No one is pretending & we IU fans agree it's terrible. But we're fans, and our point is... NO ONE CARES!!!... But fans. If recruits cared, Crean would not land 5 McDs AA players in a row. In fact, a peegs poster provided the numbers and we hate it. Though it is what it is. Crean seems be doing fine despite this being an "issue" according to you. If painter had 13 guys on his roster, then landed Swanigan (or Harris for that matter... Painter had a full roster at that time), I'm sure every person on GBI would do back flips as that unlucky kid had to give up his scholly. We as fans can't keep Crean from doing this, at same time, we can't blame Crean for taking advantage of the system.
Jeremiah April loses this weeks edition of Crean roulette
- Thread starter New Pal Boiler
- Start date
No one is pretending & we IU fans agree it's terrible. But we're fans, and our point is... NO ONE CARES!!!... But fans. If recruits cared, Crean would not land 5 McDs AA players in a row. In fact, a peegs poster provided the numbers and we hate it. Though it is what it is. Crean seems be doing fine despite this being an "issue" according to you. If painter had 13 guys on his roster, then landed Swanigan (or Harris for that matter... Painter had a full roster at that time), I'm sure every person on GBI would do back flips as that unlucky kid had to give up his scholly. We as fans can't keep Crean from doing this, at same time, we can't blame Crean for taking advantage of the system.
I wasn't necessarily just addressing Crean but coaches in general. I will say that Crean seems to have this happen much more,often than the norm. As to,the point of players leaving let me ask you this. Are colleges there for the students or for the faculty? I think it's the former. A lot of fans appear to believe it's for the School, and not the students.
In this particular instance, April vs. Bryant, I would take it every time. April has work ethic issues, and is not that talented to begin with. He was not going to play at IU. I remember a pg at PU, RJohnson, who had some issues too. Now PU was not oversigned, but Ronnie was "run off". Noone knows if April was "run off" or was planning to leave. I am fine with how this particular situation worked out. Bryant is a talented, and more important team player with a great work ethic. Welcome Thomas.
Hmm. I think you need to reread some of RJ's interviews after he left. It was obvious there was no "running off" by Painter. RJ and his dad felt he needed more playing time even though he was averaging 25-30 mins IIRC.
Good question heller. I would believe that differs from school to school pending on how the AD is ran. I'm sure UK & Butler are on opposite spectrums, while iu & pu are similar for the most part.
jimmy, no matter how you choose to explain it, the Bryant/April is ANOTHER example of Creaning. I get that you do not mind it. However, to pretend that this is not the ends justify the means scenario is quite bluntly silly. Accept it for what it is; and recognize that this is part of a consistent trend. At least Upright is honest about being unhappy with it, though he does accept it as well. But also recognize that UK fans use a similar justification for their actions- their end justifies their means. Admittedly the situations are not perfectly similar - but they are analogous. My point is that you need to stop criticizing the UK folks if you accept Creaning. They are not intellectually different. Stop the hypocrisy, and also recognize that IU seems to be the ONLY B1G school that does this to any real extent.. Be consistent and honest about things.
Hoogolf, reading this thread I think that you are wrong when you say IU fans hate it. You might, but reading this thread demonstrates that jimmy and SNU seem not to mind it very much.
I know I don't really mind it. As far as i'm concerned, these scholarships should be treated like academic scholarships. If you don't hold up your end on an academic scholarship, you lose it. I have no problem with applying the same practice to athletic scholarships.
Maybe, but IU fans I know or I am around hate it too. A fan base as large as IU hoops, it's hard not to have exceptions. Like the IU fans who think Crean is a long term answer.
Clearly you can't read well. Go show me where I said I don't mind it. I've stated on this board several times that I don't like it. Not once in this thread did I say (or even infer) that I don't mind it.
There you go McVeigh...
Last edited:
Snuuuze, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You claim that you do not like it, yet you continue to come here and pretend like"...we really do not know what is going on. Maybe April (or whomever) left for more playing time." Did everyone do so? There is a clear pattern that is obvious to anyone who wants to see it. Here's the problem: you do not want to see it. Either it is right or it isn't. You are playing games - and not very well. You are busy here trying to defend the obvious and fairly indefensible.
