RSSBot
News Junkie
Guards Peyton Carter and Mathilde Diop will not return to the Colorado women's basketball team next season.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
Always a lot of turnover in women's sports. Not sure if it is because they have extra scholarships and use them on marginal players, or if some players burn out earlier than their male counterparts, or if they are more apt to want to change to better overall situations (academic, personal/social, family, etc.) than the male athletes.The attrition is starting to really concern me.
Peyton was clearly not getting much floor time, so her looking for a better opportunity seems smart. Diop going pro in France is a question for me. Thought she didn't show enough yet to think that was a viable option, but I guess that's her decision.The attrition is starting to really concern me.
Without the 1 year sit out rule, Mens sports would be the same. Huge amount of transferring every year. Good players moving onto better programs and lesser players moving down. That's the day I quit following Mens sports.Always a lot of turnover in women's sports. Not sure if it is because they have extra scholarships and use them on marginal players, or if some players burn out earlier than their male counterparts, or if they are more apt to want to change to better overall situations (academic, personal/social, family, etc.) than the male athletes.
Why do you hate giving student athletes mobility? Let them do what's best for them.Without the 1 year sit out rule, Mens sports would be the same. Huge amount of transferring every year. Good players moving onto better programs and lesser players moving down. That's the day I quit following Mens sports.
Isn't it something like they get 1 free transfer and then a 2nd transfer causes them to have to sit? Or maybe I dreamed that and am totally wrong.not all women get to play and not sit a year after transfer. The volleyball player that transferred into CU this year has to sit 1 year I believe.
Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.Why do you hate giving student athletes mobility? Let them do what's best for them.
Isn't it something like they get 1 free transfer and then a 2nd transfer causes them to have to sit? Or maybe I dreamed that and am totally wrong.
Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.
It's not just about the poor players. Fans really are the bottom line. Destroy competitive hopes, you've destroyed the financial model that supports ALL OF IT.
In the end, make it about the education. Very few of these kids who transfer are getting hurt by the current rules. At worse, get an education. Otherwise, kill MBB and develop an NBA minor league.
Interesting idea. You can hire a coach that is under contract with another school, but he can't coach the first year (new school would have to hire an interim coach while he sits out a transfer year). So the coach still gets paid, he just has to sit out, the same way the players still can get a scholarship, but have to sit out a year. Otherwise as a coach you move when your contract expires. Seems equitable to me.I take it that you would also support coaches having to sit a year out after quitting one job in favor of another?
Nope. That isn't necessary to preserve the competitiveness of the game. This is to protect the underdogs, keep fans interested at places exactly like CU.I take it that you would also support coaches having to sit a year out after quitting one job in favor of another?
I think you're overstating how prevalent the (free agency) type aspect of it is going to become. Ja Morant wasn't going to transfer to Duke after his freshman year to prove he could play with the big boys.Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.
It's not just about the poor players. Fans really are the bottom line. Destroy competitive hopes, you've destroyed the financial model that supports ALL OF IT.
In the end, make it about the education. Very few of these kids who transfer are getting hurt by the current rules. At worse, get an education. Otherwise, kill MBB and develop an NBA minor league.
It seems, that for the most part, waivers are easily obtained so a player does not have to sit out a year.
A player should not have to sit out in the case of a coaching change, imo.
Nope. That isn't necessary to preserve the competitiveness of the game. This is to protect the underdogs, keep fans interested at places exactly like CU.
The players really can't claim damages. They don't have to play NCAA basketball in exchange for a free education. Well, except freshman, and that rule has to go.