Amaker

[johnb]

I loved watching Tommy play. Not only did he bring a lot of success with him, but he appeared to overcome what appeared to be less physicality than the other guys on those great teams of the mid 1980's.

His coaching has been a mixed bag, but I certainly defended him through ambiguous situations at Seton Hall and Michigan. Last year, when the NY Times wrote up the changes he brought to Harvard, I defended Blakeney's pre-hiring pick-up ball with recruits, and I could justify what apeared to be the decision to modestly lower academic standards.

Today's story is different. Amaker has apparently cut 5 recruited players, 2 of whom started games for Harvard last year in order to open up roster spots for his 7 man entering class. He told them in September, after the semester began but before any sort of try out. They were recruited to Harvard, and it's now too late to transfer this year.

He refused comment, and I hope he has a defense, but unless he can come up with something good, Amaker will become the first Devil alum in my personal Pantheon of Bad Guys in Basketball.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports/ncaabasketball/28harvard.html?ref=sports

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think what he did with the guys that WERE on the roster is 100% scummy. He is not going to make many friends in Harvard, especially given his recent ethics probe. If his recruits don't produce ( I want to say justify, but his actions can't be justified by any measure) then he will not be long for Harvard's world.
I hate writing that about a guy who well earned his place in Duke history, but it's honest.

[sagegrouse]

Several things about the article don't add up.

First, the NY Times did not speak with Tommy, although I am sure there were attempts to contact him.

Second, there were 19 players listed on the b-ball roster. NINETEEN! What did the guys at the end of the bench think was going to happen?

Third, did any of the 19 players go to Amaker and ask if they were wanted on the team? I mean, c'mon. He wasn't going into regular season practice with so many players. Clearly, the seven new recruits were gonna be on the team. and, therefore, quite a few others were not.

Fourth, the earlier NY Times story on recruiting "abuses" actually documented no abuses. Tommy was being aggressive and trying to win the Ivy League (it never has), which I think Harvard finally decided it wanted to do.

I'll wait and see, thank you very much.

sagegrouse
'Nothing against the NY Times in general -- I read it every day, even in the Rocky Mtns.'

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Several things about the article don't add up.

First, the NY Times did not speak with Tommy, although I am sure there were attempts to contact him.

Second, there were 19 players listed on the b-ball roster. NINETEEN! What did the guys at the end of the bench think was going to happen?

Third, did any of the 19 players go to Amaker and ask if they were wanted on the team? I mean, c'mon. He wasn't going into regular season practice with so many players. Clearly, the seven new recruits were gonna be on the team. and, therefore, quite a few others were not.

Fourth, the earlier NY Times story on recruiting "abuses" actually documented no abuses. Tommy was being aggressive and trying to win the Ivy League (it never has), which I think Harvard finally decided it wanted to do.

I'll wait and see, thank you very much.

sagegrouse
'Nothing against the NY Times in general -- I read it every day, even in the Rocky Mtns.'

Especially when ethics and accusations are involved, it's always good to know "the rest of the story."

[CameronBornAndBred]

Especially when ethics and accusations are involved, it's always good to know "the rest of the story."

That is true. I'm hoping I'm making a snap judgement without knowing some facts that would change my outlook.

[Adrian]

My guess is that Amaker was contrained in making these personnel changes until he knew what the NCAA's judgment was going to be about his recruiting tactics and thus his employment status at Harvard. I don't doubt that if the NCAA had determined that he had committed any infractions he would have either resigned or been fired because Harvard isn't the kind of institution that would tolerate such things. The NYT article reports that Amaker informed the players affected of his decision in early September. The Harvard Crimson reported on Sept. 4 that the NCAA had determined that Amaker had not committed any recruiting violations. I believe that the proximate timing of these two events were interrelated and not coincidental. Out of fairness to the players, Amaker couldn't kick them off the team unless he knew that the reasons for his motivation to do so were going to remain intact: that he was going to be at Harvard and that the players whose recruiting status was being questioned were also going to be there as well. It doesn't seem fair to the players that they weren't told months ago so that they could have planned alternate courses for their lives in time for the current academic year, but how could Amaker tell them when his own professional status was unclear until early September.

Adrian

[jimsumner]

How many of those 19 players were recruited and how many were walk-ons? What promises were made and who made them? It gets kinda sticky with Ivies because the scholarships are need-based. Is anyone losing their scholarship? Can't imagine so.

