Transfers

[Anti-Homer]

I've learned long ago to take ESPN's assessment with a grain of salt. They get 4th hand reports from AAU "scouts", and basically put it down.

They are pretty accurate about the top 40, b/c they do have actually scout them 1st hand. Regarding Latham leaving, I didn't say it is a big fiasco. I said FOUR people leaving the program is concerning and puzzling. Again, which you didn't address, if recruits who leave is not CM's fault, then why give him credit for those who come to X?

Signing off now, going to watch some AAU ball.

Two people left the program. We were the third school from which Chandler decommitted; maybe, just maybe, the problem is with him and not X. DSR's case has been well covered; maybe he comes back, maybe he doesn't. Taken in their totality - and in the context of the program's recent success and the current composition of the roster - I don't find these four events to be that concerning or frankly even very puzzling. Like baseball trades that involve all-stars for prospects, a recruiting class can't be judged after one year. This doesn't mean I think Mack hit a home run with this group, just I don't think we should bury him for discouraging early returns. The jury is still out.

You and Brad certainly have a knack for hyperbole. I used the terms "puzzling and concerning, and Brad characterized my take as being a fiasco, and you said I buried CM.

Losing 2 top 125 Rivals recruits, and losing 2 top 50 verbals is concerning and puzzling to me. I think even Duke would be concerned with that kind of turnover.BTW, synonyms for concern include affect, interest, or engage.

Hardly sounds like I characterized the departures as a "fiasco", and please explain where in my thread I "buried" CM?

BTW, again I ask: if Cm has no culpablity in the departures, should he get credit for the wins (D Wells, Reynolds, etc...)?

Perhaps D Wells and Reynolds came to X b/c they feel like they would play right away, against inferior competition (relative to big 6 conferences), which would magnify their production ?

Maybe they came to X b/c of an AAU connection to one of the current and former players? Ironically, i said in a recent post that CM has brought in the best recruits ever at Xavier, though I questioned his skills of development. Shockingly, all responses took exception to the latter comment, but no one ever said,"they come to X b/c of the tremendous success of his predecessors, Matta and miller. It is always a given that CM was the reason they came.

[Anti-Homer]

[

Two people left the program. We were the third school from which Chandler decommitted; maybe, just maybe, the problem is with him and not X. DSR's case has been well covered; maybe he comes back, maybe he doesn't. Taken in their totality - and in the context of the program's recent success and the current composition of the roster - I don't find these four events to be that concerning or frankly even very puzzling. Like baseball trades that involve all-stars for prospects, a recruiting class can't be judged after one year. This doesn't mean I think Mack hit a home run with this group, just I don't think we should bury him for discouraging early returns. The jury is still out.

I concur. Chandler not coming to X was a good thing. Canty, was more than likely gonna to be pushed down the depth chart and decided to leave. Latham was apparently homesick, and even admitted to not putting in the requisite work (which, besides the academic issue also explains his lack of PT this year). We still may get DSR, but I don't think we can fault Mack for him being pressured by his family to de-commit. Of course some of these events are disappointing but hardly worth losing our heads over. Why this is hard to grasp is beyond me.

I am not surprised that you agree, considering your penchant for hyperbole. Again, concern and puzzling does not equate decaptitation, in the literal or figurative sense.

[Anti-Homer]

Staten was in his first season so how can anyone talk about improvement.[/quote]

Exactly! Yet everyone piled on a thread implying he did not have a very good year. Relative to what, since there is no benchmark in college for him? I believe you also chimed in.

Coaches create the atmosphere for success and Chris (50-17) has only two years to point to while Brian had 6 years 125-68 I will let other to the math.[/quote]

First of all, I don't thimk Gregory is a good coach, and feel CM is a decent coach (which I've stated numerous times). However, IMO, the mark of a good coach is how his team performs against teams we are suppose to beat, versus teams in which we are dogs.

I don't know about last year, but the record is poor regarding both metrics this year.

[Anti-Homer]

Concerning transfers, an article from early March that is still very pertinent:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... fers_N.htm

There were 305 transfers after the 06-07 season, and the number is up to 367 after the 09-10 season. With 346 Division I schools, that's an average of just under a transfer per school in 2007 and just over a transfer per school in 2010. As an individual school, it's a small sample size, but less than one more transfer than the 2010 average is nothing crazy. If this begins an annual trend, that's a different story, but right now we have two data points:

2009-2010: 0 transfers
2010-2011: 2 transfers

That's hardly something to freak out about, and it actually falls in line with the national average over a two-year period (albeit too small of a sample size to really be valid).

