Chris Knight - Potential 2021 Transfer
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Noticed him in the game the other day watching Loyola play and took me a minute to figure out why his name was so familiar.
The college game is obviously moved to a free agent model with the open transfers and grad transfers. But I find it very hard to believe that Mooney and staff go this route in the future for 2 main reasons.
1) Admissions - we have a hard enough time getting high school kids into our requirements, now try a college kid coming from a school that UR sees as far less in terms of education compared to UR. Do we accept all classes of the transfer? Do they go back and look at his HS records? UR in the first place doesn't accept many transfers anyways - and since Athletics is not a priority, I doubt they want to increase transfers just for that reason. According to the UR Transfer admissions website - they say they only receive about 300 transfer applications a year, and only set aside 50 spots each year for transfers. UR has 16 sports, just imagine if each sport averages 1 transfer a year in the new world of college free agency - your looking at either increasing the transfer spots to 70 or decreasing the transfer spots for regular paying students down to 30 - none of which I think a school that doesn't prioritize athletics would be willing to do on a consistent year to year basis.
2)Playing Time - Mooney and staff rarely play frosh significant minutes, unless our team is not very good. The argument usually is they need to learn the system, so will they be willing to find someone with probably 2, maybe 3 years of eligibility left - only to play them very few minutes if any the first year, and then only get 1 or 2 good years out of them. We have not demonstrated to be a place where transfers can come and step right in and start and play major minutes, and news flash - that is usually why transfers are leaving their previous school. You have a transfer looking to come to UR, and of course they are being recruited by other schools. They look at our track record and see. Oh - Connor Crabtree, he is a recent transfer - ok. 8 minutes a game, and 10 minutes the year before - not exactly the playing time I am looking for. We just don't have a good history with transfers, and obvioulsy the only way to change that is to get transfers in the door. But I think these "free agent" transfers will begin looking at past history and how schools handled transfers and if they had success there.
1) Admissions - we have a hard enough time getting high school kids into our requirements, now try a college kid coming from a school that UR sees as far less in terms of education compared to UR. Do we accept all classes of the transfer? Do they go back and look at his HS records? UR in the first place doesn't accept many transfers anyways - and since Athletics is not a priority, I doubt they want to increase transfers just for that reason. According to the UR Transfer admissions website - they say they only receive about 300 transfer applications a year, and only set aside 50 spots each year for transfers. UR has 16 sports, just imagine if each sport averages 1 transfer a year in the new world of college free agency - your looking at either increasing the transfer spots to 70 or decreasing the transfer spots for regular paying students down to 30 - none of which I think a school that doesn't prioritize athletics would be willing to do on a consistent year to year basis.
2)Playing Time - Mooney and staff rarely play frosh significant minutes, unless our team is not very good. The argument usually is they need to learn the system, so will they be willing to find someone with probably 2, maybe 3 years of eligibility left - only to play them very few minutes if any the first year, and then only get 1 or 2 good years out of them. We have not demonstrated to be a place where transfers can come and step right in and start and play major minutes, and news flash - that is usually why transfers are leaving their previous school. You have a transfer looking to come to UR, and of course they are being recruited by other schools. They look at our track record and see. Oh - Connor Crabtree, he is a recent transfer - ok. 8 minutes a game, and 10 minutes the year before - not exactly the playing time I am looking for. We just don't have a good history with transfers, and obvioulsy the only way to change that is to get transfers in the door. But I think these "free agent" transfers will begin looking at past history and how schools handled transfers and if they had success there.
8legs1dream
Team Manager
Both great points but the second one really sticks out to me. The level of transfer player that would come in and be unquestionably deserving of legitimate playing time right away we are never going to get in the first place. So that severely limits the kind of guys we could reasonably expect to transfer in if they will be getting similar (or less!) playing time here as their previous stop
I will say that Hardy brought up the transfer situation in general (all sports) yesterday and touted how UR is an attractive place for athletes to end their careers, cited the VMI transfers for football and seemed pretty gung-ho about the concept in general. I took that as a good sign for basketball, regardless of who is coaching.
Mooney did land a couple of very good ones in Francis and Cline. Crabtree still looks like a player when healthy. Wood was ok. missed with Kwesi and JMA.
Wainwright had moderate success with Sylla. thought Mayes would be something.
Beilein crushed it with Greg Stevenson, Kinte Smith, Tony Dobbins and Jamaal Scott.
Wainwright had moderate success with Sylla. thought Mayes would be something.
