Andre Drummond to UConn...Right Now.

[SCMatt33]

So Andre Drummond has apparently changed his mind again (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Andre-Drummond-8217-s-change-of-heart-lifts-UCo?urn=ncaab-wp4458) and will play at UConn this year instead of going to a little known prep school as previously planned. Obviously, freshman are never a sure thing, but he could have a big impact. He was poised to be the first well known player in the one and done era to skip college by graduating from high school and then going to a prep school (a couple of guys have skipped by going overseas). Also of note is that UConn does not have a scholly for him because of APR trouble. This will mean that he will have to pay his own way (which isn't that big of a deal since it would only be in-state tuition at a public school) or someone would get run off.

[CDu]

So Andre Drummond has apparently changed his mind again (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Andre-Drummond-8217-s-change-of-heart-lifts-UCo?urn=ncaab-wp4458) and will play at UConn this year instead of going to a little known prep school as previously planned. Obviously, freshman are never a sure thing, but he could have a big impact. He was poised to be the first well known player in the one and done era to skip college by graduating from high school and then going to a prep school (a couple of guys have skipped by going overseas). Also of note is that UConn does not have a scholly for him because of APR trouble. This will mean that he will have to pay his own way (which isn't that big of a deal since it would only be in-state tuition at a public school) or someone would get run off.

The cynic in me would add that somebody will probably pay his way for him anyway...

[Greg_Newton]

Yeah, UConn is going to be insanely talented next year. Plus, they're going to be absolutely dominant on defense and the boards - as much as we like to joke about wingspan, consider:

6'1 PG - Shabazz Napier
6'5 SG - Jeremy Lamb - 7'2-7'4" wingspan.
6'8 SF - Roscoe Smith - 7'1 wingspan.
6'11 PF - Andre Drummond - 7'5" wingspan.
6'9 C - Alex Oriakhi - 7'3" wingspan.

6th man - 6'8 SF/PF DeAndre Daniels - 7'2 wingspan.

:eek:

That is INSANE, and much longer than most NBA teams, even. Good luck doing anything within 18 feet of the basket, anyone.

[Bob Green]

Good luck doing anything within 18 feet of the basket, anyone.

Good thing our Blue Devils do nothing except shoot 3s! :)

[BD80]

Yeah, UConn is going to be insanely talented next year. Plus, they're going to be absolutely dominant on defense and the boards - as much as we like to joke about wingspan, consider:

6'1 PG - Shabazz Napier
6'5 SG - Jeremy Lamb - 7'2-7'4" wingspan.
6'8 SF - Roscoe Smith - 7'1 wingspan.
6'11 PF - Andre Drummond - 7'5" wingspan.
6'9 C - Alex Oriakhi - 7'3" wingspan.

6th man - 6'8 SF/PF DeAndre Daniels - 7'2 wingspan.

:eek:

That is INSANE, and much longer than most NBA teams, even. Good luck doing anything within 18 feet of the basket, anyone.

Tinkerbell would have made it to the rim despite opponent's wingspan. Ask Ralph.

[Greg_Newton]

Tinkerbell would have made it to the rim despite opponent's wingspan. Ask Ralph.

What about against 4 Ralphs? I mean, Roscoe Smith is the only player besides their PG in their top 6 with a smaller wingspan than Sampson's, and even that's a matter of 1-2".

That's insane!

[CDu]

What about against 4 Ralphs? I mean, Roscoe Smith is the only player besides their PG in their top 6 with a smaller wingspan than Sampson's, and even that's a matter of 1-2".

That's insane!

To be nitpicky, I'm guessing that your wingspan estimate for Lamb is a bit generous. I could see maybe a 7'0" wingspan, but not 7'2"-7'4". And do we actually have a wingspan measurement for Sampson (and not his son)? I'm gonna guess that a 7'4" guy had a pretty long wingspan.

But yes - they'll have a very long team that will block a ton of shots and be tough defensively. Of course, aside from Drummond, there's the potential for a really bad offense out there too. Lamb was a solid but not spectacular offensive player, Napier shot 37% from the field (32.6% from 3pt range), and Smith and Oriakhi were defense/dunk specialists. I could see a lot of 55-50 type games.

[uh_no]

Good thing our Blue Devils do nothing except shoot 3s! :)

I know you're being facetious, but forcing opponents to only shoot threes is what won them the national championship last year (and giving the ball to kemba walker)

I won't lie, I'm happy. They'll be a very good team again this year. Obviously you can't replace kemba (much like we can't replace nolan and kyle) but their team should be very talented and much more balanced than it was for most of last year.

I think this is calhoun's last year, and I don't wonder how much of Andre's decision may have been to go for one year so he could play for a great coach (ethics aside, his in game coaching and player development skills are among the best) before he retired.

I do wonder what they will do about the scholarship situation....they have 10 scholarships available

their listed roster is
21 Kyle Bailey 6-3/170 Guard SR Lancaster, N.H.
11 Ryan Boatright 6-0/160 Guard FR Aurora, Ill.
25 Michael Bradley 6-10/235 Center/Forward RS FR Chattanooga, Tenn.
2 DeAndre Daniels 6-8/195 Forward FR Los Angeles, Calif.
5 Niels Giffey 6-7/210 Guard/Forward SO Berlin, Germany
3 Jeremy Lamb 6-5/185 Guard/Forward SO Norcross, Ga.
13 Shabazz Napier /170 Guard SO Randolph, Mass.
10 Tyler Olander 6-9/225 Forward SO Mansfield, Conn.
34 Alex Oriakhi 6-9/240 Forward/Center JR Lowell, Mass.
22 Roscoe Smith 6-8/205 Forward SO Baltimore, Md.
23 Benjamin Stewart 6-5/205 Forward SR Denver, Colo.
1 Enosch Wolf 7-1/260 Center SO Goettingen, Germany

Bailey and Stewart are walkons
so the scholarships will go to 10 of Drummond, Boatright, Daniels, Giffey, Lamb, Napier, Olander, Oriakhi, Smith, bradley, and wolf

Olander's family is not unwealthy, and he is in-state....so I would imagine one of two things would happen: one of the german guys leaves (more likely wolf since giffey played a large part on the team last year) or they make some sort of arrangement with the olander family

[uh_no]

But yes - they'll have a very long team that will block a ton of shots and be tough defensively. Of course, aside from Drummond, there's the potential for a really bad offense out there too. Lamb was a solid but not spectacular offensive player, Napier shot 37% from the field (32.6% from 3pt range), and Smith and Oriakhi were defense/dunk specialists. I could see a lot of 55-50 type games.

By the end, Lamb was only sitting in kemba's shadow. The reports of his play internationally this summer were nothing short of stellar. while napier didn't shoot well, we must remember both he (and lamb) were freshmen last year. I think duke fans would be thrilled to have two players contribute that much to the team as freshmen. That said, napier's main issue was his tendency to turn the ball over. His main role is as a distributor, scoring will be left up to the big guys and lamb (but i repeat myself) and accordingly, nappier spent a lot of time working on ballhandling and decision making in his summer league stuff.

I agree they could bee in a lot of defensive games. There's no doubt they'll be great at defense, and while I wouldn't be suprised if they failed to put up points (they had trouble with that at times even WITH kemba), but I also wouldn't be shocked if oriakhi breaks out, lamb puts up 20+ and nappier becomes a great point guard....and they score 0 a game.

More than anything, this team should be fun to watch (not that I'm biased or anything)

[Greg_Newton]

To be nitpicky, I'm guessing that your wingspan estimate for Lamb is a bit generous. I could see maybe a 7'0" wingspan, but not 7'2"-7'4". And do we actually have a wingspan measurement for Sampson (and not his son)? I'm gonna guess that a 7'4" guy had a pretty long wingspan.

But yes - they'll have a very long team that will block a ton of shots and be tough defensively. Of course, aside from Drummond, there's the potential for a really bad offense out there too. Lamb was a solid but not spectacular offensive player, Napier shot 37% from the field (32.6% from 3pt range), and Smith and Oriakhi were defense/dunk specialists. I could see a lot of 55-50 type games.

