|
|
Post by SaulsHairstylist on Feb 14, 2007 22:26:35 GMT -5
A fan recently said that UK did not part ways with Adam Williams (a move that would have cleared up room for IN-STATE stud Chris Lofton) because UK is more ethical than that.
I guess it's all situational ethics then, and this is why...
It's not okay to part ways with an unsigned out-of-state project because we gave our word, but it is okay to continue to recruit players who have already given their word to other schools? Talk about biased sampling.
Hawkins gave his word to New Mexico. UK kept after him.
Alleyne gave his word to Rutgers. Still, UK went after him.
Woo gave his word to Fordham. UK still pursued him.
Crawford gave his word to Michigan. Kentucky didn't care and still went after him.
So how is it wrong to part ways with a recruit that we have given our word to, but okay to play the role of the snake in the grass and go after recruits who have given their word to other schools?
|
|
|
|
Post by blue2dabone on Feb 14, 2007 22:46:24 GMT -5
A fan recently said that UK did not part ways with Adam Williams (a move that would have cleared up room for IN-STATE stud Chris Lofton) because UK is more ethical than that. I guess it's all situational ethics then, and this is why... It's not okay to part ways with an unsigned out-of-state project because we gave our word, but it is okay to continue to recruit players who have already given their word to other schools? Talk about biased sampling. Hawkins gave his word to New Mexico. UK kept after him. Alleyne gave his word to Rutgers. Still, UK went after him. Woo gave his word to Fordham. UK still pursued him. Crawford gave his word to Michigan. Kentucky didn't care and still went after him. So how is it wrong to part ways with a recruit that we have given our word to, but okay to play the role of the snake in the grass and go after recruits who have given their word to other schools? Don't you think being available for a changed mind is a bit different than going back on your word? Nah. You wouldn't. Doesn't fit your agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by MyBlueHeaven on Feb 14, 2007 23:00:48 GMT -5
Actually, I think SHS's post is reflective of Coach Smith's agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by blue2dabone on Feb 14, 2007 23:28:25 GMT -5
Actually, I think SHS's post is reflective of Coach Smith's agenda. And what "agenda" would that be? Seriously, there is a world of difference between keeping in contact with a recruit who has verballed elsewhere and withdrawing a scholarship offer. Young people are expected to be mercurial and flighty, unfortunate but a fact of life. It is wrong to go back on an agreement, but it is way less wrong for a kid to do it when considering his college choices than for a coach to do it after a kid has committed. Coaches rarely with draw scholarship offers after they are accepted, and for good reason. Not only does it set a bad example to the young men you are theoretically supposed to set a good example for, it would cost you recruits in the long run. Adults are held to a higher standard than 17-year olds when it comes to things like this, and rightly so. One can certainly be critical of Smith for poor evaluation of talent. Being critical of him for keeping his word is just plain ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassking on Feb 15, 2007 0:33:02 GMT -5
I don't fault Tubby for not breaking his word with Williams, I'm more sore at him for never keeping his word to UK and it's fan's.
Fans won't notice much of a change from Rick's system.
We're going to run more this year.
We are young.
There will be no repeat of last year.
