|
Post by ciabounce on Feb 21, 2012 12:20:30 GMT -8
One other question: why is helping someone into a position where they can actually play basketball & treating your kids like family mutually exclusive. It's possible to have the end result be AW/LBF ending up elsewhere without violating the word you gave their parents & the student athlete. If neither want to leave then, you might have to say "no" to Pelle or January or see if there are other ways. But, you have to bring the conversation up. This is disengenious. Nobody is doing it for AW. They are doing it because they want January or Pelle. And you know this how? Maybe AW wants to leave but is scared to bring up the conversation with the coach?
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Feb 21, 2012 12:29:05 GMT -8
There is no reason to continue to argue about it. Some people on the board are willing to convince themselves that it's not shady/sketchy/wrong/immoral to push AW or LB out. This is largely because they don't have to do it and care more about winning than the people that make up the team. And, of course, we all do to some extent. I don't know anybody on the team and if they win I am happier than I am to see that they are doing good things for people in their lives. That's our role as fans.
However, to suggest that Fisher could approach LB and AW and tell them that it'd be best for them (20-22 year old men at this point) to leave so that SDSU can get Pelle and January without talking out of both sides of his mouth is just naive. There's no reason to argue with irrational people. Either you hear the idea of telling AW to leave and think it's mean or you have absolutely no concern for him as a person because he doesn't help your team win. That's all this entire disagreement is about.
A huge part of why this team is so good is the closeness of the team and the willingness of each player to put the team first. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole at SDSU. That's not the case at every national program. In fact, I'd suggest teams like Kentucky, UNC, Syracuse etc. win in spite of their chemistry, not because of it. I like what we have going on and have really high hopes for the caliber of young men (as well as basketball talent) Steve Fisher is bringing into the family.
|
|
|
Post by dirtball on Feb 21, 2012 12:30:19 GMT -8
Because this is in a thread about getting Pelle or Shepard.
If we didnt have recruits lining up here to play, we wouldnt care if AW was xfering out or not.
Even though we would have been screwed if would have transferred out this year.
How soon we all forget though.
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Feb 21, 2012 12:32:33 GMT -8
Because this is in a thread about getting Pelle or Shepard. If we didnt have recruits lining up here to play, we wouldnt care if AW was xfering out or not. Even though we would have been screwed if would have transferred out this year. How soon we all forget though. For many, ones contributions on the court are the only ones that matter. Nevermind the guys spending more time with eachother than most of us do our closest friends or family members.
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Feb 21, 2012 12:35:35 GMT -8
One other question: why is helping someone into a position where they can actually play basketball & treating your kids like family mutually exclusive. It's possible to have the end result be AW/LBF ending up elsewhere without violating the word you gave their parents & the student athlete. If neither want to leave then, you might have to say "no" to Pelle or January or see if there are other ways. But, you have to bring the conversation up. This is disengenious. Nobody is doing it for AW. They are doing it because they want January or Pelle. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not being dishonest. My son is only 1 so maybe I'll feel different, but I would much rather have a Coach who would tell my son the truth and help him towards a bigger goal than one who won't be up front because he's afraid to offend. To your point, though, may I suggest having less of an either/and attitude and more of a both/and. As in it's possible that it's in the best interest of AW to leave AND in Pelle/January's to come to State. It's possible to genuinely want to field the best team AND still care about kids and create a family atmosphere. It's possible to want Pelle/January to be part of the 2012 team AND actually believe it might be in AW and LBF's best interest to leave. I sincerely hope Coach has a conversation with LBF/AW regardless of whether they land Pelle or January.
