‘21 GA C Ryan Mutombo

#251
#251
cncchris33 said:
I'd say so, too. And I'd rather have Fulk and EJA for another season that Mutombo, If I'm being honest.

The scholarship limit is interesting because the NCAA really has to do something to scale it up. It's not the current kids' fault that COVID has wrecked things, and it isn't the incoming kids' fault. Still, you have to draw the line somewhere. I can see them expanding scholarship limits by 1 or 2 for basketball for a year or two, to make accommodations. That, and instituting the one-time transfer rule should help to level things out over time.
Click to expand...
An extra year of Fulk/EJA > 4 years of Mutombo. And gives us another year to recruit a more talented big
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92, cardvolfan and cncchris33
#252
#252
cncchris33 said:
Yeah, since you broke the "didn't want him anyway" ice, I'll chime in, now. :)

The kid has size, which you can't teach, obviously. But other than that, I wasn't too impressed by anything else. He seemed a little heavy-footed, and was going to take a couple seasons to develop, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with taking a kid like that, but he wasn't an instant impact player purely because his last name was Mutumbo. He's still pretty raw. I hesitated to put that out there when the tide seemed to turn. He's the kind of kid that you are fine taking at the back-end of your class. Not the kind of kid I'd want as the headliner.

Good luck to him at Georgetown. Hope that's where HE wants to be. I would personally rather have any of the other bigs we are in on, but I wouldn't have turned him away, either.
Click to expand...

Lol I didn't say "Didn't want him anyway" but touche. I would have been happy having him here. I DID want him. I simply just don't think he is irreplaceable. Missing out on him is fine because there are other big men who we can snag that are just as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92 and JelloPuddinPup
#253
#253
TheMookieMonster said:
Lol I didn't say "Didn't want him anyway" but touche. I would have been happy having him here. I DID want him. I simply just don't think he is irreplaceable. Missing out on him is fine because there are other big men who we can snag that are just as good.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was my point. A lot of times, statements like that come across as sour grapes, but in this case, it seems genuinely warranted. I just didn't want to be the one to open that can of worms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterofDef#92, TheMookieMonster and JelloPuddinPup
#254
#254
cncchris33 said:
I'd say so, too. And I'd rather have Fulk and EJA for another season that Mutombo, If I'm being honest.

The scholarship limit is interesting because the NCAA really has to do something to scale it up. It's not the current kids' fault that COVID has wrecked things, and it isn't the incoming kids' fault. Still, you have to draw the line somewhere. I can see them expanding scholarship limits by 1 or 2 for basketball for a year or two, to make accommodations. That, and instituting the one-time transfer rule should help to level things out over time.
Click to expand...
Yea, I think we can likely find someone similar to Mutombo worst case, and quite possibly someone better. Whether that’s 21, or 22, or a transfer is TBD, but I don’t think it’s some huge loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#255
#255
Chris4Vols22 said:
May be an unpopular opinion, but I wish they wouldn't make any special accommodations for eligibility in any sport. Yes, the situation sucks, but someone is going to have to pay for it, and I don't think the liability should weigh heavier for future student athletes. So by default, I think it makes more sense for the current athletes to just eat it. Jmo.
Click to expand...

What does it hurt future kids other than stiffer completion, and getting an extra year to develop?
 
#256
#256
Good luck to Mutombo at Georgetown and Ewing is probably hoping that Mutombo can come in and be a force like his dad was at Georgetown.
 
#257
#257
bleedingTNorange said:
What does it hurt future kids other than stiffer completion, and getting an extra year to develop?
Click to expand...
It's the ripple effect from a situation that grants an extra year. That forces recruits to reevaluate everything, and of course some will flip. It just doesn't seem right for a recruit to completely reevaulate because someone like Jordan Bowden didn't get to play in the SEC tournament. Why should they get an entire year of eligibility when they played an entire regular season already?
 
#259
#259
Chris4Vols22 said:
Maybe I'm not understanding everything for the proposed eligibility revision.
Click to expand...

Jordan Bowden isn't getting an extra year. This rumored, not confirmed, rule is saying that athlete's THIS year (i.e. 2020 - 2021) can compete and not lose a year of eligibility moving forward. So, essentially Fulkerson, Pons, and Anosike could all come back in 2021-2022 for one last season. This is to help offset any issues that might arise from a reduced season if team's run into COVID issues or if an athlete decides to opt-out.

That is the rumor at least.
 
#262
#262
Alright I get it now, and that detail I missed has 0 effect on my opinion of the situation. If the season is short, tough titties imo.
 
#263
#263
Chris4Vols22 said:
Alright I get it now, and that detail I missed has 0 effect on my opinion of the situation. If the season is short, tough titties imo.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think it's "tough titties" because if anything this rule is an objectively GOOD thing for Tennessee. Pons is almost assuredly going to leave, but another year of Fulkerson and Anosike with Chandler/Maschack and the rest of our returners completely changes the outlook for 2021-2022 since we currently have no big men in this next class. I welcome the rule change.
 
#264
#264
Chris4Vols22 said:
It's the ripple effect from a situation that grants an extra year. That forces recruits to reevaluate everything, and of course some will flip. It just doesn't seem right for a recruit to completely reevaulate because someone like Jordan Bowden didn't get to play in the SEC tournament. Why should they get an entire year of eligibility when they played an entire regular season already?
Click to expand...
Huh? Bowden isn’t, it would be this years seniors like in CFB.
 