Stop being two-faced: it only works for Batman comic book characters and Roman gods.
Stop being two-faced: it only works for Batman comic book characters and Roman gods.
Oh, you do know what's going on with April? Please share a link if you do, otherwise you're clearly making assumptions as to what happened. Show me where April said Crean told him he had to leave. You don't know what was said any more than I do. Look at Robinson and Hoetzel this year. Both guys would get time next year. Robinson was seeing his minutes decrease and left for more time. Hoetzel is heading back toward home being he's a west coast kid. Kids leave for a number of reasons, not just playing time.
I don't like it, and there is a pattern with Crean's oversigning, but I'm not dumb enough to think that every kid is being forced to leave either. Some probably are "forced" to leave in some way shape or form and some leave for other reasons. I'm simply pointing out that not every kid is forced out of IU. But you clearly seem to believe that they are all being forced to leave which is the dumbest possible thing you could assume.
Here are my feelings on this matter:
I do not like oversigning.
I do not think Crean is the long-term answer. (Neither is Painter, if you want to reach the Elite 8).
I have no problem with April leaving, as he did not want to work hard enough to help the team.
RJohnson left with at a minimum Painter thrilled that he left.
So did BScott.
So did half the team in Painter's first two years. He wheeled them out right and left.
Crean is not the answer.
Neither is Painter, and do you think that PU can win it all with him at the helm?
you hope that Crean gets an extension, and I feel the same way about Painter.
The IU /PU game this coming season could decide the B1G champion.
Well, we do know that Roth was forced out (as he stated in print that it was his wish to return.) Fischer clearly was not - he wanted to be away from IU. We know that Capo was forced based upon his father's public comments. Hollowell is very doubtful in my opinion as he seemed to have reputed issues that were tolerated with others and he was getting minutes. However, there are many transfers where it was fairly obvious what was gonig on if you simply wanted to look.
I did not claim (to use your phrase) that everybody was forced out(see above). But it is fairly apparent that quite a few were. This is acknowledged by the Indy Star, which is in effect an IU house organ. See Doyel's column on Creaning.
Your comments are similar to those of Capt. Louis Renaud (Claude Raines) in "Casablanca". He announces that he is closing Rick's bar because he is shocked to learn that gambling is going on there just as the croupier brings him his winnings from the roulette table.
If you are opposed to something that you admit is likely, then quit pretending and stop defending. You are clearly defending here - that much is obvious. Speaking out of both sides of the mouth is not a good thing.
Your argument about assumptions is also ridiculous. In order to live life, we make assumptions. The question is whether the assumptions are reasonable based upon data and observation. We rarely know anything for certain. When you cross a street at a stoplight, we assume that cars will obey the traffic lights. One may not and you could get hit. But if certainty was required to do anything, one would never cross the street. When you go to the supermarket, we expect that we will find common items there. Could they be stocked out? Sure, but that does not stop us from going there. Will the 5:15 express leave the downtown train station at 5:15? We make reasonable assumptions based on experience. When we see Crean's behavior, we know that there are not enough seats for everyone. Somebody has to go no matter what. Again, there is a consistent pattern, but we are not supposed to believe things are forced?
I recall your CITING of Louisville as a defense. I guess you correct your fellow Peegsters who chafe at the actions of "Slick Rick." (Funny, I never viewed that as complementary.) - but yet you never seem to do that. And like I said, nobody else in the B1G seems to face the same issues as TC does on a regular basis. I wonder how that can be.
As an undergraduate I took a Philosophy course on Logic. One thing that was drilled into us was The Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle: something cannot be itself and its opposite simultaneously. Apply this to your thought process. If you are opposed to/not in favor of something, stop defending it. Otherwise your thought processes are nonsensical. And stop pretending that you are not defending Crean here.
I did not claim (to use your phrase) that everybody was forced out(see above). But it is fairly apparent that quite a few were. This is acknowledged by the Indy Star, which is in effect an IU house organ. See Doyel's column on Creaning.
