Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
We probably won't know about Thorne for months. Last year Vashil Fernandez on Valpo applied for a 5th year of eligibility which wasn't approved until July 30.
Basketball Transfer Thread
Which is definitely crappy. That timeline can really hurt a team. As we all know.
I think we've done a pretty good job with transfers overall.
The staff is pressuring the ncaa for an early decision on him. Early as in by the end of the school year. Obviously every staff would like a decision asap for any player seeking a 5th year but I get the impression theyre doing it for extra reasons with him.
Not true, actually most of the 5th year petitions are reviewed and decided in April, so we should know pretty soon. The same was true for Vashil Fernandez, whose case was approved by NCAA in April. The decision to return to Valpo was not made though until late July, but not because of the NCAA (approved in April), but because Valpo did not have an available scholarship. Finally, another player decided not to return, thus allowing Valpo to award Fernandez his 5th year in late July.
Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
Would love to see that argument. The 5th year guys did decent but those guys are no risk high reward. Generally if you are bringing one of them on it's due to having a scholarship that would have been unused anyway.
Starks was a mistake, would have been fine as a 5th year, but used up two years of scholarships and was mediocre at best.
Paul used up 2 1/2 years of scholarships and never played.
Cosby used up 2 years of scholarships and was terrible for the half season he played.
Rice was great.
Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
Ok that's accurate though a lot of guys will be off the board before we find out. Hopefully guys hold out longer with the change in the NBA draft rules making a lot of situations murky.
Well I was including the 5th year guys so that would affect the overall opinion.
Foggy Notion
- San Francisco
Yeah. You still need to recruit 5th year guys, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't count.
BananaShampoo
Captain 'Paign
- Phoenix, AZ
Sam M., Ekey, McLaurin, Thorne, and Rayvonte were all very very good additions for us. Lewis was much needed for depth and played adequately. Cosby did not live up to the hype but again provided depth and was at least adequate. The only trouble there was that he took early minutes away from Nunn. Only Starks and Paul weren't worth the trouble
Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
Because 5th year transfers that are immediately eligible are fundamentally different from guys that are going to take up a scholarship for multiple years. You should ALWAYS try to get a 5th year player if you have an open scholarship. It doesn't impact future recruiting negatively and there is almost no risk. We've done fine there.
With guys that are going to take up multiple years of eligibility you are making a choice not to pursue HS players. We invested 9 1/2 years of scholarships into non-5th year transfers and all we got to show for it were two great season of Ray Rice, a mediocre season from Starks, and half of a mediocre season of Cosby. Not much of a return on our investment there.
His point is that other than 5th year transfers (who are pretty much a freebie vs. an open scholarship), we have not done very well. This is actually a very fair argument. It is accurate. In addition, I think one can make a reasonable argument that Starks fared better than Cosby. Cosby did not do well, and even added to off court problems and bad chemistry, eventually getting dismissed. IMO Cosby was more of a disappointment than Starks.
Foggy Notion
- San Francisco
And yet, they are still transfers who need to be recruited and convinced to play for us. Mike Thorne did not just knock on Groce's door and ask to play for him. You can make the same argument for one-and-done freshman. Do they not count? Also, let's not forget that Starks was supposed to be here for only one year. Thorne will hopefully be here another year, too.
Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
I don't understand how that has anything to do with what I'm saying. All players have to be recruited that's obvious. We've done fine with 5th years and I'm a big proponent of adding them if you have the capacity.
BananaShampoo
Captain 'Paign
- Phoenix, AZ
Agree about the chemistry with Cosby. Was thinking more about as players. Starks was cringe-worthy whenever he played as the pg.
That's different IMO. 5th year transfers are pretty much a freebie vs. an open scholarship, and do not affect subsequent recruiting. One-and-done players affect subsequent recruiting since they get a scholarship commitment. You simply do not know when they will leave, and definitely affect the recruitment of the next class. The players who get recruited, committed, and signed during spring-summer-fall will have no idea whether that player is indeed a one-and-done before he actually announces. They will not even have the opportunity to see them play in college before they commit in the fall, unless they want to hold off until late in the spring (less chances).
McLaurin, Rice: +
Thorne: incomplete, looked great
Ekey: personally not a fan
Starks, Cosby, Paul: :hand:
They were both awful. Cosby's decisionmaking was turble, and his shooting wasnt much better.
Foggy Notion
- San Francisco
Well, you did say that you'd like to see the argument about transfers, so I am obliging. You gave Starks as an example, but he was supposed to be here only one year. That leaves Cosby and Paul as the only negative examples compared to Rice as a positive example of "transfers" according to your definition. Also, although Starks had some issues, we needed him because he was the only point guard other than Tate after Abrams went down.
Ekey gets a pass in my book because he made that buzzerbeater with a Hawkeye's hand in his face. Beating Iowa is always a good thing to do.
Otherwise, accurate grades imo.
Sal Iacuzzo
- Yonkers, NY
I don't put 5th year transfers in the same box as guys taking up multiple years of scholarships. As I said before they are no risk high reward. A bad 5th year transfer is still better than an unused scholarship. Our problem with transfers is we committed 9 1/2 year of scholarships to guys that only played 3 1/2 years. As John Groce has said many times "scholarships are like gold" and we had 6 years of empty scholarships devoted to transfers.
Starks did not meet the requirements for being immediately eligible but we tried to get it through anyway. I don't think you can fully absolve the coaching staff on that one, it was a gamble and it didn't work.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
He was, but its also not what he was brought in to do. He was forced to do it because of injury.
Foggy Notion
- San Francisco
Raw numbers don't speak to real-life circumstances. As flawed as Starks was, without him we would have had only Tate at point guard. The year that Starks and Cosby sat out was also the freshman year of Groce's first recruiting class, comprised of five players cobbled together in a hurry after he was hired. It was also the year after some of Weber's recruits transferred out. If Cosby and Starks had not used those two scholarships that year, there is not much else that could have been done with them. Groce was willing to oversign anyway, so it's not like the scholarship situation affected recruiting.
I do not think Groce had much of a choice early on, as he had to replace 3 1/2 classes from the get go, once he took over Illinois. The continuous reliance on transfers (including 5th yr) four years into his tenure, and inability to recruit a top-100 PG or C in his first 4 recruiting classes is more of a problem though. We should have been further along recruiting wise as far as talent/roster, but it is what it is. Hopefully the 2017 class is great start towards a better program.