Tubby is honest as Abe, except when addressing his fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by SaulsHairstylist on Feb 15, 2007 1:07:01 GMT -5
Actually, I think SHS's post is reflective of Coach Smith's agenda. And what "agenda" would that be? Seriously, there is a world of difference between keeping in contact with a recruit who has verballed elsewhere and withdrawing a scholarship offer. Young people are expected to be mercurial and flighty, unfortunate but a fact of life. It is wrong to go back on an agreement, but it is way less wrong for a kid to do it when considering his college choices than for a coach to do it after a kid has committed. Coaches rarely with draw scholarship offers after they are accepted, and for good reason. Not only does it set a bad example to the young men you are theoretically supposed to set a good example for, it would cost you recruits in the long run. Adults are held to a higher standard than 17-year olds when it comes to things like this, and rightly so. One can certainly be critical of Smith for poor evaluation of talent. Being critical of him for keeping his word is just plain ridiculous. Nice logic. Not. You think it's okay to go after kids who have have given their word to other schools? To do so is to basically endorse a kid BREAKING his word, the very thing you didn't want "high road" Kentucky to do with Williams. You smell that? I smell a good case of situational ethics.  Can I get me some a'dat off da grill?   |
|
|
|
Post by wildcatfanforever on Feb 15, 2007 1:54:32 GMT -5
And what "agenda" would that be? Seriously, there is a world of difference between keeping in contact with a recruit who has verballed elsewhere and withdrawing a scholarship offer. Young people are expected to be mercurial and flighty, unfortunate but a fact of life. It is wrong to go back on an agreement, but it is way less wrong for a kid to do it when considering his college choices than for a coach to do it after a kid has committed. Coaches rarely with draw scholarship offers after they are accepted, and for good reason. Not only does it set a bad example to the young men you are theoretically supposed to set a good example for, it would cost you recruits in the long run. Adults are held to a higher standard than 17-year olds when it comes to things like this, and rightly so. One can certainly be critical of Smith for poor evaluation of talent. Being critical of him for keeping his word is just plain ridiculous. Nice logic. Not. You think it's okay to go after kids who have have given their word to other schools? To do so is to basically endorse a kid BREAKING his word, the very thing you didn't want "high road" Kentucky to do with Williams. You smell that? I smell a good case of situational ethics. Can I get me some a'dat off da grill? Well, how about this. Which of these two is more unethical from your opinion: 1. A player decides for one reason or another to leave a school that he has already begun playing and transfer elsewhere to play. or 2. A school has a player that has been on scholarship for some period of time (number of years means nothing) and they decide to take that scholarship away the following year. Is there a difference here? The scholarships are on a year to year basis...is it unethical for a kid to transfer schools? Then if that is the case, is it unethical for your school to talk to a kid who wants to transfer? Wait--then EVERYONE is unethical by this. |
|
|
|
Post by SaulsHairstylist on Feb 15, 2007 3:13:27 GMT -5
Nice logic. Not. You think it's okay to go after kids who have have given their word to other schools? To do so is to basically endorse a kid BREAKING his word, the very thing you didn't want "high road" Kentucky to do with Williams. You smell that? I smell a good case of situational ethics. Can I get me some a'dat off da grill? Well, how about this. Which of these two is more unethical from your opinion: 1. A player decides for one reason or another to leave a school that he has already begun playing and transfer elsewhere to play. or 2. A school has a player that has been on scholarship for some period of time (number of years means nothing) and they decide to take that scholarship away the following year. Is there a difference here? The scholarships are on a year to year basis...is it unethical for a kid to transfer schools? Then if that is the case, is it unethical for your school to talk to a kid who wants to transfer? Wait--then EVERYONE is unethical by this. Exactly. Some of our fellow fans think there is degrees of ethics when it comes to one's word. I personally do not care if we steal recruits via transfer or otherwise, so long as it's legal. Likewise, I don't think it is unethical to tell an unsigned verbal to go elsewhere. Some just like to play the role of moral justice I guess. If it's legal, who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 15, 2007 5:16:14 GMT -5
What was the purpose of this thread? Was it to support UK athletics or once again try to discredit the university?
