Scouts updated 2013 top 100...

#28
#28
bleedingTNorange said:
Thats not what I'm saying. Do you not think its possible that maybe washpun said hey I'm not getting get the minutes I want here, I'm gonna transfer. Maybe it wasn't CCM who brought it up first, maybe It was washpun, is this not plausible???

So you're saying keep offering these guys and if they don't show something after a year then part ways? Yet you're sitting here saying its very likely that CCM would rescind the offer to Landry. You're giving washpun and Reese the chance to coyoursel their offer and prove themselves yet you're not giving Landry that year to prove himself? We could have definitely done without Reese this year, we have plenty of wings, so it's not like hell see the court this year anyways.

And we haven't offered Tobe Okafor because we don't have a scholarship for him, simple as that. He's better than miller yet we haven't offered, explanation?
Click to expand...

Well, Miller is gone after 1 year so it's not like he's taking up a scholarship on the bench for multiple years. IMO, we do not lose a lot when he's on the floor either so it's not like he is dead weight. We may have not offered Okafor but we did offer Charles with a full roster. CCM would have had to tell someone to leave. Do you agree with that?

Yes, it most certainly is possible that Washpun left on his own, but the timing makes me think other wise. Armani Moore gives his verbal putting us over the scholarship limit. Someone had to leave. Washpun was granted his release 6 days later. Maybe he was told point blank that with the addition of Armani and the addition of Landry in 2013 that more than likely he will never see the floor and if he wants to play then he should look elsewhere...making in Washpun's decision. But really his decision was made for him.

Landry is in a different category, IMO, than Washpun and Reese. CCM has more time to get in on the better players and can cut his loses earlier with Landry where he really couldn't with his first 2 years recruiting at a major conference school. He wasn't going to land a top 100 pg or #2 guard his first 2 years. He's in much better shape of doing that in year #3 and #4.
 
#29
#29
johnnybravo said:
Well, Miller is gone after 1 year so it's not like he's taking up a scholarship on the bench for multiple years. IMO, we do not lose a lot when he's on the floor either so it's not like he is dead weight. We may have not offered Okafor but we did offer Charles with a full roster. CCM would have had to tell someone to leave. Do you agree with that?

Yes, it most certainly is possible that Washpun left on his own, but the timing makes me think other wise. Armani Moore gives his verbal putting us over the scholarship limit. Someone had to leave. Washpun was granted his release 6 days later. Maybe he was told point blank that with the addition of Armani and the addition of Landry in 2013 that more than likely he will never see the floor and if he wants to play then he should look elsewhere...making in Washpun's decision. But really his decision was made for him.

Landry is in a different category, IMO, than Washpun and Reese. CCM has more time to get in on the better players and can cut his loses earlier with Landry where he really couldn't with his first 2 years recruiting at a major conference school. He wasn't going to land a top 100 pg or #2 guard his first 2 years. He's in much better shape of doing that in year #3 and #4.
Click to expand...

Mitchell was offered WAYY before Armani, so maybe if Mitchell had committed Armani never would have been offered?

So that would go back to my opinion, that Wes maybe made the decision. Maybe he informed CCM way back, hey I'm probably gonna transfer. Thus prompting the offers to Fabyon, Mitchell and then Moore. I don't think it's a coincidence that we were on Fabyon pretty hard, but once Moore committe we rescinded the offer and told him we were no longer interested. Clearly CCM knew he had one scholarship to play with and put a few offers out there, it appears to have been a whoever committs first gets it scenario.
 
#30
#30
bleedingTNorange said:
Mitchell was offered WAYY before Armani, so maybe if Mitchell had committed Armani never would have been offered?

So that would go back to my opinion, that Wes maybe made the decision. Maybe he informed CCM way back, hey I'm probably gonna transfer. Thus prompting the offers to Fabyon, Mitchell and then Moore. I don't think it's a coincidence that we were on Fabyon pretty hard, but once Moore committe we rescinded the offer and told him we were no longer interested. Clearly CCM knew he had one scholarship to play with and put a few offers out there, it appears to have been a whoever committs first gets it scenario.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a player wants as much time as possible to find a school that has an open scholarship available. Especially one that is not as gifted as Washpun. Sure, if he was a top 50 pg coming out of highschool then the process would have been easier.

