What's new

Daily Camera Women's Basketball: Peyton Carter, Mathilde Diop leaving CU Buffs

AeroBuff99

Club Member
Club Member
The attrition is starting to really concern me.
Always a lot of turnover in women's sports. Not sure if it is because they have extra scholarships and use them on marginal players, or if some players burn out earlier than their male counterparts, or if they are more apt to want to change to better overall situations (academic, personal/social, family, etc.) than the male athletes.
 

WarBuff

Club Member
Club Member
The attrition is starting to really concern me.
Peyton was clearly not getting much floor time, so her looking for a better opportunity seems smart. Diop going pro in France is a question for me. Thought she didn't show enough yet to think that was a viable option, but I guess that's her decision.
These two don't concern me as much as the previous ones (esp last year), or else I am just getting used to most of the team being new every year?
 

buffgal

Club Member
Club Member
Peyton was a preferred walk on who was not going to see playing time. She hasn't seen it in two years. Sounds like Peyton wants to play and I don't blame her.

Diop went to school in France. Don't know details on her decision, but she hasn't shown much on the court. I don't think at this point she has the ability to play professional basketball, but hope it works out for her.

For that reason, these two don't concern me. Any more and I will be concerned.
 

Bmixer

Well-Known Member
not very concerned with these two leaving. IMO neither were going to be in the plans. Many thing concern me about J.R. tenure but this does not. If I was them I would look at leaving too. The media made a big deal about Peyton but she just does not have the tools and While Diop is a good athlete, she does not seem to have a ton of basketball skills. Still think next year is going to be big for J.R. Can not have a repeat of this year a keep the job
 

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
Always a lot of turnover in women's sports. Not sure if it is because they have extra scholarships and use them on marginal players, or if some players burn out earlier than their male counterparts, or if they are more apt to want to change to better overall situations (academic, personal/social, family, etc.) than the male athletes.
Without the 1 year sit out rule, Mens sports would be the same. Huge amount of transferring every year. Good players moving onto better programs and lesser players moving down. That's the day I quit following Mens sports.
 

Medford M.

Well-Known Member
Without the 1 year sit out rule, Mens sports would be the same. Huge amount of transferring every year. Good players moving onto better programs and lesser players moving down. That's the day I quit following Mens sports.
Why do you hate giving student athletes mobility? Let them do what's best for them.
 

Bmixer

Well-Known Member
not all women get to play and not sit a year after transfer. The volleyball player that transferred into CU this year has to sit 1 year I believe.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
not all women get to play and not sit a year after transfer. The volleyball player that transferred into CU this year has to sit 1 year I believe.
Isn't it something like they get 1 free transfer and then a 2nd transfer causes them to have to sit? Or maybe I dreamed that and am totally wrong.
 

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
Why do you hate giving student athletes mobility? Let them do what's best for them.
Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.

It's not just about the poor players. Fans really are the bottom line. Destroy competitive hopes, you've destroyed the financial model that supports ALL OF IT.

In the end, make it about the education. Very few of these kids who transfer are getting hurt by the current rules. At worse, get an education. Otherwise, kill MBB and develop an NBA minor league.
 

AztecBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Isn't it something like they get 1 free transfer and then a 2nd transfer causes them to have to sit? Or maybe I dreamed that and am totally wrong.
I believe that's how it usually works (although I've seen exceptions to that). In the case of the new Buff volleyball player, this is her 2nd transfer.
(Assuming there hasn't been a change in the last few years (and I know there have been some changes in general re transfers), I remember ONE case in volleyball a few years ago (early 2015) corn fans were pissed because LSU wouldn't sign off on a transfer of their top player who was only on her 1st transfer, and her appeal wasn't successful, so she did have to sit out a year. However, I believe it's EXTREMELY rare (assume due to professional courtesy) for the 1st school not release a player.)