Ah, I think you're right - all of that was just from a quick googling, and it appears draftexpress' measurements for Sampson Sr. (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Ralph-Sampson-4218/) are actually those of Sampson Jr. Don't think there's an official measurement for Lamb, but it looks like ESPN had it listed at 7'4 in HS. That may be high, but I'd bet money that it's over 7'... he's got some of the freakiest proportioned arms I've ever seen.

Regardless, incredible length for a college team. And while their offense may stagnate at times, I think they'll be okay; Lamb is poised for a breakout year after after putting up 16+PPG during their championship run as a freshman last year and leading the USA U19 team in scoring this summer, Drummond is Drummond, and Napier is very good at breaking down his man off the dribble. Plus, I imagine their stable of long-armed athletes will produce a fair amount of fast break opportunities...

[uh_no]

Don't think there's an official measurement for Lamb, but it looks like ESPN had it listed at 7'4 in HS. That may be high, but I'd bet money that it's over 7'... he's got some of the freakiest proportioned arms I've ever seen.

And Ole Roy was sad Lamb didn't go there, because he had the PERFECT gorilla suit picked out for lamb to wear at late night with roy

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think this is calhoun's last year, and I don't wonder how much of Andre's decision may have been to go for one year so he could play for a great coach (ethics aside, his in game coaching and player development skills are among the best) before he retired.

How do you put ethics aside?

Some swan song... recruiting violations, minimal academic development, horrendous graduation rates, etc. But whatever, he got that banner...

[uh_no]

How do you put ethics aside?

Some swan song... recruiting violations, minimal academic development, horrendous graduation rates, etc. But whatever, he got that banner...

whether one is a great coach from a coaching standpoint and whether a coach is a great person from an ethics standpoint are orthogonal issues. Being a terrible person doesn't make calhoun any less of an x's and o's coach.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

whether one is a great coach from a coaching standpoint and whether a coach is a great person from an ethics standpoint are orthogonal issues. Being a terrible person doesn't make calhoun any less of an x's and o's coach.

Then allow me to make a parallel statement... his x's and o's are as strong as his ethics are poor. Don't know how anyone could look past that but it's certainly convenient to be able to dissociate on court coaching skills from ethics and leadership.

[uh_no]

Then allow me to make a parallel statement... his x's and o's are as strong as his ethics are poor. Don't know how anyone could look past that but it's certainly convenient to be able to dissociate on court coaching skills from ethics and leadership.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the ethics of one's college coach doesn't make one into a better or worse player. If you've watched calhoun coach, you know he is quite an adept leader.

I understand you're determined to let your opinion of his scumbaggeury poison your views of every aspect of his coaching, but the connection just isn't there.

You don't win three national titles with bad leadership. You don't win three national titles without being good at in game management and play calling. You don't need an ethical conscience to make millions in the NBA.

[CDu]

I'm not sure what your point is, but the ethics of one's college coach doesn't make one into a better or worse player. If you've watched calhoun coach, you know he is quite an adept leader.

I understand you're determined to let your opinion of his scumbaggeury poison your views of every aspect of his coaching, but the connection just isn't there.

You don't win three national titles with bad leadership. You don't win three national titles without being good at in game management and play calling. You don't need an ethical conscience to make millions in the NBA.

Yeah, Calhoun is a very very good basketball coach. I would never want my kids to play for him or anyone like him, but he's a heck of a basketball coach. Unquestionably one of the best game coaches in college basketball.

[-bdbd]

Yeah, Calhoun is a very very good basketball coach. I would never want my kids to play for him or anyone like him, but he's a heck of a basketball coach. Unquestionably one of the best game coaches in college basketball.

Nor would I want him representing my university!
But I do undersstand Uh_No's "distinction," but - call me a 'tradionalist' - I personally cannot separate the two. Ethics IS a big part of being a coach. And to echo DR's point, leadership is more than just how many games/championships you've won. There have certainly been a lot of men who've coached and won many, many games who I'd not call great leaders (and vice versa). (Great talent has an awful lot to do with winning championships too, among other things.)

Maybe just a nuance, but I wouldn't want such a "leader" on my team - championships or not.


:(

[Acymetric]

I'm not sure what your point is, but the ethics of one's college coach doesn't make one into a better or worse player. If you've watched calhoun coach, you know he is quite an adept leader.

I understand you're determined to let your opinion of his scumbaggeury poison your views of every aspect of his coaching, but the connection just isn't there.

You don't win three national titles with bad leadership. You don't win three national titles without being good at in game management and play calling. You don't need an ethical conscience to make millions in the NBA.

He's doing the opposite in the post you quoted, actually. He says his coaching is as good as his ethics are poor (not the exact words) which is high praise of his coaching considering his ethics. But being ethical is an important part of being a coach (and most other professions as well). You want to overlook that when evaluating him while most others, particularly here, don't.

[uh_no]

He's doing the opposite in the post you quoted, actually. He says his coaching is as good as his ethics are poor (not the exact words) which is high praise of his coaching considering his ethics. But being ethical is an important part of being a coach (and most other professions as well). You want to overlook that when evaluating him while most others, particularly here, don't.

Read the last line of the post, where he throws his leadership in the same boat as his ethics, which is silly because he's shown to be a very good leader on the court.

I should point out that I don't give him a free pass on ethics, I'm doing an analysis from the point of view of a top prospect who wants to maximize publicity and down the road, salary. While I, and everyone here, are disgusted by some of the things coach Calhoun does, I simply thing that some recruits don't need to care and thus, as you put it "overlook that."

His transgressions will always be mentioned right alongside his accomplishments, much like Jim Tressel's. so I don't think that anyone is trying to argue that being ethical is not part of being a coach, just that the aspects of coaching that determine value to a player do not necessarily compose the entirety of being a great coach.

[Jderf]

Read the last line of the post, where he throws his leadership in the same boat as his ethics, which is silly because he's shown to be a very good leader on the court.

I should point out that I don't give him a free pass on ethics, I'm doing an analysis from the point of view of a top prospect who wants to maximize publicity and down the road, salary. While I, and everyone here, are disgusted by some of the things coach Calhoun does, I simply thing that some recruits don't need to care and thus, as you put it "overlook that."

His transgressions will always be mentioned right alongside his accomplishments, much like Jim Tressel's. so I don't think that anyone is trying to argue that being ethical is not part of being a coach, just that the aspects of coaching that determine value to a player do not necessarily compose the entirety of being a great coach.

Right. Not every recruit is looking for a life-molding leader in the style of Coach K. Some do, but not all. For the others, they're just looking for a coach who can show them what to do in the game and where to be on the court--and Calhoun can certainly do that.

Also, despite his many transgressions in the realm of the NCAA, I think it's important to remember that Jim Calhoun is not a monster. Seeing all these vitriolic posts on his "lack of ethics" and his "scumbaguerry," it's easy to forget that he might actually be a decent person. He is the grandfather of six, and a pretty generous philanthropist: just from scanning his wikipedia page, he's donated over a million dollars to various charities in his lifetime. Definitely more than I can claim.

[BD80]

Just imagine what Drummond's addition will mean to the team from an academic standpoint ...

Another player who's priorities clearly don't include education - else, why consider a prep school instead of college for his one year until he is draft eligible?

If I knew it weren't impossible under Calhoun's reign, I would root for some second semester ineligibility due to poor first semester grades

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Just imagine what Drummond's addition will mean to the team from an academic standpoint ...

Another player who's priorities clearly don't include education - else, why consider a prep school instead of college for his one year until he is draft eligible?

If I knew it weren't impossible under Calhoun's reign, I would root for some second semester ineligibility due to poor first semester grades

There must be some good 400 level classes he can take that will ensure his eligibility the entire year.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Drummond going to "college" is just another example of how naive the notion is that college sports is not business but about "education".

Youtube is obviously not the best place to evaluate a player, but that's all I have and from what I see it's pretty much "Wow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXB6vc5Z_A4)" for a big man. Hands,strength, court awareness look way above average to me for a big.