This brings up a philosophical question of some importance. When Coach A sits in the living room of a recruit and promises that recruit and the recruits' parents that they'll look after the recruit, that barring misconduct or academic non-performance, that recruit will have a spot on the team, is that promise on behalf of Coach A or on behalf of the school that employs them? Is Coach B beholden to the promises of Coach A? Or does Coach B have the right to go in and clean house as they see fit?

Legally, of course they have the right. Ethically, morally, it gets a little trickier. New coaches have been running off holdover dead weight ever since there have been new coaches. I'm very fond of Tommy Amaker, I don't know the whole story, and I'll be interested in seeing if and how he responds.

But as written in the NYT, I do find the whole thing somewhat troubling.

[buddy]

Tommy had to know that if the NCAA did not punish him, that we would "cut" several players. I would think he could have communicated that to the affected players. This looks like Tommy was more concerned with his own status than that of the young men involved. I don't doubt that the New York Times does not have the whole story (heck, they did employ Jayson Blair), but I think Tommy owed it to the players to let them know his thinking. Had he had to resign, and they had transferred, it might have left Harvard in the lurch; however, these players apparently did everything that was asked of them, yet have lost a year of eligibility through no fault of their own.

[sue71, esq]

Is it possible that the NCAA could (gasp) grant these players an additonal year of eligibility?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Is it possible that the NCAA could (gasp) grant these players an additonal year of eligibility?

I'm not sure they will want to transfer. I doubt they went to Harvard to play ball and move on to the NBA, but I am sure they went to Harvard to play ball as part of a really enjoyable experience on top of getting an excellent education. Now some of that has been taken away, but I think they will stay for the education. Where else will they go? It has to leave a bad taste in more than just the players' mouths. I don't know what year the students are either. If they are only 1st or even second year, a transfer might seem feasable, but I still don't see where they would go and match the education.

[dkbaseball]

I'm troubled by this too, but one other possible mitigating factor: It does take some time to evaluate players, especially given NCAA regs about how much contact the staff can have. It may have taken Tommy this long to get a handle on what he had.

Edit: Or am I completely out to lunch, and this is Tommy's second season coming up?

[cascadedevil]

I would be upset if I was one of the players, as they are stuck in Cambridge when they could have been in Durham this past weekend watching Duke smash UVA, and then they could play pick up ball in Card with the best student athlete basketball players in the country!

But maybe their parents should explain to them that life does not give you promises. Tommy saw them play all last year on a team that only won 8 games. Something tells me he would not have cut players who showed the type of work ethic and passion he demands. The players should stop complaining to the press and learn that you have to earn everything you get in life.

[Edouble]

Something tells me he would not have cut players who showed the type of work ethic and passion he demands.

That's a big assumption to make. Tommy's reputation isn't exactly stellar after Seton Hall.



The players should stop complaining to the press and learn that you have to earn everything you get in life.

It appears they got screwed over. I'd complain too. Anyone who is academically competent and athletically gifted enough to play for Harvard's basketball team has worked very, very hard. I doubt anything was just given to these guys. I'm quite sure they earned it.

[duketaylor]

I was in school with Tommy, knew him and liked him a lot. I also applied to be Duke's golf coach last year; so here goes my thoughts on the matter (without even reading the article, but reading each post thus far). I am a manager for a grocery chain, so I have to make personnel decisions regularly, as do coaches. Making decisions about how to improve your team/store are not fun but necessary; I'll not comment on the timing of what Tommy did as it seems we don't have all the pertinent information. It is important to understand that the Ivy's don't give athletic scholly's like most D-1 schools, which are year-to-year commitments, not a 4 or 5-year guarantee. I have seen teammates of mine lose their scholarships for a few different reasons, so it's not uncommon and shouldn't be considered a rarity.
If, and it may be a big if, Tommy came in, assessed the situation, decided he needed to make serious changes and it included recruiting over current starters or key reserves then that's part of his business of fielding the best team he can within the guidelines of the university. I would do the same, given the little I know in this case.
When K came to Duke, my freshman year, he inherited only a few players with top talent and many who were suspect to play top-level ACC ball. His first few recruiting classes were not very good and he had lots of near misses. Then the class of JD, Alarie, Bilas, Williams, etc. came in and supplanted a few starters. He didn't cut anyone that I'm aware of, but many starters had new roles and some transfers began to occur. Bill jackman went to Nebraska, Greg Wendt went to Detroit, I think there were others as well. The transformation had begun and there was some angst amongst the team. One of my roommates took a year off from the team and never was in the fold again, although he got his degree and is a very successful businessman on Wall Street now.
My point is, I suppose, it's a business, and to be successful, has to be treated like one and kids might get their feelings hurt, but there are no guarantees. At least the kids/men at Harvard can get their Harvard degree, which is worth whatever they make it worth-it's at least a great headstart.