Why would he sit on that? I would think the smartest thing for him was to come out with that info as soon as possible to get his name out for other schools that still have open schollys available to recruit him. It's not like he was going to have his pick of any school out there. I'm just giving him the credit of not being a dumbass, because sitting on that info that he plans to leave would be really stupid IMO.

I think it was more apparent that Fabyon was not coming to UT and UT already had Armani when UT recinded the offer.

Let's just put a scenerio out there. Shabazz Muhammad decided he wanted to be at UT before he committed to UCLA mid April. We have no schollys available. Do you think he would be wearing orange next year, or do you think CCM tells him that our roster is full.
 
#31
#31
johnnybravo said:
I'm pretty sure a player wants as much time as possible to find a school that has an open scholarship available. Especially one that is not as gifted as Washpun. Sure, if he was a top 50 pg coming out of highschool then the process would have been easier.

Why would he sit on that? I would think the smartest thing for him was to come out with that info as soon as possible to get his name out for other schools that still have open schollys available to recruit him. It's not like he was going to have his pick of any school out there. I'm just giving him the credit of not being a dumbass, because sitting on that info that he plans to leave would be really stupid IMO.

I think it was more apparent that Fabyon was not coming to UT and UT already had Armani when UT recinded the offer.

Let's just put a scenerio out there. Shabazz Muhammad decided he wanted to be at UT before he committed to UCLA mid April. We have no schollys available. Do you think he would be wearing orange next year, or do you think CCM tells him that our roster is full.
Click to expand...

The info probably was given to low major schools, like the one he ended up at. That's why he committed somewhere with no visits and very little hoopla. He probably already had a pretty good idea.

UT offered Mitchell, then Fabyon and then Moore. It was a whoever committs first gets it, when Armani committed we rescinded the offer BECAUSE CCM didn't want to tell someone bye for Fabyon. Sure if you have a top level guy you find a way to make room for him, but that's not what we were talking about.

And like I said earlier, it's not like Reese is a necessity and we needed the body. We could have easily gone without him this year and had the extra scholarship for this year or next. So why didnt CCM told him to go scratch?

And as far as the scenario, jarnell stokes, Kentucky Florida and Memphis all wanted him but told him we don't have room, right? Let me be clear, I'd take Newkirk over Landry anyday of the week and twice on Sunday. However, what I'm saying is I don't think it's an either or. I see someone parting ways with the program, and that being the way a scholarship is freed up. I just don't see CCM as doing that with landry, and in his 4 years as a head coach nobody has any evidence to show otherwise.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
bleedingTNorange said:
We have 4 scholarships for sure available.

At this point my prediction would be...

Landry
Crawford
Nichols
Rimmer/Foster

However I do think that there's a good chance of landing hubbs/ Newkirk.
Click to expand...

CCM is doing work. I like the way he is going about things. If we can even get three of these guys, we could be well on our way of turning a serious corner.
 
#33
#33
bleedingTNorange said:
The info probably was given to low major schools, like the one he ended up at. That's why he committed somewhere with no visits and very little hoopla. He probably already had a pretty good idea.

UT offered Mitchell, then Fabyon and then Moore. It was a whoever committs first gets it, when Armani committed we rescinded the offer BECAUSE CCM didn't want to tell someone bye for Fabyon. Sure if you have a top level guy you find a way to make room for him, but that's not what we were talking about.

And like I said earlier, it's not like Reese is a necessity and we needed the body. We could have easily gone without him this year and had the extra scholarship for this year or next. So why didnt CCM told him to go scratch?

And as far as the scenario, jarnell stokes, Kentucky Florida and Memphis all wanted him but told him we don't have room, right? Let me be clear, I'd take Newkirk over Landry anyday of the week and twice on Sunday. However, what I'm saying is I don't think it's an either or. I see someone parting ways with the program, and that being the way a scholarship is freed up. I just don't see CCM as doing that with landry, and in his 4 years as a head coach nobody has any evidence to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain that any type of recruitment before an official release of an athlete is a pretty significant NCAA violation, so no Washpun wasn't in contact with any other schools until he was released. Again I'm giving him credit for not being a dumbass. Why do you only give your name to low major schools? He would want to get his name out as early as possible to get the best opportunity available.