Your comments are similar to those of Capt. Louis Renaud (Claude Raines) in "Casablanca". He announces that he is closing Rick's bar because he is shocked to learn that gambling is going on there just as the croupier brings him his winnings from the roulette table.
If you are opposed to something that you admit is likely, then quit pretending and stop defending. You are clearly defending here - that much is obvious. Speaking out of both sides of the mouth is not a good thing.
Your argument about assumptions is also ridiculous. In order to live life, we make assumptions. The question is whether the assumptions are reasonable based upon data and observation. We rarely know anything for certain. When you cross a street at a stoplight, we assume that cars will obey the traffic lights. One may not and you could get hit. But if certainty was required to do anything, one would never cross the street. When you go to the supermarket, we expect that we will find common items there. Could they be stocked out? Sure, but that does not stop us from going there. Will the 5:15 express leave the downtown train station at 5:15? We make reasonable assumptions based on experience. When we see Crean's behavior, we know that there are not enough seats for everyone. Somebody has to go no matter what. Again, there is a consistent pattern, but we are not supposed to believe things are forced?
I recall your CITING of Louisville as a defense. I guess you correct your fellow Peegsters who chafe at the actions of "Slick Rick." (Funny, I never viewed that as complementary.) - but yet you never seem to do that. And like I said, nobody else in the B1G seems to face the same issues as TC does on a regular basis. I wonder how that can be.
As an undergraduate I took a Philosophy course on Logic. One thing that was drilled into us was The Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle: something cannot be itself and its opposite simultaneously. Apply this to your thought process. If you are opposed to/not in favor of something, stop defending it. Otherwise your thought processes are nonsensical. And stop pretending that you are not defending Crean here.
I didn't waste time in reading anything passed the first paragraph. Roth is the only example of someone admitting they wanted to return. There isn't anything printed stating Capo wanted to return. I trust you'll provide a link for that to back up your claim, otherwise I'll take it as pure speculation. As for Roth, it's well known that 5th years are never guaranteed even though I think they should be as long as a kid has eligibility.
Again, I don't like the idea of forcing a kid to leave and I'm not defending that or Crean. There has only been one instance where a player stated he wanted to return (Roth). Everything else is pure speculation. I'm speculating that a lot more of the transfers are for legit reasons instead of being forced out. In fact, I would say an overwhelming percent of the transfers are for normal reasons and kids being "forced" out is the minority.
jimmy, my understanding of the RJ situation is based upon what has been printed, I have no inside info. What I have read in public sources is that RJ (and family) put out word early in his Soph season that he was going to transfer. IIRC, it was the father who was contacting people (and schools) about this. It is also true that RJ played a lot both early and late in the year. However, his play became less team-oriented and more RJ-oriented as the year went by. This is a critical failure for a PG - who is supposed to be a facilitator. In fact, as far as Painter is concerned, I think that he made a mistake playing RJ as he did. RJ's play as the year went on was discussed here and puzzled many. It was only after the fact that things were understood more clearly. For my money, playing Scott as a freshmen, giving him minutes that RJ got, might have allowed him to develop to where he would still be here.
As for Scott, it is obvious that he has talent. He played a great game at Mackey against IU and was very instrumental in Purdue's win. He also played well in Bloomington iirc. However, there was evidently some personality/emotional issues between him and Painter - again this was admitted in print by Scott. As things went on, things became beyond resolution. I regret that as he is a case of "...what might have been."
As for success under Painter: I do believe it is possible. However, I do think that there is a problem - but Painter is not the problem. IMO, it is Burke - and the Board. The Board wants the Athletic Dept. to be self-supporting - and it always has been at Purdue as I understand it. However, in recent years the Board and President has drained cash from the Athletic Dept. Burke went along with this. The Athletic Dept. is a contributor to the General Fund as well as specified projects. On top of that Burke, funneled cash away from the Revenue Sports and into the minor sports. However, the BCG Growth Matrix tells you that it makes little sense to starve the Cash Cows, which is what was done. That is one major reason for Painter's flirtation with Missouri and the changes that he demanded. The decline of the football program is also a result of Burke's choices. Damge was done, and it will take time to fix in both major sports. While I think that Painter and football can be successful, I do not see them being so under Burke. A new AD and one willing to stand up to the Board and President will be required for prolonged success. Admittedly, in a given year, someone can catch lightning in a botttle (see GMason or VCU.)