Wow, longest post for me in years, I think I'll rest my brain and get some rest. I love Tommy and am so happy Duke football is alive and well. GO DUKE!!!

[cascadedevil]

Granted that I am a huge Tommy fan, but I believe his record post Seton Hall is not near as bad as noted. His Michigan teams were decimated with injuries and he inherited a program that had been supplanted by their in-state rival.

My understanding is that Tommy told these young men (not boys) that they could continue to play basketball at Harvard, but they would have to prove themselves on the JV team. That provided the players with an opportunity to either play the role of victim, or to prove themselves on the JV team to show they could help the varsity squad win. It appears they have chosen the victim path and are allowing their parents and high school coaches to complain to the University and the media for them. To me that is an indication that these young men still have alot of growing up to do, and their parents would be well served to let the players work this out themselves. We only know what was in the NY Times story, but the way I read it, I can see why Tommy would not want these young men on his team.

Also, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong about the NCAA transfer rules, but I do not believe the timing significantly impacts these players. If they want to transfer, they will have to sit out a year, and will have 3 years of eligibility remaining. They can remove themselves from the team, finish their classes at Harvard this semester, enter Yale/Princeton/UNLV in the Spring and then be eligible to play 3 more years. The only impact is that they could not attend Fall classes at the new institution, which given the fact that Tommy is giving them a chance to earn back their spot on JV (playing JV as a sophomore is not unheard of at schools that do not offer scholarships), and that he may not have known that all of his recruits were going to be deemed eligible, this entire situations seems reasonable to me and 0% "scummy".

[dukie8]

I was in school with Tommy, knew him and liked him a lot. I also applied to be Duke's golf coach last year; so here goes my thoughts on the matter (without even reading the article, but reading each post thus far). I am a manager for a grocery chain, so I have to make personnel decisions regularly, as do coaches. Making decisions about how to improve your team/store are not fun but necessary; I'll not comment on the timing of what Tommy did as it seems we don't have all the pertinent information. It is important to understand that the Ivy's don't give athletic scholly's like most D-1 schools, which are year-to-year commitments, not a 4 or 5-year guarantee. I have seen teammates of mine lose their scholarships for a few different reasons, so it's not uncommon and shouldn't be considered a rarity.
If, and it may be a big if, Tommy came in, assessed the situation, decided he needed to make serious changes and it included recruiting over current starters or key reserves then that's part of his business of fielding the best team he can within the guidelines of the university. I would do the same, given the little I know in this case.
When K came to Duke, my freshman year, he inherited only a few players with top talent and many who were suspect to play top-level ACC ball. His first few recruiting classes were not very good and he had lots of near misses. Then the class of JD, Alarie, Bilas, Williams, etc. came in and supplanted a few starters. He didn't cut anyone that I'm aware of, but many starters had new roles and some transfers began to occur. Bill jackman went to Nebraska, Greg Wendt went to Detroit, I think there were others as well. The transformation had begun and there was some angst amongst the team. One of my roommates took a year off from the team and never was in the fold again, although he got his degree and is a very successful businessman on Wall Street now.
My point is, I suppose, it's a business, and to be successful, has to be treated like one and kids might get their feelings hurt, but there are no guarantees. At least the kids/men at Harvard can get their Harvard degree, which is worth whatever they make it worth-it's at least a great headstart.

Wow, longest post for me in years, I think I'll rest my brain and get some rest. I love Tommy and am so happy Duke football is alive and well. GO DUKE!!!

i don't think that the issue is whether he could/should recruit over existing less than stellar players. the bigger is issue why did he wait until the end of september to tell those guys to start packing. in doing so, they cannot transfer this year and now are stuck. offering them the opportunity to "prove" themselves on the jv team is a joke and would be like k telling someone to prove himself on the im team at duke. there are a lot of facts missing here but, on the surface, this kind of stinks.

another issue is how was he allowed to offer 7 additional players when he already had a team of 12. i know that scholarships are not involved but doesn't admissions or the athletic department have some oversight there??? aren't there ncaa limits or at least title ix constraints on a roster size? it seems like by signing 7 guys to a team of 12, something had to give and all of the scenarios were bad.