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Feb 21, 2012 12:39:52 GMT -8
This is disengenious. Nobody is doing it for AW. They are doing it because they want January or Pelle. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not being dishonest. My son is only 1 so maybe I'll feel different, but I would much rather have a Coach who would tell my son the truth and help him towards a bigger goal than one who won't be up front because he's afraid to offend. To your point, though, may I suggest having less of an either/and attitude and more of a both/and. As in it's possible that it's in the best interest of AW to leave AND in Pelle/January's to come to State. It's possible to genuinely want to field the best team AND still care about kids and create a family atmosphere. It's possible to want Pelle/January to be part of the 2012 team AND actually believe it might be in AW and LBF's best interest to leave. I sincerely hope Coach has a conversation with LBF/AW regardless of whether they land Pelle or January. What makes you think your perspective is more informed than AW or LB?
|
|
|
Post by patentagent on Feb 21, 2012 12:49:32 GMT -8
What a Nancy society we live in today. "Everyone gets a trophy!"; "We are all #1!"; "We are all just as important as the other!" - what a load of bull$#!+. This is sports. Coach would be remiss if he failed to explain: "some win, some lose". A player on the bottom asked to leave isn't being shorted by the team, it is because he has not delievered what was expected. This notion that 'doing your best' is enough is for socialists. Some win, some lose. Aztecs are winners. If you let the end of the bench pile up with non-performers, you'll have one big happy family of - non-performers. AW or LBF or whomever understands that if Pelle is coming, someone on the other end of the bench has to get up and walk out the tunnel. Game over. This is sport.
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Feb 21, 2012 12:50:29 GMT -8
What a Nancy society we live in today. "Everyone gets a trophy!"; "We are all #1!"; "We are all just as important as the other!" - what a load of bull$#!+. This is sports. Coach would be remiss if he failed to explain: "some win, some lose". A player on the bottom asked to leave isn't being shorted by the team, it is because he has not delievered what was expected. This notion that 'doing your best' is enough is for socialists. Some win, some lose. Aztecs are winners. If you let the end of the bench pile up with non-performers, you'll have one big happy family of - non-performers. AW or LBF or whomever understands that if Pelle is coming, someone on the other end of the bench has to get up and walk out the tunnel. Game over. This is sport. +1
|
|
|
Post by dirtball on Feb 21, 2012 13:12:03 GMT -8
This is disengenious. Nobody is doing it for AW. They are doing it because they want January or Pelle. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not being dishonest. My son is only 1 so maybe I'll feel different, but I would much rather have a Coach who would tell my son the truth and help him towards a bigger goal than one who won't be up front because he's afraid to offend. To your point, though, may I suggest having less of an either/and attitude and more of a both/and. As in it's possible that it's in the best interest of AW to leave AND in Pelle/January's to come to State. It's possible to genuinely want to field the best team AND still care about kids and create a family atmosphere. It's possible to want Pelle/January to be part of the 2012 team AND actually believe it might be in AW and LBF's best interest to leave. I sincerely hope Coach has a conversation with LBF/AW regardless of whether they land Pelle or January. I have no problem with Fisher saying " AW we have loved having you on this team, and I want you to continue being on this team, but i have to be honest, there isnt going to be playing time available for you, I will understand if you feel its your best interest to transfer"
|
|
|
Post by dirtball on Feb 21, 2012 13:15:54 GMT -8
What a Nancy society we live in today. "Everyone gets a trophy!"; "We are all #1!"; "We are all just as important as the other!" - what a load of bull$#!+. This is sports. Coach would be remiss if he failed to explain: "some win, some lose". A player on the bottom asked to leave isn't being shorted by the team, it is because he has not delievered what was expected. This notion that 'doing your best' is enough is for socialists. Some win, some lose. Aztecs are winners. If you let the end of the bench pile up with non-performers, you'll have one big happy family of - non-performers. AW or LBF or whomever understands that if Pelle is coming, someone on the other end of the bench has to get up and walk out the tunnel. Game over. This is sport. Well you're going to think Fisher is a socialist b*tch then. No way he pushes AW out.
