I debated starting another thread on the enigma of Pastner, but this is something that is just bugging me...

Josh tried to block Austin transferring last year. He initially denied the waiver for UVA because he felt they had tampered with Austin.

Josh is now openly recruiting a kid who had committed to Memphis.

When Cal took the UK job, Josh began calling recruits to go to UK.

When he then got the Memphis job, Josh perpetuated the dialog that Cal took the Memphis recruiting class when he left (1 of 2 commits).

Josh is now openly recruiting 1 of 2 Memphis commits.

...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

(05-02-2016 08:05 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I debated starting another thread on the enigma of Pastner, but this is something that is just bugging me...

Josh tried to block Austin transferring last year. He initially denied the waiver for UVA because he felt they had tampered with Austin.

Josh is now openly recruiting a kid who had committed to Memphis.

When Cal took the UK job, Josh began calling recruits to go to UK.

When he then got the Memphis job, Josh perpetuated the dialog that Cal took the Memphis recruiting class when he left (1 of 2 commits).

Josh is now openly recruiting 1 of 2 Memphis commits.

If we could've kept DeMarcus Cousins and Xavier Henry (I think both were signed) after Cal left, it would have made a difference. If we could've kept Austin, it would have made a difference, but not as much. If we could've kept Charlie Moore, it might have made a difference, who knows?

But as much as I liked Austin and as much as I would have liked to see the first two play for Memphis, if you had given me a choice a month ago to either keep all four players and Pastner or lose 'em all, Pastner would still have been gone in a heartbeat.

If Moore wants to play for him, let him. I'm in a really agreeable mood these days.

(05-02-2016 08:09 PM)SigEpMike Wrote:  ...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

He got a release from the remaining admin - not from Pastner. Pastner refused the release initially on Austin. And Austin didn't want to come to Memphis either.

Hey, open it up and let them all transfer and play immediately - fine with me.

But the reputation of Pastner as this guy who is squeaky clean is just smoke.

Are analogies still part of college entrance exams?

(05-02-2016 08:29 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  If we could've kept DeMarcus Cousins and Xavier Henry (I think both were signed) after Cal left, it would have made a difference. If we could've kept Austin, it would have made a difference, but not as much. If we could've kept Charlie Moore, it might have made a difference, who knows?

But as much as I liked Austin and as much as I would have liked to see the first two play for Memphis, if you had given me a choice a month ago to either keep all four players and Pastner or lose 'em all, Pastner would still have been gone in a heartbeat.

If Moore wants to play for him, let him. I'm in a really agreeable mood these days.

Henry was the only player who had actually signed. Cousins had only committed to Memphis.

(05-02-2016 08:35 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:09 PM)SigEpMike Wrote:  ...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

He got a release from the remaining admin - not from Pastner. Pastner refused the release initially on Austin. And Austin didn't want to come to Memphis either.

Hey, open it up and let them all transfer and play immediately - fine with me.

But the reputation of Pastner as this guy who is squeaky clean is just smoke.

Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis.

(05-02-2016 09:32 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:35 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:09 PM)SigEpMike Wrote:  ...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

He got a release from the remaining admin - not from Pastner. Pastner refused the release initially on Austin. And Austin didn't want to come to Memphis either.

Hey, open it up and let them all transfer and play immediately - fine with me.

But the reputation of Pastner as this guy who is squeaky clean is just smoke.

Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis.

Mmmm...let's see...

"Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis."

Or...

It's my understanding that Austin wanted to come to Memphis. It was his Dad that didn't want him to come.

Both communicate the same message, however one is rather juvenile, perhaps even antagonistic and promotes a defensive response. The other is more mature and promotes mutual discussion.

He reopened his recruiting, Pastner, Tubby and Damon should all go after him. The coaches that recruited him at Memphis are no longer here. When a coach leaves, most players go elsewhere, and they should, I would.

I would question any recruit wanting to follow Pastner. Pastner turned Memphis into a program where players already here were trying to get away from, and if he had stayed his 2016-2017 class would have proved it. It’s GT’s problem now.

#gladthenightmareisover

(05-02-2016 08:29 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  If we could've kept DeMarcus Cousins and Xavier Henry (I think both were signed) after Cal left, it would have made a difference. If we could've kept Austin, it would have made a difference, but not as much. If we could've kept Charlie Moore, it might have made a difference, who knows?

But as much as I liked Austin and as much as I would have liked to see the first two play for Memphis, if you had given me a choice a month ago to either keep all four players and Pastner or lose 'em all, Pastner would still have been gone in a heartbeat.

If Moore wants to play for him, let him. I'm in a really agreeable mood these days.

To be honest, of all the issues I had with the way Calipari left, I never had a problem with Henry leaving for Kansas and Wall and Cousins following Cal to Kentucky(even though they had never signed a Memphis LOI).

If a player wants to play for a specific coach I think it is petty to try and force him to attend a school where that coach is no longer employed. The same goes for Moore wanting to play for Pastner. The same should apply if Tech has recruits singed by Tubby that would want to follow him to Memphis.

The NCAA has always maintained that the player signs with the school, not the coach. That has always been a BS position to take as far as I am concerned.