Two tranfers AND 2 decommits. For those who say Chnadler's departure was a good thing, perhaps it was. It still doesn't change the math.

Regarding your transfer analysis, technically the math is correct, but you completely igonore the variables: If we lost 4 players of ATay's caliber (no disrespect to Atay, as he is a great kid with limited skill, but somehow made positive contributions) I wouldn't be so concerned (again, not FREAKED OUT). However, losing 4 players with an average Rivals ranking of approximately 70 (meaning on paper they would be the highest ranked player on approx 80% of teams in college bball, carries more significance than the former.

In your example, Xavier season was equivalent or better than NC, TX, Purdue, and Louisville. I suspect few objective analysts would agree with that.

[XUFan09]

Two tranfers AND 2 decommits. For those who say Chnadler's departure was a good thing, perhaps it was. It still doesn't change the math.

Regarding your transfer analysis, technically the math is correct, but you completely igonore the variables: If we lost 4 players of ATay's caliber (no disrespect to Atay, as he is a great kid with limited skill, but somehow made positive contributions) I wouldn't be so concerned (again, not FREAKED OUT). However, losing 4 players with an average Rivals ranking of approximately 70 (meaning on paper they would be the highest ranked player on approx 80% of teams in college bball, carries more significance than the former.

In your example, Xavier season was equivalent or better than NC, TX, Purdue, and Louisville. I suspect few objective analysts would agree with that.

So they would be the top player on 80% of programs? Division I features 346 teams, so to say that someone would be good for 80% of them doesn't exactly worry me. Also, players transfer out at all levels (I used the example of the Wear twins from UNC before). Canty might be in the top 150 for his class, but he'd be competing for playing time with two guys that were in the top 50 of their respective classes. Latham is competing with a number of players who are either more senior than him or a possible diamond in the rough (Reynolds). I don't know the other's high school Rivals rating to compare, but more experienced players always have an advantage. Also, I don't know why you use the ratings from when they were in high school in the first place as much as you do. Performance in college in games and in practice matters a lot more, and these two didn't perform for whatever reason.

I don't know where you get the concept of Xavier's season being equivalent to the schools you mentioned, based on what I presented. The gist of the article is that transfers happen all the time. In another story, so do verbal decommits (179 in the class of 2011, as listed on ESPN).

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiti ... ommitments

And I also wouldn't categorize decommits with transfers. In the latter case, they're already in the program, playing in games. In the former case, they aren't even on campus as a student yet and in this case haven't even signed letters of intent. We did not lose four players; we lost two low-production players to transferring and we lost two verbal decommits. There's a stark difference between the two. Now if this happens over the next few years, that's a different story. More likely that not though, it's just an anomaly.

I understand you're just expressing concerned and aren't "freaked out." The thing is, I wasn't specifically referring to you. This issue is blowing up on all sorts of forums though, and there have been a decent number of extreme reactions.

[jct1941]

Some posters act like Mack is the only XU coach that lost players to transfer. Matta lost or kicked off players Young and Coleman both who had resonable success elsewhere. Matta also recruited Odia and Dupree Lucas and they both left. He bought in Finn (who Miller had to kick him off the team. Miller recruited Wolf and Walsh and they both left. It seems that everybody gets all excited about high school rating. I would propose that MAYBE the top ten players that are rated by all the services turn out to be studs. After the very best players in the ratings you can just about forget about who is going to be good and who is not going to live up to those ratings. David West was a three star recruit and ended up "player of the year". Love, Brown, Burrell etc. were all three stars and they turned out as "good" players. When one talks about decommits how about Florida. Rivers had commited to them and then decided to reconsider and went to Duke. Now that would be a BIG concern when you lose the #1 player in the class. IT IS NORMAL TO BE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED WHEN PEOPLE LEAVE because it is like getting a divorce and both parties have to admit that they made a mistake or at least could not make it work out. I agree with Ronald78 that we should JUST be concerned with who we have NOW, which to me looks pretty darn good. Go Xavier!

[Joel]

This doesn't mean I think Mack hit a home run with this group, just I don't think we should bury him for discouraging early returns. The jury is still out.

Hardly sounds like I characterized the departures as a "fiasco", and please explain where in my thread I "buried" CM?

BTW, again I ask: if Cm has no culpablity in the departures, should he get credit for the wins (D Wells, Reynolds, etc...)?

I never said you buried Coach Mack. You and I see this issue differently, but you have a relatively mild and measured take on it. When I said "we" above I meant we as in Xavier fans, not we as in... you.

