Around College Basketball

panther2 said:
What is Minnesota's record? Last night was their first Big 10 win. At Marquette he would have been surrounded by better players. Why not continue in a better program with better coaching?
Click to expand...
Dawson was recruited under Wojo... transferred to UNC the spring Shaka was hired... you'd think UNC would have the "better players" check mark....

I thought i recall him going home to Minn for the ole "family" reason.
 
panther2 said:
What is Minnesota's record? Last night was their first Big 10 win. At Marquette he would have been surrounded by better players. Why not continue in a better program with better coaching?
Click to expand...

He went to UNC first who had a new coach but was the better program at the time with good players.

We could say the same about some of our transfers in years past as to why leave better programs with better coaching until we got Rick but Alleyne last year left a better program for us.

I don’t know why he left his two previous locales but he has carved out a nice albeit unnoticeable career and maybe that is what he prefers. If not, he could have portal again anytime in the last two years.
 
Amaseinyourface said:
And is a game a game? 1 minute = the same as 25?
Click to expand...
If you are really asking answer of course is yes one minute same as 40. It’s the same when you compute per game averages like when a guy averaging 20 ppg gets hurt in first minute of a game and goes scoreless his per game average is really hurt.
 
bamafan said:
If you are really asking answer of course is yes one minute same as 40. It’s the same when you compute per game averages like when a guy averaging 20 ppg gets hurt in first minute of a game and goes scoreless his per game average is really hurt.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t you think determining use of eligibility differs from determining game averages?

I suppose the point of the rule is they don’t want someone who wastes a year on the bench losing their eligibility. Would a guy who played 70 minutes all year but appears in 25 games seem less deserving than a player who appears in 9 games but averaged 20 minutes?
 
Is this move the same other recent potential of 5 full years of eligibility or would this be in addition to that where it could now be 5+30%
 
Amaseinyourface said:
Wouldn’t you think determining use of eligibility differs from determining game averages?

I suppose the point of the rule is they don’t want someone who wastes a year on the bench losing their eligibility. Would a guy who played 70 minutes all year but appears in 25 games seem less deserving than a player who appears in 9 games but averaged 20 minutes?
Click to expand...
It has always been that way.
 
Amaseinyourface said:
Wouldn’t you think determining use of eligibility differs from determining game averages?

I suppose the point of the rule is they don’t want someone who wastes a year on the bench losing their eligibility. Would a guy who played 70 minutes all year but appears in 25 games seem less deserving than a player who appears in 9 games but averaged 20 minutes?
Click to expand...

It’s basically the same they rule they have in college football where you can play four games difference is it not just first year players who are eligible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top