KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: stormnut on September 18, 2007, 12:51:58 PM
-
Let our recurits go!!!! :jail: :popcorn: :billypopcorn:
-
Seriously, one does have to wonder...
what's the guy's credentials?
-
what's the guy's credentials?
(http://www.photoshopessentials.com/images/type/effects/plastic/fill-with-black.gif)
-
Even if we don't get the Browns (like they'd be a slam dunk without BB in the picture, LOL), a successful Brian Butler is a long term positive for KSU.
He's basically an AAU coach, and AAU coaches are good.
-
Don't worry, Franklin already told Butler to frack off!
-
Even if we don't get the Browns (like they'd be a slam dunk without BB in the picture, LOL), a successful Brian Butler is a long term positive for KSU.
He's basically an AAU coach, and AAU coaches are good.
QFT. But from some of the things that have been said/alleged, we have opted to not "work" with Butler.
-
Even if we don't get the Browns (like they'd be a slam dunk without BB in the picture, LOL), a successful Brian Butler is a long term positive for KSU.
He's basically an AAU coach, and AAU coaches are good.
QFT. But from some of the things that have been said/alleged, we have opted to not "work" with Butler.
It sounds like things improved (joking w/ coaches @ KSU camp).
I forgot to mention that having a healthy relationship with Butler is necessary, but figured it was obvious.
-
Do you think he got ahold of Broderick Smith only after we offered?
-
Do you think he got ahold of Broderick Smith only after we offered?
You're asking me?
Like I know.
-
Do you think he got ahold of Broderick Smith only after we offered?
You're asking me?
No, I'm asking society.
-
"He's basically an AAU coach, and AAU coaches are good."
AAU coaches sort through (censor, really) recruits mail?
-
"He's basically an AAU coach, and AAU coaches are good."
AAU coaches sort through (censor, really) recruits mail?
I'm sure lots of them do. (censor, LOL)
-
"I'm sure lots of them do. (censor, LOL)"
Why sort though mail which isn't yours...and apparently just mail from some (not all) recruits if you are not censoring it?
Where are all the examples of these AAU coaches sorting through mail of prospective recruits? If you are sure, I am sure there are numerous examples.
-
WE LOVE BRIAN! BUTLER!
-
"I'm sure lots of them do. (censor, LOL)"
Why sort though mail which isn't yours...and apparently just mail from some (not all) recruits if you are not censoring it?
Arthur Brown asks you to? Where did you read that Butler sorts the mail anyway?
Where are all the examples of these AAU coaches sorting through mail of prospective recruits? If you are sure, I am sure there are numerous examples.
I couldn't find any specific examples, but I couldn't find an article that said Butler was sorting Brown's mail, either (see above).
Either way, how is sorting junk mail significantly different from AAU coaches receiving phone calls from college coaches?
-
FATTYY WE LOVES BRIAN! BUTLER!
-
From the Wichita Eagle and everyone's favorite sports writer...Jeffrey Martin!
]http://www.810whb.com/scripts/archives/getstory.asp?article=14964&string=noSearch] (http://www.810whb.com/scripts/archives/getstory.asp?article=14964&string=noSearch)
"He receives recruiting mail addressed to the Browns."
Addressed to the Browns. Key words. Sure, I don't see anything saying the Browns don't have any problem with that. They may not. That's really not my point. Your next question really leads me to that point however.
"Either way, how is sorting junk mail significantly different from AAU coaches receiving phone calls from college coaches?"
Junk mail? All of this mail is recruiting related, it's not the Piggly Wiggly circular. So, who determines what the *junk* is? Butler, not Brown? Or, Brown not Butler? Sounds to me like Butler make the determination for mail which is not addressed to him. I believe it should be up to the recipient of the mail to determine what is junk, and what is not.
Rusty, I don't believe there is a significant difference than an AAU coach receiving a phone call (a junk phone call, as you term it apparently) and mail addressed to them. If they jump on the recruits phone and take the call...then I have a problem.
How much mail has been dismissed by Butler (even though it was addressed to the Browns) as junk?
-
From the Wichita Eagle and everyone's favorite sports writer...Jeffrey Martin!
]http://www.810whb.com/scripts/archives/getstory.asp?article=14964&string=noSearch] (http://www.810whb.com/scripts/archives/getstory.asp?article=14964&string=noSearch)
"He receives recruiting mail addressed to the Browns."
Addressed to the Browns. Key words. Sure, I don't see anything saying the Browns don't have any problem with that.
That's poorly written. It sounds, to me, like the mail is being simply sent to Butler's (Potential Players') address w/ Arthur or Bryce's name on it, like this:
Arthur Brown
c/o Potential Players
1 Brian Butler Way
Wichita, KS
It doesn't say anything about him "sorting" it. Anything we infer beyond that is blind speculation on our part.
Junk mail? All of this mail is recruiting related, it's not the Piggly Wiggly circular. So, who determines what the *junk* is? Butler, not Brown? Or, Brown not Butler? Sounds to me like Butler make the determination for mail which is not addressed to him.
Sounds to me like you're engaging in wild speculation.
I believe it should be up to the recipient of the mail to determine what is junk, and what is not.
So do I. This doesn't change the fact that a healthy relationship with a successful Butler helps us more than hurts us.
-
We should chant Brian Butler's name at football games.
-
It sounds, to me, like the mail is being simply sent to Butler's (Potential Players') address w/ Arthur or Bryant's name on it, like this:
Arthur Brown
c/o Potential Players
1 Brian Butler Way
Wichita, KS
If it were addressed any other way, wouldn't it be a federal offense for butler to throw it away?
P.S. It's Bryce, not Bryant.
-
thx
:peek:
-
We should chant Brian Butler's name at football games.
That is a pretty good idea.
-
I could give a crap less who handles whose mail.
I just want some confirmation that our coaches are sucking Butler's dick at every available opportuniy.
I agree with Rusty in a way...having the "AAU Coach" role consolidates the contact point for many recruits, versus having to navigate through multiple History Teacher/Football Coaches. However, if that relationship is not top-notch, this is the worst thing that could ever happen to us.
What I expect to happen, is for Butler to ultimately lean on us to take questionable lower ranked guys in return for his continued favor on the bigger guys.
-
Let our recurits go!!!! :jail: :popcorn: :billypopcorn:
I like that sig gif.
I hadn't realized that a UT trainer actually smacked Colt in the head with a helmet. That probably made his injury worse. Tough break for them on that one.
-
thx
:peek:
just take it easy on me if I ever flub up some Basketball knowledge.
-
"Sounds to me like you're engaging in wild speculation."
Of course it is speculation. You can term it wild if you like.
I find the excuses made for this amazing. It's poorly written? This is coming from the writer this board just virtually can't live without!
Maybe "sorting" isn't the right term. Why is he receiving mail though? Do the Brown's not have a mailbox?
"This doesn't change the fact that a healthy relationship with a successful Butler helps us more than hurts us."
What is healthy about the relationship when he impugns the motives of K-State's recrutiing the way he does. A relationship is a two way street.
-
...Arthur or Bryant's...
P.S. It's Bryce, not Bryant.
Rusty was just craving some BBQ.
-
What is healthy about the relationship when he impugns the motives of K-State's recrutiing the way he does. A relationship is a two way street.
Not when it comes to GATEKEEPER (or J-Mart, come to think of it).
Butler could rape Prince's dog and clean up the dirty with a Power Towel, and Prince had better keep things cool.
Brian Butler is the program, nay, he is BIGGER than the program. Nothing else matters in the universe 'cept keeping Butler happy. And if Butler isn't happy, Prince should be fired.
And if you can't figure that out, you're just a PowerTard.
and prolly believe in silly things like point guards in basketball
-
I find the excuses made for this amazing. It's poorly written? This is coming from the writer this board just virtually can't live without!
How is that an excuse? It's poorly written because it could be interpreted a lot of ways. (You making the leap to "censorship", for example). Do you disagree?
Maybe "sorting" isn't the right term. Why is he receiving mail though? Do the Brown's not have a mailbox?
He's receiving mail because coaches recognize Butler as an important figure in their recruitment. I'm sure the Brown's receive plenty of mail at their house, too. Colleges send mail directly to high schools...how is sending mail to Potential Players any different?
What is healthy about the relationship when he impugns the motives of K-State's recrutiing the way he does. A relationship is a two way street.
If his remarks in on KSU's in-state recruiting have any real impact on KSU's recruiting whatsoever, it's on Prince and his staff, not Butler. Any competent recruiter should be able to work around that easily, and it sounds like the staff has (again, refer to Butler joking with KSU coaches at the KSU camp).
-
I hope this turns into a Brian Butler vs. J-mart vs. Ron Prince thread. We haven't had one of those in about 2 months.
-
I hope this turns into a Brian Butler vs. J-mart vs. Ron Prince thread. We haven't had one of those in about 2 months.
JF's stats are getting better. Wonder if he will get on the + side of the TD to INT stat after the Texas game?
-
One of us needs to turn into the Brian Butler of Manhattan/Topeka/Lawrence.
-
Salina needs a Brian Butler.
Olathe could stand to have a mini-Butler.
-
Brian Butler is viewed more on this board as an excuse than he's recognized as a man. Some of you really need to adjust the level of retard juice you're drinking.
-
"He's receiving mail because coaches recognize Butler as an important figure in their recruitment. I'm sure the Brown's receive plenty of mail at their house, too. Colleges send mail directly to high schools...how is sending mail to Potential Players any different?