The catch 22 is the coach uses resources provided by the university to recruit for their interests. The coach is paid big bucks in salary and one of his primary responsibilities is to recruit. Do you think it’s fair for the university to lose funds on what they thought was in their best interest? Remember the coach’s new school didn’t spend their money to recruit them.

Or should coaches follow Roy Williams’ lead who did not allow his players or recruits to follow him to another program? I agree with the NCAA on this one because the school actually paid in good faith for the recruitment(s).

Like I said it’s a catch 22.

(05-03-2016 02:11 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  The catch 22 is the coach uses resources provided by the university to recruit for their interests. The coach is paid big bucks in salary and one of his primary responsibilities is to recruit. Do you think it’s fair for the university to lose funds on what they thought was in their best interest? Remember the coach’s new school didn’t spend their money to recruit them.

Or should coaches follow Roy Williams’ lead who did not allow his players or recruits to follow him to another program? I agree with the NCAA on this one because the school actually paid in good faith for the recruitment(s).

Like I said it’s a catch 22.

It is no doubt a catch 22 when it comes to expenditures, but my feeling is that the expenditures should be secondary to a recruits wishes.

I would not want a recruit that feels "trapped' by a school. It leads to emotions, none of which are positive. Remember, the vast majority of these recruits will need a college education for when their sports playing days are over. The University educational experience will suffer when a recruit is "held hostage" by a LOI and has to attend a school where the coach he has built a strong relationship with is no longer going to be a part of his university life.

So, yes, a school spends significant resources in the recruitment process. That's the cost of doing business.

That's also why you have a buyout clause when the coach leaves to mitigate those costs.

(05-03-2016 02:11 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  The catch 22 is the coach uses resources provided by the university to recruit for their interests. The coach is paid big bucks in salary and one of his primary responsibilities is to recruit. Do you think it’s fair for the university to lose funds on what they thought was in their best interest? Remember the coach’s new school didn’t spend their money to recruit them.

Or should coaches follow Roy Williams’ lead who did not allow his players or recruits to follow him to another program? I agree with the NCAA on this one because the school actually paid in good faith for the recruitment(s).

Like I said it’s a catch 22.

Yet when its the opposite (i.e. school has to replace their own coach...odds are they hire a coach who is already employed elsewhere, who obviously had been targeting his own recruits/targets over the previous year with his then current employer...yet the new school doesn't have a problem benefiting off that)?

So which is it?

The coach that left your school can't use any of his past contacts with targets over the previous year at his new school...or the incoming coach at your school can't use any of his past recruiting contacts/targets?

Fans generally only look at what their old coach is doing and not their new one.

(05-02-2016 10:38 PM)papajohn Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:32 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:35 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:09 PM)SigEpMike Wrote:  ...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

He got a release from the remaining admin - not from Pastner. Pastner refused the release initially on Austin. And Austin didn't want to come to Memphis either.

Hey, open it up and let them all transfer and play immediately - fine with me.

But the reputation of Pastner as this guy who is squeaky clean is just smoke.

Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis.

Mmmm...let's see...

"Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis."

Or...

It's my understanding that Austin wanted to come to Memphis. It was his Dad that didn't want him to come.

Both communicate the same message, however one is rather juvenile, perhaps even antagonistic and promotes a defensive response. The other is more mature and promotes mutual discussion.

consider the source

(05-02-2016 09:32 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:35 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:09 PM)SigEpMike Wrote:  ...one of our two commits who has received a release from his LOI, who re-opened his recruitment and who doesn't want to come to Memphis.

He got a release from the remaining admin - not from Pastner. Pastner refused the release initially on Austin. And Austin didn't want to come to Memphis either.

Hey, open it up and let them all transfer and play immediately - fine with me.

But the reputation of Pastner as this guy who is squeaky clean is just smoke.

Dude you need to put down the bong you have had enough. Austin wanted to come to Memphis it was his Dad that did not want him to come to Memphis.

Uh, yea...okay...keep following that script.

(05-02-2016 10:59 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  He reopened his recruiting, Pastner, Tubby and Damon should all go after him. The coaches that recruited him at Memphis are no longer here. When a coach leaves, most players go elsewhere, and they should, I would.

Missing the point. I agree - let them go wherever they want to.

The point is about Pastner perpetuating this whole image of "Cal stole all the recruits". And "Austin is treating us unfairly - we don't have time to find replacements".

When given the chance, he does the same thing. But Cal is slimy and Pastner is squeaky clean.

It's just funny to do a quick search of Georgia Tech recruiting and see Charlie Moore there. If Charlie Moore had the talent of Xavier Henry or Demarcus Cousins or John Wall, we would probably be a lot more worked up about it. The level of talent is really the only thing differentiating what Cal did and what Josh is doing.

I think the more interesting question are the ethics of pastner in regards to recruit.

If I recall correctly, Pastner was recruiting some high level player to Arizona but then refused to continue recruiting him when he came here, didn't think it was ethical.

He then tried to recruit Bledsoe, Wall, etc. away from Memphis when he was going to Kentucky.

He now is trying to recruit a player that he recruited at Memphis when he was here.

So, it's ok to do that in Pastner's mind but only when it hurts Memphis