|
Post by realitycheck on Oct 3, 2016 10:47:10 GMT -6
I've been told the issue was not grades, but still not good. The number of games missed would be 11 which in essence is the non-con schedule. Sadly, this will be a full year of eligibility lost for Tyler when you include his missed second semester as a freshman. That is letting your team down, not just yourself. The other huge negative is that you hope you'll have your rotation set and everybody healthy and game-ready by the start of MACtion. Now he will have to work his way into the rotation and prolly need 4-6 weeks to get himself up to full speed again. Really disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 3, 2016 11:01:47 GMT -6
Some kids think certain activities off the court are more important than the team and doing the right things, apparently
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 3, 2016 11:01:57 GMT -6
Tyler did not start all that well last season. That was a little surprising, he eventually came around strong. We will need him strong at the start of the MAC season, don't see how that happens if he isn't practicing. I worry less about rotation and more about the way we need him ready and need his talent and athleticism, and how much we need everyone focused and determined.
This is a year he can make a big difference, and set up a really successful senior year. At this point if the problem is severe enough for him to miss 11 games, it is an expensive lesson. And, maybe too late. If he does not either get back soon or come back with his head on straight, with Walker and a strong freshman coming on board, he is risking being a player who just doesn't fit despite his talent.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 3, 2016 11:17:18 GMT -6
If he didn't learn any lessons from his freshman season and having most of the year taken away, perhaps he will never learn any lessons. There would never have been a second suspension if his head was on straight at all after already having been cost a year.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 3, 2016 12:08:27 GMT -6
If he didn't learn any lessons from his freshman season and having most of the year taken away, perhaps he will never learn any lessons. There would never have been a second suspension if his head was on straight at all after already having been cost a year. Since we don't know the issues here, we can't really say what he did or did not learn. I suppose it could be something where the academic lessons were learned but something else quite different has created a different kind of problem. He was praised last year for how he responded to the Freshman troubles. But, we do know now there is another problem and if he can't come back as strong from it, he is going to be a loser, and of course it will hurt the team. There have been too many stories in college basketball where off court issues derail a player's career. Hate to see it happen. As I said above, glad the coach seems to be addressing it strongly. While it may seem obvious that he do that, there are a lot of programs where the program ends up not doing that, and even some where not doing the right thing is a norm. Don't want us to lose games because we miss a player, but rather that than ignoring a problem or covering it up.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 3, 2016 12:13:41 GMT -6
The other thing we don't know is if failure of a certain kind of test a certain number of times finally led to this long of a suspension, or if this was a first time "caught" kind of thing, in which case the coach acted very strongly. You don't normally get suspended that long without having committed something pretty serious. We don't exactly know what "it" is, though. Could be any number of things.
Sigh..... BSU basketball.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 3, 2016 14:26:44 GMT -6
The other thing we don't know is if failure of a certain kind of test a certain number of times finally led to this long of a suspension, or if this was a first time "caught" kind of thing, in which case the coach acted very strongly. You don't normally get suspended that long without having committed something pretty serious. We don't exactly know what "it" is, though. Could be any number of things. Sigh..... BSU basketball. Could be some other discipline that forbids participation in BSU activities. Coach might have had little choice? He is still on the roster, though.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 3, 2016 14:30:04 GMT -6
You can't really say how strongly a coach is pushing discipline unless you know how many things he is letting slide....which is something those not directly involved in a program will rarely know.
The "at least this shows the coach is strong on discipline" post is a typical dingbat post that you very frequently see on sports message boards from the apologist side to the aisle. Without having a database, and doing extensive research, I might even speculate that an instance of a strong disciplinary action by a coach would actually tend to indicate the coach is NOT a strong disciplinarian. The logic is that a coach who lets things slide is likely to eventually run into cases that are just too bad to ignore, whereas a coach who really is a hard ass has his kids so fearful that he rarely ever has to bring down the hammer.
I have absolutely no way of telling which is the case here, but I'm just pointing out that we can't tell whether this is a "coach finally forced to act" case or a "hard ass/zero tolerance" case. But some people will always see what they want to see in any situation.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 3, 2016 14:30:50 GMT -6
The other thing we don't know is if failure of a certain kind of test a certain number of times finally led to this long of a suspension, or if this was a first time "caught" kind of thing, in which case the coach acted very strongly. You don't normally get suspended that long without having committed something pretty serious. We don't exactly know what "it" is, though. Could be any number of things. Sigh..... BSU basketball. Typical suspension in football for that kind of test is 2/3 games
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 3, 2016 14:35:10 GMT -6
Rorschach test?
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 3, 2016 15:19:32 GMT -6
Yep that's the one
|
|
|
Post by proctorp on Oct 3, 2016 16:12:09 GMT -6
I've been told the issue was not grades, but still not good. The number of games missed would be 11 which in essence is the non-con schedule. Sadly, this will be a full year of eligibility lost for Tyler when you include his missed second semester as a freshman. That is letting your team down, not just yourself. The other huge negative is that you hope you'll have your rotation set and everybody healthy and game-ready by the start of MACtion. Now he will have to work his way into the rotation and prolly need 4-6 weeks to get himself up to full speed again. Really disappointing. Pot or failed drug test?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 16:30:56 GMT -6
Just be patient. It will all become clear when the first insider newsletter hits your email.....🏀
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 3, 2016 16:34:44 GMT -6
Hahahahha!
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 3, 2016 16:54:24 GMT -6
You can't really say how strongly a coach is pushing discipline unless you know how many things he is letting slide....which is something those not directly involved in a program will rarely know.
The "at least this shows the coach is strong on discipline" post is a typical dingbat post that you very frequently see on sports message boards from the apologist side to the aisle. Without having a database, and doing extensive research, I might even speculate that an instance of a strong disciplinary action by a coach would actually tend to indicate the coach is NOT a strong disciplinarian. The logic is that a coach who lets things slide is likely to eventually run into cases that are just too bad to ignore, whereas a coach who really is a hard ass has his kids so fearful that he rarely ever has to bring down the hammer.
I have absolutely no way of telling which is the case here, but I'm just pointing out that we can't tell whether this is a "coach finally forced to act" case or a "hard ass/zero tolerance" case. But some people will always see what they want to see in any situation. I am a little doubtful of your speculative theory, that hard action means lack of discipline. I guess I agree with the dynamic you describe. There is plenty of evidence that player's coaches inevitably have some problems with discipline and probably do not act until it is a giant problem. Those little things can grow and unfortunately often create a culture that is hard to turn around. Sure, sometimes then they take harsh action. But sometimes they engage in cover up, delay and it becomes an institutional practice. That NC situation with academic advisors is an example. Went on for years. But I have to disagree that those coaches who are hell on wheels on the details and little things are not strong disciplinarian. That confuses me. Maybe what I see is that the real "hard" action is to be a strict disciplinarian, even on a lot of little things. It's easy to dismiss a player to save your ass. But, taking action quickly and consistently and every time is not easy, and that is what prevents that slide.
|
|