Well, I'll bite. I think it is a different world today. No one wants to sit and wait his turn. I would split blame right down the middle between the coaches and the players. Players who turn out to be less than expected are quietly encouraged to leave. If a player is not a starter by his sophomore year, he starts looking for the door. Think about players like Fred Moon, and Don Maser, who both waited 3 years to get meaningful playing time. There are still exceptions. We've had our share of kids like Jerry Jones, who stuck around, despite only being a reserve, or David Theis, who stayed and got his degree despite getting almost no playing time. My guess is that many players have dreams of playing pro ball, and figure that they need to be on the court somewhere if they are to have any chance at all. Conversely, coaches make a lot of money, and are under tremendous pressure to win. So if it takes easing a kid off the team in order to make room for a better player, the coach will do it. Sometimes it's obvious when it's the players decision, and sometimes it's obvious when it's the coach's call. Sometimes it's a mutual decision, and sometimes you just can't tell. Sometimes it's a case of a player thinking that he's too good for the program he's in (TJ, Robert Mictchell), and that he should be at a higher profile school.
As for the players sitting out, some feel that even one year is too much. This is especially so when their coach is fired, or moves on to another job. There is no penalty for the coach, but if the player doesn't like the new coach, he has to sit for a year if he transfers.

Scotchngars wrote:

Well first of all I don't appreciate" you will bite", like there is a alternative motive, you really need to cool off.

Your point of no one wants to wait is my point, not everyone can play all the time. There is only so many spots on the field, court, rink, what ever your sport is. If someone gives you an opportunity to pay for, and invest that money that the athlete would not consider to take out a student loan for, "at our BB program level" a quarter of a million dollar schollie, meals,  books, room and board, travel money, clothing, etc... for four years. How does a school in the condition of our program retain players?

Big time programs lose players every year because they will not put in the work to achieve their full potential. So what my point is, players in this generation are probably more likely to leave than put in the work to achieve their ability to play at this level than sit.

Its a T-ball, coach pitch, little league mentality enscripted into this generation that we will reward you for no extra effort to get better, and if we do give you the opportunity and you don't play, you will take your ball and leave.

This is mentality is from the highest level high schools, colleges's, and pro's and everyone blames the coaches, Gm's, Owners, etc...

No motive to the I'll bite, just a figure of speech. Sometimes I see players criticized for choosing a less prominent school. "Oh, he's afraid to compete" and such. Would you criticize a kid who had an offer to go to Villanova, but chose Duquesne because he figured he had a better chance to play? What about coaches who will offer a less heralded kid late, after their main targets go elsewhere? All schools do this, but more often than not, the kid isn't really good enough to play at that level, and gets recruited over. Some, like David Theis, will be happy despite the lack of playing time, and will want to stay put. Others will look to find a more favorable situation. One problem you have today, and this is especially true at the higher levels, is that many kids really have no interest in school. Now we can preach to them all day about the value of an education, but some kids just don't care, while others are so ill prepared, that college is an impossible task for them. These kids also fequently have family in their ears who see dollar signs, and who are convinced than junior is their ticket to riches, and that the stupid coach is blowing it for them. This is really prevalent, and can be a major problem for kids who come from a really impoverished background. I knew a former Duke, who will go unnamed", who was absolutely convinced that he was NBA material, and that the coaches were ruining it for him. This kid was a nice enough player, but he couldn't have made the NBA if they expanded to 100 teams. There are many out there like him. It's all a part of the debate about what college sports are, vs what maybe they should be. I don't want to take this conversation off track, but that is definitely something that I'd love to see the board debate.
 

A couple random thoughts that I think speak for themselves, although I would be happy to elaborate. I think these contribute to the situation we have now.
1. I feel as though parents are putting 6-month-olds in travel leagues, exposing them to coaches who are more motivated by making money than shaping young lives, and forgetting to let kids live normal lives with seasons and rest breaks. They do this, because as has been suggested above, everyone believes junior or juniorette is destined for big things, and taking a second mortgage so he/she can be part of some reverse professional league where you pay for play is the way to go. Because of that, too much is made about even the Little League World Series these days. In my time, you picked up a glove and bat when the snow started melting, you dug a football out of your closet as soon as you needed a sweatshirt, whenever you could get critical mass at a playground you played some hoops, and when the ground was covered with show and ice you grabbed the hockey sticks and those classic orange balls. Today, kids are playing/practicing 7 days a week, year-round. People, WTH are you thinking?

2. College athletics, especially the big-time sports (football and men's basketball), is all about $$$. Period. And the entire institution is run by people who lack even a modicum of common sense. The so-called "big-time" schools, and their alumni, long ago corrupted any amateur aspects of collegiate sports by paying kids, giving them cars, enabling them to coast through basketweaving classes, treating them to beer and hookers, etc. That stuff still goes on, and in fact, these crazy rich people keep finding new ways to get kids in trouble (tattoos, selling jerseys) all the time. Put it out in the open. Let kids see what the perks are at different schools. Duquesne can't compete with any of this stuff because the $$ base isn't there, unless Greg's golf buddies hit the lottery, are actually making money off these blogs, or just sold their law practices to someone who did win the lottery.

3. This is a new opinion for me, but since scholarships are a one-year thing, since coaches can skip out of multi-year contracts, and since the NCAA is more useless than teets on a bull, I think it's time to let kids be elegible to play again upon enrollment in a new school, assuming that's what the kid and coach want. I think, for example, a kid who wants to be at Duquesne and help Duquesne to be successful will come here looking to invest and get something out of a 4-5 year commitment, and if the situation changes for them, then so be it.

I know I have old-fashioned perspectives that probably seem crazy to you guys, but #1 always worked before, #2 is an undeniable fact of life, and #3 seems like it would make a whole hell of a lot of sense for me.

 

Scotchngars wrote:

Ok so we have all covered the plus and minus of the coaches, AD's, and president's, at what point do we look at the commitment of the recruited player. I am not asking for the opinions, or guesses on this subject, but the known. How many players especially in the last ten years asked to be transfered out of this program because they did not get the playing time they felt they deserved, or simply did not like the coach, or school.

I don't want to hear about them being kids and not being mature enough to be able to accept their commitment to a program or that its the way it is today. They are not kids, our military is mostly made up of 18 to 23 year olds that carry a weapon, sit on a rock on a mountain, or eat sand in a desert, or freeze in the colds, or sweat in the jungles and protect our freedoms. Sorry for the long explanation of the difference of a child and young adult, but feel some forget the difference.

So, from my troll opinion, since I have officially been labled, when college athletes only suffers sitting out one year if they transfer in most situations, "when they are required to sit out", its not a big deal to them.. However it is a big deal to the school they are leaving based on the fact it could affect the schools post season play and schollies. I would bet that alot of the college athletes expect to be in college at least 5 years due to the demanding schedual they have. So if they are not happy with their playing time, since they were a big fish in a little pond in high school, and now they are not able to compete at the college level they where recruited at, but if they stayed the coach felt the talent was there to develop them, I'll just transfer somewhere that will give me more playing time, instead of commiting to the program that gave them a full scholarship and opportunity for a first class education.

Please don't let this go into the coaches stats, that has been covered, but what is not "known" is who left because they made the choice and not the coach?