The question for me is, with the grad transfer rule, does it make as much sense now to redshirt guys?
Is this a late April Fool's joke?
- Thread starter hunkgolden
- Start date
- Status
Valid question, and one I'm sure Matt continues to ask himself and his staff. He still has that issue to weigh, along with having the conversation with the young man about what's in HIS best interest. I think that's going to be the very big obstacle to him changing his approach. (Again, think about his comments about his personal experience.) That's one of the things I love about Purdue athletics right now. Matt Painter seems to be very much a "players coach". Combine that with some of the pro-player comments coming from the football recruiting staff, and it's clear the focus is on the student/athlete.
I've been thinking about the RS issue, as well, along with the grad transfer. When you combine the "one-and-done" players going to the high-end programs, along with programs like Purdue and others that are more "developmental" programs, I think it adds to the challenge of putting together strong teams on a consistent basis.
Yeah there is no right answer for Purdue, very much a case by case situation.
However, if you are a mid major, it would make even less sense. It’s like they are being used as farm systems for P5 schools now.
It doesn't and that's why I personally don't particularly agree with redshirting, but wasn't Haarms a unique case in the sense he joined your program mid-year? The only alternative I think would have been to redshirt him in what would have been his sophomore year but then you lose an instrumental year in on-court development. If I remember correctly, Haarms should a ton of promise his RS freshman year. But anytime you redshirt a player and prolong his eligibility, they're more than likely going to graduate before they exhaust their clock and that option to transfer without penalty is always going to be on the table.
I think it's only a matter of time, but the NCAA is eventually going to instrument a one time waiver fee and it's going to significantly change the dynamics of recruiting across the spectrum. I believe this will significantly decrease the need to redshirt and develop players as you now have the option of recruiting a player with multiple years of eligibility.
If we hadn’t brought him in a semester early, not sure if he would have graduated this semester.
That being said, this may ultimately help the smaller schools. You're going to see a lot of the premier schools "poaching" experienced talent out of the mid-major leagues and it's going to push some of the the more talented players who were recruited over down the depth chart. With a one time waiver, transferring to a smaller school without penalty and an opportunity at a star role may not be a bad alternative for a player looking to rejuvenate their career. There is definitely pros and cons to both sides but it should equal itself out in the long run.
Trying to turn it into a case of whether anyone would have played him or not upon arrival, which NOBODY at any point in four years has suggested even once, was what was irrelevant.
Bringing him when they did and in turn red-shirting him directly created the situation at hand...a poor decision in hindsight as I said...in this case, Purdue created its own problem.
I was saying bring him in mid-year (because if you didn't someone else would have) but let him play the partial year but then redshirt him the following year. His academic standing would be the same as would his eligibility. I think Purdue did it the right way though. Haarms had a very good year his RS freshman year if I remember correctly, had he taken the redshirt in the scenario I described not sure his development takes off.
Disagree, Haarms wanting to leave created this problem.
This is all really good conversation.
My comment here is not directed at any single person or comment/post that's been made ... what I don't like about some of this discussion is, too much of it reeks of wanting Purdue doing only what's going impact W/L, and not what's best for the student/athlete.
In the past I've seen comments chastising and ripping on college athletics; "it's all about the money", and similar remarks.
Well, folks, we have a program led by a coach who seems to NOT be doing that. In spite of some on here who claim he and the players are lying to the public, all indications are that he truly has a focus on what's best for the student/athlete. To me, that's a really good thing. I can live with that, even if it means we lose an occasional player as a grad transfer.
Think about that: a GRADUATE transfer... someone eligible to transfer because he graduated. That means he's doing what he's supposed to be doing as a student/athlete.
Then it was irrelevant to bring up him redshirting. My post/point was in direct response to tying Haarms to the discussion of redshirting. You wanted him to not come and practice against the competition; not learn the system; not be ready for the upcoming season. Then show up in the summer.
That's a hard-sell, and not one that seems to have much merit.
You said you're not comparing him to carsen, then proceed to compare his situation to carsen. LOL. Two completely different situations.
Having haarms the previous 3 years isn't what was being discussed, so I'm not even sure why you brought that up. It's the fact that we aren't getting we aren't getting him for his 4th year after all the time and resources that were put into developing him.
Incorrect. He had already signed with us in November. Didn’t come to Purdue till January. He could have come in August with 4 years to play 4 years.
And he would never have played on that 2016-17 team. You had Haas and Biggie getting all the 5 minutes, with Vince at the 4.
I also wonder if Tre hadn't of had such a good year if he doesn't stay as well.
I also find it interesting that he essentially can't return if he even wanted to. I read that he COULD come back but that the school/staff pretty much took the ability away. Can't say as I blame them really, but I would think that unless we get a really good transfer, that all would change after a lengthy discussion between everyone.
I'm pretty sure it was in the article on the front page of this site. But now I need to go look to be sure...
EDIT:
yeah the article on this site has it:
"Players who put their names in the portal can still return, but are not guaranteed their scholarship. Purdue's announced, though, cited Haarms as having "finished" his career. Haarms has been removed from Purdue's online roster."