[sagegrouse]

i don't think that the issue is whether he could/should recruit over existing less than stellar players. the bigger is issue why did he wait until the end of september to tell those guys to start packing. in doing so, they cannot transfer this year and now are stuck. offering them the opportunity to "prove" themselves on the jv team is a joke and would be like k telling someone to prove himself on the im team at duke. there are a lot of facts missing here but, on the surface, this kind of stinks.

another issue is how was he allowed to offer 7 additional players when he already had a team of 12. i know that scholarships are not involved but doesn't admissions or the athletic department have some oversight there??? aren't there ncaa limits or at least title ix constraints on a roster size? it seems like by signing 7 guys to a team of 12, something had to give and all of the scenarios were bad.

OK, I'll try one more time. (Do you notice that the more one posts here, the more one begins to sound like Jumbo?)

The story is a NY Times created controversy where there should be none at all. Apparently, the Times sports staff thinks there's another Watergate story right around the corner -- or the Yale and Princeton grads like bashing Harvard. (Harvard should be bashed -- for having a non-competitive hoops program and a gym that seats 1,200 people (the Harvard Endowment is north of $30 billion).)

Harvard has had a poor and undistinguished basketball program (zero Ivy League titles in 55 years). The decision to hire Amaker was a decision to make basketball really successful. He has was given carte blanche to bring in some players (which was also reported as a controversy by the Times -- and it wasn't).

He has a very strong freshman class of seven players, resulting in potentially 19 players on the team for the coming year. There are no scholarship limits, by definition, because neither Harvard or the other Ivies offer (ahem) athletic scholarships.

Tommy doesn't want to spend two weeks after practice starts deciding who is no. 12, 13 and 14 on his roster. Therefore, he made his cuts before the season.

Did the weaker players even think Tommy was going to keep 19 players? NINETEEN? What were they thinking?

Did anyone think to ask him over the summer whether he wanted them to return?

Now we are worried -- apparently -- about the setbacks to the college careers of players ranked 15 through 19 on one of the weakest Div I programs in the country. These guys have no future as Div I college basketball players. If they want to play Div III, they can start immediately. Williams, Amherst, Trinity -- are you listening? The fact is, they won't be recruited by anyone.

This is a bit like Andrew Giuliani, the no. 12 or 13 player on the Duke golf team, suing the University because it is hurting his future PGA career. He can't even make the starting lineup of good but not great college team -- what is he talking about? The problem is -- he and the Harvard cuts -- can't play.

Now, everyone is making a big deal about the timing of the cuts. The real issue is that these guys can't play and the coach told them so.

This is a non-story in the sports world, created by the NY Times sports staff.

sagegrouse

[Jarhead]

OK, I'll try one more time. (Do you notice that the more one posts here, the more one begins to sound like Jumbo?)

The story is a NY Times created controversy where there should be none at all. Apparently, the Times sports staff thinks there's another Watergate story right around the corner -- or the Yale and Princeton grads like bashing Harvard. (Harvard should be bashed -- for having a non-competitive hoops program and a gym that seats 1,200 people (the Harvard Endowment is north of $30 billion).)

Harvard has had a poor and undistinguished basketball program (zero Ivy League titles in 55 years). The decision to hire Amaker was a decision to make basketball really successful. He has was given carte blanche to bring in some players (which was also reported as a controversy by the Times -- and it wasn't).

He has a very strong freshman class of seven players, resulting in potentially 19 players on the team for the coming year. There are no scholarship limits, by definition, because neither Harvard or the other Ivies offer (ahem) athletic scholarships.

Tommy doesn't want to spend two weeks after practice starts deciding who is no. 12, 13 and 14 on his roster. Therefore, he made his cuts before the season.

Did the weaker players even think Tommy was going to keep 19 players? NINETEEN? What were they thinking?

Did anyone think to ask him over the summer whether he wanted them to return?

Now we are worried -- apparently -- about the setbacks to the college careers of players ranked 15 through 19 on one of the weakest Div I programs in the country. These guys have no future as Div I college basketball players. If they want to play Div III, they can start immediately. Williams, Amherst, Trinity -- are you listening? The fact is, they won't be recruited by anyone.

This is a bit like Andrew Giuliani, the no. 12 or 13 player on the Duke golf team, suing the University because it is hurting his future PGA career. He can't even make the starting lineup of good but not great college team -- what is he talking about? The problem is -- he and the Harvard cuts -- can't play.