You are calling me out for MY speculation? Butler obviously is an important figure here...it seems he has made himself one rather the the Brown's have made him one (JMO). Therein is my lack of trust. If coaches want to send him mail, addressed to him...fine. He's not just receiving mail....he's receiving the Browns mail. What he is doing with that mail is, yes, speculation. Just as is the Brown's receive a lot of mail addressed to them that Butler never sees. Can anyone tell me that is the case? If it is, I am fine with the situation you speculate on Rusty. Something tells me that's not the case though...and thus my concerns.
Let's continue to find ways to explain this all away though...and empower people other than the recruit and family to make these decisions and have all the information.
I know, I know. He just wants to help *the children*. I see more of a push here than that.
-
"He's receiving mail because coaches recognize Butler as an important figure in their recruitment. I'm sure the Brown's receive plenty of mail at their house, too. Colleges send mail directly to high schools...how is sending mail to Potential Players any different?
You are calling me out for MY speculation? Butler obviously is an important figure here...it seems he has made himself one rather the the Brown's have made him one (JMO). Therein is my lack of trust. If coaches want to send him mail, addressed to him...fine. He's not just receiving mail....he's receiving the Browns mail. What he is doing with that mail is, yes, speculation. Just as is the Brown's receive a lot of mail addressed to them that Butler never sees. Can anyone tell me that is the case? If it is, I am fine with the situation you speculate on Rusty. Something tells me that's not the case though...and thus my concerns.
Let's continue to find ways to explain this all away though...and empower people other than the recruit and family to make these decisions and have all the information.
I know, I know. He just wants to help *the children*. I see more of a push here than that.
We're just going in circles here.
Even if Butler doesn't give Brown all his mail, makes himself an important part of Brown's recruitment rather than Brown making Butler an important part, isn't really in it to help the children, whatever....a good relationship with Butler is a positive for KSU football.
That's all I'm saying. I don't care about the other stuff.
-
"He's receiving mail because coaches recognize Butler as an important figure in their recruitment. I'm sure the Brown's receive plenty of mail at their house, too. Colleges send mail directly to high schools...how is sending mail to Potential Players any different?
You are calling me out for MY speculation? Butler obviously is an important figure here...it seems he has made himself one rather the the Brown's have made him one (JMO). Therein is my lack of trust. If coaches want to send him mail, addressed to him...fine. He's not just receiving mail....he's receiving the Browns mail. What he is doing with that mail is, yes, speculation. Just as is the Brown's receive a lot of mail addressed to them that Butler never sees. Can anyone tell me that is the case? If it is, I am fine with the situation you speculate on Rusty. Something tells me that's not the case though...and thus my concerns.
Let's continue to find ways to explain this all away though...and empower people other than the recruit and family to make these decisions and have all the information.
I know, I know. He just wants to help *the children*. I see more of a push here than that.
We're just going in circles here.
Even if Butler doesn't give Brown all his mail, makes himself an important part of Brown's recruitment rather than Brown making Butler an important part, isn't really in it to help the children, whatever....a good relationship with Butler is a positive for KSU football.
That's all I'm saying. I don't care about the other stuff.
Do you not find something inherently wrong with a third party speaking for someone's kid and his interests in the way Butler is doing it?
I'm all for K-State having good relations with coaches of kids we're going after. I think it's a great thing for a coach to be involved in the decision process for one of his players. It's expected and certainly is good for everyone concerned.
When a coach is receiving mail for a kid and he becomes the custodian of that mail, it is an implied conflict of interest. The coach then becomes a power player he has no business in becoming. He should be nothing more than an advisor at best for a kid. the mail may just be one more thing, but if Butler is steering the recruitment, acting as a clearinghouse, then it's wrong.
-
...Arthur or Bryant's...
P.S. It's Bryce, not Bryant.
Rusty was just craving some BBQ.
:peek:
-
Do you not find something inherently wrong with a third party speaking for someone's kid and his interests in the way Butler is doing it?
Not really. Other than the KSU doesn't recruit Kansas comments, everything he's said has been pretty much irrelevant.
I'm all for K-State having good relations with coaches of kids we're going after. I think it's a great thing for a coach to be involved in the decision process for one of his players. It's expected and certainly is good for everyone concerned.
When a coach is receiving mail for a kid and he becomes the custodian of that mail, it is an implied conflict of interest. The coach then becomes a power player he has no business in becoming. He should be nothing more than an advisor at best for a kid. the mail may just be one more thing, but if Butler is steering the recruitment, acting as a clearinghouse, then it's wrong.
OK.
1) As Fausto and I have already established, what happens to the Browns' mail is pure speculation.
2) Even if Butler is censoring mail, steering the recruitment, acting as a clearinghouse, etc., that just makes him a stronger ally than a simple contact to the children. I'd be thrilled if Curtis Malone was filtering Wally Judge's mail, because I know Dalonte Hill has a strong relationship with Malone. The same would apply to Butler/Brown/Prince.
-
Do you not find something inherently wrong with a third party speaking for someone's kid and his interests in the way Butler is doing it?
Not really. Other than the KSU doesn't recruit Kansas comments, everything he's said has been pretty much irrelevant.
I'm all for K-State having good relations with coaches of kids we're going after. I think it's a great thing for a coach to be involved in the decision process for one of his players. It's expected and certainly is good for everyone concerned.
When a coach is receiving mail for a kid and he becomes the custodian of that mail, it is an implied conflict of interest. The coach then becomes a power player he has no business in becoming. He should be nothing more than an advisor at best for a kid. the mail may just be one more thing, but if Butler is steering the recruitment, acting as a clearinghouse, then it's wrong.
OK.
1) As Fausto and I have already established, what happens to the Browns' mail is pure speculation.
2) Even if Butler is censoring mail, steering the recruitment, acting as a clearinghouse, etc., that just makes him a stronger ally than a simple contact to the children. I'd be thrilled if Curtis Malone was filtering Wally Judge's mail, because I know Dalonte Hill has a strong relationship with Malone. The same would apply to Butler/Brown/Prince.
Interesting response, if not completely unresponsive or irresponsible.
As a parent, I would have a serious problem with a coach acting as an agent for my kids interest other than an advisory role. Getting mail from ANYONE with my kids name "in care of" someone else indicates that Butler is assuming a role he shouldn't be part of. You can hide behind the "it's all speculation and so we should look the other way" if you choose, but as a parent, I wouldn't, and would make it clear to Butler that such activities are not his to worry about. He wants to be a coach, fine. He wants to be an advisor, fine. I don't need him to get mail for my kids through a third party organization. I think there are rules about that in the NCAA for someone acting as a proxy.
-
Does right or wrong matter? To use an overused cliche...it is what it is.
-
Seriously, one does have to wonder...
what's the guy's credentials?
He wants to "help the children." Didn't you get the memo?
-
As a parent, I would have a serious problem with a coach acting as an agent for my kids interest other than an advisory role. Getting mail from ANYONE with my kids name "in care of" someone else indicates that Butler is assuming a role he shouldn't be part of. You can hide behind the "it's all speculation and so we should look the other way" if you choose, but as a parent, I wouldn't, and would make it clear to Butler that such activities are not his to worry about. He wants to be a coach, fine. He wants to be an advisor, fine. I don't need him to get mail for my kids through a third party organization. I think there are rules about that in the NCAA for someone acting as a proxy.
High school coaches have been doing everything you described for years.
Are you saying that sending your kid to play high school football is irresponsible?
-
As a parent, I would have a serious problem with a coach acting as an agent for my kids interest other than an advisory role. Getting mail from ANYONE with my kids name "in care of" someone else indicates that Butler is assuming a role he shouldn't be part of. You can hide behind the "it's all speculation and so we should look the other way" if you choose, but as a parent, I wouldn't, and would make it clear to Butler that such activities are not his to worry about. He wants to be a coach, fine. He wants to be an advisor, fine. I don't need him to get mail for my kids through a third party organization. I think there are rules about that in the NCAA for someone acting as a proxy.
High school coaches have been doing everything you described for years.
Are you saying that sending your kid to play high school football is irresponsible?
Really? They set up websites as a means to market their skills in player development and take kids mail for them?
How many more site are out there?
I know of schools getting kids mailed because recruiting coaches will mail it when they don't have the kids personal information. There is nothing wrong with that. In my experience, the coach gives the mail to the kid, usually, unopened.
-
I've received recruiting letters... they were to community colleges :'(
-
Really? They set up websites as a means to market their skills in player development and take kids mail for them?
Yes, they receive mail all the time, and I don't see why you'd have a problem with the website.
I know of schools getting kids mailed because recruiting coaches will mail it when they don't have the kids personal information. There is nothing wrong with that. In my experience, the coach gives the mail to the kid, usually, unopened.
Neat story. How is this different from what Butler does again?
-
Junior College coaches certainly do screen recruiters for players that were placed at their school.
Very different situation from HS though.
-
He's opening more doors for kids in the middle of ks that would have been overlooked otherwise. I can't hate him.
-
Really? They set up websites as a means to market their skills in player development and take kids mail for them?
Yes, they receive mail all the time, and I don't see why you'd have a problem with the website.
I know of schools getting kids mailed because recruiting coaches will mail it when they don't have the kids personal information. There is nothing wrong with that. In my experience, the coach gives the mail to the kid, usually, unopened.
Neat story. How is this different from what Butler does again?
