Ben Brust...we hardly knew ye

I just hope the Big Ten makes a decision to clearly indicate what the rule is going to be from here on out. I don't want it to be a case by case basis.

So, if it is you can sign a letter and then get your release and play for another team if you haven't played a game. So be it.

Or, if it is that you need to meet those requirements, but you will not get a waiver without a coaching change, so be it.

I just don't want it to be one of those, "Well, we will judge every situation on its own merit" deals. That would **** me off and make me really frustrated at Barta.
 
And everyone had me convinced a few months ago that Larson and Brust were coming to Iowa no matter what because they were "true Hawkeyes"...rite. Hopefully this will get everyone to realize that cbb, probably even moreso than FB, is a business. There are no true anythings in cbb. and if you can get a better job you take it.
 
While I am not saying Ben won't go to Wisconsin... NW had an appeal in for the waiver, as well.

That puts Ben's list at Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, BC, and Cal.... for the most part.

There isn't any closure as far as where Ben is going, so the "saga" isn't over quite yet. The good news out of this is if Ben does end up choosing Iowa (no matter how unlikely), it will be because he wanted to play for Iowa not because he was forced to. I'd rather have it that way.

Again, I'm not saying he's not going to Wisconsin... but all we have right now is that the schools trying to land Brust (NW and Wisconsin) made appeals to the waiver and the waivers have now been granted. Ben is now free to sign with any of the Big Ten schools he wants to sign with.

Whatever happens, happens.
 
I think all LOI's should have an out for if the coach leaves or is fired. The coach plays a huge part in the decision for these kids and to hold them to a school once the head coach leaves isn't really fair to them.
 
I agree with hawkeyeMike, if a coach leaves or gets fired the kid should be able to start over, sorry to say but we need Fran the Man to get Basabe,Coleman, and RANDLE,
 
Want a positive for Iowa on this situation...that now means Fran can go hard after Randle and Paige for the future. They are both PG/SG positions. Now if Brust picks Iowa that limits a scholarship and that position. IMO, Randle or Paige would be a better fit and a slight upgrade from Brust. Randle, Paige and 7-footer Woodbury are very high on coach and his semi-staff. That is a GOOD thing!! If we have one less scholarship to offer, then they may not be as interested.
 
Don't get me wrong, I fully expect him to sign with Wisconsin... I'm just putting it out there that nothing has officially happened yet.
 
HawkeyeRyno said:
Want a positive for Iowa on this situation...that now means Fran can go hard after Randle and Paige for the future. They are both PG/SG positions. Now if Brust picks Iowa that limits a scholarship and that position. IMO, Randle or Paige would be a better fit and a slight upgrade from Brust. Randle, Paige and 7-footer Woodbury are very high on coach and his semi-staff. That is a GOOD thing!! If we have one less scholarship to offer, then they may not be as interested.
Click to expand...

AGREED. I'm really hopeful about Randle and Paige. I hope we can get a JC PG to hold us over til then. There is a lot written about recruits out east as well that could be a better fit to, but I like Randle and Paige.

Anyone heard more about Wilkins lately?
 
Couple of random comments;

1. I'd still like Brust to come to Iowa. If he doesn't it doesn't change my opinion of the kid’s athletic skills. He's still a good player either way.

2. Recruiting is a bit like the saying about making Laws and Sausage. The public really doesn't want to see how these things are made. The same is sometime true on making a basketball team. I still think Iowa is one of the more ethical entities when it comes to recruiting, but let's not get unrealistic with our standards of not going after a kid who has made a verbal commit elsewhere but is still showing interest in Iowa (i.e. C.J.)

3. You can dog a kid for not honoring his LOI, but if you entered into a contract only to find a significant part of the contract has changed, you'd likely want to explore your options too. Sure they commit to a school, but they are more accurately committing to a program including a coach.

To use a bad analogy, let say you signed a contract to buy some nice land with a two-story house on it. Then before you the financing was finished, the house burned down and the owners rebuilt with a ranch style house. According to some on these boards, you signed a contract to buy a house and the land and you should stick to it. I think that rationale is a bit unreasonable.
 
To me,this is more about the principle of the rule. I already assumed that Brust was gone from Iowa, and have accepted that...and definitely would rather have Randle and Paige than Brust,but rules are rules,and this seems inconsistent. If Iowa knew that the rule was not going to be enforced would they have released him from his LOI? Or only released him to non-big ten schools? This offends me.
 