Our small-ball lineup would be:
6' 6"
6' 4"
6' 5"
6"9/7
6' 9"/10"
All athletic and some pretty wide. And three outside shooters.
Is this that bad? I'm being honest. Compared to teams we'll play, are these not similar?
I don't think that it was...while his being there in January was beneficial certainly, the cost was more than the reward in this case.
He arrived in January...opposed to May...so, Purdue had him "in the system" for basically four months...which may have made the difference in him being ready to the extent that he was as a Freshman, but, at the expense of having him when he was developed and most able (never mind needed) to genuinely make his greatest impact.
As for the "hard sell" aspect...no different from what is going to potentially happen now with Edey, and, he is not even going to arrive in May...he won't get there likely until August at this point...only compounding the relevance of this transfer.
I personally don't think it is a case of what Tre did or did not do...but, you could be right. I did not think Tre had any sort of great year...he was very inconsistent. I have touched on it multiple times, but, Painter has as well...he just has not had the desire to this point to be great and made the genuine commitment to it...sure hope that happens now.
It does seem odd that the school/staff responded as they have.
I think there is more to this story, but, that is just me...
Given how things ultimately turned out with Dickinson, it sure would have been nice if Purdue had continued to recruit him opposed to dropping out...especially with this turn of events and in that Purdue was in a good spot with him still at the time that it chose to stop pursuing him.
If his not coming until Aug is due to Covid-19, I'm not sure that's true. I will check, but I think he could come onto campus with restrictions on being around others. I'm off to find out.
I agree with this post just added my 2 cents not about what you said but to dive in more about the athlete feelings.
The last quote is on the money. These athletes owe nobody nothing their lives and happiness matters more to them not to fans. These athletes work their tail off to put the best product out to make u the fans happy. Sometimes it doesn’t always turn out like the hoped and when it don’t boy look at how quickly that player get scrutinized criticize bcuz they didn’t play well or live up to expectations when things going well you praise them. The pressures these athletes already put on themselves and when things don’t turn out they way they hoped look at what some fans end up doing. Matt gave his all to this program was a great teammate always free spirited played to the best of his ability to give the fans the best version of himself like all these athletes try to do. In the end tho these athletes are humans with feelings that do try to do their best to give u all the best of themselves and sometimes that isn’t enough. These athletes are people too that have their own lives to live and like all or us have to make decisions for their lives that may not seem right to others but right for them. No matter how some may feel Matt made a decision that he felt was best for him and I wish that guy the best of luck moving forward.
That is something my son and I have not heard as of yet. Until this virus is contained and safe to get not just these athletes on campus but regular students on campus it’s a waiting game at this point. As a parent I won’t allow my son back on campus unless it’s safe to do so.
I don't think that is correct. I believe Haarms eligibility clock started while he was at his prep school in Kansas and that's why he enrolled early. He could have enrolled in August the following year but would have already burned a year of eligibility while at prep school.
Per his wikipedia page
"Haarms enrolled at Purdue a semester early and redshirted the second half of the 2016-17 season because the NCAA ruled he would have lost a season of eligibility had he stayed at Sunrise Christian"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Haarms
So yes he could have theoretically enrolled at Purdue in August but he would have only had 3 years of eligibility remaining unless he redshirted that August which is exactly what I subscribed above. Obviously it made much more sense to enroll in January as he would have been behind the curve enrolling in August (not to mention already down a year of eligibility) so his hand was likely forced.
I agree that we could be moving towards a 3G/2 F lineup more often instead of having a traditional 5 on the floor all the time. We've had a traditional 5 for about 10 years now but when we've advanced in the tourney, it's due to guard play, not the play of our 5 man.
My understanding is he could have enrolled in August and still been granted the redshirt for the 2016-17.
For the entire year, people have been asking for Painter to give Dow more than garbage time minutes so he can at least play against some real competition.
Now, that decision by Painter not to play Dow could come back to hurt.
He could have done that, but he would technically have been a redshirt sophomore the following year, not a redshirt freshman because his clock started during the 2016-2017 season. Once your eligibility clock starts (which it did while he was at Prep School) you have 5 years to play 4 unless you're granted a hardship waiver for a 6th year.
You can keep saying it wasn't, but my comment was in direct response to the point.
This monday morning quarterbacking is irrelevant. Had we NOT brought in Haarms to be ready for the following season, there would have been an outpouring of criticism.
That RS decision wasn't at any expense. You can claim it was, but there's still the possibility of him transferring and sitting a year.
His being here worked out pretty well. It was in context of Haarms leaving after 3 years didn't work out well for us.
To throw a little wrinkle into this redshirt discussion... Painter met with reporters this morning for a QA, and said “I did this team no favors from a competitive perspective by redshirting the two guys, but is still committed to doing what’s best for individuals.”
I heard that the virus is expected to remain on campus, for at least 2 more semesters!
Only when IU comes to town. But thats a different kind of virus.
- Status
Similar threads