He is listed at 6'11" 265lbs but looks heavier. If he gets in shape and down to about 245-50lbs he's in beast territory from day 1.

UCONN is in the hunt next season now.

[uh_no]

UCONN is in the hunt next season now.

If he still decides to go there once he realizes they don't have a scholly for him anymore.....

[Wheat/"/"/"]

If he still decides to go there once he realizes they don't have a scholly for him anymore.....


Somehow, seeing his skill level and knowing that program, I'd venture to guess that one will surface from somewhere...

[moonpie23]

a great coach (ethics aside,


this is an oxymoron

[uh_no]

this is an oxymoron

how so? Its in fact quite a logical statement, if one were to discount ethics, he is a great coach, but it says nothing of his worthiness as a coach when you do count ethics.

[uh_no]

for those curious...per ESPN


If a player can qualify for financial aid (or if he can pay his own way), then he can go from scholarship to non-scholarship with an exception and not count against your roster. But the player, in this case Bradley, has to agree to the proposal to take on financial aid and likely a loan. A source said the discussion with Bradley and his family was well underway and everything will almost certainly get worked out, but that the school was caught a bit off-guard by Drummond's surprise, preemptive tweet.

convenient....hope they're not stupid enough to be paying bradley under the table....

[oldnavy]

how so? Its in fact quite a logical statement, if one were to discount ethics, he is a great coach, but it says nothing of his worthiness as a coach when you do count ethics.

Following your logic, would you say Hitler was a "great leader?" He did make the trains run on time.... Beware, when you overlook the means to get to the end, it becomes a slippery slope.

[RoyalBlue08]

So let me see if I have this right. NCAA reduces the number of scholarships UConn has to give partly because they don't graduate their players. UConn responds to this not by improving their academic performance but by kicking some 4 year player (who might have even graduated) off of scholarship so they can sign another one and done that very likely has little to no interest in academics. Seems like these rules are working just as they intended.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Following your logic, would you say Hitler was a "great leader?" He did make the trains run on time.... Beware, when you overlook the means to get to the end, it becomes a slippery slope.

Are you really comparing Hitler with Calhoun? Wow... the UCONN hate runs fairly deep...

[BD80]

Are you really comparing Hitler with Calhoun? Wow... the UCONN hate runs fairly deep...

Calhoun is much taller.

Hitler cared more about education.

[gumbomoop]

Somehow, seeing his skill level and knowing that program, I'd venture to guess that one [scholarship] will surface from somewhere...


for those curious...per ESPN

convenient....hope they're not stupid enough to be paying bradley under the table....

I think posters would find Katz's full article pretty thorough, at least as to where things stood as of last evening.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/34697/player-has-to-give-up-scholly-for-drummond

[Des Esseintes]

Following your logic, would you say Hitler was a "great leader?" He did make the trains run on time.... Beware, when you overlook the means to get to the end, it becomes a slippery slope.

I dislike Calhoun as much as anyone, but the sanctimony that descends on this board whenever his name is uttered is not a good look. We have a better coach. We have a better coach who is a better man. No one disputes this. How can we come off as anything but small denying Calhoun the obvious coaching acumen that comes with three national titles and lifting a nothing program to superpower status? Of course he did it the wrong way! You know who else did it the wrong way? Barry Bonds. But lots of other people were roiding in baseball, and no one else managed to utterly, utterly dominate the game on a level perhaps not seen since the days of Ruth, perhaps not ever. Lance Armstrong probably did it the wrong way, too. His entire sport is crooked and doping, and he still ran roughshod over it for the better part of a decade. We can decry the methods without brushing aside the ability. College basketball is a wicked place, and there are probably many more Calhouns than Ks. Very few have succeeded like Calhoun has succeeded, though. (It does make K look all the better, I will happily grant.)

Moreover, no, Hitler was not a good leader. His leadership resulted in the loss of millions of German lives, a divided nation half subject to Stalin, and cultural ownership of the greatest human rights atrocity in history. At worst, Calhoun may someday have a title vacated (which I doubt) and some scholarships rescinded. He will leave UConn in an immensely better position than when he arrived.

Nor did Hitler make the trains run on time. German trains always run on time. Mussolini made the trains run on time. He, too, was a poor leader and not as good at his job as Jim Calhoun.

[BD80]

... Very few have succeeded like Calhoun has succeeded, though. ...

Your definition of success must be limited to winning basketball games and national championships.

Many would include educating players and contributing to the integrity of the university. Here, calhoun fails.

[Acymetric]

I dislike Calhoun as much as anyone, but the sanctimony that descends on this board whenever his name is uttered is not a good look. We have a better coach. We have a better coach who is a better man. No one disputes this. How can we come off as anything but small denying Calhoun the obvious coaching acumen that comes with three national titles and lifting a nothing program to superpower status? Of course he did it the wrong way! You know who else did it the wrong way? Barry Bonds. But lots of other people were roiding in baseball, and no one else managed to utterly, utterly dominate the game on a level perhaps not seen since the days of Ruth, perhaps not ever. Lance Armstrong probably did it the wrong way, too. His entire sport is crooked and doping, and he still ran roughshod over it for the better part of a decade. We can decry the methods without brushing aside the ability. College basketball is a wicked place, and there are probably many more Calhouns than Ks. Very few have succeeded like Calhoun has succeeded, though. (It does make K look all the better, I will happily grant.)

Moreover, no, Hitler was not a good leader. His leadership resulted in the loss of millions of German lives, a divided nation half subject to Stalin, and cultural ownership of the greatest human rights atrocity in history. At worst, Calhoun may someday have a title vacated (which I doubt) and some scholarships rescinded. He will leave UConn in an immensely better position than when he arrived.

Nor did Hitler make the trains run on time. German trains always run on time. Mussolini made the trains run on time. He, too, was a poor leader and not as good at his job as Jim Calhoun.

Nobody seems to be doing this though! Everyone on this thread seems to acknowledge that he is great at strategy, player development, and recruiting. What we also acknowledge is that those things aren't the only factors in what makes one a great coach, they are just some of the factors. Yes he has good basketball knowledge, nobody is disputing that as far as I can tell. And you clearly agree that he lacks ethics, so what exactly do you disagree with here?

[Des Esseintes]

Nobody seems to be doing this though! Everyone on this thread seems to acknowledge that he is great at strategy, player development, and recruiting. What we also acknowledge is that those things aren't the only factors in what makes one a great coach, they are just some of the factors. Yes he has good basketball knowledge, nobody is disputing that as far as I can tell. And you clearly agree that he lacks ethics, so what exactly do you disagree with here?

I don't think Hitler comparisons raise the level of discussion much. It is one thing to say that Calhoun's ethical failings diminish his on-record accomplishments. It's another thing entirely to toss those accomplishments aside--something you say is not happening but which is clearly suggested in both the post I quoted and in the BD80 post directly above yours.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

..... UConn responds to this not by improving their academic performance but by kicking some 4 year player (who might have even graduated) off of scholarship so they can sign another one and done that very likely has little to no interest in academics...

Yet one more example of big money ruling the decisions of college basketball and not education. The NCAA leadership can say whatever they want, but in the end, it's all about the money. And it always will be.

It's pretty simple. That 4 year player is not likely to get them to march madness and deep into the tourney, where the big money is. Drummond very well could, so Mr. 4 year player is kicked to the curb.

[Bluedog]

While I agree that it's sad when a dedicated four-year player gets his scholarship rescinded for a probable one and down guy who basically has no interest in college (most likely) and wants to go to the NBA as soon as possible, at least Bradley is actually in the six-year pharmacy program so he'd have to pay two years anyways - so might as well pay now when the tuition is probably cheaper. And he might qualify for financial aid anyways. UConn is unable to take Drummond and also keep all their players on scholarships even if they refused to give Drummond a scholarship. Because he was recruited, he counts against their limit according to Andy Katz. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/34697/player-has-to-give-up-scholly-for-drummond

Although I had thought that Lee Melchionni was recruited and paid his way his first year...but that was due to the now defunct 5/8 rule, so perhaps that rule had different provisions. In any event, maybe Bradley said "hey I can help my team out in this situation and I have to pay two years anyways, so this year sounds like a good year to do it." Still, I'm certainly no Calhoun fan. This clearly makes them a title contender. There seems to be a clear top 4 this year in UNC, UK, OSU, and UConn. In my mind, the only likable one in that group is OSU. Obviously, anything can happen over the course of the season and the tournament is certainly unpredictable.