As for Scott, it is obvious that he has talent. He played a great game at Mackey against IU and was very instrumental in Purdue's win. He also played well in Bloomington iirc. However, there was evidently some personality/emotional issues between him and Painter - again this was admitted in print by Scott. As things went on, things became beyond resolution. I regret that as he is a case of "...what might have been."
As for success under Painter: I do believe it is possible. However, I do think that there is a problem - but Painter is not the problem. IMO, it is Burke - and the Board. The Board wants the Athletic Dept. to be self-supporting - and it always has been at Purdue as I understand it. However, in recent years the Board and President has drained cash from the Athletic Dept. Burke went along with this. The Athletic Dept. is a contributor to the General Fund as well as specified projects. On top of that Burke, funneled cash away from the Revenue Sports and into the minor sports. However, the BCG Growth Matrix tells you that it makes little sense to starve the Cash Cows, which is what was done. That is one major reason for Painter's flirtation with Missouri and the changes that he demanded. The decline of the football program is also a result of Burke's choices. Damge was done, and it will take time to fix in both major sports. While I think that Painter and football can be successful, I do not see them being so under Burke. A new AD and one willing to stand up to the Board and President will be required for prolonged success. Admittedly, in a given year, someone can catch lightning in a botttle (see GMason or VCU.)
So arc, I have 3 boiler friends (all PU grads) who want painter out cause he can't recruit enough talent to win big. Based on your response to me earlier, then you are wrong. You used a sample size of 2 IU posters, so I will use my sample size of 3 PU grads.
Snuuuze, your reasoning is as good as your grammar. It is "past", not "passed". Also, why are you commenting upon a post that you admittedly did not read? That makes no sense.
What you fail to address is the high incidence of transfer. While it is true that some transfers are normal, the incidence of transfer at IU is higher than elsewhere in the B1G. So is the incidence of oversigning. Most people see these as correlated. Obviously you do not - as you state that they leave primarily for other reasons. Here is the key point: if they were leaving for normal reasons and not being forced out, then would not the incidence mirror the rest of the league where others leave for normal reasons? Similar situations occur elsewhere, yet IU and Crean are the significant outlier in terms of incidence. You have yet to square that circle. The oversigning makes that much harder to do.
I will simply refer you to a comment made to James Bond in "Goldfinger": "The first time something occurs it's happenstance. The second time it occurs it is coincidence. The third time it occurs it is enemy action."
What you fail to address is the high incidence of transfer. While it is true that some transfers are normal, the incidence of transfer at IU is higher than elsewhere in the B1G. So is the incidence of oversigning. Most people see these as correlated. Obviously you do not - as you state that they leave primarily for other reasons. Here is the key point: if they were leaving for normal reasons and not being forced out, then would not the incidence mirror the rest of the league where others leave for normal reasons? Similar situations occur elsewhere, yet IU and Crean are the significant outlier in terms of incidence. You have yet to square that circle. The oversigning makes that much harder to do.
I will simply refer you to a comment made to James Bond in "Goldfinger": "The first time something occurs it's happenstance. The second time it occurs it is coincidence. The third time it occurs it is enemy action."
Last edited:
jimmy, I was just pointing out who was posting in this thread, I never said that was the whole lot. I think that if you review your home board, you will find a substantial number of IU fans that support Creaning. My personal guess upon lurking is that it is close to evenly split - that is an estimate based upon reading but I did not count it up. What I do wonder about is the split between alums vs the general public fans - including the reversible jackets.. My guess, and it is only that, is that the alums are less in favor. I suspect that they view the university and identify with it more highly as an academic institution.and the accompanying responsibilities between student and school. As for the gen public fans, they just want to see a good team and are thus less likely to care as much about Creaning. I have not seen any research conducted about this, but I would be surprised that if it was conducted that it would turn out to be very different from my hypothesis.