If you don't see a problem with it, then I guess there isn't a problem because you won't question the obvious implication.
It's like this. If I'm a recruit, I'm allowing my coach to be more than just an advisor. I'm giving him the ability to influence my decision that he really shouldn't have. In turn, that gives him the power to make contacts and possibly deals that are outside the scope of his responsibility. As a parent, that's not what I would want for my kid. May you would with your kids.
Let's say that he works a deal with a recruiter from LSU. Nice guys, go out to bars, provide some "incentive" to influence a recruit. Don't think it can happen if the coach or 3rd party mail address doesn't provide offers? Your coach can become a defacto agent. In other words, if KSU has to kiss ass in order to see a premiere recruit to a coach, do you not see what the potential for conflict would be? If that coach likes the recruiter, then more than likely, the coach can influence things such as visits, communications, etc. He can become a front. I'm not saying that Butler is doing any of those things, but it raises fundamental questions, that may violate NCAA regulations, which would impact the recruit.
While such things may exist, that doesn't make it right, and I think a lot of people who want integrity in the program want to ensure that nothing like that happens. That being said, if the parents are OK with it, and the school doesn't mind, then fine. Does that make it right to do? I think KSU should keep good relations with Butler, but if that's what's required to get recruit visits, to get access to the top recruits, then that's a problem. The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
You would agree that kids should be able to get visits from ANY coach showing interest regardless of what the coach thinks of the recruiter, right?
-
Were you furious over this? (http://cjonline.com/stories/050499/spo_ksunotes.shtml)
As for the possibility Scobey may be looking at other four-year schools, NEO coach Dale Patterson sounded as if his star back was destined for K-State as part of its 2000 recruiting class.
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
Coach Patterson certainly had a conflict of interests when he interceded on Scobey's behalf.
-
Were you furious over this? (http://cjonline.com/stories/050499/spo_ksunotes.shtml)
As for the possibility Scobey may be looking at other four-year schools, NEO coach Dale Patterson sounded as if his star back was destined for K-State as part of its 2000 recruiting class.
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
Coach Patterson certainly had a conflict of interests when he interceded on Scobey's behalf.
I'm not furious over any of it. I'm merely demonstrating the potential for abuse and the apparent "Well it may benefit us so we can overlook it for now".
-
So you overlooked it for Scobey?
KSU's Moral Authority - mjrod
The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
You're feigning all this outrage over the possibility of abuse in the Butler situation, but nothing from you on what went down with Scobey?
KSU's Moral Authority - mjrod
You would agree that kids should be able to get visits from ANY coach showing interest regardless of what the coach thinks of the recruiter, right?
Coach Snyder asked Josh Scobey to go to a CC coach who says a definitive "NO!" to your question.
-
Let's say that he works a deal with a recruiter from LSU. Nice guys, go out to bars, provide some "incentive" to influence a recruit. Don't think it can happen if the coach or 3rd party mail address doesn't provide offers? Your coach can become a defacto agent. In other words, if KSU has to kiss ass in order to see a premiere recruit to a coach, do you not see what the potential for conflict would be? If that coach likes the recruiter, then more than likely, the coach can influence things such as visits, communications, etc. He can become a front. I'm not saying that Butler is doing any of those things, but it raises fundamental questions, that may violate NCAA regulations, which would impact the recruit.
While such things may exist, that doesn't make it right, and I think a lot of people who want integrity in the program want to ensure that nothing like that happens. That being said, if the parents are OK with it, and the school doesn't mind, then fine. Does that make it right to do? I think KSU should keep good relations with Butler, but if that's what's required to get recruit visits, to get access to the top recruits, then that's a problem. The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
Is this really that much different from hiring the coach (or in some cases, truck-driver) in order to get a recruit? If a recruit more or less makes it known that they'll follow the coach wherever he goes, then it's pretty much the same scenario -- while the recruit isn't getting paid to play, the coach can go wherever he gets the best offer and completely steer the recruit there.
Our basketball program's success next year in part depends on this practice.
-
So you overlooked it for Scobey?
KSU's Moral Authority - mjrod
The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
You're feigning all this outrage over the possibility of abuse in the Butler situation, but nothing from you on what went down with Scobey?
KSU's Moral Authority - mjrod
You would agree that kids should be able to get visits from ANY coach showing interest regardless of what the coach thinks of the recruiter, right?
Coach Snyder asked Josh Scobey to go to a CC coach who says a definitive "NO!" to your question.
LOL!
I'm not feigning anything. I'm merely trying to point out the potential issue of abuse, of high school recruits for which you don't seem to be addressing. You'd rather look of for inconsistencies in what I'm saying with past examples that aren't exactly the same in nature.
With the issue of Patterson, Scobey did commit to KSU and I'm OK with a JUCO coach having a policy with placed players, assuming of course, there are exceptions which is not covered in the article.
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
-
Let's say that he works a deal with a recruiter from LSU. Nice guys, go out to bars, provide some "incentive" to influence a recruit. Don't think it can happen if the coach or 3rd party mail address doesn't provide offers? Your coach can become a defacto agent. In other words, if KSU has to kiss ass in order to see a premiere recruit to a coach, do you not see what the potential for conflict would be? If that coach likes the recruiter, then more than likely, the coach can influence things such as visits, communications, etc. He can become a front. I'm not saying that Butler is doing any of those things, but it raises fundamental questions, that may violate NCAA regulations, which would impact the recruit.
While such things may exist, that doesn't make it right, and I think a lot of people who want integrity in the program want to ensure that nothing like that happens. That being said, if the parents are OK with it, and the school doesn't mind, then fine. Does that make it right to do? I think KSU should keep good relations with Butler, but if that's what's required to get recruit visits, to get access to the top recruits, then that's a problem. The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
Is this really that much different from hiring the coach (or in some cases, truck-driver) in order to get a recruit? If a recruit more or less makes it known that they'll follow the coach wherever he goes, then it's pretty much the same scenario -- while the recruit isn't getting paid to play, the coach can go wherever he gets the best offer and completely steer the recruit there.
Our basketball program's success next year in part depends on this practice.
It's one of those things where the player goes where the coach does, as opposed to a high school coach telling you where you will go. I think there is a genuine distinction.
And in this distinction, as I said before, if everyone is OK with it, I don't have a problem with it.. unless the practice is abused to the detriment of the recruit and the integrity of the recruiting process.
-
Really? They set up websites as a means to market their skills in player development and take kids mail for them?
Yes, they receive mail all the time, and I don't see why you'd have a problem with the website.
I know of schools getting kids mailed because recruiting coaches will mail it when they don't have the kids personal information. There is nothing wrong with that. In my experience, the coach gives the mail to the kid, usually, unopened.
Neat story. How is this different from what Butler does again?
If you don't see a problem with it, then I guess there isn't a problem because you won't question the obvious implication.
It's like this. If I'm a recruit, I'm allowing my coach to be more than just an advisor. I'm giving him the ability to influence my decision that he really shouldn't have. In turn, that gives him the power to make contacts and possibly deals that are outside the scope of his responsibility. As a parent, that's not what I would want for my kid. May you would with your kids.
Let's say that he works a deal with a recruiter from LSU. Nice guys, go out to bars, provide some "incentive" to influence a recruit. Don't think it can happen if the coach or 3rd party mail address doesn't provide offers? Your coach can become a defacto agent. In other words, if KSU has to kiss ass in order to see a premiere recruit to a coach, do you not see what the potential for conflict would be? If that coach likes the recruiter, then more than likely, the coach can influence things such as visits, communications, etc. He can become a front. I'm not saying that Butler is doing any of those things, but it raises fundamental questions, that may violate NCAA regulations, which would impact the recruit.
While such things may exist, that doesn't make it right, and I think a lot of people who want integrity in the program want to ensure that nothing like that happens. That being said, if the parents are OK with it, and the school doesn't mind, then fine. Does that make it right to do? I think KSU should keep good relations with Butler, but if that's what's required to get recruit visits, to get access to the top recruits, then that's a problem. The recruit should be able to make a choice based on the decisions of everyone, including a coach who does not influence from a school.
You would agree that kids should be able to get visits from ANY coach showing interest regardless of what the coach thinks of the recruiter, right?
JFC, that's a sh*tload of speculation. Saying BB is honestly doing what he does just to help kids is just as plausible (maybe more so).
And in this distinction, as I said before, if everyone is OK with it, I don't have a problem with it.. unless the practice is abused to the detriment of the recruit and the integrity of the recruiting process.
When has the recruiting process EVER had integrity?
Finally, despite all your hypothetical rambling, you failed to either:
1) Distinguish what Brian Butler is doing from what high school coaches have been doing for years (other than having a website promoting his services).
2) Explain why Butler's involvement with current and future recruits doesn't help KSU, other than the fact that Butler COULD do things that COULD be considered to lack integrity (which every high school coach can do also).
-
Distinguish what Brian Butler is doing from what high school coaches have been doing for years (other than having a website promoting his services).
Butler's autonomy conveniently spares him any of that tiresome accountability nonsense. Danger lies ahead.
I personally don't care one way or the other about this whole scenario, because recruiting gossip is for wankers. That said, whenever someone starts invoking God or religion as their motivation or justification for anything, they draw my immediate skepticism.
kono
-
LOL!
I'm not feigning anything. I'm merely trying to point out the potential issue of abuse, of high school recruits for which you don't seem to be addressing. You'd rather look of for inconsistencies in what I'm saying with past examples that aren't exactly the same in nature.