[Newton_14]

While I agree that it's sad when a dedicated four-year player gets his scholarship rescinded for a probable one and down guy who basically has no interest in college (most likely) and wants to go to the NBA as soon as possible, at least Bradley is actually in the six-year pharmacy program so he'd have to pay two years anyways - so might as well pay now when the tuition is probably cheaper. And he might qualify for financial aid anyways. UConn is unable to take Drummond and also keep all their players on scholarships even if they refused to give Drummond a scholarship. Because he was recruited, he counts against their limit according to Andy Katz. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/34697/player-has-to-give-up-scholly-for-drummond

Although I had thought that Lee Melchionni was recruited and paid his way his first year...but that was due to the now defunct 5/8 rule, so perhaps that rule had different provisions. In any event, maybe Bradley said "hey I can help my team out in this situation and I have to pay two years anyways, so this year sounds like a good year to do it." Still, I'm certainly no Calhoun fan. This clearly makes them a title contender. There seems to be a clear top 4 this year in UNC, UK, OSU, and UConn. In my mind, the only likable one in that group is OSU. Obviously, anything can happen over the course of the season and the tournament is certainly unpredictable.

This isn't a UConn problem or Calhoun problem, it is a NCAA Rules problem. Imagine that. If UConn is being punished and can only have 10 players on scholly, the rule should be set such that they could not add another recruited player (Top 100 Player) to the team until a scholly opened up naturally, through a graduation, transfer, or someone leaving for the NBA. Allowing a school to circumvent the rules like this is just wrong. Even if Bradley volunteered to pay his own way, it should not open a scholly up for Drummond. Nor should Drummond be allowed to pay his own way given UConn's situation.

I was digusted 3 yrs ago when Calipari kept recruiting, and was handing out scholly's he did not have available, then yanking those scholly's from kid's already on the team to make room, and this is no different. Unfortunately, until the NCAA gets a dose of common sense, and puts a stop to this, it will continue to happen.

Kids who are 9th, 10th, and beyond on the depth chart beware, your scholly is not safe even if you are a model student and team player. It may or may not be renewed each season, depending on whether or not your scholly is needed for a better player or not.

[oldnavy]

I dislike Calhoun as much as anyone, but the sanctimony that descends on this board whenever his name is uttered is not a good look. We have a better coach. We have a better coach who is a better man. No one disputes this. How can we come off as anything but small denying Calhoun the obvious coaching acumen that comes with three national titles and lifting a nothing program to superpower status? Of course he did it the wrong way! You know who else did it the wrong way? Barry Bonds. But lots of other people were roiding in baseball, and no one else managed to utterly, utterly dominate the game on a level perhaps not seen since the days of Ruth, perhaps not ever. Lance Armstrong probably did it the wrong way, too. His entire sport is crooked and doping, and he still ran roughshod over it for the better part of a decade. We can decry the methods without brushing aside the ability. College basketball is a wicked place, and there are probably many more Calhouns than Ks. Very few have succeeded like Calhoun has succeeded, though. (It does make K look all the better, I will happily grant.)

Moreover, no, Hitler was not a good leader. His leadership resulted in the loss of millions of German lives, a divided nation half subject to Stalin, and cultural ownership of the greatest human rights atrocity in history. At worst, Calhoun may someday have a title vacated (which I doubt) and some scholarships rescinded. He will leave UConn in an immensely better position than when he arrived.

Nor did Hitler make the trains run on time. German trains always run on time. Mussolini made the trains run on time. He, too, was a poor leader and not as good at his job as Jim Calhoun.

Please re-read my post. I do not think Calhoun is like Hitler, that would be absurd. Hitler was perhaps the most evil man to ever exist. My point is that if you follow the logic that ethics, morality, honesty, etc... do not matter as long as you get results, then you can excuse almost any behavior.

Calhoun knows basketball. He understands the game as well as anyone. Does this make him a great coach? In my opinion, no. He lacks integrity and honor. A coach is a leader. To be a truly great leader you have to set a positive example for your charges. You have to teach them how to be good men. Basketball will only last a few years for the young men. What do they learn about being men from Calhoun? The example he sets is not worthy of being called a great coach, again only my opinion.

Your points about Hitler are excellent, and highlight that he did in fact not have any goodness in him. If he had used his talents for leading people for good instead of evil, who knows?

[devildeac]

Have we gone down this road now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[oldnavy]

Have we gone down this road now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I apologize. I should have used a different example... :(

[Des Esseintes]

Please re-read my post. I do not think Calhoun is like Hitler, that would be absurd. Hitler was perhaps the most evil man to ever exist. My point is that if you follow the logic that ethics, morality, honesty, etc... do not matter as long as you get results, then you can excuse almost any behavior.

Calhoun knows basketball. He understands the game as well as anyone. Does this make him a great coach? In my opinion, no. He lacks integrity and honor. A coach is a leader. To be a truly great leader you have to set a positive example for your charges. You have to teach them how to be good men. Basketball will only last a few years for the young men. What do they learn about being men from Calhoun? The example he sets is not worthy of being called a great coach, again only my opinion.

Your points about Hitler are excellent, and highlight that he did in fact not have any goodness in him. If he had used his talents for leading people for good instead of evil, who knows?

I hear you, and I think we are both agreed on all points on Hitler. But while we're on the topic of world leaders, what would you say about, say, Bismarck? Or Peter the Great? Neither of these guys has anything resembling a spotless or even especially clean moral record, but those failings feel (to me) a bit beside the point when assessing their place in the history of their nations. They were not good men, but I think most would say they were great men. Now: would I have liked to have been a serf toiling under Peter? Absoeffinglutely not, and I think that speaks to the many here who wouldn't want their kids to play for Calhoun.

But even there, I wonder how much we can really know. Ray Allen seems like an excellent guy, and he learned under Calhoun. Emeka Okafor--is there anyone on this board who wouldn't have loved to have that guy at Duke? Those two are exemplars, and of course many counterexamples exist, but the list of UConn players who were warriors on the court and solid individuals off it likely holds up to most schools', if not Duke's. Yes, Calhoun is a strong basketball mind; in addition, though, his teams play hard, really hard for him, and that has to speak in some way to character. As I said in an earlier post, I have no wish to excuse his many well-documented (and undocumented) grimy behaviors. Those are 100% fair game. But when we start talking about vague notions of leadership and superior man-molding, I can't help thinking of our friends up the road and their insufferable Carolina Way.

[BD80]

... Ray Allen seems like an excellent guy, and he learned under Calhoun. Emeka Okafor--is there anyone on this board who wouldn't have loved to have that guy at Duke? Those two are exemplars, and of course many counterexamples exist, but the list of UConn players who were warriors on the court and solid individuals off it likely holds up to most schools', if not Duke's. Yes, Calhoun is a strong basketball mind; in addition, though, his teams play hard, really hard for him, and that has to speak in some way to character. As I said in an earlier post, I have no wish to excuse his many well-documented (and undocumented) grimy behaviors. Those are 100% fair game. But when we start talking about vague notions of leadership and superior man-molding, I can't help thinking of our friends up the road and their insufferable Carolina Way.

Three uCon "alum" - are they alum even if not all got degrees? - were involved in the players' mutiny against Pistons' coach and unc grad/alum John Kuester. Character. Harumpf.

[Des Esseintes]

Three uCon "alum" - are they alum even if not all got degrees? - were involved in the players' mutiny against Pistons' coach and unc grad/alum John Kuester. Character. Harumpf.

I'm not going to defend Charlie Villanueva. He deserves whatever Kevin Garnett does to him. But I will say that our players are not immune to post-collegiate foibles. It does no one any favors to pretend K is running a monastery.