Last edited:
There is zero correlation between academic and athletic scholarships. That is just a copout I've read before trying to justify using players. In the academic side what you propose would be essentially a kid with better test scores and a higher IQ gets the scholarship and the one holding it now gets booted out of school.
Arc, I agree with you. The big issue that IU fans seem to want to ignore is that their transfers aare the result, as you properly state, of oversigning. Crean over recruits so someone HAS to leave. Painter has not, to my recollection, ever over signed and forced someone out. That to me is the big difference between normal transfers and creaning.
Clearly IU wasn't using anyone lol. We had virtually zero post presence and our 7 footer never left the bench. As far as I'm concerned, he got a year of free college tuition.
Like I've said, I have zero moral qualms about creaning. I look at it as a business. Crean's a manager with a 3 million dollar salary, and he loses that salary if his team doesn't produce. Personally, I'd be doing what I could (within the rules) to keep that job.
Your post brings up an interesting question that I tried to ask in the other thread but nobody seemed to want to respond to. The IU student athlete bill of rights, which is apparently in effect, states that scholarships cannot be pulled based on performance (which I disagree with). Players are only released from its guarantees of they leave of their own accord. So, what happened with April? Either he has grounds for a lawsuit or he left on his own. I've yet to hear anything about a lawsuit, so explain to me how he was effectively forced out.
I'll make it simple for you, BigRed. Then I am done as I find this practice despicable by ANY coach and the practice turns me away from college athletics.
Crean: "Priller, I do not have enough scholarships for next year. I have found a player better than you and he will receive the athletic scholarship you had last year. You will not have an athletic scholarship ever again at IU. If you want to quit basketball and focus on studies you can remain at IU and the school will pick up the tab" (fyi - not sure if that is the case about school picking up tab but I'll go with it - seems sketchy by NCAA rules and unfair to more deserving academic students)
Priller: "Wow, that sucks. I'll leave IU and go play basketball somewhere else"
Crean: "INSERT NEW PLAYER NAME HERE, so glad you decided to join us here at gool ol IU. You are going to be BIG PART of what we are gonig to do over the next several years"
Rinse, repeat.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ind/genrel/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/Bill-of-Rights.pdf
See #2
Translation for those unfamiliar with contractual law: April was well aware of the conditions of his scholarship when he signed.
StateStreet, as far as your hypothetical situation, this is what I hear: "April, you're not going to play here because, frankly, you aren't very good. However, we're willing to foot the bill for a degree that costs other out of state students 120k because we screwed up. Sorry, but at least it'll get you further than the degree from the mid-major that you'll inevitably end up with when you leave."
See #2
Translation for those unfamiliar with contractual law: April was well aware of the conditions of his scholarship when he signed.
StateStreet, as far as your hypothetical situation, this is what I hear: "April, you're not going to play here because, frankly, you aren't very good. However, we're willing to foot the bill for a degree that costs other out of state students 120k because we screwed up. Sorry, but at least it'll get you further than the degree from the mid-major that you'll inevitably end up with when you leave."
High incidence of transfer? Last I recall Painter and Crean had a similar number of total transfers. Where they differ is the over sign. It's also funny too that you take what's said in print as gospel for the PU and then speculate knowing you have absolutely zero inside knowledge of what happened to the IU players. So I actually think your whole argument is garbage. Oh McVeigh, you sure did try though.
Help me out with this (BigRed or anyone else). The 4 year guarantee says IU will not reduce the athletic scholarship based on performance. So, if April had stayed at IU and simply not played hoops at coaches request, wouldnt he still count toward the 13 athletic scholarships allowed?
This is where you get into technicalities. The bill states that every student athlete will receive a 4 year scholarship, and that the scholarship will set forth in writing the applicable terms and conditions. It doesn't state that they are guaranteed a 4 year athletic scholarship. Ergo, the situation you proposed is plausible given the wording of the bill. The switch from an athletic to an academic scholarship is probably one of the provisions set forth in contract, although you'd have to get your hands on one to know for sure.