With the issue of Patterson, Scobey did commit to KSU and I'm OK with a JUCO coach having a policy with placed players, assuming of course, there are exceptions which is not covered in the article.
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
Let me address your little question first.
There should definitely be oversight, and that's the role of Brown's parents. I've seen nothing that suggests Brown's participation with Butler is against their will, or that they have disapproved of anything Butler has done. Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue, and are fully aware and accepting of the going ons.
Do you think Brown's parents are providing any oversight here, or do you think they're just throwing their kid(s) out the door?
While you're pointing out the "potential" for abuse, I pointed out a clear cut case of your abuse. A coach that interceded to screen recruiters when the direct beneficiary of that action was the coach and not the player. You're OK with it if it is a JC player but not a HS player. Scobey had expressed very significant interest in OU and OSU prior to committing to KSU in HS, and at least OU had a coaching change while he was in JC (a world class upgrade at that). But Patterson wasn't letting anyone else talk to Scobey - by his own admission.
That's not me looking for inconsistencies in your position, it's a glaring contradiction in your position. You're "committed" excuse is pure bunk, and you know it. There was nothing binding at all in that commitment when Patterson was screening on his and KSU's behalf.
You've created your abuse strawman and railed against it, but only apply it to HS players. There's no consistency in your stance on "abuse" and it's just another case of you being ridiculous.
Butler's autonomy conveniently spares him any of that tiresome accountability nonsense. Danger lies ahead.
kono - Butler's autonomy is also his weakness. He doesn't have a position of power over the player that a HS coach could have unless the player chooses to join his little program. That is a major difference. And if Butler does abuse his position, word is going to spread rather quickly, and his little enterprise will go away like a fart in a tornado. What do you think happens if the Browns bad mouth Butler after this deal is done? Butler is out of business. A HS coach would still get a whole new class of kids. Butler has quite a bit more incentive to make sure the Brown's are successful in college than a HS coach does.
What I think is driving all this is the knowledge that, deep down, if the Brown's want to play for a team that will surround them with elite talent, putting them in the best position to excel, get NFL attention, win a NC, etc. the answer likely isn't KSU. We don't offer those things to the same extent as the other schools on his list.
KSU offers the chance to be the start of something, rather than just a cog in the wheel. Maybe that's what Brown will choose to do.
-
In addition to what KSU4ME already said:
Butler would not be able to run his Nike camps in the future if he ran into NCAA troubles, which would ruin his organization.
-
In addition to what KSU4ME already said:
Butler would not be able to run his Nike camps in the future if he ran into NCAA troubles, which would ruin his organization.
His organization isn't that important to him, it's getting this round of stars recruited and getting credentials. After that his organization can crumble and he wouldn't care, IMO.
-
What would "credentials" do for him, and how would he get "credentials" if he was caught cheating?
-
JFC, that's a sh*tload of speculation. Saying BB is honestly doing what he does just to help kids is just as plausible (maybe more so).
You're speculating everything's OK, no need to worry. I'm speculating that such things lends itself to abuse. You have no way of knowing which one is more plausible to than the other, except you're trying to dispense with any suggestion there may be something wrong, and standing by the naive approach "don't mess it with it until you see fire."
When has the recruiting process EVER had integrity?
Finally, despite all your hypothetical rambling, you failed to either:
1) Distinguish what Brian Butler is doing from what high school coaches have been doing for years (other than having a website promoting his services).
2) Explain why Butler's involvement with current and future recruits doesn't help KSU, other than the fact that Butler COULD do things that COULD be considered to lack integrity (which every high school coach can do also).
Well, then why do we need rules when in recruiting if you don't care about the integrity? I would think you'd be a little smarter than this and understand why the system has rules. I know the rules have been broken, that doesn't make it OK for someone to break them.
At the same time, you've never shown that other coaches do what Butler is doing, acting as a front for other recruits so much so that he has to receive mail via a private organization for recruits. Getting mail via the school is one thing, getting it via a private entity raises questions.
I'm not saying Butler is doing anything wrong. Again, I'm not suggesting that what is happening now is wrong or has irregularities. I'm suggesting, and reasonably so, that such a thing CAN lead to abuse (not could CAN) which would adversely impact a recruit if it happened. I think there should be oversight on this kind of activity to prevent abuse. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
On the other hand, if we take your approach, and just say "Well, it's all speculation." and nothing happens.. OK. If not.. then what?
-
Let me address your little question first.
There should definitely be oversight, and that's the role of Brown's parents. I've seen nothing that suggests Brown's participation with Butler is against their will, or that they have disapproved of anything Butler has done. Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue, and are fully aware and accepting of the going ons.
I didn't say that Brown's parents were not qualified to provide oversight. This isn't just about the Brown family, but any family that might be involved. Since I have a kid that had been going through the recruiting process (one with football) I think I can speak a little bit on the process and know what's happening. It was nice of you to demonstrate an ignorant position by trying to assume what I might be in relation to the Browns. No, my kid isn't going to become a superstar because he has chosen to pursue other interests and has given up football, but I think I can tell you that what's going on with Butler is out of the ordinary. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. Butler may have a better way to showcase his kids, and as long he demonstrates his interests are for the betterment of the kids without injury to them, then its fine by me.
Do you think Brown's parents are providing any oversight here, or do you think they're just throwing their kid(s) out the door?
I don't know nor will I speak for the Browns and haven't. It's irrelevant.
While you're pointing out the "potential" for abuse, I pointed out a clear cut case of your abuse. A coach that interceded to screen recruiters when the direct beneficiary of that action was the coach and not the player. You're OK with it if it is a JC player but not a HS player. Scobey had expressed very significant interest in OU and OSU prior to committing to KSU in HS, and at least OU had a coaching change while he was in JC (a world class upgrade at that). But Patterson wasn't letting anyone else talk to Scobey - by his own admission.
That's not me looking for inconsistencies in your position, it's a glaring contradiction in your position. You're "committed" excuse is pure bunk, and you know it. There was nothing binding at all in that commitment when Patterson was screening on his and KSU's behalf.
You've created your abuse strawman and railed against it, but only apply it to HS players. There's no consistency in your stance on "abuse" and it's just another case of you being ridiculous.
As usual, you're trying desperately to make a situation that has some similarity but is not in the same context as what we're dealing with here. Again, I know that Scobey's situation happens in the JC ranks, but what is not shown is the full policy of the coach, one that deals specifically with Josh Scobey. I would say that you're reading way too much into a single statement and choosing not to take the intelligent approach of "OK, what is the full policy." Is that the same answer if Josh said "You know what? I don't want to go to KSU."
Since that scenario is never brought up, then to assume that he COULDN'T it could also mean that if the player is placed there and still WANTS to go to KSU, then it's probably something the Coach is doing for the sake of the player. If Josh changed his mind, would the policy change? I think the answer is probably pretty reasonable and certainly would support my view point that a recruit be allowed to have interaction with other recruiters. Since it's not really possible for you to verify the complete policy of the coach, the exceptions (which I'm sure there are) then I'll let you hold your position of being completely ignorant on the recruiting process.
-
JFC, that's a sh*tload of speculation. Saying BB is honestly doing what he does just to help kids is just as plausible (maybe more so).
You're speculating everything's OK, no need to worry. I'm speculating that such things lends itself to abuse. You have no way of knowing which one is more plausible to than the other, except you're trying to dispense with any suggestion there may be something wrong, and standing by the naive approach "don't mess it with it until you see fire."
I'm not speculating. I'm just dealing with what we know.
At the same time, you've never shown that other coaches do what Butler is doing, acting as a front for other recruits so much so that he has to receive mail via a private organization for recruits. Getting mail via the school is one thing, getting it via a private entity raises questions.
What makes mail sent to Wichita East High School for the Browns different than mail sent to Potential Players for the Browns?
I'm not saying Butler is doing anything wrong. Again, I'm not suggesting that what is happening now is wrong or has irregularities. I'm suggesting, and reasonably so, that such a thing CAN lead to abuse (not could CAN) which would adversely impact a recruit if it happened. I think there should be oversight on this kind of activity to prevent abuse. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Of course this can lead to abuse, just like a player's relationship with a high school coach (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/sports/050209/lang.shtml) can lead to abuse. There is oversight to prevent abuse (a little organization called the NCAA). I don't see anything wrong with oversight either.
-
JFC, that's a sh*tload of speculation. Saying BB is honestly doing what he does just to help kids is just as plausible (maybe more so).
You're speculating everything's OK, no need to worry. I'm speculating that such things lends itself to abuse. You have no way of knowing which one is more plausible to than the other, except you're trying to dispense with any suggestion there may be something wrong, and standing by the naive approach "don't mess it with it until you see fire."
I'm not speculating. I'm just dealing with what we know.
You don't "know" anything either. You're just refusing to question it, albeit, you have no reason to as of yet.
At the same time, you've never shown that other coaches do what Butler is doing, acting as a front for other recruits so much so that he has to receive mail via a private organization for recruits. Getting mail via the school is one thing, getting it via a private entity raises questions.
What makes mail sent to Wichita East High School for the Browns different than mail sent to Potential Players for the Browns?
What makes it the same?
