I would hope everyone here's learned to stop taking Vitale's opinions seriously when it comes to these things.
Vitale might be a nice guy, but he's proven time and again to be nothing but a shameless shill with blinders on when it comes to the old-guard big money coaching establishment. Doesn't matter what guys like Boeheim and Roy do, Vitale will ALWAYS be their apologist.
Doesn't matter what guys like Boeheim and Roy do, Vitale will ALWAYS be their apologist.
Did the same with Paterno. Caught a lot of flack.
Did the same with Paterno. Caught a lot of flack.
If you've read anything of Vitale's personal history - which he's pretty open about - it's easy to see that he's biased and where that bias comes from. Getting fired as a coach was, in his own words, the hardest thing he's ever gone through, to the point that it made him suicidal, or at least consider that option. Given that kind of baggage, it's no surprise really that he's always going to come down on the side of the coach.
That's not an excuse or justification, just an explanation. So I don't really listen to what he says about coaches on a hot seat, certainly don't take offense to it....
yes, it is ...3 scholarships a year for 4 years is a joke....how often do players 11, 12, and 13 see the court? rarely so it isn't that big of a deal
From the article:
"After all, as he told scouts who wanted to know why he had faced academic problems, he had just recently learned English."
You have to admit that is funny. A lot of these elitist-minded schools in the Northeast (and the "Harvard of the South"- UNC) give UK and other SEC schools such crap for admitting some players because our universities have such "low standards" compared to their elite universities.
"After all, as he told scouts who wanted to know why he had faced academic problems, he had just recently learned English."
You have to admit that is funny. A lot of these elitist-minded schools in the Northeast (and the "Harvard of the South"- UNC) give UK and other SEC schools such crap for admitting some players because our universities have such "low standards" compared to their elite universities.
For schools that can't just pick elite recruits each year it certainly hurts. At the very least it cuts out any margin of error for bringing in projects. Syracuse's recruiting has really tailed off over the past 3 seasons, and the cloud from this scandal will probably compound make it even more difficult.
Basically agree. For a school of Syracuse's status, I'm not sure the scholly restriction will make much difference. They've still got 10 scholly spots per year, which easily covers the entire playing rotation for every team in the country. As long as you have blue chippers at your rotation spots, does it really matter much how good your 11th through 13th benchwarmers are?
For example, if this UK team were subject to the same sanctions, all it would likely mean is that we wouldn't have had schollies to offer Derek Willis and Dominique Hawkins. But we'd still have all of our starters and rotation players--so how much would we actually be hurt?
Since Syracuse will be under the microscope for a few years, the scholarship restrictions will hurt them because they will have to be pickier about who they recruit, and make sure they can actually pass classes, remain in school, and maintain their APR. That probably hasn't been a concern for them in the past.