What Would You Do? | The Boneyard

What Would You Do?

Status
Not open for further replies.

easttexastrash

Stay Classy!
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
9,582
Reaction Score
13,224
Maybe this could be an episode of the show "What Would You Do?" Let's say that you are Hatchell and you got the call from all of these girls on the same day. How would you have handled it? Would you say "let me get back to you on that" or "Sorry, we're full"?

Honestly, Hatchell must have been in shock and she may still be processing how to handle this.
 

MilfordHusky

Voice of Reason
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
36,826
Reaction Score
123,696
When I hit 15 players I tell the others I can no longer accept their commitment.
So Diamond arranges a 4-way call with Sylvia and 2 friends to commit. There's 1 remaining scholarship. The first player to speak up commits, and Sylvia says, "Great. We're full now." The other two on the line are in stunned silence. Awkward, to say the least. :)
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
526
Reaction Score
774
Just think of all the time. effort & expense put into recruiting these same players by Geno & staff; likewise by other team coaches & staffs. This is to me is so bizarre, it doesn't seem rational. Some, but all these numbers going to one team. To me, Hatchell is a good offensive coach but defensively is a 'nihil'. Are the other amenities at that school so great as to get all these verbals at once?
 

Wbbfan1

And That’s The Way It Is
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,164
Reaction Score
17,441
One I would never have allowed myself where I could not accept a surprise verbal. My plans would have included a maximum of 13 players on scholarship. Then if I received a surprise verbal or two, I would have scholarships available without impacting any current player or future player that I accepted a verbal from. If I was going to be placed in a situation where I would exceed 15 players, in no circumstance would I accept a verbal. If it meant that we lost a player as special as Diamond is apparently going to be, so be it. Don't get me wrong, I would contact the player(s)and explain the situation and most likely would rescind their verbals to make room for a player of Diamond's caliber. However, I would definitely do that first before exceeding 15 players.
 

Icebear

Andlig Ledare
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,784
Reaction Score
19,227
So Diamond arranges a 4-way call with Sylvia and 2 friends to commit. There's 1 remaining scholarship. The first player to speak up commits, and Sylvia says, "Great. We're full now." The other two on the line are in stunned silence. Awkward, to say the least. :)
None the less the right thing to do and it, also, reminds the players who must remain in charge.
 

TRest

Horrible
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,860
Reaction Score
22,373
Just think of all the time. effort & expense put into recruiting these same players by Geno & staff; likewise by other team coaches & staffs. This is to me is so bizarre, it doesn't seem rational. Some, but all these numbers going to one team. To me, Hatchell is a good offensive coach but defensively is a 'nihil'. Are the other amenities at that school so great as to get all these verbals at once?
Apparently UNC has some very special academic programs for its student-athletes that don't have time to do any actual school work.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-academic-department-20120505,0,6242802.story
 

MilfordHusky

Voice of Reason
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
36,826
Reaction Score
123,696
None the less the right thing to do and it, also, reminds the players who must remain in charge.
Oh, I agree totally. I was just pointing out a scenario that would have upset the plans of a multiple-player agreement.
 

Icebear

Andlig Ledare
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,784
Reaction Score
19,227
Milford, and may still yet when the dust clears and UNC decides who it can and cannot include within the 15 scholarship limit.
 

easttexastrash

Stay Classy!
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
9,582
Reaction Score
13,224
Since the university cannot comment on recruits until they actually sign we probably won't know how this has been handled until next year when the players start signing their LOIs. However, I suspect that we will see some of the lower rated players reopening their recruiting process since they know that they would be entering a situation where they would get very limited playing time. Some of these recruits, and current players, may end up as practice players.
 

doggydaddy

Grampysorus Rex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,008
Reaction Score
8,970
Since the university cannot comment on recruits until they actually sign we probably won't know how this has been handled until next year when the players start signing their LOIs. However, I suspect that we will see some of the lower rated players reopening their recruiting process since they know that they would be entering a situation where they would get very limited playing time. Some of these recruits, and current players, may end up as practice players.
What you don't seem to understand is that these players can't even be on scholarship. There are only 15 allowable.

If there were 11 players on scholarship for 2013 and they added these 4 players, then your point would be valid. The lower ranked players would have to worry about playing time.

In this situation, 5 players have verballed for 2012 and signed LOI's and will be Sophomores in 2013.

Returning players? In 2013 they will have 1 senior and 6 Juniors.

They had 3 that verballed for 2013 and now have added these 4 players.

Do the math. That is 19 players that are either on scholarship or signed LOI's or verballed. And this doesn't include Russell, who might verbal as well.

We have now heard that one of the early verbals has reopened her recruitment, leaving 18 players for 15 slots.

I've seen you defend Hatchell over and over, accusing the fans here of jumping the gun on how this will be handled. But no matter how you slice it, there will be players that wanted to be at UNC that will be leaving. Will it be existing players? Some of the other verbals for 2013 that were prior to the big 4 committing?

There is no way to look at this other than thinking it stinks. These are young girls that were courted by UNC and Hatchell. They went through the excitement of making their choice known. Their friends and family enjoying the situation. Now some of them (3 more) will have their worlds turned upside down.

For the other 2013 verbals, it's not so bad. Reopen your recruitment. Call the schools that you had on your list. See who will take you. Facts are, some of those schools have gone in other directions. It's not so easy.

How about the 2012 players who are coming in the fall? They have signed their LOI's. They have emotionally prepared to attend UNC. And unless they recind on their LOI (can they even do that?) and quickly get involved in another school, they would have put in a full freshman year at UNC. If they now leave, they have to sit out a full season.

How about the Juniors that year? 2 full years invested in UNC. It's even worse.