#265
#265
TheMookieMonster said:
Jordan Bowden isn't getting an extra year. This rumored, not confirmed, rule is saying that athlete's THIS year (i.e. 2020 - 2021) can compete and not lose a year of eligibility moving forward. So, essentially Fulkerson, Pons, and Anosike could all come back in 2021-2022 for one last season. This is to help offset any issues that might arise from a reduced season if team's run into COVID issues or if an athlete decides to opt-out.

That is the rumor at least.
Click to expand...
Not a rumor at all, 100% a voting topic upcoming.
 
#266
#266
Chris4Vols22 said:
Alright I get it now, and that detail I missed has 0 effect on my opinion of the situation. If the season is short, tough titties imo.
Click to expand...
Your opinion before was “oh you missed 1-2 games in the SECT”, missing 15-20 games to me would be a bit of a bigger deal, I guess you disagree.

It’s already passed in football yet SEC is still 10 games, others are playing 11, as of now still having conference championships too.
 
#267
#267
TheMookieMonster said:
I don't know why you think it's "tough titties" because if anything this rule is an objectively GOOD thing for Tennessee. Pons is almost assuredly going to leave, but another year of Fulkerson and Anosike with Chandler/Maschack and the rest of our returners completely changes the outlook for 2021-2022 since we currently have no big men in this next class. I welcome the rule change.
Click to expand...
If players that were supposed to be gone in 2021 are still around in the fall, that affects the 2021 and all subsequent recruiting classes. It's not a guarantee that Chandler and Maschack fulfill their commitments if Fulk and Anosike are still here. I know that's not a good example since their positions don't overlap, but I'm thinking beyond the scope of UT bball. Like you said, it may very well help us, but it seems to create more issues than resolve imo.
 
#268
#268
bleedingTNorange said:
Your opinion before was “oh you missed 1-2 games in the SECT”, missing 15-20 games to me would be a bit of a bigger deal, I guess you disagree.

It’s already passed in football yet SEC is still 10 games, others are playing 11, as of now still having conference championships too.
Click to expand...
FTR, I don't think the proposal is necessarily bad. It does make sense to accommodate those affected players, and it may not be as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. I still think the net result would be less fair.

Now that's not considering what's already happened in football. Tbh, I was not aware of that. I suppose some kind of precedence is implied in that move.
 
#269
#269
bleedingTNorange said:
I’m curious the conversations going on with the staff about the likelihood of this year not counting towards eligibility...if that does indeed happen, and Fulk/Anosike were to return and Pons leaves, theoretically that would put the Vols 1 over the limit. Obviously still likely a guy or two heads to the league, and also TBD how the scholarship limit would be handled/changed, but I’m sure that’s something being discussed on campus.
Click to expand...
Seems they wish have to also have concessions on scholarship limits. You can’t just freeze out the incoming players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigbuckvol
#271
#271
Chris4Vols22 said:
FTR, I don't think the proposal is necessarily bad. It does make sense to accommodate those affected players, and it may not be as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. I still think the net result would be less fair.

Now that's not considering what's already happened in football. Tbh, I was not aware of that. I suppose some kind of precedence is implied in that move.
Click to expand...
I think the net result is more fair for all parties affected, even if it may be less fair you younger players who are waiting their turn. There is no way to 100% satisfy everyone, but this seems to give something to everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris4Vols22
#272
#272
cncchris33 said:
I think the net result is more fair for all parties affected, even if it may be less fair you younger players who are waiting their turn. There is no way to 100% satisfy everyone, but this seems to give something to everyone.
Click to expand...
Not that it means anything, but say Banchero committed to us and finds out Fulk and Anosike decide to stay? Maybe we have a different opinion if that were the situation. But then again, I suppose Barnes and the AD have the final say in honoring scholarships. They could make an executive decision in that situation. Or am I stupid?
 
#273
#273
Chris4Vols22 said:
Not that it means anything, but say Banchero committed to us and finds out Fulk and Anosike decide to stay? Maybe we have a different opinion if that were the situation. But then again, I suppose Barnes and the AD have the final say in honoring scholarships. They could make an executive decision in that situation. Or am I stupid?
Click to expand...
I mean, scholarships are not a 4 or 5 year guarantee. They are renewable, annually. Typically, a scholarship athlete has his/her scholarship renewed in good faith if they are in good standing academically and socially. However, in some cases, coaches have to have tough conversations with players to let them know they don't see a future for that player beyond that current season. If the scholarship limit isn't increased, then tough conversations will have to take place at some schools. Tennessee would currently be one over with Chandler and Mashack committed if, say, Fulk and EJA wanted to return. There may be natural attrition at another spot, or Barnes may have to have a heart to heart with someone. If Bamchero were committed, neither Fulk or EJA are scaring him off to begin with, but the possibility of then returning may turn away a guy like Mutumbo.
 
#274
#274
cncchris33 said:
Yeah, since you broke the "didn't want him anyway" ice, I'll chime in, now. :)

The kid has size, which you can't teach, obviously. But other than that, I wasn't too impressed by anything else. He seemed a little heavy-footed, and was going to take a couple seasons to develop, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with taking a kid like that, but he wasn't an instant impact player purely because his last name was Mutumbo. He's still pretty raw. I hesitated to put that out there when the tide seemed to turn. He's the kind of kid that you are fine taking at the back-end of your class. Not the kind of kid I'd want as the headliner.

Good luck to him at Georgetown. Hope that's where HE wants to be. I would personally rather have any of the other bigs we are in on, but I wouldn't have turned him away, either.
Click to expand...
Quite the turnaround as Pons was our first top 100 recruit IIRC since Stokes and now we might have taken a flier on a guy ranked in the 85-115 range at the bottom of the class. Good times on Rocky Top
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top