|
|
|
|
Post by blue2dabone on Feb 15, 2007 7:56:09 GMT -5
And what "agenda" would that be? Seriously, there is a world of difference between keeping in contact with a recruit who has verballed elsewhere and withdrawing a scholarship offer. Young people are expected to be mercurial and flighty, unfortunate but a fact of life. It is wrong to go back on an agreement, but it is way less wrong for a kid to do it when considering his college choices than for a coach to do it after a kid has committed. Coaches rarely with draw scholarship offers after they are accepted, and for good reason. Not only does it set a bad example to the young men you are theoretically supposed to set a good example for, it would cost you recruits in the long run. Adults are held to a higher standard than 17-year olds when it comes to things like this, and rightly so. One can certainly be critical of Smith for poor evaluation of talent. Being critical of him for keeping his word is just plain ridiculous. Nice logic. Not. You think it's okay to go after kids who have have given their word to other schools? To do so is to basically endorse a kid BREAKING his word, the very thing you didn't want "high road" Kentucky to do with Williams. I don't necessarily see keeping in contact with a kid that has verbally committed to another school as unethical. If what Smith or his staff is doing is actually trying to convince them to break their word, that is wrong and deserves the same type of opprobrium as breaking his own word. Indeed, situational ethics is exactly what you are advocating when you suggested earlier that Smith should have broken his word to Williams. Regarding recruiting already committed players, even if Smith were trying to convince kids who had signed elsewhere to break their word (a notion I reject as you appear to mean it), he gets credit for not breaking his own word. What sort of ethical analysis suggests it is better to engage in two bad behaviors rather than only one? |
|
|
|
Post by blue2dabone on Feb 15, 2007 8:00:22 GMT -5
What was the purpose of this thread? Was it to support UK athletics or once again try to discredit the university? It is a weak attempt discredit Smith, IMO. Something SHS seems to endlessly enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by blue2dabone on Feb 15, 2007 8:15:19 GMT -5
Well, how about this. Which of these two is more unethical from your opinion: 1. A player decides for one reason or another to leave a school that he has already begun playing and transfer elsewhere to play. or 2. A school has a player that has been on scholarship for some period of time (number of years means nothing) and they decide to take that scholarship away the following year. Is there a difference here? The scholarships are on a year to year basis...is it unethical for a kid to transfer schools? Then if that is the case, is it unethical for your school to talk to a kid who wants to transfer? Wait--then EVERYONE is unethical by this. Exactly. Some of our fellow fans think there is degrees of ethics when it comes to one's word. I personally do not care if we steal recruits via transfer or otherwise, so long as it's legal. Likewise, I don't think it is unethical to tell an unsigned verbal to go elsewhere. Some just like to play the role of moral justice I guess. If it's legal, who cares? Doesn't it kind of depend upon the agreement between the player and the coach? I have yet to see a player who was recruited and offered a scholarship have it withdrawn the following year absent an agreement between the coach and the player. With respect to the player leaving early, that is hardly an ethics issue. As someone noted, scholarships are offered year-to-year with the understanding that it will be there if you want to come back. If you don't come back, there is no ethical problem for either the school or the player. Your position is that, as a practical matter, legal=ethical. In other words, you are advocating the absolute minimum possible standard for ethical behavior - the threshold of institutional or societal punishment. I'm proud to disagree with you, and state unequivocally that legality is an unacceptably low standard for men's basketball, or any other athletic program at the University of Kentucky. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 15, 2007 9:42:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I knew it was a swipe at Smith once again. I don't think Tubby needs any help. He is losing support with each game IMO.
What I don't like are the attempts of charachter assasination that some employ in the hopes that it will help get rid of Tubby.
Have a problem with his coaching fine; IMO that's fair game, but to deliberately try to udemine the mans integrity or ethical behavior is just weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by CatDaddy on Feb 15, 2007 19:47:12 GMT -5
What was the purpose of this thread? Was it to support UK athletics or once again try to discredit the university? The latter.... Yeah, I knew it was a swipe at Smith once again. I don't think Tubby needs any help. He is losing support with each game IMO. What I don't like are the attempts of charachter assasination that some employ in the hopes that it will help get rid of Tubby. Have a problem with his coaching fine; IMO that's fair game, but to deliberately try to udemine the mans integrity or ethical behavior is just weak. Well said.... -D |
|
|
|
Post by UKats56 on Feb 16, 2007 0:10:05 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with still pursuing someone once they have verbally committed somewhere. Gah, even after signing a LOI...if they want to go somewhere else, regardless of who's in their ear(s). then it's their choice. If Cliff, Woo, Joe, etc didn't want to come to UK and they wanted to stick with their previous commitment elsewhere then they would have.
|
|
[img src="
