Charlie Moore part 3

[NikeHawk21]

Guys, again he’s transferring home to be closer to his family and ill father. Him transferring now to some of the schools mentioned here would make zero sense because he’d have to sit a year.

 

[earlkoppelman]

Let's not give Fran too much credit. He has dropped a few friendly fire grenades himself.

Agree and Am quite sober. HAPPY HOUR in rear view mirror. Fran and Staff have much to do in off-season no? Defensive Specialist a DREAM or a HOPE?? Go Hawks..

 

[RobHowe]

 

[mopkins]

Blah I guessed Loyola. Never even considered DePaul

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I dont really understand his reasoning for leaving Cal in the first place. He started all 34 games as a freshman and scored 12 ppg. Then he decided to transfer to KU and sit out a full year and then play limited minutes this year? Just strange all around.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him maybe at a place like Loyola or Northern Illinois? Whats crazy is he already sat out a year for transferring, so he will either need to apply for a hardship waiver or completely lose a year of eligibility. I don't know who is talking sense into this kid but sounds like he's getting some bad advice.

perhaps bill self gave him the impression he'd get more minutes? dunno. but if i was him, i'd xfer from cal to KU if i thought i'd be a starter after sitting a RS season.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Cuonzo Martin recruited Moore to Cal. The coach left for Missouri after one season in Berkeley.

I've always had mixed feelings on the take that if a coach leaves, players he recruited should be free to transfer without losing a year. Seems fair to the players. On the other hand, you'd hope a player would choose the school as much as the coach. Full of pitfalls. A roster/program could be depleted overnight when a coach leaves. Coaches poaching players to go with them to another school seems a little sleazy.

Tough one to balance.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

I've always had mixed feelings on the take that if a coach leaves, players he recruited should be free to transfer without losing a year. Seems fair to the players. On the other hand, you'd hope a player would choose the school as much as the coach. Full of pitfalls. A roster/program could be depleted overnight when a coach leaves. Coaches poaching players to go with them to another school seems a little sleazy.

Tough one to balance.

Yeah it's tough. At first blush I'm in favor of allowing the players to transfer without having to sit out in this case. Yes, they are committing to the school, but they're given an athletic scholarship, so IMO the coaching staff is also a part of what they're committing to. But you are right - the transfer rate would probably be a lot higher. Kinda sucks.

What irks me is that it seems like coaches can jump ship on a contract any time they feel like it, without consequence. The commitment seems to be 100% on the school once the ink dries on the deal. Seems like a "breach of contract" type situation if a coach isn't honoring the deal they've signed to coach somewhere for X number of years. Not sure on the legalities - it must be allowed I guess since coaches leave for other jobs all the time and there never is any stink made about it. Or do most contracts come with some kind of clause addressing this situation?

Ditto for if a coach incurs some recruiting violations and then leaves ahead of the posse.. The school gets penalized while the coach gets away with it and has a fresh start elsewhere. Seems kinda messed up to me.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Yeah it's tough. At first blush I'm in favor of allowing the players to transfer without having to sit out in this case. Yes, they are committing to the school, but they're given an athletic scholarship, so IMO the coaching staff is also a part of what they're committing to. But you are right - the transfer rate would probably be a lot higher. Kinda sucks.

What irks me is that it seems like coaches can jump ship on a contract any time they feel like it, without consequence. The commitment seems to be 100% on the school once the ink dries on the deal. Seems like a "breach of contract" type situation if a coach isn't honoring the deal they've signed to coach somewhere for X number of years. Not sure on the legalities - it must be allowed I guess since coaches leave for other jobs all the time and there never is any stink made about it. Or do most contracts come with some kind of clause addressing this situation?

Ditto for if a coach incurs some recruiting violations and then leaves ahead of the posse.. The school gets penalized while the coach gets away with it and has a fresh start elsewhere. Seems kinda messed up to me.

The penalties should definitely follow the coaches as well. It could be tricky determining who's at fault and to what degree. But, the coach was an employee of the University so the school is ultimately responsible...unless they can demonstrate they had no idea what he was doing. (which seems far fetched). They should have some recourse against the coach and/or AD...perhaps forfeiture of a portion of his salary for misconduct. To level the playing field that NCAA should make a rule on that, not leaving it to individual contract negotiations.

 

[MisterLucky]

I don't know who is talking sense into this kid but sounds like he's getting some bad advice.

This seemed to be the case from the very beginning of his college recruitment.

 

[99topdawg]

He finally ready to make his long awaited Carver debut.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Unless he transfers in the next 24 hours.