[oldnavy]

I'm not going to defend Charlie Villanueva. He deserves whatever Kevin Garnett does to him. But I will say that our players are not immune to post-collegiate foibles. It does no one any favors to pretend K is running a monastery.

Well unless you have information that is not publically known, I would say that Coach K is running a monastery with regards to honor and integrity. Is he a saint, of course not. Remember, all have sinned and fallen short, including every monk in every monastery. Does K blatently disregard the rules and spirit of college athletics, of course not. The same cannot be said about Calhoun who's program has had multiple infractions of many years. Remember, he is suspended this year for three games.

Calhoun is a good basketball mind, no doubt. But when you factor in the other aspects of being a coach he comes up very short in my opinion. So do several other coaches that have won NC's or have top tier programs. Winning at any cost and cheating is a short cut. Do a lot of coaches do it, yes. Does it make a person who does it a great coach because they win by doing it? Not in my opinion.

[CDu]

I'm not going to defend Charlie Villanueva. He deserves whatever Kevin Garnett does to him. But I will say that our players are not immune to post-collegiate foibles. It does no one any favors to pretend K is running a monastery.

Luckily for Villanueva, Garnett is all talk and no action. He wants no part of a scuffle. He does all of his barking while walking away from the opposition (or from the safety of the bench or behind a microphone).

And to keep my post within the tenor of the thread, Drummond will be a huge boost to UConn. And I have no doubt that the scholarship issue will be taken care of - even if it means massaging the rules if necessary.

[superdave]

Chad Ford has an article up today saying Drummond could push Barnes and UK freshman Anthony Davis for the #1 pick in the draft. He compares Drummond to Amare Stoudemire and Dwight Howard. Drummond just turned 18 a few weeks ago and is 6'10'', 275 with a 7'5''wingspan.

[tommy]

Chad Ford has an article up today saying Drummond could push Barnes and UK freshman Anthony Davis for the #1 pick in the draft. He compares Drummond to Amare Stoudemire and Dwight Howard. Drummond just turned 18 a few weeks ago and is 6'10'', 275 with a 7'5''wingspan.

Yeah, but he's not Amare Stoudemire or Dwight Howard. He's an 18 yr old freshman. I feel confident that a physical Sr. Miles Plumlee, a Jr. Mason Plumlee, plus even a Jr. Ryan Kelly will be able to hold their own, at least, with the raw, unpolished, inexperienced Drummond.

[CDu]

Chad Ford has an article up today saying Drummond could push Barnes and UK freshman Anthony Davis for the #1 pick in the draft. He compares Drummond to Amare Stoudemire and Dwight Howard. Drummond just turned 18 a few weeks ago and is 6'10'', 275 with a 7'5''wingspan.

I don't know exactly what Ford said, but I don't see the comp with Stoudemire or Howard. Both of those guys are/were much more explosive than Drummond. Drummond is also about 30-40 lbs heavier than either Howard or Stoudemire was coming out of high school.

That said, it'd be an excellent boon to UConn's chances this season to add one of the top high school players in the country.

[gumbomoop]

I recommend: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6905615/writers-roundtable-our-experts-answer-three-big-questions

Interesting roundtable with ESPN bball writers on:

1. Drummond to UConn. I don't agree with Katz's final line - "Perhaps that doesn't make it right, but it'll make it easier to digest for all if the Huskies win big" - but it's a good debate and read.

2. Who's #5? Duke sort of, with some other solid teams in that "2d tier."

3. Will this be a season of great teams? Stronger teams in FF than '11, etc.

Repeat: highly recommended.

[superdave]

I recommend: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6905615/writers-roundtable-our-experts-answer-three-big-questions

Interesting roundtable with ESPN bball writers on:

1. Drummond to UConn. I don't agree with Katz's final line - "Perhaps that doesn't make it right, but it'll make it easier to digest for all if the Huskies win big" - but it's a good debate and read.

2. Who's #5? Duke sort of, with some other solid teams in that "2d tier."

3. Will this be a season of great teams? Stronger teams in FF than '11, etc.

Repeat: highly recommended.


Good read. I dont think any of these teams will be "great" in the historical sense. Carolina has a front line that could all play 10 years each in the NBA, but their backcourt (very important in college) is good but not great. For any of these teams - Conn, UK, UNC - to be great, some guys have to jump several levels. Unlikely to happen.

[oldnavy]

I don't think Hitler comparisons raise the level of discussion much. It is one thing to say that Calhoun's ethical failings diminish his on-record accomplishments. It's another thing entirely to toss those accomplishments aside--something you say is not happening but which is clearly suggested in both the post I quoted and in the BD80 post directly above yours.

There was no Hitler comparison, just a question posed to highlight the absurdity of discounting character, morality, honesty, etc... when assessing the job performance of a coach/leader.
If people want to think Calhoun is a great coach that is fine by me. After all it is just an opinion. My standard for greatness is just different.

[Indoor66]

If people want to think Calhoun is a great coach that is fine by me. After all it is just an opinion. My standard for greatness is just different.

I'm with you on this one. There is more to greatness than X's & O's and wins and losses!

[nocilla]

a great coach (ethics aside,


this is an oxymoron


how so? Its in fact quite a logical statement, if one were to discount ethics, he is a great coach, but it says nothing of his worthiness as a coach when you do count ethics.

Off topic here, but an oxymoron does not mean illogical. It is a paradoxical juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory words. "Jumbo shrimp" is logical in that the shrimp are larger than the other varieties. But the two terms, jumbo and shrimp, are generally considered opposite. It is the same thing with an unethical great coach. I do agree with your premise that ethics aside, he is a great coach, but it is still an oxymoron because most people consider a 'great' coach and an 'unethical' coach to be opposites.

I apologize for the tangent into English. :o

[MChambers]

Good read. I dont think any of these teams will be "great" in the historical sense. Carolina has a front line that could all play 10 years each in the NBA, but their backcourt (very important in college) is good but not great. For any of these teams - Conn, UK, UNC - to be great, some guys have to jump several levels. Unlikely to happen.
Last year, everyone said Duke, MSU, and Purdue were the teams to beat. Didn't happen. Of course, injuries played a big part in each team's demise.

[Jderf]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this debate between Calhoun and K is starting to veer dangerously parallel to a Socratic dialogue? I see Polus arguing that Calhoun is a great leader and Socrates arguing that the man can't even lead himself.

(Come on, philosophy majors. I know there's one or two of you out there.)

[Starter]

When I saw Drummond play in February, I was pretty unimpressed -- at least based on what I thought I was going to see from advance billing. He's obviously a very talented player and will be an enormous asset for UConn and a real problem for other teams, but he seemed kinda clumsy and had lousy footwork. Comparisons to Howard and Stoudemire are absurd, IMO. (That said, he's still growing as a player, and what we see in college may be different than what I saw back in February.) Just saying, let's not get carried away thinking this guy's another Blake Griffin.

[Devilsfan]

I guess this high schooler just couldn't resist the world of lap tops and bling (gold is over $1700 an oz. last time I checked). Just a little hump day humor.

[yancem]

When I saw Drummond play in February, I was pretty unimpressed -- at least based on what I thought I was going to see from advance billing. He's obviously a very talented player and will be an enormous asset for UConn and a real problem for other teams, but he seemed kinda clumsy and had lousy footwork. Comparisons to Howard and Stoudemire are absurd, IMO. (That said, he's still growing as a player, and what we see in college may be different than what I saw back in February.) Just saying, let's not get carried away thinking this guy's another Blake Griffin.

I've always gotten the impression that Drummond has all of the physical tools and ability to be a dominate nba all-star but doesn't have the drive to reach his full potential. To me, that makes me wonder if Derrick Coleman might be ab apt comparison.

[BD80]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this debate between Calhoun and K is starting to veer dangerously parallel to a Socratic dialogue? I see Polus arguing that Calhoun is a great leader and Socrates arguing that the man can't even lead himself.

(Come on, philosophy majors. I know there's one or two of you out there.)

So, you are saying that the choice of destination is a (the) important criteria in the evaluation of leadership?

