA issues going on."

Dom Amore@AmoreCourant
Terrence Samuel had to take a couple of classes over summer. Ollie expects he will be okay for fall #uconnmen

David Borges@DaveBorges
Kevin Ollie concerned but doesn't seem overly worried about Facey, Samuel eligibility issues. #uconn

David Borges@DaveBorges
Ollie on Facey: once he's able to tell his side, why he decided to come over when he did, formality of him being placed in certain grade I think that'll put case on our side. Think we'll see him with #uconn jersey on in the fall. And if not, we've gotta move on like always


So in other words, we're ducked?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,376
Reaction Score
23,668
I laugh at this Giffey-center thing. He's 6'6" and people expect him to give minutes at the 5. We sound like Quinnipiac or Marist fans wanting a 6'6" shooting small forward to be our emergency center.


The idea of putting our best five on the court and assassinating teams with a spread court offense isn't at all enticing to you? He played a ton of crunch time minutes in both the Cincy and Georgetown games, and UConn played just as well if not better with him at that spot than with Olander at the five. Boatright + Napier +Daniels + Calhoun + Giffey on the court = nobody in the paint for the opposing defense and wide open driving lanes for Daniels, Bazz, and Boat. Giffey's rebounding rate was just about on par with Olander's last season, plus, this gives us the flexibility to double the post, wreck havoc with our speed and athleticism on defense, and beat opposing big men up the floor in transition. As ace says, eventually this lineup will ware down having to expend so much extra energy on defense, but in two or three minute sequences per half against slower, laboring teams, I think it could work.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
13,873
Reaction Score
73,079
I laugh at this Giffey-center thing. He's 6'6" and people expect him to give minutes at the 5. We sound like Quinnipiac or Marist fans wanting a 6'6" shooting small forward to be our emergency center.

He did it last year. Were you not around? You don't run into a lot of Dwight Howards in college basketball (or the NBA, for that matter). You don't need a 7 footer in the paint - depending on the matchup there's no problem with Giffey getting minutes down there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
350
Guests online
1,823
Total visitors
2,173

Forum statistics

Threads
157,779
Messages
4,121,631
Members
10,013
Latest member
NYCVET


Top Bottom