Posted By: Jimmy
Chitwood (aka UBlender)
Date: Monday, 25 March 2002, at 3:09 p.m.
Seattleute's post below got me thinking. Let me first say that I don't like the constant turnover in the program at all. I think the way to build a program is to have four year players for the most part.
However, a lot of us (myself included) that complain about the revolving door would probably be the same people complaining about an untalented team that couldn't compete for championships and tournament bids every year. Think about what this team would be like if nobody had transferred out. We'd have a roster filled out with the Johnstons and Heussers and Barretts of the world. That probably doesn't make for a good team.
Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be bothered by this because I know I am. I'd love to see every player put in four years and develop into a better player and person here. But, it's a tough spot because too much loyalty to the players could potentially cost the program some success.
As Bart Simpson says, "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't."
Go Utes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOOPS: In defense of the exodus . . .
Posted By: Solute
Date: Monday, 25 March 2002, at 5:00 p.m.
The problem with many Ute fans who criticize Majerus' "revolving door" is that on the one hand they expect top 25 caliber teams (at least in those sports that matter to them most)in an extremely competitive environment yet on the other hand they don't want to play by the harsh rules of unfettered competition. Why? Because by nature it isn't fair. It is cruel and indiscriminate.
Majerus should and is viewed by Utah alumni, students and fans as the CEO of the University of Utah basketball team. In that role, he has many responsibilities. But we all know that his primary and ultimate responsibility is to win games. In fact, in the absence of absolutely eggregious behavior that inhibits or otherwise diminishes the purpose and/or role of the University of Utah, winning is all that matters (with some obvious exceptions). Why is that? Because we as shareholders (or stakeholders if you will)demand that the University of Utah, and in particular Rick Majerus, have a winning program. Ultimate Ute, Mr. Crimson, L.A. Ute, Solute and the rest of Utah fans only care about one thing: winning. How do we know that? Because we vote on it every day. For example, when you lose suddenly seventeen years of unmatched success is forgotten in the name of player graduation rates that were never an issue prior to your losing. If you lose to an arch rival that you loathe being the winningest coach in school history doesn't matter because you're not the best P.R. coach in the world, but you're a helluva basketball coach and your players graduate. The hypocracy bounds.
Ute fans can lament all they want about the state of college athletics and the deplorable role that business plays in athletics. But in doing so, we ought look hard in the mirror for the reason because the market to a large extent is what we have demanded. In a market, for better or worse, we get what we want -- winning -- or we look elsewhere. And that's how it should be.
Rick isn't paid to generate loyalty. Nor should he be. He's paid to win games. If I were to suggest, for instance, that Seattle Ute's or L.A. Ute's law firm promote loyalty over having an excellent law firm I would be blasted by many (especially the conservative) Utah fans and others. Here's a thought, lets give a free pass to the partnership track to all underperforming associates because our law firm mistakenly thought the associate would be a stellar associate. Hardly. We expect Rick to perform, so why not expect atheletes to perform as well? We require academic scholars to perform. We require professors, to a lesser extent, to perform. What makes the student athlete any different?
There shouldn't be any difference between what organizations and universities do to become better institutions in the face of competition? Like all businesses, the basketball team is forced to recruit talent based upon second-hand sources and other information that is not always reliable. As with any company attempting to attract top talent, the Utah basketball team takes out the red carpet and promises big and great things to lure players to Utah. And recruits make like kind promises as well. And as Seattle Ute notes, this recruiting task is much more difficult at Utah than at other institutions. So naturally, at times, the fit isn't right. Whiting goes to BYU. Frost comes to Utah. Jackson to Oregon. And at other times players don't perform to expectations in light of other, better talent. Are we to suggest that in such situations businesses and universities alike retain these "recruits" in the name of loyalty? Hogwash. Strong businesses, and strong universities, should embrace market principle rather than detest them. Especially when that is what we as consumers demand.
LU
Re: HOOPS: In defense of the exodus . . .
Why do people consistently accept Majerus at face value when he cites how hard it is to recruit here. What bullshit. Apparently, Logan, Ogden, Cedar City and even Provo some years, have a much more diverse culture which caters to the black athlete. Maybe Utah's other schools/coaches relate better to the black athlete than Rick does. This could be. I mean, Stu up in Logan, Cleveland maybe, come on now. These guys relate better to the "18-25" demographic, as Majerus likes to say, than Majerus does? Give me a break. It's an excuse for laziness and simply not doing your job.
By the way, nobody is saying -- least of all I -- that some guys simply don't work out. That is fine. Bring in somebody else (i.e. somebody better). But this unfortunately is usually not the case. He never lacks in bringing in another player but can you honestly say that he upgrades the talent, relative to the player he just dismissed (not in all cases), in any significant and consistent way? The learning curve here is very flat IMHO.
Maybe McBride could set up some type of consulting business where he advises Rick on how to recruit to SLC...maybe start by being positive in the public forum -- tv, newspapers, radio, etc. -- rather than so negative. I love Rick as a coach but my hell, have you ever seen somebody set themselves up so much. If he wins with the marginal talent we have, he's a genius. If we lose it's because "we need better players". He says this as though there is no correlation between his direct recruiting efforts and the players that end up playing for him. Well, feel free to recruit and land better players and if you do have to get rid of a player or two (which I am certainly not opposed to by the way), by all means try to improve on the situation instead of just replacing him.
I'm done venting and I'm sure many of you will disagree with me so tell me where I am wrong.
Don't kid yourself...
Posted By: Seattleute
Date: Monday, 25 March 2002, at 6:20 p.m.
It's as hard as can be to recruit to Utah, for the reasons I've stated in the post below. Utah has recruited two McDonald's All-Americans in its history--Vranes and Britton, two locals. The first had his cousin on the team to help recruit him (Judkins, who wasn't recruited by BYU, as he has told me), and we were fortunate enought to have Roger Reid at BYU when Britton was at Murray. Still, I don't get your point about "Logan, Ogden, Cedar City and even Provo..." Without regard to race, Majerus has outrecruited the schools in any of these places, even with the obstacles. Majerus has what, four NBA players, three of them lottery picks? The other Utah schools have none. Utah fans should count themselves lucky to have Majerus.
Be careful with the 'graduation rate' argument
Posted By: Gilly
Date: Monday, 25 March 2002, at 9:12 p.m.
The NCAA measures graduation rate by the number of players who achieve a degree from YOUR institution within 6 years of matriculating. The only senior this year who definitely is graduating is Spivey, who did not start here at Utah. Cullen may or may not graduate this spring, and then you have the four other guys who started with him who won't (unless Huesser with the baseball team is graduating). One outof 5 is 20 percent.
THe class of 1996 doesn't look much better -- I think Hanno got his degree, but Jeff has not, Nate I don't know about, and Puzey, Jackson and McTavish certainly aren't going to graduate from Utah.
Utah's graduation rate lately is poor to say the least.It was great in 1998 when Utah accomplished what it did with two academic all-americans, but lately they haven't had the same success in the classroom.
Disagree for two reasons....
Posted By: Diehard
Ute
Date: Monday, 25 March 2002, at 9:22 p.m.
1)To have NEVER graduated an African American athlete, especially at USU, is atrocious, no matter how you measure it.
2)To say Utah hasn't "done well in the classroom" is just a lie. The grades etc show we have done well. If you reprhase that to "they havent' done well in NCAA statistics", that I can live with.