KY, FL, Memphis all wanted Stokes, but didn't have any scholly available. Stokes would have had to pay his own way. You can't remove someone from scholarship mid season, so those teams were not an option.

The scenerio is plausible because all it does is reinforce that you will make changes based on a players ability.

I'm assuming CCM thinks Reese is good enough to have a scholarship since he is getting one. Just because you have your doubts about him, maybe CCM doesn't. I don't think he just gives them out for charity purposes. If Reese isn't good enough to keep his scholarship then he could be replaced.
 
#34
#34
bleedingTNorange said:
I just don't see CCM as doing that with landry, and in his 4 years as a head coach nobody has any evidence to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

Landry has just verbally committed right? He hasn't signed a LOI, IIRC. So telling Landry to look around wouldn't be the same as cutting Reese loose. I am not saying I necessarily think CCM will tell Landry to look elsewhere, but there is a pretty big difference between telling a kid that is verbally committed that things have changed, than it is to dump a kid already on scholarship or has signed a LOI.
 
#36
#36
This class seems kind of short, first class in years I don't see any 7 footers on there.
 
#37
#37
Hopefully CCM can show these recruits how he has the program moving back into the right direction and get them signed. I think Coach Tom Crean at Indiana is an example of building a program back up and getting the kids that he feels fits into the program. CCM can do the same
 
#38
#38
johnnybravo said:
I'm quite certain that any type of recruitment before an official release of an athlete is a pretty significant NCAA violation, so no Washpun wasn't in contact with any other schools until he was released. Again I'm giving him credit for not being a dumbass. Why do you only give your name to low major schools? He would want to get his name out as early as possible to get the best opportunity available.

KY, FL, Memphis all wanted Stokes, but didn't have any scholly available. Stokes would have had to pay his own way. You can't remove someone from scholarship mid season, so those teams were not an option.

The scenerio is plausible because all it does is reinforce that you will make changes based on a players ability.

I'm assuming CCM thinks Reese is good enough to have a scholarship since he is getting one. Just because you have your doubts about him, maybe CCM doesn't. I don't think he just gives them out for charity purposes. If Reese isn't good enough to keep his scholarship then he could be replaced.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do people put out feelers. Washpun could've informed his coach who informed a few schools that hed be available. Maybe there wasn't any recruitment maybe there was, but you don't find it strange that washpun committed very shortly after his release and without any visits?

Exactly and obviously CCM thinks Landry is good enough for a scholarship or he wouldn't have offered him one.

I've said it before, has CCM shown any evidence that he will PULL back a scholarship from a guy that's committed? Not that I know of. So if he offered Landry obviously he thinks he's deserving, and if someone like hubbs needs a scholarship, I think it will be someone losing one from the current roster and not Landry.

That is apparently where we disagree? You think we tell Landry to scratch to make room, I think we part with someone on the roster to make room. I've seen no evidence that CCM tells recruits to go scratch to make room, I have however seen evidence of Martin parting ways with guys he has brought in.
 
#40
#40
zansdad said:
Landry has just verbally committed right? He hasn't signed a LOI, IIRC. So telling Landry to look around wouldn't be the same as cutting Reese loose. I am not saying I necessarily think CCM will tell Landry to look elsewhere, but there is a pretty big difference between telling a kid that is verbally committed that things have changed, than it is to dump a kid already on scholarship or has signed a LOI.
Click to expand...

Correct he has not signed anything, and I get that. All I'm saying is IMO I think if we have no available scholarships and a guy like hubbs calls CCM and says I wanna be a vol, that this is how I see it playing.

CCM calls in a current player, who hasn't seen major minutes and the staff feels wont ever see those minutes at UT, and tells him that it'd be best or both parties if they parted ways. I don't think he calls Landry and says, I know you've been committed for over a year, but sorry you're gonna have to look elsewhere. I've seen no evidence showing that CCM has done that with a committ. I have however seen the evidence that his players are willing to part ways after one season if they realize this just isn't a right fit. So IMO, it's much more likely that well lose a current roster member to make room for a player, than tell Landry to go scratch.