According to your way of thinking, the travel agent who successfully advertises, books and executes an unforgettable (unable to remember?) trip to Aruba for 15 college students each year is less of a leader than an academic adviser who inspires one or two Rhodes Scholars each year? Hmmm. I'll have to ponder that one for a bit. WWJBD? I'll bet there are more Parrotheads than Philosophy Majors on this board.

[RockyMtDevil]

I'm not sure what your point is, but the ethics of one's college coach doesn't make one into a better or worse player. If you've watched calhoun coach, you know he is quite an adept leader.

I understand you're determined to let your opinion of his scumbaggeury poison your views of every aspect of his coaching, but the connection just isn't there.

You don't win three national titles with bad leadership. You don't win three national titles without being good at in game management and play calling. You don't need an ethical conscience to make millions in the NBA.

It's obvious that you can win 3 national championships by cheating. I wonder how "great" of a coach he would be if he followed the rule book. These two issues are linked because he is relying on unethical conduct to prop-up and enable his coaching prowess.

[CDu]

Drummond has apparently enrolled. Michael Bradley is the guy losing his scholarship this year (but apparently will qualify for financial assistance).

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/34880/michael-bradley-gives-up-his-scholarship

[uh_no]

When I saw Drummond play in February, I was pretty unimpressed -- at least based on what I thought I was going to see from advance billing. He's obviously a very talented player and will be an enormous asset for UConn and a real problem for other teams, but he seemed kinda clumsy and had lousy footwork. Comparisons to Howard and Stoudemire are absurd, IMO. (That said, he's still growing as a player, and what we see in college may be different than what I saw back in February.) Just saying, let's not get carried away thinking this guy's another Blake Griffin.

Calhoun has made a living off big clumsy guys with lousy footwork: Thabeet, Oriakhi, okwandu now drummond....I think what uconn gets here is just depth in the backcourt....having two shot blocking/rebounding beasts down low. I haven't seen him play, but he's a big guy....and if anything he'll draw the opposing center off oriakhi and clog the lane on D.

[uh_no]

I've always gotten the impression that Drummond has all of the physical tools and ability to be a dominate nba all-star but doesn't have the drive to reach his full potential. To me, that makes me wonder if Derrick Coleman might be ab apt comparison.

This is a large worry of mine. One of the defining characteristics of last year's huskies was their attitude, especially on the defensive end. In the few years previous (including the year they went to the final four) they had always had attitude issues and couldn't play hard for a full 40 minutes. Guys like Stanley robinson and Jerome Dyson, despite being great athletes and pretty good players, they couldn't get it done. Then when they were cleaned out, we were left with a bunch of underclassmen and kemba walker, who showed himself to be a bright kid and a good leader. I hoped that the attitutes of the slacker guys was gone. So I worry that this seemingly self important kid doesn't come in like a hot shot and undermine the ethic that the team had last year

to be seen.

[Starter]

Calhoun has made a living off big clumsy guys with lousy footwork: Thabeet, Oriakhi, okwandu now drummond....I think what uconn gets here is just depth in the backcourt....having two shot blocking/rebounding beasts down low. I haven't seen him play, but he's a big guy....and if anything he'll draw the opposing center off oriakhi and clog the lane on D.

Good assessment. Drummond doesn't have to be Greg Monroe to be a huge, huge add to this team. (And like I said, he conceivably could have improved a great deal in the past few months)

[CDu]

Calhoun has made a living off big clumsy guys with lousy footwork: Thabeet, Oriakhi, okwandu now drummond....I think what uconn gets here is just depth in the backcourt....having two shot blocking/rebounding beasts down low. I haven't seen him play, but he's a big guy....and if anything he'll draw the opposing center off oriakhi and clog the lane on D.

I assume you meant frontcourt. But yes, the worst case for UConn is that he's a very solid backup for Oriakhi. That would be enough to make them very formidable. If he is ready to start right away, then UConn looks like a real force again.

[uh_no]

I assume you meant frontcourt. But yes, the worst case for UConn is that he's a very solid backup for Oriakhi. That would be enough to make them very formidable. If he is ready to start right away, then UConn looks like a real force again.

Good catch! i mean I can't imagine him being less serviceable than okwandu was last year.

[AAA1980]

Calhoun has made a living off big clumsy guys with lousy footwork: Thabeet, Oriakhi, okwandu now drummond....I think what uconn gets here is just depth in the backcourt....having two shot blocking/rebounding beasts down low. I haven't seen him play, but he's a big guy....and if anything he'll draw the opposing center off oriakhi and clog the lane on D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXB6vc5Z_A4

He doenst look "clumsy" at all for a man his size in fact he looks pretty agile and coordinated

[Wheat/"/"/"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXB6vc5Z_A4

He doenst look "clumsy" at all for a man his size in fact he looks pretty agile and coordinated

All I have to go by is YouTube stuff, but this kid is obviously a big, big talent. That stutter step behind the back foul line finish is all we really need to see at the 45 second mark to want to see much more.

He has some vision and creativity too that you can see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYlnK-kQuHA&feature=relmfu)as well. Check out the pass at he 40 second mark and the baseline move at about the 1:27 mark, in particular.

He's looking to have an unlimited future regarding his talent for that size. If he keeps it strong between the ears, lookout.

[uh_no]

If he keeps it strong between the ears, lookout.

That's what I'm worried about.....

[AAA1980]

All I have to go by is YouTube stuff, but this kid is obviously a big, big talent. That stutter step behind the back foul line finish is all we really need to see at the 45 second mark to want to see much more.

He has some vision and creativity too that you can see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYlnK-kQuHA&feature=relmfu)as well. Check out the pass at he 40 second mark and the baseline move at about the 1:27 mark, in particular.

He's looking to have an unlimited future regarding his talent for that size. If he keeps it strong between the ears, lookout.

I agree its all between the ears because physically you dont see many players on any level of basketball with his size and skill set..

I have heard hes not always motivated which would worry me but a player like him probably gets a little bored playing vs high schoolers..

[gumbomoop]

I'm no fan of UConn, for all the obvious reasons, but here's a nice story about the young man, Michael Bradley, who gave up his scholarship for Drummond.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7093399/connecticut-huskies-michael-bradley-chose-give-uconn-scholarship

Hardly a crime against humanity, this latest UConn thing, even if this story includes only the positives. Not sure what to make of Calhoun's assertion that "No one lost a scholarship," but nevertheless, it may be that Bradley is something other than a mere pawn in Calhoun's evil doings.

If Bradley's selflessness provides a rallying point for the Huskies, well, a nice emotional lift added to all that talent might mean they do belong in the preseason top 4. Nipping in just ahead of Vandy, Duke, and 'Cuse.

Great season ahead. Real soon now. GTHH. Except for Michael Bradley.

[uh_no]

Not sure what to make of Calhoun's assertion that "No one lost a scholarship,"

I think the point there is that bradley is in a 6 year program, and thus would not have his scholarship all those years anyway, so he might as well forgo one year when the team needed the extra scholarship and when tuition is potentially cheaper (assuming it goes up in the future). Thus he's still going to have his same amount of "scholarship," its just that he'll just get it in his 6th year instead of this year

[gumbomoop]

I think the point there is that bradley is in a 6 year program, and thus would not have his scholarship all those years anyway, so he might as well forgo one year when the team needed the extra scholarship and when tuition is potentially cheaper (assuming it goes up in the future). Thus he's still going to have his same amount of "scholarship," its just that he'll just get it in his 6th year instead of this year

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Now, this doesn't mean I have to like Calhoun, or trust him, ever, right?

[uh_no]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Now, this doesn't mean I have to like Calhoun, or trust him, ever, right?

nope. Even NCAA violations aside, he's a grade A I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this......couldn't get along with hathaway, doesn't get along with auriemma....self centered and arrogant

[UrinalCake]

So the reason UCONN doesn't have enough scholarships is because some were taken away due to violations and poor Academic Progress scores. As a result, they take away a scholarship from a guy who, as far as I can tell, is on track to graduate. And they give that scholarship to a probable one-and-done'er.

