ATLeagle {l Wrote}:If you sell playing time and then a guy realizes he is not going to get it, you can't blame him. Assuming this isn't some flukey hot streak from Bowman, I think Graves made the right call for his hoops career.
longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
Primetime {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
Let's say you have two brand new employees, Employee A and Employee B. Employee A just seems to learn faster than Employee B, gets the work done better and more quickly, and your clients prefer working with him. Employee B could either (1) try to get better at your company or (2) leave.
That's life - can't see it as any more or any less without any juicy details from either camp.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Primetime {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
Let's say you have two brand new employees, Employee A and Employee B. Employee A just seems to learn faster than Employee B, gets the work done better and more quickly, and your clients prefer working with him. Employee B could either (1) try to get better at your company or (2) leave.
That's life - can't see it as any more or any less without any juicy details from either camp.
Be better at recruiting then.
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Primetime {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
Let's say you have two brand new employees, Employee A and Employee B. Employee A just seems to learn faster than Employee B, gets the work done better and more quickly, and your clients prefer working with him. Employee B could either (1) try to get better at your company or (2) leave.
That's life - can't see it as any more or any less without any juicy details from either camp.
Be better at recruiting then.
They recruited two point guards and one of them is playing like Steve Francis
what the heck do you want
longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
I agree with you a lot, but this is dumb
flyingelvii {l Wrote}:I know millenials suck and all but leaving places because of playing time and meddling parents isn't exactly a new development in athletics.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
I agree with you a lot, but this is dumb
There are three choices here:
1. Coaches can teach kids to play PG and defense, in which case, they should have done so; or
2. Players come ready-made, in which case they recruited a player that can't play in a vital spot for the program; or
3. Some combination of both.
Kid's father might be a shit head, and I am sure that is why he left, but saying he can't play on his way on his way out the door is an indictment of the staff, not an excuse for not caring about his departure.
gamer5252 {l Wrote}:Thank you LDE... Any father who walks into the office of a Division 1 school 12 games into his kid's freshman season is pathetic... Sounds like the typical entitlement generation... There was still plenty of minutes to be had and the kid just wasted a season because daddy didn't like the answer he got...Im sure he was told he needed to earn minutes just like everyone else and that there were facets of his game that needed work and daddy didn't like it... what a joke... you talk abouta kid that will never be mentally tough... That was his style, there was zero toughness with the kid, just wanted to chuck 3's and play aau defense
eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
I agree with you a lot, but this is dumb
There are three choices here:
1. Coaches can teach kids to play PG and defense, in which case, they should have done so; or
2. Players come ready-made, in which case they recruited a player that can't play in a vital spot for the program; or
3. Some combination of both.
Kid's father might be a shit head, and I am sure that is why he left, but saying he can't play on his way on his way out the door is an indictment of the staff, not an excuse for not caring about his departure.
Graves can 100% play D1 ball, but after 4 years the fun ends because he isn't playing professionally.
Not sure who said he can't play.
Transferring after 10 games is dumb no matter how you want to slice it.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
I agree with you a lot, but this is dumb
There are three choices here:
1. Coaches can teach kids to play PG and defense, in which case, they should have done so; or
2. Players come ready-made, in which case they recruited a player that can't play in a vital spot for the program; or
3. Some combination of both.
Kid's father might be a shit head, and I am sure that is why he left, but saying he can't play on his way on his way out the door is an indictment of the staff, not an excuse for not caring about his departure.
Graves can 100% play D1 ball, but after 4 years the fun ends because he isn't playing professionally.
Not sure who said he can't play.
Transferring after 10 games is dumb no matter how you want to slice it.
I bolded the part to which I was responding. My comment about coaching was directly addressed to that comment, and not his reasons for leaving. I think we all agree the kid did something dumb and the father sounds like an ass. I'm just noting that justifying this failure from the coaches perspective (either of coaching or recruiting) by saying that he can't play PG or defense on his way out is (a) unnecessary; and (b) a self indictment.
HJS {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:longdistanceeagle {l Wrote}:Epstein is correct. The father controls everything the kid does. When he didn't get time at Monteverde, he moved him out. The morning after the Hartford game the old man was at JC's office. It did not go well. That is when the father pulled the kid out. The coaches had no problem with the kid as a person. He just doesn't know how to play the point and couldn't play any aspect of team defense.
Maybe someone should coach him.
I agree with you a lot, but this is dumb
There are three choices here:
1. Coaches can teach kids to play PG and defense, in which case, they should have done so; or
2. Players come ready-made, in which case they recruited a player that can't play in a vital spot for the program; or
3. Some combination of both.
Kid's father might be a shit head, and I am sure that is why he left, but saying he can't play on his way on his way out the door is an indictment of the staff, not an excuse for not caring about his departure.
Graves can 100% play D1 ball, but after 4 years the fun ends because he isn't playing professionally.
Not sure who said he can't play.
Transferring after 10 games is dumb no matter how you want to slice it.
I bolded the part to which I was responding. My comment about coaching was directly addressed to that comment, and not his reasons for leaving. I think we all agree the kid did something dumb and the father sounds like an ass. I'm just noting that justifying this failure from the coaches perspective (either of coaching or recruiting) by saying that he can't play PG or defense on his way out is (a) unnecessary; and (b) a self indictment.
I took the bolded comment to be an explanation as to why his playing time dropped.
The coaches didn't have Options 1 or 3 in your decision tree because the player (or his dad) didn't seem willing to develop to earn more playing time.
Title IX report complete after SLU basketball players were accused of sexual assault. What now?
By Ashley Jost and Stu Durando St. Louis Post-Dispatch
ST. LOUIS • An attorney for several St. Louis University basketball players who were accused of sexually assaulting three women in September says he has reviewed the final report from the school’s investigation.
Attorney Scott Rosenblum received the report involving his clients after it was generated through SLU’s Title IX process.
Meanwhile, the university has stayed mum on the issue, pointing to federal student privacy laws. President Fred Pestello has given two updates, one in the days after the women’s accusations and another on Dec. 4.
Rosenblum represents three of the four men who were accused of sexually assaulting the women in an on-campus apartment Sept. 24. Another attorney, John Rogers, is representing the fourth man. No other details of the alleged assault have been released.
It was unclear whether the parties involved have met with a SLU hearing officer or if the hearing officer has made a decision in the case after reviewing the investigation report and recommendation done by an outside counsel.
When asked via email whether his clients would need to file an appeal, Rosenblum said he was “considering all options.”
The Title IX process runs concurrently to a separate, ongoing investigation by St. Louis police, which was still considered to be an open case as of Wednesday.
Rogers told the Post-Dispatch in September that he would “be shocked if charges are pursued by the circuit attorney’s office.”
Title IX, the federal sex discrimination law, gives colleges guidance on handling cases of sexual violence, harassment and other discriminatory practices. The process is often misunderstood, while critics argue such investigations should be left to police.
Three players — Adonys Henriquez, Jermaine Bishop and Ty Graves — have not played in the team’s first 13 games or been allowed in the arena during games. The university has not commented on their absences. All have participated in practice throughout the season, and two have traveled with the team on two road trips. The fourth accused player has not missed a game.
claver2010 {l Wrote}:im sure this isn't his last college
Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:https://www.fanragsports.com/news/rothstein-ty-graves-commits-to-nc-central/
This kid's fallen a long way from where he started
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 144 guests