Now, everyone is making a big deal about the timing of the cuts. The real issue is that these guys can't play and the coach told them so.

This is a non-story in the sports world, created by the NY Times sports staff.

sagegrouse
I have one question. Were the players also dismissed from school? If yes, Tommy, and Harvard are disgraceful. If not, then sagegrouse nails it. It should be nothing but a footnote in the game program.

[Acymetric]

I have one question. Were the players also dismissed from school? If yes, Tommy, and Harvard are disgraceful. If not, then sagegrouse nails it. It should be nothing but a footnote in the game program.

Even at schools where the players have scholarships removal from the team doesn't mean removal from the school, it just means the student no longer has a scholarship for basketball. They can still get a scholarship based on need or performance.

At Harvard, where people have mentioned there aren't sports scholarships, getting cut from the team just means getting cut from the team. These people came to school for school first and basketball second, which is why they're at Harvard as opposed to a school with good academics that fields a competitive basketball team. Without reading anything that confirms this, I will guarantee that nobody was dismissed from school (unless there were undisclosed disciplinary measures that we don't know about, such as plagiarism or something, but I don't think there were any).

[Carlos]

I don't see how anyone can look at this move and think it was handled well by Amaker. I can't justify the move with the idea that Tommy didn't want to spend time determining who was going to be the 12 - 14 men on his roster because it implies that was the ceiling for the players who were being cut. With at least three of the guys in question they had played significant minutes last season and there's no reason to believe that they didn't have the potential to see more time this year, even with the players that were coming in.

At the very least, the players cut - guys who had made a major investment with their time and effort over the last year - deserved either the right to work out and make the team, or notified earlier that they were going to be cut so that they could have the option to go to another school without losing a full year.

From where I sit it seems highly likely that Tommy did wait until the decision regarding the possible recruiting violations. If he had cut the players earlier, and if Ivy League ruled against him in their investigation of the potential recruiting violations, he would have run the risk of not having not enough players going into this season.

One thing that is misleading in the article is the comment that the players were cut to "make room" for the incoming 7-man class. Since there are no limits on how many non-scholarship players a team can field.

[VAGentleman05]

i don't think that the issue is whether he could/should recruit over existing less than stellar players. the bigger is issue why did he wait until the end of september to tell those guys to start packing. in doing so, they cannot transfer this year and now are stuck. offering them the opportunity to "prove" themselves on the jv team is a joke and would be like k telling someone to prove himself on the im team at duke. there are a lot of facts missing here but, on the surface, this kind of stinks.

another issue is how was he allowed to offer 7 additional players when he already had a team of 12. i know that scholarships are not involved but doesn't admissions or the athletic department have some oversight there??? aren't there ncaa limits or at least title ix constraints on a roster size? it seems like by signing 7 guys to a team of 12, something had to give and all of the scenarios were bad.

I think you nailed both of the potentially serious problems here. The coach needs to be man enough to make these decisions at a time when it doesn't rob players of an entire year (regardless of how "minor" the programs to which they would transfer might be). And how the heck did he think it was a good idea to bring in a 7-man class in his first year? This is Harvard, brother--you don't have to turn it all around in a year. Slow down a little and coach some of the guys you've got.

[jimsumner]

"Also, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong about the NCAA transfer rules, but I do not believe the timing significantly impacts these players. If they want to transfer, they will have to sit out a year, and will have 3 years of eligibility remaining. They can remove themselves from the team, finish their classes at Harvard this semester, enter Yale/Princeton/UNLV in the Spring and then be eligible to play 3 more years"

Not really. If one of these players had transferred during the summer, they would have sat out two semesters and become eligible fall '09.

Now they would have to transfer following this semester and would become eligible spring '10. So, this semester is a semester in which they cannot play at their old school but also a semester than doesn't count towards the NCAA-mandated transfer-sit-out rule. May not seem like much but when you only have four seasons, losing a half-season is not insignificant.

And I don't see how TA can escape some responsibility for the bloated 19-player roster.

[cascadedevil]

How does this rob them of a year, wouldn't they need to sit out for a year anyway?

Would it really be better for Amaker to bury these guys on the bench as the Freshmen get all of the playing time?

To me, it sounds like this is primarily an issue of bruised egos, and the only thing Amaker should be faulted for is possibly not having conversations in the Spring with these players to let them know that if all of the Freshmen showed up that there may not be enough spots to go around. However, there is no way to tell that those conversations did not happen.

[devildeac]

OK, I'll try one more time. (Do you notice that the more one posts here, the more one begins to sound like Jumbo?)