The more I look at the situation, the more I am disgusted with Hatchell allowing this to happen, for the glory of getting better players. I understand when you have scholarships available, but this is NOT the situation.

This is not the pros and DeShields, et al, are not Lebron, Wade and Bosh.

This is a sad time for women's college basketball and I pray it's not a precident setting situation.

And will someone please quote me, so Trash can see it? He probably still has me on ignore.
 

Icebear

Andlig Ledare
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,784
Reaction Score
19,227
What you don't seem to understand is that these players can't even be on scholarship. There are only 15 allowable.

If there were 11 players on scholarship for 2013 and they added these 4 players, then your point would be valid. The lower ranked players would have to worry about playing time.

In this situation, 5 players have verballed for 2012 and signed LOI's and will be Sophomores in 2013.

Returning players? In 2013 they will have 1 senior and 6 Juniors.

They had 3 that verballed for 2013 and now have added these 4 players.

Do the math. That is 19 players that are either on scholarship or signed LOI's or verballed. And this doesn't include Russell, who might verbal as well.

We have now heard that one of the early verbals has reopened her recruitment, leaving 18 players for 15 slots.

I've seen you defend Hatchell over and over, accusing the fans here of jumping the gun on how this will be handled. But no matter how you slice it, there will be players that wanted to be at UNC that will be leaving. Will it be existing players? Some of the other verbals for 2013 that were prior to the big 4 committing?

There is no way to look at this other than thinking it stinks. These are young girls that were courted by UNC and Hatchell. They went through the excitement of making their choice known. Their friends and family enjoying the situation. Now some of them (3 more) will have their worlds turned upside down.

For the other 2013 verbals, it's not so bad. Reopen your recruitment. Call the schools that you had on your list. See who will take you. Facts are, some of those schools have gone in other directions. It's not so easy.

How about the 2012 players who are coming in the fall? They have signed their LOI's. They have emotionally prepared to attend UNC. And unless they recind on their LOI (can they even do that?) and quickly get involved in another school, they would have put in a full freshman year at UNC. If they now leave, they have to sit out a full season.

How about the Juniors that year? 2 full years invested in UNC. It's even worse.

The more I look at the situation, the more I am disgusted with Hatchell allowing this to happen, for the glory of getting better players. I understand when you have scholarships available, but this is NOT the situation.

This is not the pros and DeShields, et al, are not Lebron, Wade and Bosh.

This is a sad time for women's college basketball and I pray it's not a precident setting situation.

And will someone please quote me, so Trash can see it? He probably still has me on ignore.
Well stated, doggy.
 

JS

Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
2,001
Reaction Score
9,695
I suspect that we will see some of the lower rated players reopening their recruiting process since they know that they would be entering a situation where they would get very limited playing time. Some of these recruits, and current players, may end up as practice players.
One can argue, as you have, that Coach Hatchell hasn't done anything wrong -- yet. This argument is essentially that playing hardball with existing players and commits isn't unethical, and that she may well get away with lower levels of hardball than could eventually be necessary.

She figures she has a year and a half for her problem to resolve itself by natural attrition. She's gambling that enough people will leave or de-commit on their own that she won't have to take more brutal action at crunch time before start of the 2013--2014 season.

Is this ethically worse than the natural attrition that occurs all the time when players' PT prospects are dimmed by more talented players coming in behind them?

Well, yes, in the sense that it's applying considerably more intense pressure than the mere prospect of pine. Hatchell's gamble includes not one but two incentives to leave. First, there is the usual incentive of fearing a lack of PT. Second, there is the absolute assurance that if this doesn't work, the hammer will fall.

So Hatchell is not only gambling on a possible PR debacle for UNC if it falls noisily. She's included the at-risk players in her gamble and raised the normal stakes for them. And she's likely to raise those stakes further (by including more players in the at-risk category) if she gets a chance with Russell.

The "wait and see" argument you've been making (with a remarkable and aggressive persistence for a visitor I might add) essentially looks at this from Ms. Hatchell's point of view. It says that as long as she doesn't lose her PR gamble, then hardball is all relative, and she's only scored a 3 on the hardball scale rather than a 10.

The problem is that the at-risk players who are already seated at the table didn't sign up for such high stakes. The dealer, Hatchell, has just raised the ante for them after the game started and said, "If that's too rich for your blood, there are always other tables."

A casino that operates in that manner could take hits from more than one direction.
 

wallman

UCLA Bruin
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
1,184
Reaction Score
2,376
How about this - what if something unfortunate happens, such as DD having a career ending injury her freshman year? I guess she has to move out to let the next stud take her scholarship - do you really think their parents thought this through?
 

doggydaddy

Grampysorus Rex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,008
Reaction Score
8,970
How about this - DD has a career ending injury her freshman year, so I guess she has to move out to let the next stud take her scholarship - do you really think their parents thought this through?
How about this - You don't post something about injuries. It's pretty pathetic.
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
2,718
Reaction Score
7,094
How about this - You don't post something about injuries. It's pretty pathetic.
I don't think it was really about injuries, and certainly not hoping that an injury would occur to improve another team's chances. It was a comment on being abandoned by a school after a commitment was made and a recruit thinking about all aspects of the decision making process.
 

doggydaddy

Grampysorus Rex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,008
Reaction Score
8,970
I don't think it was really about injuries, and certainly not hoping that an injury would occur to improve another team's chances. It was a comment on being abandoned by a school after a commitment was made and a recruit thinking about all aspects of the decision making process.
Sorry, but even mentioning an injury in a post is bad karma. Didn't say it was about hoping. Just in bad taste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
418
Guests online
2,725
Total visitors
3,143

Forum statistics

Threads
157,164
Messages
4,086,098
Members
9,982
Latest member
CJasmer


Top Bottom