I honestly believe Iowa wanted him to have the option to go to any school, and that includes the Big 10.

I believe the individual that mentions signing a contract and then having a significant part of that contract changed is completely right. This isn't a kid that got cold feet because Iowa was bad last year. His coaching staff was fired.

I wish him well. As Dan Gable would say, "good luck where you're going, I'm just going to go get someone that will beat you." (And I understand there is still a chance he could be at Iowa next year, but I would think it is fairly remote.)
 
JHHawk said:
To me,this is more about the principle of the rule. I already assumed that Brust was gone from Iowa, and have accepted that...and definitely would rather have Randle and Paige than Brust,but rules are rules,and this seems inconsistent. If Iowa knew that the rule was not going to be enforced would they have released him from his LOI? Or only released him to non-big ten schools? This offends me.
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair point. But, I also believe if Iowa had issue with Brust going to another Big 10 school the panel would not have granted the waiver of the rule. It doesn't sound like Iowa "contested" the appeal.
 
There are still viable options available for 2010 class: Anthony Salter from Iowa Western is 5'11" PG that originally signed with Auburn but decomitted when Barbee took over. Speraw has talked to him. Other names to keep in mind for 2010 - Iowa Western JUCO Anthony Salter/5'11"/PG, John Wilkins/6'9"/PF and JUCO Josh Watkins/6'0"/PG. Also sounds like a Texas prep PG that signed with Speraw while at Central Florida is still an option as well. There are plenty of guys to fill the roster.
 
Last edited:
tubahawk said:
Couple of random comments;

1. I'd still like Brust to come to Iowa. If he doesn't it doesn't change my opinion of the kid’s athletic skills. He's still a good player either way.

2. Recruiting is a bit like the saying about making Laws and Sausage. The public really doesn't want to see how these things are made. The same is sometime true on making a basketball team. I still think Iowa is one of the more ethical entities when it comes to recruiting, but let's not get unrealistic with our standards of not going after a kid who has made a verbal commit elsewhere but is still showing interest in Iowa (i.e. C.J.)

3. You can dog a kid for not honoring his LOI, but if you entered into a contract only to find a significant part of the contract has changed, you'd likely want to explore your options too. Sure they commit to a school, but they are more accurately committing to a program including a coach.

To use a bad analogy, let say you signed a contract to buy some nice land with a two-story house on it. Then before you the financing was finished, the house burned down and the owners rebuilt with a ranch style house. According to some on these boards, you signed a contract to buy a house and the land and you should stick to it. I think that rationale is a bit unreasonable.
Click to expand...


I agree but disagree with your analogy above because if you were dumb enough to sign a contract for land and house that didn't say, "no changes will be made to the land or house pursuant to the finalization of this agreement." and "any changes made to said land and house will result in the buyers option to nullify this agreement without penalty if they so choose" then you're stupid and you better have a lawyer handy cuz stuff happens.

In the NLI there is wording that says something like, "coaching changes happen, you recognize that by signing this agreement that you are signing for a school and not a coach. if there is a coaching change tough luck." so technically i could see how by not honoring your commitment you are basically laughing at this. Not a real good precedent for an organization like the NCAA whose goal is to create well rounded individuals through academics and sport or whatever their lame motto is.
 
clicheusername3 said:
In the NLI there is wording that says something like, "coaching changes happen, you recognize that by signing this agreement that you are signing for a school and not a coach. if there is a coaching change tough luck." so technically i could see how by not honoring your commitment you are basically laughing at this. Not a real good precedent for an organization like the NCAA whose goal is to create well rounded individuals through academics and sport or whatever their lame motto is.
Click to expand...

A great point I hadn't thought of. I'm not sure what the language includes.

I would counter with two weak points. There is also the "verbal" side of things (which I understand don't hold up in legal settings). Did Barta make any promises to the commits that a coaching change wouldn't happen?

Second, the only way you are guaranteed a scholly is by signing a LOI. I doubt as a commit you can make changes to the language in a LOI. So your choice is to either sign away and hope no changes happen (and try to opt out if there is a change) or wait until the coach swap season is over and then take you chances a scholly is still available.

In this case it was a no-win situation for Brust. Not exactly a "fair" environment for a commit.

Additionally, by not allowing kids out of their LOI's in these circumstances it could make it extremely hard for programs that are struggling and possibly about to undergo a coaching change to get kids to commit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top