However, if those terms are not outlined, then it goes back to my original question. How was Crean able to force him out with no repercussions as you guys claim?
Do you make a habit of remembering things that never happened? Again, dishonest, delusional, or both.
What makes you think this is allowed? it is not allowed per my knowledge. ???
And I dont know how a coach could force a player out (based on my interpretation) unless it is simply egregious, unethical, and things go on behind the scenes that we dont know about. prior to the bill of rights, it was obvious how it occurred based on the Matt Roth story.
BigRed - i dont want to make this about Crean although I think he is guiltier than most. If any coach did it I would be furious. And I do understand, if you are a lifelong IU fan (or any college team) and you disagree with the practice...do you a) cut ties with your school and no longer support them, or b) be disgusted by the practice, hope it changes, but still support the school and team. I think it is asking alot to choose "a", so "b" is usually the alternative and I believe that is where many IU fans fall on this topic. No problem with that...but lets be honest about it (not you specifically)
Every head count scholarship student-athlete, regardless of sport, entering Indiana University receives a four year scholarship to ensure the time needed to earn an undergraduate degree. Equivalency scholarship terms may be year to year. All scholarships set forth in writing the amount, duration and any conditions of the award. Scholarship terms are not reduced unless the student athlete voluntarily leaves the team, becomes ineligible, or violates a university or department policy or team rule. Any reduction of a scholarship’s terms may be appealed to an independent panel of faculty members whose decision on the matter is binding and final. Scholarship terms will not be reduced because of a student-athlete’s injury, illness, or physical or mental condition nor on the basis of a student-athlete’s ability, performance, or contribution to the team’s success
Emphasis added. Note: The specific language says "scholarship" not "athletic scholarship" so I would imagine that should a kid like April want to remain at IU he would receive the same benefits, just not as an athlete. One would also imagine that a lot of these kids who are marginal students aren't going to survive without the protections in place for athletes. There is enough nebulous language like "violating a team rule" that my guess is this isn't worth the paper it's written on and is mostly for show.
Emphasis added. Note: The specific language says "scholarship" not "athletic scholarship" so I would imagine that should a kid like April want to remain at IU he would receive the same benefits, just not as an athlete. One would also imagine that a lot of these kids who are marginal students aren't going to survive without the protections in place for athletes. There is enough nebulous language like "violating a team rule" that my guess is this isn't worth the paper it's written on and is mostly for show.
I'm still not thinking that is allowed, Heller. Check out what Nick Saban does (scum). He petitions the NCAA for a medical hardship so his football player can stay on scholarship after Saban realizes the player didnt pan out. Had 12 players in one year on medical hardship scholarships. If you can just "fund" your former athlete who didnt perform and not count him towards your athletic scholarship, why doesnt Saban do that instead of going through the process of making it a medical hardship?
I honestly have no idea and you may very well be right. But I'm guessing that's so he can continue to give them medical coverage which he probably couldn't as a regular scholarship student.
Because not all schools offer the 4 year scholarship plan that IU has. The NCAA just approved the practice a couple years ago. If Saban has a history of doing that, you'd think Bama would consider adding a similar bill; assuming they have the money to do so.
As far as your other post, I agree that other IU fans should just admit it. I just happen to be one that goes with option C and has no problem with the practice. Like I've said multiple times on the subject, I feel an athlete should have to earn the scholarship. If a guy comes in and exhibits an unacceptable work ethic (April) or repeatedly breaks team rules (Robinson), I don't agree with guaranteeing them a free ride.
I don't think it should be allowed. Just because a kid doesn't pan out doesn't mean you should kick them off the team. That's all part of coaching. The coaches are the ones who scouted these recruits, got them to come to IU and developed (or not) them. If the kid didn't develop like a coach thought, I'd say part of that is on the kid but more is on the coach. He scouted them and tried to develop them. Make the coaches accountable for their actions.