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Feb 21, 2012 13:19:15 GMT -8
What a Nancy society we live in today. "Everyone gets a trophy!"; "We are all #1!"; "We are all just as important as the other!" - what a load of bull$#!+. This is sports. Coach would be remiss if he failed to explain: "some win, some lose". A player on the bottom asked to leave isn't being shorted by the team, it is because he has not delievered what was expected. This notion that 'doing your best' is enough is for socialists. Some win, some lose. Aztecs are winners. If you let the end of the bench pile up with non-performers, you'll have one big happy family of - non-performers. AW or LBF or whomever understands that if Pelle is coming, someone on the other end of the bench has to get up and walk out the tunnel. Game over. This is sport. Well you're going to think Fisher is a socialist b*tch then. No way he pushes AW out. He will not push AW out. He will sit down with AW and say you won't get much playing time next year and if you want to play you will need to transfer but that is up to you and your choice.
|
|
|
Post by dirtball on Feb 21, 2012 13:21:12 GMT -8
Well you're going to think Fisher is a socialist b*tch then. No way he pushes AW out. He will not push AW out. He will sit down with AW and say you won't get much playing time next year and if you want to play you will need to transfer but that is up to you and your choice. No problem with that. But your boy that you gave a +1 too, suggest AW shouldnt have a sayso.
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Feb 21, 2012 13:23:39 GMT -8
He will not push AW out. He will sit down with AW and say you won't get much playing time next year and if you want to play you will need to transfer but that is up to you and your choice. No problem with that. But your boy that you gave a +1 too, suggest AW shouldnt have a sayso. I liked his trophy comment and AW will have a say so in it.
|
|
|
Post by azteclegacy on Feb 21, 2012 13:30:11 GMT -8
you don't change what got you here for one player...i'm sorry you just don't. just like the way we treated our former players is a big part of the reason why we have this current crop of athletes, the way we treat these athletes will be a big part of the reason we bring in even better guys in the future.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Feb 21, 2012 15:02:55 GMT -8
I think the coach needs to talk to all the players coming back about their playing time next year with 11-13 guys dividing time, almost every body getting less time next year then this year. Chemistry / team players will be important and all on the same page. Never know maybe Rocky Long could chat with AW about joining his squad( Gates)
|
|
|
Post by asustal on Feb 21, 2012 16:47:10 GMT -8
This is the same problem big time programs have. Some of our "bounce backs" came to SDSU for that very reason. And what happened? We embraced them and welcomed them. Scholarships run year to year. Considering where we were, we weren't in a position to sit someone down and give them the, "Sorry son, but you won't be seeing the floor next year" speech. Tyrone Shelley left the program after one year. Don't know what or if Fisher said anything, but he went to a Div. II school. Can the same thing be said about the players in question? At this point it really doesn't matter who is involved. It's a reality. I don't get caught up in the ethics of the situation because most of us don't know what the common practice is. I myself don't have a problem with the notion of taking a scholarship away from someone and giving it to another player...especially if it's going to an impact player. People are hired and fired for winning and losing. It's not about singing Kumbaya and walking hand in hand. It's about fielding the best team. You want to spare feelings and give scholarships for a guaranteed 4 years? Go to Elon or Riverside. We've sucked for the better part of...forever. Fisher willed and recruited this team out of the ashes of losing and apathy. And all you're worried about is allowing a player to keep his scholarship. Remember, "The whole is greater that sum of its parts." if Pelle or January want to come to SDSU. someone has to be shown the door. Win, win, win. Cut down nets. That's why!
|
|
|
Post by jcljorgenson on Feb 21, 2012 17:13:13 GMT -8
Some here seem to think guys that won't get much playing time need to be pushed out by Fisher. That may be the best approach in the near term, but it will hurt you in the long term. Who wants to commit to a program that is not equally commited to you?
Fisher takes pride in his character and expects the same from his players. Why do you think he was so upset when Kevin Young bolted to Kansas? It's because Fisher is a man of his word.
