forevereagle

The school has to agree to let them out of their scholarship and they still have to sit a year (depending on circumstances) when they transfer after a coach leaves (something the coach doesn't have to do). There is nothing that allows them to just walk away without penalty. The school and student agree to "4 years" but the coaches evaluate scholarships every year and a scholarship is a year to year thing in actuality. The coach can cut a player loose any time. If we are going to hold students to these agreements, then the school needs to commit to them for four years and the coach needs to commit to them/the school for their contract as well. When the other two parts of the agreement honor their commitments, I will start to be a little more hard on the players. It sucks that this is where we are, but it is where we are.

I don't think anything has been announced and I don't recall GM commenting on the kind of schedule that he wants to play. If ASU's schedule last year is any indication, we will play a mix of different kinds of teams, but more of the teams on our level.

He also has a great football name.

If the ASU schedule from this season is any indication (not sure if it is or not), then there will be a mix of names you recognize and ones you don't. And some of those names aren't P5, just names you are aware of. Notably, they did beat Georgetown on the road. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/2032/arkansas-state-red-wolves

Never is not really a situation.

I don't see them completely shutting us out. Their fan bases like wins and the lower levels of those conferences need us to give them a better chance. They may limit our opportunities to play them, but I just think they like to win to make other games look better on paper. Agree here. AAC may even have to get in on the deal since their TV money is likely to dry up as well. I think those are likely to stay in simply because the Cinderella story would go away. People love to watch and those stories and they sell the tournament. It could still go away, but for now I think those are safe.

That's fair. I think the biggest statement of this would be winning and I am hopeful it will be following on soon.

SL didn't have a losing record as a HC before being hired here and was a coordinator and not a position coach. Not saying that he had the better resume, but he didn't have some of the red flags.

Out of curiosity, which is/would have been the bigger statement, firing Benford mid-season or the hiring of McCasland and the details of that (speed, money, etc.)? Just curious what people think on the matter. It seems to me that the commitment we are making is the bigger statement about the desired future of the program than a mid-season firing would have been, but that is just my opinion.

Doesn't being listed as a coaching candidate that is in demand boost his credibility as a color guy on TV?

Right, but these other names are rumors as well. So why not mention the old rumor alongside the new rumors?

Isn't this the same org that report Ray Harper a done deal? Just curious as to why his name isn't in this tweet.

Or misusing ellipses...

Even if everyone knows how to do everyone's job, if the AD were to completely clean house, there is no chance that the required work would get done with such a small number of people left to do everything.

Any plans to answer that question?

If you are so pissed off that you are talking about never supporting the program again and supporting other universities, why are you here?

This went out to all of the AD's customers. I cannot recall any examples where layoffs were announced to customers prior to the event. Usually you make your changes and then explain them to your customer base. Besides, I don't think that you will see any mass firings, mostly one off people "leaving" on their own in the coming months. Making mass changes in an organization this small can lead to big issues. Too many want overnight change and the problems are just too big for that. WB shouldn't be on a long leash, but the one that some seem to have him on is far too short.

That soon?

Have we put Ponyfans on suicide watch yet?

Of course this is about clearing the land for other purposes. Fouts needs to go and the campus needs that land to grow. It just makes sense. Not sure that doing this means that we aren't going to build the IPF. One does not preclude the other.

Or a Paul in uh...

Why do people keep saying this? Benford is not coming back. If there was a chance they would extend him, it would have been stated or at least "leaked" so that he could recruit without the competition saying that he was not going to be here. There is no word of that, so he will be gone after the season. He is just coaching out the year and then we move on.

Least.

Can we just stop with "millennial" thing?