Transfer Portal 21-22

[LadyVol1908]

Which site can I pay for, that has inside information I would love to join.

Ask @VA_VOLFAN

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

Yea let’s not go there because I’m the one that would go back and forth with you for days and I’d rather keep it civil. You went back to one post, As Amb pointed out, that you so conveniently overlooked, I’ve spilled beans before and haven’t beaten around the bush because I’m paying money for an “inside scoop” from a website. Nor do I “flaunt” that I’m an “insider” so let’s not really go there love. I enjoy your post and would rather we keep it cordial.

Yea, let's keep it cordial because you know me as well as you have liked my posts. I don't "flaunt" that I know anything and i actually appreciated the fact there are differing view points. So let's get that off the board if that's where this was going. As anybody knows i love a conversation and stay respectful but when the poster came to your defense i def said to play devils advocate i could see why someone may have thought that what you said might not be true. I also said you could have insider info i don't know.

But to be clear while i do pay for an inside scoop i do have other places where i get info and people i'm connected with. So again i don't flaunt or tease anything i speak what i am allowed to speak and keep it there.

So, again let's keep it cordial and in a positive direction because i've been respectful. If you choose not to do so let me know and we will take that route if need be as well. i hope this ends positively because you've been cool with me and are still but i'm the one to hit something head on and address what needs to be addressed and move on. Also, if the "love" thing was a moment trying to check me i found it endearing and brought me fond memories.

Truly hope you are having a good day

 

[creekdipper]

I think loyalty to players is unreasonable.

Now, there's an irresistable recruiting pitch!

 

[LadyVols_WBK]

Someone posted that Coach Joy mentioned a post being a priority when it comes to positions for next year. It was in an interview or something i believe

Did anyone give it a listen?

 

[Cb153181]

Ask @VA_VOLFAN[/QUOTE
well if she ain’t coming to Tennessee where she going?

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

I think loyalty to players is unreasonable. The goal of the coach is to make the team the best they can be, and if that means recruiting over players that haven't developed, then so be it. Especially when we're talking about upperclassmen. If they get two scoring wings out of the portal, and then there's a quality C that wants to come on board, by all means...Kellie should have a chat with a couple of players about their future.

RE: Finley. I think they gave her the benefit of a doubt that she was probably suffering from some Stockholm Syndrome. Certainly the players that dealt with Cam's abuse seem to support her, so why not give her a chance...especially since she's delivering with the results.

I just don't think Kellie is going to run student athletes off. I'm not agreeing with it just saying my take. Before my words get twisted around

 

[Volfan2012]

I just don't think Kellie is going to run student athletes off. I'm not agreeing with it just saying my take. Before my words get twisted around

It may be better to have players that play 50 minutes a season that love Tennessee so much they don't care and still want to stay. I'm against running anyone off, but for making it clear they are bench warmers if they stay. I think she may have already done this. I didn't see anyone that looked unhappy this season.

 

[Amb3096]

Now, there's an irresistable recruiting pitch!

That recruiting pitch works for Geno and Dawn, and they have no issues lining up their teams with the elite talent who are happy to give it their best shot. And if they end up not being able to come out on top, that's what the transfer portal is for (which UConn recruits have been making heavy use of, I might add). And then the next class of stars comes in and the process repeats itself. Makes you wonder why they WOULDN'T want to play for a team where their mere presence is enough to deter recruiting more talented players because of, you know, loyalty.

I thought that the coaching staff's job was to field the strongest team possible to give them the best chance at winning as many games as possible. Apparently, others feel differently.

 

[mlindsay]

It may be better to have players that play 50 minutes a season that love Tennessee so much they don't care and still want to stay. I'm against running anyone off, but for making it clear they are bench warmers if they stay. I think she may have already done this. I didn't see anyone that looked unhappy this season.

Exactly, I think she also has done this and those players than we all know many are talking bout have chosen to stay. They also more than likely know they will only play if there are injuries or blowouts and they (and most importantly their parents) seem to be okay with that.

I rather those players then to have 3 to 4 players coming and messing up team chemistry. But again, that's just me!

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

Ask @VA_VOLFAN

thanks hope i get a kick back for my referrals

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

247 sports and Home

I'm sure there are some other good ones out there

 

[Volfan2012]

Did anyone give it a listen?

If I had known I would've going to see if you can hear it on a replay.

 

[Volfan2012]

Did anyone give it a listen?

That is actually tonight in about 7 hours from now.

 

[LadyVols_WBK]

That is actually tonight in about 7 hours from now.