There is a such thing as a no-fault divorce; it's not that astounding to believe there can be a no-fault transfer. We don't know exactly why it didn't work out and we probably never will. The bottom line is that those two dudes are gone, and there's a good chance that there's nobody left to whom we can assign the blame. If an obviously talented player would come out in the press and say that an obviously poor coach is wasting his talent and he wants to go elsewhere, only to have rumors surface that he might be interested in returning when that coach leaves, then yeah, the coach was probably to blame there. The issue here is too murky to say that Latham, Canty, or Mack was at fault. More likely it just wasn't a good fit.

[Xpert]

[

Two people left the program. We were the third school from which Chandler decommitted; maybe, just maybe, the problem is with him and not X. DSR's case has been well covered; maybe he comes back, maybe he doesn't. Taken in their totality - and in the context of the program's recent success and the current composition of the roster - I don't find these four events to be that concerning or frankly even very puzzling. Like baseball trades that involve all-stars for prospects, a recruiting class can't be judged after one year. This doesn't mean I think Mack hit a home run with this group, just I don't think we should bury him for discouraging early returns. The jury is still out.

I concur. Chandler not coming to X was a good thing. Canty, was more than likely gonna to be pushed down the depth chart and decided to leave. Latham was apparently homesick, and even admitted to not putting in the requisite work (which, besides the academic issue also explains his lack of PT this year). We still may get DSR, but I don't think we can fault Mack for him being pressured by his family to de-commit. Of course some of these events are disappointing but hardly worth losing our heads over. Why this is hard to grasp is beyond me.

I am not surprised that you agree, considering your penchant for hyperbole. Again, concern and puzzling does not equate decaptitation, in the literal or figurative sense.

And it’s not surprising that you took my suggestion to relax as hyperbole specifically directed at you considering your penchant for defensiveness.

I think that there are reasonable explanations for all the above mentioned situations and am not too worried. This doesn’t mean that I am not disappointed with these developments; I just don’t share your level of concern while the jury is deliberating.

[Xpert]

The players and/or the coaches made the wrong choices for whatever reasons. The correct fit was not there and the players choose to leave/or maybe were told to leave. Every player that comes to Xavier is not going to work out for whatever reason(s). Can we just let the players go and quit beating up on the players and or coaches(their selections). Let us dwell on what Xavier has within the program and quit worrying about who has left the program. X can only work with those that chose to stay and be team members.

Exactly!

[XUFan09]

When the rumors of transfers started, was anyone surprised when Latham was mentioned? I didn't consider it a guarantee before, but he definitely looked like a potential transfer during the season:

- Apparently homesick
- Having trouble with school (taking care of issues "off the court" is codeword for academics)

Okay, right here we already have a prime transfer possibility for any student, athlete or otherwise. We haven't even arrived at basketball issues yet.

- Possibly not working hard enough to improve, if his end-of-the-season tweet is any evidence (I'll admit that this is the weakest piece of evidence, but it's just one of many things). That sounds like Frease earlier in his career.
- Not getting much playing time this year and struggling most of the time when he's on the court (and apparently in practice too, if that's supposed to be an indication of who plays)
- Competing with a number of bigs, three of whom are probably ahead of him on the depth chart (Frease, Taylor, and Robinson) and another incoming guy with a huge upside (Reynolds). Possibly not even starting until your senior year has to be disconcerting (for example, Johnny Wolf would have started as a senior, but definitely not before that)

So, was anyone surprised by Latham transferring? That one didn't exactly come out left field. Canty was the real surprise initially, as he showed some promise as a freshman. We haven't heard much as to why he's transferring, so we can only speculate. The only thing I can think of (that's not just random guessing) is the issue of playing time for the remainder of his career. Martin is apparently one of the best players in practice, so he's ahead of Canty on the depth chart (though Martin can also play the SG position also). Wells is supposed to be a stud (Multiple people have said that they've never been this excited for an entering freshman). Canty also played with and against Wells on their AAU team, so he knows what he's up against there. It really sounds like Canty would be third on the depth chart at small forward from about the middle of his sophomore year through the rest of his career.

There could be other reasons, such as poor relationship with coaching staff or dislike of Xavier, but this is where we run into random guessing, because we haven't heard anything to this effect. We really haven't heard much at all period, which is why his probable position on the depth chart is the only suggested reason that can actually be backed up.

I never like to see players leave, but I see no reason to be concerned. Xavier, along with other good programs and even the elite programs, has seen multiple transfers before. The most common reason is playing time, and if that's true here, that's actually a good sign for Xavier. If they didn't see a good chance at moving up in the depth chart, that means there are better players than them still here.