I'm not saying Butler is doing anything wrong. Again, I'm not suggesting that what is happening now is wrong or has irregularities. I'm suggesting, and reasonably so, that such a thing CAN lead to abuse (not could CAN) which would adversely impact a recruit if it happened. I think there should be oversight on this kind of activity to prevent abuse. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Of course this can lead to abuse, just like a player's relationship with a high school coach (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060412/young.shtml) can lead to abuse. There is oversight to prevent abuse (a little organization called the NCAA). I don't see anything wrong with oversight either.
Actually, HS coaches conduct falls under the state's rules and regulations. The NCAA deals with the Universities improper recruiting (which in the case of Means) involved payment of money to secure a recruit. Where does Butler fall into this?
-
Actually, HS coaches conduct falls under the state's rules and regulations. The NCAA deals with the Universities improper recruiting (which in the case of Means) involved payment of money to secure a recruit. Where does Butler fall into this?
If he's involved in NCAA rules violations, he wouldn't be able to conduct NCAA certified events like the Nike Sparq Camp. Without that, there's no Potential Players and no Brian Butler influence.
In the extreme case you seem quite concerned about, he could face prison or probation:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/sports/050209/lang.shtml
-
Since I have a kid that had been going through the recruiting process (one with football) I think I can speak a little bit on the process and know what's happening. It was nice of you to demonstrate an ignorant position by trying to assume what I might be in relation to the Browns.
What assumption did I make about your relation to the Browns?
Where did you pull that from? Desperation?
I don't know nor will I speak for the Browns and haven't. It's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Excuse me, but what world class moron uttered the following?
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
It's been pointed out that the NCAA and Brown's parents provide oversight. After that gets pointed out to you, your own question becomes irrelevant. Hilarious stuff!
As usual, you're trying desperately to make a situation that has some similarity but is not in the same context as what we're dealing with here. Again, I know that Scobey's situation happens in the JC ranks, but what is not shown is the full policy of the coach, one that deals specifically with Josh Scobey. I would say that you're reading way too much into a single statement and choosing not to take the intelligent approach of "OK, what is the full policy." Is that the same answer if Josh said "You know what? I don't want to go to KSU."
Since that scenario is never brought up, then to assume that he COULDN'T it could also mean that if the player is placed there and still WANTS to go to KSU, then it's probably something the Coach is doing for the sake of the player. If Josh changed his mind, would the policy change? I think the answer is probably pretty reasonable and certainly would support my view point that a recruit be allowed to have interaction with other recruiters. Since it's not really possible for you to verify the complete policy of the coach, the exceptions (which I'm sure there are) then I'll let you hold your position of being completely ignorant on the recruiting process.
LMAO. Clearly you didn't read the comments from Coach Patterson. He bluntly stated that if a player is placed, other schools can't talk to them, period. Nothing about seeing if the player changed his mind, just that if they're placed, he screens. Makes sense to, as it will guarantee future high quality placements...and NEO kicked major butt under Patterson.
Coach Patterson on mj's exceptions "which I'm sure there are":
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
So that whole diatribe you just regurgitated you can swallow right back down. It's irrelevant. :bootyshake:
So in summary, you're alarmed at the potential for abuse - but there's no evidence of any.
You're concerned about oversight, but the NCAA and parents are irrelevant.
When a coach does exactly what you claim is the potential for abuse, you assume there are mitigating circumstances.
At the end of this, you've been so turned around (or is it bent over?) that you don't have a single consistent thought that hasn't been fully refuted.
-
So what is the whole long and the short of this? Is Butler screening these boys from us because we didn't do him enough favors with his other recruits? Is Butler just talking up other schools instead of KSU (not that OU, LSU or USC need any help)?
If we "had" Butler in some fashion - and I don't mean in any financial or otherwise illegal way - would we definitely get the Browns or is this kind of a shadow game here?
None of this surpises me in any way at all...these kids are players who will be worth $$$ to whatever school lands them. Big time colleg recruiting is as dirty as the New Jersey sanitation business.
-
Damn.
KSU4ME and Rusty on the same team is f'ing scary. You DO NOT want to f*ck with us.
-
The short of it is that some KSU fans are just pissed because they know deep down that we have had no legitimate shot at the Brown brothers (when considering the schools we go up against for them) and we're searching for a scapegoat (Butler) who has, through his own words/actions, made it very easy for KSU to blame him.
If Butler was "in our back pocket" we'd probably all say what a wonderful service Butler provides and how he's opening the recruits' eyes to the importance of staying in state.
-
The short of it is that some KSU fans are just pissed because they know deep down that we have had no legitimate shot at the Brown brothers (when considering the schools we go up against for them) and we're searching for a scapegoat (Butler) who has, through his own words/actions, made it very easy for KSU to blame him.
If Butler was "in our back pocket" we'd probably all say what a wonderful service Butler provides and how he's opening the recruits' eyes to the importance of staying in state.
That's exactly what I thought. It sucks to have such a stud right down the highway and have no chance. A decade ago he would have already signed with KSU.
Frackers who decided to stop recruiting.
-
well, this sure isn't an ett. :blank:
-
Damn.
KSU4ME and Rusty on the same team is f'ing scary. You DO NOT want to f*ck with us.
Scares the crap out of me.
And it is the mother of all indicators to rod that he's on the wrong side of this one.
The short of it is that some KSU fans are just pissed because they know deep down that we have had no legitimate shot at the Brown brothers (when considering the schools we go up against for them) and we're searching for a scapegoat (Butler) who has, through his own words/actions, made it very easy for KSU to blame him.
If Butler was "in our back pocket" we'd probably all say what a wonderful service Butler provides and how he's opening the recruits' eyes to the importance of staying in state.
QFT.
I have beef with Butler, but it has nothing at all to do with the concept/service he provides.
-
The short of it is that some KSU fans are just pissed because they know deep down that we have had no legitimate shot at the Brown brothers (when considering the schools we go up against for them) and we're searching for a scapegoat (Butler) who has, through his own words/actions, made it very easy for KSU to blame him.
If Butler was "in our back pocket" we'd probably all say what a wonderful service Butler provides and how he's opening the recruits' eyes to the importance of staying in state.
That's exactly what I thought. It sucks to have such a stud right down the highway and have no chance. A decade ago he would have already signed with KSU.
QFT. Just like Kamerion Wimbley.
-
If the Browns came in around '96, '97 and BV was still on staff at KSU then I'd say we would have a shot at both of them, but then again, NU was coming off National Championships and probably would've been recruiting him.
-
The short of it is that some KSU fans are just pissed because they know deep down that we have had no legitimate shot at the Brown brothers (when considering the schools we go up against for them) and we're searching for a scapegoat (Butler) who has, through his own words/actions, made it very easy for KSU to blame him.
If Butler was "in our back pocket" we'd probably all say what a wonderful service Butler provides and how he's opening the recruits' eyes to the importance of staying in state.
That's exactly what I thought. It sucks to have such a stud right down the highway and have no chance. A decade ago he would have already signed with KSU.
QFT. Just like Kamerion Wimbley.
...and DeAngelo Evans
-
If the Browns came in around '96, '97 and BV was still on staff at KSU then I'd say we would have a shot at both of them, but then again, NU was coming off National Championships and probably would've been recruiting him.
DeAngelo Evans?
-
If the Browns came in around '96, '97 and BV was still on staff at KSU then I'd say we would have a shot at both of them, but then again, NU was coming off National Championships and probably would've been recruiting him.
we are in his top 10. we have a shot.
-
If the Browns came in around '96, '97 and BV was still on staff at KSU then I'd say we would have a shot at both of them, but then again, NU was coming off National Championships and probably would've been recruiting him.
we are in his top 10. we have a shot.
no we don't
(http://vmedia.rivals.com/IMAGES/Coach/PHOTO/VENABLES_BRENT150.JPG)
:love:
-
KSU4ME:
I think you can put MJ in your sig now. You actually owned him. Congrats on your development as a poster!
-
Actually, HS coaches conduct falls under the state's rules and regulations. The NCAA deals with the Universities improper recruiting (which in the case of Means) involved payment of money to secure a recruit. Where does Butler fall into this?
If he's involved in NCAA rules violations, he wouldn't be able to conduct NCAA certified events like the Nike Sparq Camp. Without that, there's no Potential Players and no Brian Butler influence.
In the extreme case you seem quite concerned about, he could face prison or probation:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/sports/050209/lang.shtml
I appreciate you finally admitting that abuses can happen and do, and this would be no different. As I said before, if everything is good, I'm OK with it.
-
"As I said before, if everything is good, I'm OK with it. "
When we are defining recruiting mail intended for a recruit from any college as "junk mail" (per Rusty) that can be thrown away by the individual who intercepts it before the intended receiver see it, I can't judge everything as good.
The levels gone to defend this is crazy.
By the way, God told me to post this. Therefore, you can't attack me.
-
LOL@paper mail.
How many unofficial visits has Brown gone on? How many coaches have his phone number, home address, parents #, HS Coach's #, etc. to call/text him or even drop by?
I'm sure he's relying on paper mail for critical recruiting information. I bet it was a letter that convinced Brown to visit LSU. If he had only seen that letter from Colorado State, he would be sure to visit. What happened to it? The Butler did it.
molehill --> mountain
Good work, tards.
-
"As I said before, if everything is good, I'm OK with it. "
When we are defining recruiting mail intended for a recruit from any college as "junk mail" (per Rusty) that can be thrown away by the individual who intercepts it before the intended receiver see it, I can't judge everything as good.
The levels gone to defend this is crazy.
By the way, God told me to post this. Therefore, you can't attack me.