[CDu]

I think the point there is that bradley is in a 6 year program, and thus would not have his scholarship all those years anyway, so he might as well forgo one year when the team needed the extra scholarship and when tuition is potentially cheaper (assuming it goes up in the future). Thus he's still going to have his same amount of "scholarship," its just that he'll just get it in his 6th year instead of this year

I'm not sure I understand this. So UConn athletic department is going to give him back a scholarship year when he's no longer with the basketball program? That seems unlikely to me. And if that's not the case, then it seems a lot like taking away a scholarship year to me.

[uh_no]

I'm not sure I understand this. So UConn athletic department is going to give him back a scholarship year when he's no longer with the basketball program?

I believe that is the insinuation, yes. It seems like a win for the athletic department, since they can field a better team this year (and they will have 3 extra scholarships worth of money "saved"), and for the kid, who will end up with a year of higher tuition paid.

[CDu]

I believe that is the insinuation, yes. It seems like a win for the athletic department, since they can field a better team this year (and they will have 3 extra scholarships worth of money "saved"), and for the kid, who will end up with a year of higher tuition paid.

So will his scholarship be counted against the team when it's given to him for that year after he's gone from the team? Because if not it sounds an awful lot like either (a) he did indeed lose a scholarship or (b) UConn is circumventing the rules.

[uh_no]

So will his scholarship be counted against the team when it's given to him for that year after he's gone from the team? Because if not it sounds an awful lot like either (a) he did indeed lose a scholarship or (b) UConn is circumventing the rules.

Perhaps. I don't know the details. You don't think the NCAA would come knocking if something about this high profile case were blatantly against the rules?

[CDu]

Perhaps. I don't know the details. You don't think the NCAA would come knocking if something about this high profile case were blatantly against the rules?

Unless Calhoun is retired by then, I can't see him committing a scholarship to a guy that won't be there. That doesn't seem like his style at all. Maybe he's retired by the time they go back and give the kid the athletic scholarship. But it seems rather unlikely to me that the "we'll just defer his athletic scholarship until after he's no longer athletically eligible" scenario is accurate.

My instincts tell me either the kid really is losing a year of athletic scholarship (and Calhoun is spinning it) or something shady (he's getting his tuition paid by some other source) is being done. Perhaps "just north of clear violation" shady, but shady nonetheless.

[Indoor66]

I'm not sure I understand this. So UConn athletic department is going to give him back a scholarship year when he's no longer with the basketball program? That seems unlikely to me. And if that's not the case, then it seems a lot like taking away a scholarship year to me.

Why is this plan not a violation of NCAA rules? Where in the rules are you allowed to provide a student athlete a scholarship in his 6th year? I thought the rules were for 4 years of eligibility within a 5 year span (excluding Mormon issues.) Why is this subterfuge permissible?

[uh_no]

Why is this plan not a violation of NCAA rules? Where in the rules are you allowed to provide a student athlete a scholarship in his 6th year? I thought the rules were for 4 years of eligibility within a 5 year span (excluding Mormon issues.) Why is this subterfuge permissible?

There is no stipulation that an athletic department can't give a kid a scholarship when he is ineligible to play. Enes Kanter is a perfect example of that.

[uh_no]

something shady (he's getting his tuition paid by some other source) is being done. Perhaps "just north of clear violation" shady, but shady nonetheless.

I'm not sure how it's shady. It's public knowledge that most of his tuition is being paid through the financial aid department. Seeing as Mr. Bradley grew up in an orphanage, it's hardly a stretch to believe he qualified for financial aid.

[CDu]

I'm not sure how it's shady. It's public knowledge that most of his tuition is being paid through the financial aid department. Seeing as Mr. Bradley grew up in an orphanage, it's hardly a stretch to believe he qualified for financial aid.

By that same logic, it seems like a lot of kids that go to Duke would qualify for full need-based financial aid. Brand, Carrawell, and Dockery would seem to fit that bill based on where they grew up. I'm sure there are others. Same holds for pretty much any school, since many of these kids come from poor backgrounds. Why don't these schools go the same route as UConn and just give the kids need-based financial aid and save the scholarships then?

[uh_no]

By that same logic, it seems like a lot of kids that go to Duke would qualify for full need-based financial aid. Brand, Carrawell, and Dockery would seem to fit that bill based on where they grew up. I'm sure there are others. Same holds for pretty much any school, since many of these kids come from poor backgrounds. Why don't these schools go the same route as UConn and just give the kids need-based financial aid and save the scholarships then?

Because they don't need to. If duke found themselves in a situation where they were a scholarship short, I'm sure that the team would work out some sort of financial aid arrangement.

[CDu]

Because they don't need to. If duke found themselves in a situation where they were a scholarship short, I'm sure that the team would work out some sort of financial aid arrangement.

I'm not sure that's true. Duke has in fact been in a situation in which they couldn't give a scholarship to everyone, and that player paid his own way (Melchionni). Not an identical situation obviously (the Melchionni family was well off), but similar enough in that the "odd player out" in terms of scholarship didn't get financial assistance from another means.

[uh_no]

I'm not sure that's true. Duke was in fact in a situation in which they couldn't give a scholarship to everyone, and that player agreed to pay his own way (Melchionni).

Is it possible that being the son of a former NBA player, Mr. Melchionni would not have qualified for financial aid, or, in fact needed the assistance? I don't know, I'm curious.

[CDu]

Is it possible that being the son of a former NBA player, Mr. Melchionni would not have qualified for financial aid, or, in fact needed the assistance? I don't know, I'm curious.

He may not have qualified. It may not be the best example. But I'd be shocked if this UConn example was the first example of a college team needing an extra scholarship, and this is the first time I've heard of a kid dropping the scholarship but still getting financial aid. Further, I'm quite sure there have been many examples of a team not having enough scholarships available and having that prevent them from getting an additional player. It would seem that this UConn would happen a lot more often.

[UrinalCake]

Need-based financial aid is not the same as a free ride, even for the lowest income families. After the parent contribution is calculated based on their income (which I guess could theoretically be $0 but probably wouldn't ever be in reality), the student is typically expected to take out student loans and contribute earnings from employment during the summer. Whatever balance is left will be paid for by the school. Also, I don't think they always factor in books, meals, and other miscellaneous expenses.

[uh_no]

He may not have qualified. It may not be the best example. But I'd be shocked if this UConn example was the first example of a college team needing an extra scholarship, and this is the first time I've heard of a kid dropping the scholarship but still getting financial aid. Further, I'm quite sure there have been many examples of a team not having enough scholarships available and having that prevent them from getting an additional player. It would seem that this UConn would happen a lot more often.

I would guess it happens more often, but you just don't hear about it since the cases are not nearly as high profile as this. I don't know all the circumstances, but I do know that it was written about by just about every college basketball writer 2 months ago, and the consensus was that this was the action that most schools would take had they been in uconn's position.

May there be some conspiracy? Maybe....though the story makes enough sense at face value to not require a conspiracy. Perhaps this makes you think that it is some NCAA violation, but it's clearly not (I think it would have come up being so widely reported)

Now if we want to talk about whether it SHOULD be allowed, that's another topic, and I don't think it should. I think its stupid that a team can be allowed to effectively have an extra scholarship because one of their players happens to qualify for financial aid. I also think its stupid that players can lose scholarships without cause, but they can. If Mr. Bradley had been any less gracious, I might be inclined to think he had been told to lose the scholarship or leave the program, but a couple of things make me think that unlikely. The first is how Mr. Bradley addressed the situation, and the likelihood that due to his background, almost all his tuition would be covered. Second, its likely that someone like tyler olander would be more than able to afford the 8000$ in state tuition (being from rather wealthy nearby mansfield...median income 70k).

Maybe you're right and the whole thing is shady, but you won't convince me, and I probably won't convince you. I respect that we're probably not going to agree here.