Beilein crushed it with Greg Stevenson, Kinte Smith, Tony Dobbins and Jamaal Scott.
yep, sman it works for football, and lo and behold sounds like Hardt is endorsing it. Again, this is a fake hurdle. In regards to number 1 on Trap's list: One poster on this board let us know he has PQ on his phone contact list, and that one poster also let us know that admissions not going to be an issue now. In fact, since #FreeQuis situation, I am not aware or heard rumblings about this issue.
AGAIN, this is a Mooney issue primarily, don't get caught up in the excuses. I do like building through the good ol high school recruits method, but I have cited year after year after year a key transfer could have solidified our roster and it didnt happen, or it was Kwesi or that guy from France.
AGAIN, this is a Mooney issue primarily, don't get caught up in the excuses. I do like building through the good ol high school recruits method, but I have cited year after year after year a key transfer could have solidified our roster and it didnt happen, or it was Kwesi or that guy from France.
8legs1dream
Team Manager
this would be great if he had only been here 4-5 years instead of 18 years
Tarrant crushed it freaking 30 years ago too, LOL. Rodney Rice and Terry Connolly to name a couple.
You are telling me one success every nine years is not that great?????
8legs1dream
Team Manager
depends on how much koolaid you have consumed 😂
Difference with Cline and Francis - they both had to redshirt a year, which is not the case anymore right? I wonder how much they would have played if they just stepped right in the mix. They turned out to be good players for us, but they had that year of practice to catch up. I think transfers are looking to jump in and play right away - not "learn the system" for a year then maybe get a shot. They will ultimately turn into the players we have to "find minutes" for each game.
This has been a gripe of mine for several years now, the notion that Mooney is running some super complicated system. Funny stuff. Its still basketball, and his system has been figured out 8 years ago by other coaches. How many damn times did I have to watch Kendall Anthony guarding some 6'9 260 pound monster in the post? Mooney has been exposed as doing less with more talent.
Agreed. The “system,” whatever it is these days, is holding us back. It takes two or three years to learn it, the coach won’t play guys until they have sufficiently learned it, it doesn’t even contain a defensive scheme that works, and the offense is predicated on 26 passes per possession and no rebounding effort.
the system isn't complicated at all anymore. that was an issue with the matchup zone which we've scrapped. now it's a pretty straight man to man.
offensively there's a pattern and there are read/react options off the pattern. I think I could run it at this point. it's not an unusual offense. it's effective.
offensively there's a pattern and there are read/react options off the pattern. I think I could run it at this point. it's not an unusual offense. it's effective.
Well the defense isn't complicated, it's just mostly ineffective. But the offense still apparently is, even Mooney has said it takes guys time playing in it for a year or two to get fully comfortable with it. That's great if it's some world-beater offense, but it's not anymore. I like some of the general concepts of it, but more often than not it results in us passing up good shots in favor of worse ones and then having to deal with almost every possession being a one-and-done.
You better make a really high percentage of your shots or else you're going to find yourself behind a lot of the time, as we have seen this year. It's just not a path to sustainable success, IMO.
I'd be interested in Dji's thoughts, since we have Dad here. there's a learning curve to any offense and defense. and there are a lot of things to take in at first. again ... anywhere not just here. I just don't anything we do is all that complicated compared to any other school now. there's some volume which takes time, but not like it used to be with the unique matchup zone.
I have no problem with the shots our offense gets.
as for defense, if we have effective defensive players on the floor I think the scheme is effective. I understand the complaints some have that Gilyard gets beat sometimes, but the huge number of steals lead to baskets. That's incredibly effective. the scheme certainly doesn't stop Goose from being effective either. others are less effective but that's not necessarily scheme.
I have no problem with the shots our offense gets.
as for defense, if we have effective defensive players on the floor I think the scheme is effective. I understand the complaints some have that Gilyard gets beat sometimes, but the huge number of steals lead to baskets. That's incredibly effective. the scheme certainly doesn't stop Goose from being effective either. others are less effective but that's not necessarily scheme.
Well if the scheme is man-to-man, we sure do get beaten off the dribble a lot and spend the rest of the possession playing catch up. And the scheme also intentionally leaves one three-point shooter farthest from the ball open, which typically burns us because we are playing catch-up as noted above. It's why so many teams have crazy good three-point shooting nights against us.
Our close-outs are terrible, we have atrocious help defense any time a team runs a pick-and-roll against Golden and Gilyard, Golden guards everything with his hands down, Cayo still hasn't figured out what "don't let the guy shoot a 3-pointer means", Golden doesn't slide to stop baseline, Gilyard still finding balance between freelancing and sticking to his guy, our hedging strategy is haphazard and inconsistent (do we hedge hard and make the guy turn? do we just switch and keep in front?) and we don't turn and look for a man to box out when a ball is shot. Other than that, it's great.
Similar threads