If Butler was throwing away mail from OU, USC, and Florida and only letting KSU mail come through, would you still throw the same hissey fit? I seriously doubt it.
-
Since I have a kid that had been going through the recruiting process (one with football) I think I can speak a little bit on the process and know what's happening. It was nice of you to demonstrate an ignorant position by trying to assume what I might be in relation to the Browns.
What assumption did I make about your relation to the Browns?
Where did you pull that from? Desperation?
Perhaps you forgot you wrote this part...
Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue,
You're speaking for the Browns when you really shouldn't. I'm telling you that I've been involved, directly, with the process, something I'm sure you can never claim. Perhaps it's best if you try not to speak for the Browns and make assumptions about their positions, views, or actions.. but you don't..
I don't know nor will I speak for the Browns and haven't. It's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Excuse me, but what world class moron uttered the following?
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
It's been pointed out that the NCAA and Brown's parents provide oversight. After that gets pointed out to you, your own question becomes irrelevant. Hilarious stuff!
You brought the Browns into this, I didn't. You really are trying to speak for them and their views. I find it odd that you would speak for them and their views and introduce them into this when I'm not. It hurts you in this discussion.
No one has shown that the NCAA has oversight, all we know is that Butler and his organization are certified to run NCAA events and I'm sure there are rules about running the events and getting recertified. As far as his involvement with recruits as a proxy agent, there doesn't seem to be any, at least no one has shown any of them. My concern has to deal with the fact that HS coaches are governed by a set of rules, an organization such as Butler's isn't, unless you're saying NCAA certifications are the same as oversight rules.
In any event, the point, douchebag, is that this is yet, another way for abuse to creep into the recruiting process and Rusty has validated what I said could happen. I never suggested that Butler was doing anything wrong or illegal. I merely have stated that it's a concern and it's valid. You are trying to show there is no reason for concern, and have said "Well the Brown family is doing it so it must be OK." Pretty lame, if not irresponsible position. For all we know, the Browns don't care. I have not seen anything from the Browns regarding their arrangement and regardless, it doesn't really matter to the concerns that have been raised.
As usual, you're trying desperately to make a situation that has some similarity but is not in the same context as what we're dealing with here. Again, I know that Scobey's situation happens in the JC ranks, but what is not shown is the full policy of the coach, one that deals specifically with Josh Scobey. I would say that you're reading way too much into a single statement and choosing not to take the intelligent approach of "OK, what is the full policy." Is that the same answer if Josh said "You know what? I don't want to go to KSU."
Since that scenario is never brought up, then to assume that he COULDN'T it could also mean that if the player is placed there and still WANTS to go to KSU, then it's probably something the Coach is doing for the sake of the player. If Josh changed his mind, would the policy change? I think the answer is probably pretty reasonable and certainly would support my view point that a recruit be allowed to have interaction with other recruiters. Since it's not really possible for you to verify the complete policy of the coach, the exceptions (which I'm sure there are) then I'll let you hold your position of being completely ignorant on the recruiting process.
LMAO. Clearly you didn't read the comments from Coach Patterson. He bluntly stated that if a player is placed, other schools can't talk to them, period. Nothing about seeing if the player changed his mind, just that if they're placed, he screens. Makes sense to, as it will guarantee future high quality placements...and NEO kicked major butt under Patterson.
Coach Patterson on mj's exceptions "which I'm sure there are":
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
So that whole diatribe you just regurgitated you can swallow right back down. It's irrelevant.
LOL. I am amazed at how pathetic you are and what attempts you'll go through to demonstrate your stupidity. You're now speaking for Coach Patterson and assuming that what he's saying is a direct contravention of my statement. You're wrong. Pathetically wrong.
His quote gives nothing that shows it's an all encompassing policy. If you claim to be a reasonable and intelligent person (something you should never do by the way) you'd find out real quick about what the quote says. The writer said that Scobey wants to go to KSU. The reporter also wrote about possible recruitment from other sources, to which Patterson made the comment about placement. Does that mean that Josh Scobey WANTED to be recruited by others or not? Does that mean that Josh COULDN'T EVER be recruited by others? What if Josh changed his mind? We just fall back on the quote of the Coach? Are you seriously that stupid?
It doesn't contradict my claims whatsoever because the writer didn't give much explanation and seemed to imply something that may not be true (if I remember correctly, JMART had small writeup before that people had a lot of questions of, and many people miscontrued what JMART had printed) which you would do to hold onto a weak position and not be able to defend it. Since we don't know the exact question or context, we cannot assume that Coach Patterson's comments were all encompassing and you cannot speak for Coach Patterson as to the actual questions involved. Again, you're making throwing your position into question.
So in summary, you're alarmed at the potential for abuse - but there's no evidence of any.
I am not alarmed. I never claimed there was any abuse anywhere. You're trying to assert something I never said.
You're concerned about oversight, but the NCAA and parents are irrelevant.
Yes, it's a legitimate concern. You never showed the NCAA had direct oversight of this, and the Brown's oversight is irrelevant as I'm not focusing specifically on them.
When a coach does exactly what you claim is the potential for abuse, you assume there are mitigating circumstances.
LOL. You're just showing how stupid you are in a reasoned debate.
At the end of this, you've been so turned around (or is it bent over?) that you don't have a single consistent thought that hasn't been fully refuted.
Actually, you haven't refuted anything other than bring irrelevant or issues into the discussion and none of them have any bearing on my central theme regarding potential abuse of having a proxy agent for recruits which Rusty has already acquiesced to. It would behoove you to not fall into the trap of trying to push the argument into irrelevant issues because in the end, it just makes you irrelevant.
-
Since I have a kid that had been going through the recruiting process (one with football) I think I can speak a little bit on the process and know what's happening. It was nice of you to demonstrate an ignorant position by trying to assume what I might be in relation to the Browns.
What assumption did I make about your relation to the Browns?
Where did you pull that from? Desperation?
Perhaps you forgot you wrote this part...
Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue,
You're speaking for the Browns when you really shouldn't. I'm telling you that I've been involved, directly, with the process, something I'm sure you can never claim. Perhaps it's best if you try not to speak for the Browns and make assumptions about their positions, views, or actions.. but you don't..
I don't know nor will I speak for the Browns and haven't. It's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Excuse me, but what world class moron uttered the following?
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
It's been pointed out that the NCAA and Brown's parents provide oversight. After that gets pointed out to you, your own question becomes irrelevant. Hilarious stuff!
You brought the Browns into this, I didn't. You really are trying to speak for them and their views. I find it odd that you would speak for them and their views and introduce them into this when I'm not. It hurts you in this discussion.
No one has shown that the NCAA has oversight, all we know is that Butler and his organization are certified to run NCAA events and I'm sure there are rules about running the events and getting recertified. As far as his involvement with recruits as a proxy agent, there doesn't seem to be any, at least no one has shown any of them. My concern has to deal with the fact that HS coaches are governed by a set of rules, an organization such as Butler's isn't, unless you're saying NCAA certifications are the same as oversight rules.
In any event, the point, douchebag, is that this is yet, another way for abuse to creep into the recruiting process and Rusty has validated what I said could happen. I never suggested that Butler was doing anything wrong or illegal. I merely have stated that it's a concern and it's valid. You are trying to show there is no reason for concern, and have said "Well the Brown family is doing it so it must be OK." Pretty lame, if not irresponsible position. For all we know, the Browns don't care. I have not seen anything from the Browns regarding their arrangement and regardless, it doesn't really matter to the concerns that have been raised.
As usual, you're trying desperately to make a situation that has some similarity but is not in the same context as what we're dealing with here. Again, I know that Scobey's situation happens in the JC ranks, but what is not shown is the full policy of the coach, one that deals specifically with Josh Scobey. I would say that you're reading way too much into a single statement and choosing not to take the intelligent approach of "OK, what is the full policy." Is that the same answer if Josh said "You know what? I don't want to go to KSU."
Since that scenario is never brought up, then to assume that he COULDN'T it could also mean that if the player is placed there and still WANTS to go to KSU, then it's probably something the Coach is doing for the sake of the player. If Josh changed his mind, would the policy change? I think the answer is probably pretty reasonable and certainly would support my view point that a recruit be allowed to have interaction with other recruiters. Since it's not really possible for you to verify the complete policy of the coach, the exceptions (which I'm sure there are) then I'll let you hold your position of being completely ignorant on the recruiting process.
LMAO. Clearly you didn't read the comments from Coach Patterson. He bluntly stated that if a player is placed, other schools can't talk to them, period. Nothing about seeing if the player changed his mind, just that if they're placed, he screens. Makes sense to, as it will guarantee future high quality placements...and NEO kicked major butt under Patterson.
Coach Patterson on mj's exceptions "which I'm sure there are":
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
So that whole diatribe you just regurgitated you can swallow right back down. It's irrelevant.
LOL. I am amazed at how pathetic you are and what attempts you'll go through to demonstrate your stupidity. You're now speaking for Coach Patterson and assuming that what he's saying is a direct contravention of my statement. You're wrong. Pathetically wrong.
His quote gives nothing that shows it's an all encompassing policy. If you claim to be a reasonable and intelligent person (something you should never do by the way) you'd find out real quick about what the quote says. The writer said that Scobey wants to go to KSU. The reporter also wrote about possible recruitment from other sources, to which Patterson made the comment about placement. Does that mean that Josh Scobey WANTED to be recruited by others or not? Does that mean that Josh COULDN'T EVER be recruited by others? What if Josh changed his mind? We just fall back on the quote of the Coach? Are you seriously that stupid?