This is a tweet from February 28? Is there a replay?

 

[Volfan2012]

This is a tweet from February 28? Is there a replay?

You can definitely listen to that one. I'll go get it.

 

[Volfan2012]

The Vol Network Podcast

Just a lot of SEC Tourney talk and how much Tamari has improved nothing much other than that.

 

[Rickster]

I think loyalty to players is unreasonable.......

Loyalty to players is a product of caring for people. Commitment is a 2-way street. Both player and coach come to an agreement. When promises are made, the ethical thing to do is honor them (on both sides). Kellies culture is very much like a family and thats not necessarily similar to a corporate culture where performance is the only metric of importance.

I'll respectfully disagree that its okay to run off players. Perhaps the conversation could be about moving on if the player is not developing or breaks the rules but if they are doing what they are supposed to do and doing it to the best of their ability, they are doing their part. Maybe the coach should reevaluate the development program?

I'm not sure we need eleven 5* players on the roster. Dawn should be beating teams by 40 every night if that were the only answer. Same for Luigi. We have always had at least a couple of players who were great teammates but didn't play all that much. Every team has them and they are a valued part of the team.

We needed a PG and Kellie got her. The pessimists will say too late but one of the best things about Kellie is that she is patient and will not put the family at risk stretching for a 6* player who will be bad for chemistry.

 

[Volfaninfl2]

Thought we had Powell for 2 years, looks like only one.

Tennessee Women's Basketball Recruiting - WBB Blog

Even though Kellie may prefer a 12-13 roster number, after all the injuries we had this year she may decide more is better. So far, we have 13 for next year, plus one walk on, with room for two more.

 

[Volfan2012]

Thought we had Powell for 2 years, looks like only one.

Tennessee Women's Basketball Recruiting - WBB Blog

Even though Kellie may prefer a 12-13 roster number, after all the injuries we had this year she may decide more is better. So far, we have 13 for next year, plus one walk on, with room for two more.

Were going to get another player maybe two. I really believe we could have a full 15 on scholarship because if that was not the plan why not go ahead and give Darby the walk on one for next season. They are year to year. I think we are using them and we definitely need a post and someone with experience like a Jackson although it looks like it won't be her.

 

[madtownvol]

Thought we had Powell for 2 years, looks like only one.

Tennessee Women's Basketball Recruiting - WBB Blog

Even though Kellie may prefer a 12-13 roster number, after all the injuries we had this year she may decide more is better. So far, we have 13 for next year, plus one walk on, with room for two more.

You are right and the graphic is conjectural:

Powell has left the team, entered the NCAA transfer portal and will not finish her third season with the Gophers. Because of the extra year of eligibility given to athletes by the NCAA during the COVID-19 pandemic, Powell, a native of Detroit, will have two years of eligibility remaining.

However, just because a player has 2 years does not mean she will use both. This blog seems to assume (perhaps based on some inside info) that Jasmine will not use her covid season. I am not sure if any decision that far down the road would be set.

 

[mlindsay]

Thought we had Powell for 2 years, looks like only one.

Tennessee Women's Basketball Recruiting - WBB Blog

Even though Kellie may prefer a 12-13 roster number, after all the injuries we had this year she may decide more is better. So far, we have 13 for next year, plus one walk on, with room for two more.

She will be a senior but she could use the covid year if I am not mistaken, probably just didn't add the cross sign to the names. Powell, Emily, TK, Rennie, and Horston can all return for 2023-2024. 2 of which will probably use it if they are seeking to gain their Masters and have the university cover the cost and I don't blame them.

 

[Amb3096]

She will be a senior but she could use the covid year if I am not mistaken, probably just didn't add the cross sign to the names. Powell, Emily, TK, Rennie, and Horston can all return for 2023-2024. 2 of which will probably use it if they are seeking to gain their Masters and have the university cover the cost and I don't blame them.

Is the COVID year guaranteed, or does the school need to agree to it? Less of an issue for Tennessee, but I'm curious more for teams that are carrying a full roster and are filling planned departures with recruits.

 

[mlindsay]

Is the COVID year guaranteed, or does the school need to agree to it? Less of an issue for Tennessee, but I'm curious more for teams that are carrying a full roster and are filling planned departures with recruits.

I definitely think it is guaranteed for the player to have that extra year but the school could chose not to honor it forcing the player to go elsewhere. I could be wrong though but that's what I've heard.