[sagegrouse]

Now if we want to talk about whether it SHOULD be allowed, that's another topic, and I don't think it should. I think its stupid that a team can be allowed to effectively have an extra scholarship because one of their players happens to qualify for financial aid. I also think its stupid that players can lose scholarships without cause, but they can. If Mr. Bradley had been any less gracious, I might be inclined to think he had been told to lose the scholarship or leave the program, but a couple of things make me think that unlikely. The first is how Mr. Bradley addressed the situation, and the likelihood that due to his background, almost all his tuition would be covered. Second, its likely that someone like tyler olander would be more than able to afford the 8000$ in state tuition (being from rather wealthy nearby mansfield...median income 70k).

Maybe you're right and the whole thing is shady, but you won't convince me, and I probably won't convince you. I respect that we're probably not going to agree here.

It depends on how you ask the question. As a matter of fact, grants-in-aid are renewable one year at a time. If you ask, should a solid player be kicked off the schoarship list because a better player is suddenly available, even if just for one year? Well, that sounds horrible. If you ask, should the team use the 13 (or fewer) scholarships on the best players available? Well, that sounds a little better.

But as long as scholarships are one year at a time, this is completely within the rules.

sagegrouse

[CDu]

It depends on how you ask the question. As a matter of fact, grants-in-aid are renewable one year at a time. If you ask, should a solid player be kicked off the schoarship list because a better player is suddenly available, even if just for one year? Well, that sounds horrible. If you ask, should the team use the 13 (or fewer) scholarships on the best players available? Well, that sounds a little better.

But as long as scholarships are one year at a time, this is completely within the rules.

sagegrouse

The issue in question is whether or not it should be allowable to "sort of" have a 14th scholarship player (by giving the non-scholarship player full financial aid), not whether it should be allowable to take away a scholarship. That's a separate question.

[CDu]

Maybe you're right and the whole thing is shady, but you won't convince me, and I probably won't convince you. I respect that we're probably not going to agree here.

For the record, I said it could be one of two things: (a) a player is in fact losing his scholarship (and Calhoun is spinning) or (b) something shady is going on. It's very possible that the reality is that Bradley is losing out on some money (getting grants but also having to take student loans) and thus option (a) is correct. In that case, it's not shady. But in that case, Calhoun's statement would be inaccurate.

It's not really important I guess, as the situation has already happened. So it is what it is (whatever that is).

[sagegrouse]

The issue in question is whether or not it should be allowable to "sort of" have a 14th scholarship player (by giving the non-scholarship player full financial aid), not whether it should be allowable to take away a scholarship. That's a separate question.

Again, it depends on how you ask the question. Should a student-athlete be denied financial aid and forced to leave school because he was formerly on athletic scholarship?

The "fair competition" issues are not primary when these matters deal with athletes who are average players.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

The issue in question is whether or not it should be allowable to "sort of" have a 14th scholarship player (by giving the non-scholarship player full financial aid), not whether it should be allowable to take away a scholarship. That's a separate question.

I think both are important questions, and while both can be justified, they can also be loop-holed, as is clearly the case here.

[Newton_14]

There is no stipulation that an athletic department can't give a kid a scholarship when he is ineligible to play. Enes Kanter is a perfect example of that.

I am going to side with you on this one. Sort of. My beef with this situation, is not with UConn, but rather the NCAA. The NCAA has the rule that caused UConn to lose scholarships, and thus, technically speaking, did not have a scholly available to offer Drummond. Ideally, that means that due to the punishment UConn misses out on being able to bring in Drummond (or anyone else for that matter) this year.

However, UConn gets around the rule (and the punishment), and just simply chooses to take a scholly away from a lesser player, and give it to Drummond. That renders the NCAA Rule that cost UConn the normal amount of scholly's useless. The rule has no teeth, so why even bother having the rule at all.

While pulling the scholly may be unethical (or not if the kid offered to give it up), what UConn did here is fully within the current rules. Just another example of the madness that is the NCAA.

[uh_no]

I am going to side with you on this one. Sort of. My beef with this situation, is not with UConn, but rather the NCAA. The NCAA has the rule that caused UConn to lose scholarships, and thus, technically speaking, did not have a scholly available to offer Drummond. Ideally, that means that due to the punishment UConn misses out on being able to bring in Drummond (or anyone else for that matter) this year.

However, UConn gets around the rule (and the punishment), and just simply chooses to take a scholly away from a lesser player, and give it to Drummond. That renders the NCAA Rule that cost UConn the normal amount of scholly's useless. The rule has no teeth, so why even bother having the rule at all.

While pulling the scholly may be unethical (or not if the kid offered to give it up), what UConn did here is fully within the current rules. Just another example of the madness that is the NCAA.

100 agree.

We could even get into the ridiculousness of how the APR is calculated which caused the issue in the first place...syracuse missed the APR for goodness sake...JIM BOEHEIM! If kyrie, kyle, and nolan decided to stop going to class after the tournament and just drop out, we could just as easily be in the same boat. (not that they'd do that, but they could have, and coach K would have no recourse). I'm not sure what the FIX for that particular problem is....I mean these are all tricky situations, and its not as simple as saying "just change the rule to such and such". The rules were made for a reason, even if the people who made the rules hadn't considered some of the ancillary repercussions at the time.

[UrinalCake]

The NCAA has the rule that caused UConn to lose scholarships, and thus, technically speaking, did not have a scholly available to offer Drummond. Ideally, that means that due to the punishment UConn misses out on being able to bring in Drummond (or anyone else for that matter) this year.

However, UConn gets around the rule (and the punishment), and just simply chooses to take a scholly away from a lesser player, and give it to Drummond. That renders the NCAA Rule that cost UConn the normal amount of scholly's useless. The rule has no teeth, so why even bother having the rule at all.

Totally agree. And as I alluded to earlier, not only are they still bringing in a blue-chip recruit but the guy whose scholarship they're taking away is someone who will probably graduate. So they've done the exact opposite of what the APR is attempting to encourage by taking a scholarship away from an actual student athlete.

[sagegrouse]

Here is a report (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7161891/uconn-freshman-andre-drummond-injured-practice) that UConn freshman Andre Drummond suffered a broken nose and a mild concussion in practice. He will wear a protective mask for the first two months of the season. There are some other injuries reported in the UConn front court.

sagegrouse

[BD80]

Here is a report (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7161891/uconn-freshman-andre-drummond-injured-practice) that UConn freshman Andre Drummond suffered a broken nose and a mild concussion in practice. He will wear a protective mask for the first two months of the season. There are some other injuries reported in the UConn front court.

sagegrouse

Wow. Just think of all that work wasted - trying to convince the players not to wear masks anymore. Hopefully it won't derail the new "crime is bad" message the university has adopted.

[slower]

Wow. Just think of all that work wasted - trying to convince the players not to wear masks anymore. Hopefully it won't derail the new "crime is bad" message the university has adopted.

BOOM goes the dynamite! Well played.

[Duvall]

While pulling the scholly may be unethical (or not if the kid offered to give it up), what UConn did here is fully within the current rules.

Or maybe not. Per UConn's SID: (https://twitter.com/#!/uconnmbbsid/status/149311053086466048)


As told to @GavinKeefe, @AndreDrummond03 is a #UConnBasketball walkon & @mikebrad25 is on scholarship. Thx to both for their selflessness.

Perhaps UConn's plan was too clever by half.

[uh_no]

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/blog/hc-andre-drummond-gives-up-scholarship-playing-at-uconn-as-a-walkon-20111220,0,4476135.story?track=rss

a slightly more reliable source than twitter

both bradley and drummond seem like good people.

stupid that uconn put themselves in this position to begin with, but can't really fault the actions of the athletes here

[Bluedog]

Luckily for Drummond, in-state tuition is a relatively low $8,300. Still nice of him to offer to pay, though, and I don't know his family's financial situation.

[Duvall]

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/blog/hc-andre-drummond-gives-up-scholarship-playing-at-uconn-as-a-walkon-20111220,0,4476135.story?track=rss

a slightly more reliable source than twitter

To be clear, that was the official Twitter account of UConn men's basketball's sports information office.

[uh_no]

To be clear, that was the official Twitter account of UConn men's basketball's sports information office.

wasn't trying to knock on you, think i came across that way. thanks for the clarification.