It doesn't contradict my claims whatsoever because the writer didn't give much explanation and seemed to imply something that may not be true (if I remember correctly, JMART had small writeup before that people had a lot of questions of, and many people miscontrued what JMART had printed) which you would do to hold onto a weak position and not be able to defend it. Since we don't know the exact question or context, we cannot assume that Coach Patterson's comments were all encompassing and you cannot speak for Coach Patterson as to the actual questions involved. Again, you're making throwing your position into question.
So in summary, you're alarmed at the potential for abuse - but there's no evidence of any.
I am not alarmed. I never claimed there was any abuse anywhere. You're trying to assert something I never said.
You're concerned about oversight, but the NCAA and parents are irrelevant.
Yes, it's a legitimate concern. You never showed the NCAA had direct oversight of this, and the Brown's oversight is irrelevant as I'm not focusing specifically on them.
When a coach does exactly what you claim is the potential for abuse, you assume there are mitigating circumstances.
LOL. You're just showing how stupid you are in a reasoned debate.
At the end of this, you've been so turned around (or is it bent over?) that you don't have a single consistent thought that hasn't been fully refuted.
Actually, you haven't refuted anything other than bring irrelevant or issues into the discussion and none of them have any bearing on my central theme regarding potential abuse of having a proxy agent for recruits which Rusty has already acquiesced to. It would behoove you to not fall into the trap of trying to push the argument into irrelevant issues because in the end, it just makes you irrelevant.
1 post = 7 mouse scroll wheel clicks :eek:
-
"As I said before, if everything is good, I'm OK with it. "
When we are defining recruiting mail intended for a recruit from any college as "junk mail" (per Rusty) that can be thrown away by the individual who intercepts it before the intended receiver see it, I can't judge everything as good.
The levels gone to defend this is crazy.
By the way, God told me to post this. Therefore, you can't attack me.
And my point is validated when we're talking about proxy agents for recruits. We should be very careful about supporting this kind of activity. It would be sad to find out that KSU could lose a recruit because this represented a violation of NCAA rules.
-
So in summary, what Butler has done/could do/might do in the recruiting process is the same as what HS coaches/parents across the nation have done/could do/might do in the recruiting process, which is filter/exploit/mentor a HS/JUCO recruit in the recruiting process. The NCAA can't oversee a parent/coach/mentor's ability to parent/coach/mentor a recruit, until that parent/caoch/mentor involves himself/herself/themselves in actions which violate NCAA rules, of which being a irresponsible parent/coach/mentor does not fall under.
-
Since I have a kid that had been going through the recruiting process (one with football) I think I can speak a little bit on the process and know what's happening. It was nice of you to demonstrate an ignorant position by trying to assume what I might be in relation to the Browns.
What assumption did I make about your relation to the Browns?
Where did you pull that from? Desperation?
Perhaps you forgot you wrote this part...
Frankly I think Brown and his parents are most likely intelligent and rational people, more so than you on this issue,
You're speaking for the Browns when you really shouldn't. I'm telling you that I've been involved, directly, with the process, something I'm sure you can never claim. Perhaps it's best if you try not to speak for the Browns and make assumptions about their positions, views, or actions.. but you don't..
I don't know nor will I speak for the Browns and haven't. It's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Excuse me, but what world class moron uttered the following?
So my question to you is, do you agree with this practice of coaches taking this kind of activity to determine where he thinks a recruit should go without oversight?
It's been pointed out that the NCAA and Brown's parents provide oversight. After that gets pointed out to you, your own question becomes irrelevant. Hilarious stuff!
You brought the Browns into this, I didn't. You really are trying to speak for them and their views. I find it odd that you would speak for them and their views and introduce them into this when I'm not. It hurts you in this discussion.
No one has shown that the NCAA has oversight, all we know is that Butler and his organization are certified to run NCAA events and I'm sure there are rules about running the events and getting recertified. As far as his involvement with recruits as a proxy agent, there doesn't seem to be any, at least no one has shown any of them. My concern has to deal with the fact that HS coaches are governed by a set of rules, an organization such as Butler's isn't, unless you're saying NCAA certifications are the same as oversight rules.
In any event, the point, douchebag, is that this is yet, another way for abuse to creep into the recruiting process and Rusty has validated what I said could happen. I never suggested that Butler was doing anything wrong or illegal. I merely have stated that it's a concern and it's valid. You are trying to show there is no reason for concern, and have said "Well the Brown family is doing it so it must be OK." Pretty lame, if not irresponsible position. For all we know, the Browns don't care. I have not seen anything from the Browns regarding their arrangement and regardless, it doesn't really matter to the concerns that have been raised.
As usual, you're trying desperately to make a situation that has some similarity but is not in the same context as what we're dealing with here. Again, I know that Scobey's situation happens in the JC ranks, but what is not shown is the full policy of the coach, one that deals specifically with Josh Scobey. I would say that you're reading way too much into a single statement and choosing not to take the intelligent approach of "OK, what is the full policy." Is that the same answer if Josh said "You know what? I don't want to go to KSU."
Since that scenario is never brought up, then to assume that he COULDN'T it could also mean that if the player is placed there and still WANTS to go to KSU, then it's probably something the Coach is doing for the sake of the player. If Josh changed his mind, would the policy change? I think the answer is probably pretty reasonable and certainly would support my view point that a recruit be allowed to have interaction with other recruiters. Since it's not really possible for you to verify the complete policy of the coach, the exceptions (which I'm sure there are) then I'll let you hold your position of being completely ignorant on the recruiting process.
LMAO. Clearly you didn't read the comments from Coach Patterson. He bluntly stated that if a player is placed, other schools can't talk to them, period. Nothing about seeing if the player changed his mind, just that if they're placed, he screens. Makes sense to, as it will guarantee future high quality placements...and NEO kicked major butt under Patterson.
Coach Patterson on mj's exceptions "which I'm sure there are":
"He was placed in here by them, so there's no committing there (to other schools)," Patterson said. "I don't let (other recruiters) come in when they're placed, and he's placed."
So that whole diatribe you just regurgitated you can swallow right back down. It's irrelevant.
LOL. I am amazed at how pathetic you are and what attempts you'll go through to demonstrate your stupidity. You're now speaking for Coach Patterson and assuming that what he's saying is a direct contravention of my statement. You're wrong. Pathetically wrong.
His quote gives nothing that shows it's an all encompassing policy. If you claim to be a reasonable and intelligent person (something you should never do by the way) you'd find out real quick about what the quote says. The writer said that Scobey wants to go to KSU. The reporter also wrote about possible recruitment from other sources, to which Patterson made the comment about placement. Does that mean that Josh Scobey WANTED to be recruited by others or not? Does that mean that Josh COULDN'T EVER be recruited by others? What if Josh changed his mind? We just fall back on the quote of the Coach? Are you seriously that stupid?
It doesn't contradict my claims whatsoever because the writer didn't give much explanation and seemed to imply something that may not be true (if I remember correctly, JMART had small writeup before that people had a lot of questions of, and many people miscontrued what JMART had printed) which you would do to hold onto a weak position and not be able to defend it. Since we don't know the exact question or context, we cannot assume that Coach Patterson's comments were all encompassing and you cannot speak for Coach Patterson as to the actual questions involved. Again, you're making throwing your position into question.
So in summary, you're alarmed at the potential for abuse - but there's no evidence of any.
I am not alarmed. I never claimed there was any abuse anywhere. You're trying to assert something I never said.
You're concerned about oversight, but the NCAA and parents are irrelevant.
Yes, it's a legitimate concern. You never showed the NCAA had direct oversight of this, and the Brown's oversight is irrelevant as I'm not focusing specifically on them.
When a coach does exactly what you claim is the potential for abuse, you assume there are mitigating circumstances.
LOL. You're just showing how stupid you are in a reasoned debate.
At the end of this, you've been so turned around (or is it bent over?) that you don't have a single consistent thought that hasn't been fully refuted.
Actually, you haven't refuted anything other than bring irrelevant or issues into the discussion and none of them have any bearing on my central theme regarding potential abuse of having a proxy agent for recruits which Rusty has already acquiesced to. It would behoove you to not fall into the trap of trying to push the argument into irrelevant issues because in the end, it just makes you irrelevant.
:eek:
There is potential for abuse with everyone involved in recruiting. Why the obsession with Butler?
Why don't you think a ban from hosting NCAA certified events, prison, probation, and fines aren't adequate oversight for Butler? Nobody will want Butler as a "proxy" ever again if he can't host these events or is in prison.
-
"If Butler was throwing away mail from OU, USC, and Florida and only letting KSU mail come through, would you still throw the same hissey fit? I seriously doubt it. "
Well, first off, it's not a hissey fit. The answer to your question is...YES!
God has no favorites when it comes to colleges...at least, that's what he told me. :D
-
"Why the obsession with Butler?"
Great question to ask yourself. Why the obsession?
Why all the articles, why the website where he is prominantly featured with *his* recruits etc. etc.? It seems there are obsessions beyond just this board and a few posters...some (one?) of which will go so far with their *obesssion* to feature them in their posting profile.
Yes, to answer the question before it comes out...I am obsessed with Richard Cheney! :notworthy:
-
First of all, the NCAA can't send you to prison. They aren't the government. In the case of Albert Means, there are laws about racketeering which his case fell under.