The one exception I'm still not sure has changed (or not) is transfers within the Pac 12- believe those still may not be allowed to play their 1st year at their new school unless the new school submits an appeal, the old school has granted a release, and they meet one of a few exceptions.?.
(I know there was a Buff volleyball player who played a few years ago (Frankie Shebby) who did sit out a year after transferring from the Ducks. Although, going possibly the other way, soccer received a transfer from UCLA this semester, and I haven't seen any mention she won't be able to play next season. Note that soccer gets a LOT less scholarship $'s per roster size as compared to volleyball and basketball; don't know if that plays into it or all?)
 

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.

It's not just about the poor players. Fans really are the bottom line. Destroy competitive hopes, you've destroyed the financial model that supports ALL OF IT.

In the end, make it about the education. Very few of these kids who transfer are getting hurt by the current rules. At worse, get an education. Otherwise, kill MBB and develop an NBA minor league.
I take it that you would also support coaches having to sit a year out after quitting one job in favor of another?
 

brettden

Well-Known Member
I take it that you would also support coaches having to sit a year out after quitting one job in favor of another?
Interesting idea. You can hire a coach that is under contract with another school, but he can't coach the first year (new school would have to hire an interim coach while he sits out a transfer year). So the coach still gets paid, he just has to sit out, the same way the players still can get a scholarship, but have to sit out a year. Otherwise as a coach you move when your contract expires. Seems equitable to me.
 

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
I take it that you would also support coaches having to sit a year out after quitting one job in favor of another?
Nope. That isn't necessary to preserve the competitiveness of the game. This is to protect the underdogs, keep fans interested at places exactly like CU.

The players really can't claim damages. They don't have to play NCAA basketball in exchange for a free education. Well, except freshman, and that rule has to go.
 

Medford M.

Well-Known Member
Because it destroys competitiveness of the sport. It's free agency, with no repercussions. Traditional winners will stay that way and traditional losers will stay that way. That would destroy the experience for the fans that are not at KU, AZ, Duke, etc.

It's not just about the poor players. Fans really are the bottom line. Destroy competitive hopes, you've destroyed the financial model that supports ALL OF IT.

In the end, make it about the education. Very few of these kids who transfer are getting hurt by the current rules. At worse, get an education. Otherwise, kill MBB and develop an NBA minor league.
I think you're overstating how prevalent the (free agency) type aspect of it is going to become. Ja Morant wasn't going to transfer to Duke after his freshman year to prove he could play with the big boys.

There will be a give and take. Guys that find out they aren't quite cut out for the big leagues will transfer to smaller schools making the "mid-majors" better, IMO. You'll see a lot more guys stepping down in level of competition than you will guys going to high majors.
 

buffgal

Club Member
Club Member
It seems, that for the most part, waivers are easily obtained so a player does not have to sit out a year.

A player should not have to sit out in the case of a coaching change, imo.
 

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
It seems, that for the most part, waivers are easily obtained so a player does not have to sit out a year.

A player should not have to sit out in the case of a coaching change, imo.
So it would have sat good with everyone that after the coaching change in football, Montez, Laviska, Mustafa and Landman decided to leave to join top 10 programs this year, and play right away? Not me. I'd be done with College sports as a CU fan.
 

manhattanbuf

Club Member
Club Member
Nope. That isn't necessary to preserve the competitiveness of the game. This is to protect the underdogs, keep fans interested at places exactly like CU.

The players really can't claim damages. They don't have to play NCAA basketball in exchange for a free education. Well, except freshman, and that rule has to go.
I see that you’re someone who doesn’t understand the time value of money. Feel free to explain to me why $75K in cash is equally valuable to credits in a class that may or may not apply to a real world profession.

If a coach can leave whenever they please, so should the players. Being enrolled in a school isn’t compensation; it’s a perk. Coaches leaving schools disrupts competitive balance a lot, especially if your coaching staff is really strong.
 

buffgal

Club Member
Club Member
Once I understood what happens to players during a coaching change (back in the 80's or so), I have always believed that when there was a change, the players should be free to look elsewhere without penalty.
 
Top