 

[creekdipper]

That recruiting pitch works for Geno and Dawn, and they have no issues lining up their teams with the elite talent who are happy to give it their best shot. And if they end up not being able to come out on top, that's what the transfer portal is for (which UConn recruits have been making heavy use of, I might add). And then the next class of stars comes in and the process repeats itself. Makes you wonder why they WOULDN'T want to play for a team where their mere presence is enough to deter recruiting more talented players because of, you know, loyalty.

I thought that the coaching staff's job was to field the strongest team possible to give them the best chance at winning as many games as possible. Apparently, others feel differently.

Easy, Amb. We're just having a little fun with your choice of the word "loyalty." I respectfull suggest that you instead meant "obligation"...as though coaches would be obligated to give minutes based upon seniority or guarantees rather than talent, effort, attitude, matchups, etc. I've never seen anyone here (or elsewhere) suggest that sort of misguided "loyalty" should be a guiding principle.

The coach's loyalty in that regard is first to the team, the university which has invested resources in the team, and the fan base...not placating disgruntled athletes who feel entitled to PT.

On the other hand, what fits all common definitions of "loyalty" is not only reasonable, it should be one of the top requirements of any coach. The coaches are obligated to players and their families to provide for the players' pbysical and mental well-being. Coaches should give their best efforts to develop their players' talents and give them opportunities to thrive as athletes. Coaches should model and foster good character in their players and give them opportunities to develop healthy relationships as teammates and members of their communities. Coaches should honor obligations to demand academic excellence to insure that the players receive an outstanding education. Coaches should have their players' backs and not throw them under the bus or humialite players publicly. Those are just some of the ways that coaches demonstrate "loyalty."

I think you can see that no one was disagreeing with you about: the coach's obligation re: playing time for individuals. What you were referring to was guaranteeing playing status regardless of other factors. That's why the coaches you mentioned (and I eould include Kellie) say they don't offer guarantees, just opportunities. Playing time has to be earned. Adopting this approach means tbe coach never has to become a liar by reneging upon promises made that were never kept.

I submit that parents and players would be surprised/shocked/alarmed to hear or read a quote from a coach saying that "loyalty is unreasonable." Opponents would have a field day on the recruiting trail with that sound bite. We're not disagreeing with your sentiments, just your wording. Hope you can look back at your post and see the humor and perhaps agree that there might be a problem therein.

Then again, maybe some recruits like the idea of disloyal coaches.

 

[Amb3096]

Easy, Amb. We're just having a little fun with your choice of the word "loyalty." I respectfull suggest that you instead meant "obligation"...as though coaches would be obligated to give minutes based upon seniority or guarantees rather than talent, effort, attitude, matchups, etc. I've never seen anyone here (or elsewhere) suggest that sort of misguided "loyalty" should be a guiding principle.

The coach's loyalty in that regard is first to the team, the university which has invested resources in the team, and the fan base...not placating disgruntled athletes who feel entitled to PT.

On the other hand, what fits all common definitions of "loyalty" is not only reasonable, it should be one of the top requirements of any coach. The coaches are obligated to players and their families to provide for the players' pbysical and mental well-being. Coaches should give their best efforts to develop their players' talents and give them opportunities to thrive as athletes. Coaches should model and foster good character in their players and give them opportunities to develop healthy relationships as teammates and members of their communities. Coaches should honor obligations to demand academic excellence to insure that the players receive an outstanding education. Coaches should have their players' backs and not throw them under the bus or humialite players publicly. Those are just some of the ways that coaches demonstrate "loyalty."

I think you can see that no one was disagreeing with you about: the coach's obligation re: playing time for individuals. What you were referring to was guaranteeing playing status regardless of other factors. That's why the coaches you mentioned (and I eould include Kellie) say they don't offer guarantees, just opportunities. Playing time has to be earned. Adopting this approach means tbe coach never has to become a liar by reneging upon promises made that were never kept.

I submit that parents and players would be surprised/shocked/alarmed to hear or read a quote from a coach saying that "loyalty is unreasonable." Opponents would have a field day on the recruiting trail with that sound bite. We're not disagreeing with your sentiments, just your wording. Hope you can look back at your post and see the humor and perhaps agree that there might be a problem therein.

Then again, maybe some recruits like the idea of disloyal coaches.

Yeah, loyalty wasn't the right word for what I was trying to get at. I meant to say guarantee, as in just because you were recruited to play shooting guard doesn't mean that the team won't continue to recruit shooting guards who may pass you on the depth chart.

I'm not for taking away scholarships without cause earlier than 4 years, but I think a good coach will sit a player down who is not destined to see actual playing time and be honest with them so they can assess their options.