Secondly, as you alluded to earlier that there is no integrity in the recruiting process, why would having another avenue for such activity be a good thing? I can agree that there is nothing to state such abuse would happen, but you never know.
I'll say it again, I'm not knocking Butler, just this kind of set up. If he does it, others will. Think of the future Rusty, not just this one.
-
"It would be sad to find out that KSU could lose a recruit because this represented a violation of NCAA rules."
This, to me, goes so far past just K-State.
Hypothetical:
Butler: "Gee, let's see what is in Arthur Brown's mail today. Three letters from Alabama, one from USC, two from Florida, three from North Carolina, one from K-State"
later on in the day...
"Arthur, here is your mail for today. Letters from Bama, SC, Florida and K-State. Hey, I notice you haven't received any mail recently from North Carolina. Maybe they have moved to other targets. I really didn't like them when you and I visited the campus, it may be time to look elsewhere".
Something is deeply wrong with that simple of a hypothetical.
-
According to Rusty, this happens at schools all the time. According to KSU4ME, it's an apparent policy at JUCO's. Nothing in the recruiting process has any integrity, so this really isn't a big deal.
I have no problem with it either if the hypothetical never happens. I'm sure Butler recognizes that despite no oversight of being a proxy agent, he'll do nothing to keep himself from losing his NCAA certification to host events.
-
WHO CARES!?!
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/wildcatjerrod/threadkill.jpg)
-
WHO CARES!?!
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/wildcatjerrod/threadkill.jpg)
OH GREAT!!
Another &@#%ing PETA barrage!!
What the hell did I ever do to you?
-
According to Rusty, this happens at schools all the time. According to KSU4ME, it's an apparent policy at JUCO's. Nothing in the recruiting process has any integrity, so this really isn't a big deal.
I have no problem with it either if the hypothetical never happens. I'm sure Butler recognizes that despite no oversight of being a proxy agent, he'll do nothing to keep himself from losing his NCAA certification to host events.
The oversight is there. If Butler gets a job/money as part of the recruitment of the Browns, and the NCAA catches this, then he's in trouble with the NCAA. The same goes for a parent or a HS coach; however, if he throws away the mail of the Browns he'll have to deal with the USPS.
-
OH GREAT!!
Another frackfing PETA barrage!!
What the hell did I ever do to you?
Ha, I remember when that Jackie Verago hairy pit lady from Peta e-mailed me this:
All beings tremble before violence. All fear death, all love life. See
yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do? -
Buddha
-
First of all, the NCAA can't send you to prison. They aren't the government. In the case of Albert Means, there are laws about racketeering which his case fell under.
The KSHSAA can't send you to prison either.
Secondly, as you alluded to earlier that there is no integrity in the recruiting process, why would having another avenue for such activity be a good thing? I can agree that there is nothing to state such abuse would happen, but you never know.
This is a good thing because it:
1) Gives Kansas High School recruits a structured training program. (Some KS HS's have great training programs, most don't due to KSHSAA restrictions.)
2) Gives Kansas High School recruits added visibility. Not just the elites, but those that might have been overlooked by major programs could get noticed, and those that were destined to Juco could go to Wyoming, Air Force, or I-AA's.
3) It gives KSU a standing relationship with a mentor for players from all around Wichita. If say...Bluestem High has a D1 prospect that uses Butler's services, KSU has a head start on the recruit because they already have an "in" to gauge interest before investing time and money building a relationship with Bluestem's coaches. Heck, at the very least it makes it easier to get contact info for Kansas players.
"It would be sad to find out that KSU could lose a recruit because this represented a violation of NCAA rules."
This, to me, goes so far past just K-State.
Hypothetical:
Butler: "Gee, let's see what is in Arthur Brown's mail today. Three letters from Alabama, one from USC, two from Florida, three from North Carolina, one from K-State"
later on in the day...
"Arthur, here is your mail for today. Letters from Bama, SC, Florida and K-State. Hey, I notice you haven't received any mail recently from North Carolina. Maybe they have moved to other targets. I really didn't like them when you and I visited the campus, it may be time to look elsewhere".
Something is deeply wrong with that simple of a hypothetical.
Yeah, you left out the part about Arthur Brown getting letters from UNC sent to his house and kicking Butler to the curb.
I have no problem with it either if the hypothetical never happens. I'm sure Butler recognizes that despite no oversight of being a proxy agent, he'll do nothing to keep himself from losing his NCAA certification to host events.
Could you retype this in english, please?
Thanks.
-
First of all, the NCAA can't send you to prison. They aren't the government. In the case of Albert Means, there are laws about racketeering which his case fell under.
The KSHSAA can't send you to prison either.
Thanks. Glad you here to help clarify what I already clarified for you earlier.
Secondly, as you alluded to earlier that there is no integrity in the recruiting process, why would having another avenue for such activity be a good thing? I can agree that there is nothing to state such abuse would happen, but you never know.
This is a good thing because it:
1) Gives Kansas High School recruits a structured training program. (Some KS HS's have great training programs, most don't due to KSHSAA restrictions.)
2) Gives Kansas High School recruits added visibility. Not just the elites, but those that might have been overlooked by major programs could get noticed, and those that were destined to Juco could go to Wyoming, Air Force, or I-AA's.
3) It gives KSU a standing relationship with a mentor for players from all around Wichita. If say...Bluestem High has a D1 prospect that uses Butler's services, KSU has a head start on the recruit because they already have an "in" to gauge interest before investing time and money building a relationship with Bluestem's coaches. Heck, at the very least it makes it easier to get contact info for Kansas players.
Interesting. You're a big cheerleader for all the wrong reasons. You and I both know this was all started for the marketing aspect of getting kids in Wichita recognized for outstanding players. I have no issue with that. It if was specifically an avenue that promoted kids to anyone, then it would be fine.
When you start to say it gives "KSU standing" that's where you should have stopped. It shouldn't give KSU standing because we're nice to Butler. I think that's where abuse of power starts to take hold. We could essentially corner the market and use Butler as a means to prevent other schools from getting involved in the process. Is that really fair? It could just as easily change if KSU decides not to promote Butler and he decides to funnel to other schools. That's where your conflict is, Rusty. You promote the idea well, but you seem not to ask the hard questions of what happens if. KSU should be allowed to have access to the players regardless of Butler as would any school for the services of a kid. There should be no influence of standing involved.
I have no problem with it either if the hypothetical never happens. I'm sure Butler recognizes that despite no oversight of being a proxy agent, he'll do nothing to keep himself from losing his NCAA certification to host events.
Could you retype this in english, please?
Thanks.
Sure.
I have no problem with it (Butler's program of intercepting mail) either if the hypothetical never happens. I'm sure Butler recognizes that despite no oversight (from the NCAA or other sports group) of being a proxy agent (for recruits), he'll do nothing to keep himself from losing his NCAA certification to host events (such as Nike Sparq Camp).
-
Interesting. You're a big cheerleader for all the wrong reasons. You and I both know this was all started for the marketing aspect of getting kids in Wichita recognized for outstanding players. I have no issue with that. It if was specifically an avenue that promoted kids to anyone, then it would be fine.
When you start to say it gives "KSU standing" that's where you should have stopped. It shouldn't give KSU standing because we're nice to Butler. I think that's where abuse of power starts to take hold. We could essentially corner the market and use Butler as a means to prevent other schools from getting involved in the process. Is that really fair?
That's part of recruiting! You build relationships with coaches in the hope that they will help you land recruits in the future. Of course it's fair (not so much funneling or preventing access to other schools, but a head start), just like having a good relationship with the coach at Rockhurst is fair, having a good relationship with Curtis Malone of DC Assault is fair, having a good relationship with the Brown's parents is fair. With any coach or parent you run the risk of pissing them off and "funneling" their kids elsewhere.
When you start to say it gives "KSU standing" that's where you should have stopped. It shouldn't give KSU standing because we're nice to Butler. I think that's where abuse of power starts to take hold. We could essentially corner the market and use Butler as a means to prevent other schools from getting involved in the process. Is that really fair? It could just as easily change if KSU decides not to promote Butler and he decides to funnel to other schools. That's where your conflict is, Rusty. You promote the idea well, but you seem not to ask the hard questions of what happens if. KSU should be allowed to have access to the players regardless of Butler as would any school for the services of a kid. There should be no influence of standing involved.
Reread what I said. I said "standing relationship". What that means is we'll be there every year with Brian Butler (assuming he's successful). USC, Florida, Notre Dame, etc. won't. We should be rewarded for that relationship. Not by "funneling", but by developing a rapport with kids earlier in the recruiting process. Those schools will have a huge advantage with coaches closer to their campuses, why shouldn't we have the same close to home?
Butler doesn't have to act as "proxy" or a "funnel"
-
(http://pics.fort90.com/forum/I_want_to_believe.jpg)
-
You know what sucks about threads like this? When it's at the top of the board with a new post you have to check to make sure you're not missing anything. You know it's going to be MJ, Rusty, etc. getting after each other with extremely well thought out and long/boring posts but, you just can't take the chance that it could be something interesting/funny/etc. and you have to look anyway.
-
"Butler doesn't have to act as "proxy" or a "funnel""
And yet, that appears to be what he is doing. Why?
-
"Butler doesn't have to act as "proxy" or a "funnel""
And yet, that appears to be what he is doing. Why?
Insecurity/ignorance/excuse making from people that see things that way.