The story is a NY Times created controversy where there should be none at all. Apparently, the Times sports staff thinks there's another Watergate story right around the corner -- or the Yale and Princeton grads like bashing Harvard. (Harvard should be bashed -- for having a non-competitive hoops program and a gym that seats 1,200 people (the Harvard Endowment is north of $30 billion).)

Harvard has had a poor and undistinguished basketball program (zero Ivy League titles in 55 years). The decision to hire Amaker was a decision to make basketball really successful. He has was given carte blanche to bring in some players (which was also reported as a controversy by the Times -- and it wasn't).

He has a very strong freshman class of seven players, resulting in potentially 19 players on the team for the coming year. There are no scholarship limits, by definition, because neither Harvard or the other Ivies offer (ahem) athletic scholarships.

Tommy doesn't want to spend two weeks after practice starts deciding who is no. 12, 13 and 14 on his roster. Therefore, he made his cuts before the season.

Did the weaker players even think Tommy was going to keep 19 players? NINETEEN? What were they thinking?

Did anyone think to ask him over the summer whether he wanted them to return?

Now we are worried -- apparently -- about the setbacks to the college careers of players ranked 15 through 19 on one of the weakest Div I programs in the country. These guys have no future as Div I college basketball players. If they want to play Div III, they can start immediately. Williams, Amherst, Trinity -- are you listening? The fact is, they won't be recruited by anyone.

This is a bit like Andrew Giuliani, the no. 12 or 13 player on the Duke golf team, suing the University because it is hurting his future PGA career. He can't even make the starting lineup of good but not great college team -- what is he talking about? The problem is -- he and the Harvard cuts -- can't play.

Now, everyone is making a big deal about the timing of the cuts. The real issue is that these guys can't play and the coach told them so.

This is a non-story in the sports world, created by the NY Times sports staff.

sagegrouse

I believe their "coverage" of the LAX incident was also fair and unbiased:rolleyes:.

[hurleyfor3]

Transfer out of Harvard. Yeah, right.

[Edouble]

Did the weaker players even think Tommy was going to keep 19 players? NINETEEN? What were they thinking?

They were probably thinking that the freshman would start their playing careers on the JV team, as is generally done in non-athletic scholarship universities. I'm sure the three returning contributers, as VAGentleman05 noted, thought they would at least get the chance to be coached.

[BD80]

I don't see how anyone can look at this move and think it was handled well by Amaker. ...

At the very least, the players cut - guys who had made a major investment with their time and effort over the last year - deserved either the right to work out and make the team, or notified earlier that they were going to be cut so that they could have the option to go to another school without losing a full year. ...

One thing that is misleading in the article is the comment that the players were cut to "make room" for the incoming 7-man class. Since there are no limits on how many non-scholarship players a team can field.

My understanding is that the kids at issue still have their scholarships - which are not basketball scholarships.

Since they are not on basketball scholarship, aren't they free to transfer without penalty? Wouldn't they be immediately eligible to play upon transfer? If they do want to transfer, they could start in December at their new school. I am betting coaches aren't going to be flooding their cell phones with calls, nor do I think these kids are going to be interested in the schools which would want to offer a scholarship.

It would be nice to know the whole story, but I suspect that Tommy will not feed the media frenzy (to the extent it exists for Harvard basketball).

I think this tells us how much better the kids are that Tommy has recruited than the kids he inherited. He has limited time to introduce 7 new kids into a system. I can see how he would choose not to spend practice time with kids he knows will not be part of the team, which would reduce the reps of the players who will be on the team and who have a great need of reps.

[Carlos]

I believe that Jim answered this earlier, but the gist of things is no, the transfer rule is the same for scholarship players as it is for non-scholarship players. If you think about it, in the Ivy League where no scholarships are offered, you have to treat non-scholarship athletes with the same rules as those on a scholarship. Otherwise whole teams could transfer every year without any kind of ramifications for the player.

So the way that Tommy played it out, the earliest any of these guys could play is the second semester of the 2010 season (technically December of 2009). If he had made the move two months ago he the players would be able to play the next season starting with the first game.

As for choosing not to spend limited practice resources on lesser players - that's a moderately reasonable approach except it still doesn't explain why it couldn't have been made months earlier. The most plausible explanation seems to be that Tommy was waiting to make sure he had the other players cleared from the Ivy League investigation and on the team before culling the herd. If that's the case it's extremely poor form on Tommy's part.