The other aspect is this, im sure Landry is signing early. So he signs early and then in the late signing hubbs says I want to be a Vol. is CCM telling a player who has signed his LOI that he's no longer welcomed?
 
#43
#43
bleedingTNorange said:
Correct he has not signed anything, and I get that. All I'm saying is IMO I think if we have no available scholarships and a guy like hubbs calls CCM and says I wanna be a vol, that this is how I see it playing.

CCM calls in a current player, who hasn't seen major minutes and the staff feels wont ever see those minutes at UT, and tells him that it'd be best or both parties if they parted ways. I don't think he calls Landry and says, I know you've been committed for over a year, but sorry you're gonna have to look elsewhere. I've seen no evidence showing that CCM has done that with a committ. I have however seen the evidence that his players are willing to part ways after one season if they realize this just isn't a right fit. So IMO, it's much more likely that well lose a current roster member to make room for a player, than tell Landry to go scratch.

The other aspect is this, im sure Landry is signing early. So he signs early and then in the late signing hubbs says I want to be a Vol. is CCM telling a player who has signed his LOI that he's no longer welcomed?
Click to expand...

I see what your saying. I think it would depend on the specifics. Landry fills a position of need, as of right now, and that means the CCM is less likely to cut ties with him than one of the many wings that are already on the team/coming in next year.

As far as telling a guy that he isn't wanted anymore after the kid has signed a LOI, I am not even sure if that is possible. That's the thing with Reese, since he has already signed the LOI I think UT is bound to him. He would either have to back out himself, with CCM's blessing, or be 'convinced' to back himself, again with CCM's blessing

Lastly, Martin told that walk-on guy that was here to basically take a hike. Not only did they not offer him a scholly, it also looks like they didn't make a spot for him as a walk-on. I think Martin sticks to his word, but I also think he can make the tough decisions. If Landry, hasn't signed his LOI and Martin sees that he is going to land some big fish and might need that scholly back, I feel that CCM will pick up the phone and tell Landry to open his recruitment back up. JMO
 
#44
#44
zansdad said:
I see what your saying. I think it would depend on the specifics. Landry fills a position of need, as of right now, and that means the CCM is less likely to cut ties with him than one of the many wings that are already on the team/coming in next year.

As far as telling a guy that he isn't wanted anymore after the kid has signed a LOI, I am not even sure if that is possible. That's the thing with Reese, since he has already signed the LOI I think UT is bound to him. He would either have to back out himself, with CCM's blessing, or be 'convinced' to back himself, again with CCM's blessing

Lastly, Martin told that walk-on guy that was here to basically take a hike. Not only did they not offer him a scholly, it also looks like they didn't make a spot for him as a walk-on. I think Martin sticks to his word, but I also think he can make the tough decisions. If Landry, hasn't signed his LOI and Martin sees that he is going to land some big fish and might need that scholly back, I feel that CCM will pick up the phone and tell Landry to open his recruitment back up. JMO
Click to expand...

Yea I'm talking strictly in landrys case, not furure situations. That's why I say even if it is a big fish, I still see us parting with a current roster member than Landry. We have one PG on the roster, as we saw last year you need depth there. So I doubt we part with Landry for a big fish, I'd say we'd part with a wing (chievous/Reese) for a big fish. we need atleast 1 PG in the 2013 class, and if it ends up as 2 that's great, but I don't expect it to be at landrys expense. Even more so if it's big timer like hubbs. I doubt we part with our only underclassmen PG for a big fish, once again I'd expect CCM to part with one of the many wings we have.
 
#45
#45
bleedingTNorange said:
Yea I'm talking strictly in landrys case, not furure situations. That's why I say even if it is a big fish, I still see us parting with a current roster member than Landry. We have one PG on the roster, as we saw last year you need depth there. So I doubt we part with Landry for a big fish, I'd say we'd part with a wing (chievous/Reese) for a big fish. we need atleast 1 PG in the 2013 class, and if it ends up as 2 that's great, but I don't expect it to be at landrys expense. Even more so if it's big timer like hubbs. I doubt we part with our only underclassmen PG for a big fish, once again I'd expect CCM to part with one of the many wings we have.
Click to expand...