At the same time, Fisher will be honest and tell a player where they stand. Just last year he told Alec Williams that he should redshirt, but Alec chose not to. That's his perogative, Fisher is just trying to give the players the pertinent information they need to make their own decisions.
It was the same thing with Cole Huff. We offered the guy and he verballed. We signed some key players and Fisher told Huff that it was going to be tough for him to get significant playing time. Huff decided to move on to another program. But Fisher did not revoke the offer. Sure, Huff's AAU coach get in a big tissy over it, but Fisher did the right thing by being honest.
When it comes to respecting a coach, being honest and "not renewing a scholarship" are two very different things.
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Feb 24, 2012 9:42:03 GMT -8
Future recruits and parents would be mistaken if they were to believe the scholarship extends for four years. Like many things in life, it is contingent on performance. As sad as life mad be, that is how it works. Aztecs didn't promise Shelly he could stay for four years. However, Aztecs did promise the University that they'd build the best program they could by recruiting the best players possible - with scholarships which extend 1 year - not 4 years. If Shelly is disappointed, then he is disappointed with himself, not Fisher. It isn't a slight when you get cut. It is not dirty low-down business, it is just the way the system is set up. Why do you think we are selling people out if we cut them? Why do you think AW is guaranteed a spot on the team all 4 years? Kawhi Leonard didn't think he owed SDSU four years, and SDSU didn't owe him either. That is just the way it works. Where is it implied or written that these guys are signing up for a four year deal? Four years is for a degree. They are permitted to continue there degree. They don't get kicked out of school. They get cut from the team. This notion that there basketball deal lasts until they finish a degree is stupid. They get a spot on the team - as long as the team benefits from them being there. If January wants to come, then someone's got to go. That is not dirty business - that is how it works. I'll tell you one thing. Fisher didn't build this program by treating his players like this! There is a reason why the players and coaches talk about the team as a family. There is a reason why recruits talk about trusting our coaching staff. There is a reason why players talk about wanting to come to State to become better people on and off the court under Fisher. There is a reason why former players hang around the program and even join our coaching staff...and it's not because we've taken the AJ Smith, one year at a time attitude, with our guys. There are times when players are forced to move on (because of character issues) and there are times when both sides decide that the best thing for the player and university are to move in a different direction, but name for me one player that was alright with riding the bench that Fisher booted? I can't think of one. Guys have left because when Fisher told them how it was going to be they opted to play elsewhere and this is what I'm sure will be shared with Alec. But if he chooses to stay (which I think he will) he shouldn't get kicked to the curb and Fisher won't do it. This is the absolute correct response to all this nonsense of "getting a player to move on because another better player wants to join the team" crap. That is NOT how it works under Fisher. Thank God Fisher is running this team and not some of the idiot posters on this board. If the team was run on the "get the best athlete in at any cost" mentality then this team would not be a team, the trust would shatter, there would be no family, and SDSU would stop winning. There are PLENTY of schools that operate with this mentality. I'm glad SDSU is not one of them! Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by yeaztecman on Feb 24, 2012 10:23:29 GMT -8
From what I understand, this was the reason we did not go after the kid from Oregon, as it would have hurt Shrigley's chances at success (among other issues with the reason for being a bounce back).
|
|
|
Post by jcljorgenson on Feb 24, 2012 11:25:13 GMT -8
From what I understand, this was the reason we did not go after the kid from Oregon, as it would have hurt Shrigley's chances at success (among other issues with the reason for being a bounce back). The decision was all about risk and reward. The risk was that the kid's character could be detrimental to the team, including overall chemistry. The reward, of course, is how much his talent could improve the team. In the end, with the expected depth, the upside was determined not to be enough to offset the risk. Plus we have some other "higher character" recruits we are working on, such as Isaac Hamilton, etc.. Jabari Brown could have negatively impacted our chances there. When you have a lot of talent, you can be a little more picky with who you choose.
|
|