With this being a whole ethics issue of what is right and wrong by the student athlete and what CCM would and would not do... I think it's much worst to cut a current athlete on a scholly rather than cut a verbal com. that has never even practiced here. Either way, I would not fault CCM or any coach for making the tough decision. His job is to fill seats and get W's as I see it. Upgrading a certain position or athlete could be the difference in making the tourny and keeping his job and his staffs jobs.
 
#46
#46
johnnybravo said:
With this being a whole ethics issue of what is right and wrong by the student athlete and what CCM would and would not do... I think it's much worst to cut a current athlete on a scholly rather than cut a verbal com. that has never even practiced here. Either way, I would not fault CCM or any coach for making the tough decision. His job is to fill seats and get W's as I see it. Upgrading a certain position or athlete could be the difference in making the tourny and keeping his job and his staffs jobs.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think cutting a guy like chievous/Reese who maybe they decide won't see the floor is more beneficial than parting with an incoming freshman like Landry. By parting with the current member you have seen them practice, see them possibly play, workout etc etc, in other words you know hat you're gonna get. Where as Landry you have a guy you feel has a high ceiling and can be a contributor on the court for your team.

So if were talking solely about wins, then parting with a guy who you know isn't going to contribute would be smarter than parting with a recruit who you believe is capable of contributing, and obviously more so than that benchwarmer.
 
#47
#47
bleedingTNorange said:
Which is why I think cutting a guy like chievous/Reese who maybe they decide won't see the floor is more beneficial than parting with an incoming freshman like Landry. By parting with the current member you have seen them practice, see them possibly play, workout etc etc, in other words you know hat you're gonna get. Where as Landry you have a guy you feel has a high ceiling and can be a contributor on the court for your team.

So if were talking solely about wins, then parting with a guy who you know isn't going to contribute would be smarter than parting with a recruit who you believe is capable of contributing, and obviously more so than that benchwarmer.
Click to expand...

Well, not so sure about Reese. I won't give any oppinion on him until I see him play personally, but I do not think Chievous will be a bench warmer at all. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with him this year. Just because he redshirted doesn't mean he wasn't good enough to play this past year.
 
#48
#48
johnnybravo said:
Well, not so sure about Reese. I won't give any oppinion on him until I see him play personally, but I do not think Chievous will be a bench warmer at all. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with him this year. Just because he redshirted doesn't mean he wasn't good enough to play this past year.
Click to expand...

Ok well then sub those guys out for washpun. Well almost always have a guy we realize isn't going to be a contributor...ever. So why not sub out that non contributor for a new guy who you believe will be a contributor?
 
#49
#49
bleedingTNorange said:
Ok well then sub those guys out for washpun. Well almost always have a guy we realize isn't going to be a contributor...ever. So why not sub out that non contributor for a new guy who you believe will be a contributor?
Click to expand...

The whole discussion started with the belief that Landry hasn't developed the way many might have anticipated with his most recent performances. If CCM thinks the same and can replace that committment with a better one, then that should be the best route. Right now, with our current roster (not counting the 2012 class), I see no players that is a non contributor. Who really could you cut?
 
#50
#50
johnnybravo said:
The whole discussion started with the belief that Landry hasn't developed the way many might have anticipated with his most recent performances. If CCM thinks the same and can replace that committment with a better one, then that should be the best route. Right now, with our current roster (not counting the 2012 class), I see no players that is a non contributor. Who really could you cut?
Click to expand...

By the end of the year I'm sure we'll have a pretty clear answer, and I'm including the 2012 class. Because, after 1 year we all knew washpun wasn't ever getting minutes here. So there's a chance we may get that same impression from Reese, or someone currently on the roster. And if you don't feel that Landry is better than anyone on your current roster, including 2012 class, then you part with Landry if you need the extra scholarship. I think Landry is going to be solid, nothing spectacular, but a solid PG. He may always be a backup, but if he is that's a good thing to have a backup like him.

In any regard, I can't wait for some of the 2013 class to start committing so we can see who we're gonna get.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top