huskerbaseball13

Morrow leaving

433 posts in this topic

On 4/8/2017 at 1:01 PM, HuskerCager said:

Has someone woken up  the  AD to inform  him what's going  on with  the program?

 

We've been hearing smoke about MJ for a while.  He's not YOLO Horne so he's going to look before he leaps here. I suspect that MJ already has a 1-3 landing places lined up. Was Watson rolling out the bad body language at the end of the year because his two roommates were thinking about leaving town? Is he going to do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

You're right. They're not minimum wage workers. They get "paid" less. What perks they get--medical care etc.--are largely there to preserve their viability to serve the institution's interests. But exploitation isn't hitched to a dollar figure. It's possible to be an exploited millionaire. We call them "professional athletes". ;)   It's simply the extraction of excess monetary value for the labor provided and even outside of labor theories of value, labor *does* provide *some* value at all times. 

 

Does opportunity cost fall anywhere into your math here?  Are all college kids exploited despite the fact that a college education still overwhelmingly results in higher incomes?  Is the monetary value you're giving that education seriously only over a four year period?  No blue sky value?  I'm working on my 4th degree at the moment, and each of the prior ones I've earned increased my income significantly.  That's a value of hundreds of thousands--even millions--over the span of a career.

 

I don't disagree that serving the institution's interest is the primary purpose of the college athlete.  That doesn't make the agreement between player and institution any less consensual,  nor does it necessitate their education to be worth less than a minimum wage worker.  I feel like that insinuation is a little dishonest, though I do enjoy reading what you have to say overall.  

 

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

Departments being in the red or black is largely irrelevant to the dynamic, since most programs exist as branding devices for administrators hooked on a fool theory that visibility equals tuition dollars, which is where *they* get paid. This is an institutional addiction more than anything else, going well beyond athletic departments themselves. Obviously schools like Nebraska have chosen to replicate corporate models of organizational behavior because, well, it's padded the wallets of the administrative classes. A lot. Even if this doesn't always extend to every single school--and you'd be right to say that it doesn't--*no* athletic program breaks a schools finances. Otherwise it would cease (and some have). But so-called "power five" schools are run like businesses, and for them, athletics is a large part of the corporate branding war that attracts both students and donors. Or at least, they believe that. So this is how the exploitation formula works. Successful programs raise the visibility of an institution. They are marketing devices. Nothing more.

 

I agree with all of this.    

 

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

Transforming athletic departments into corporations/businesses has had one effect that few people inside athletics thought about: with the model came the model's values. No corporation values the "development" of an employee as such. It merely demands the match of skill and labor to the productive task involved. The personal "growth" of a player is equally irrelevant, since it is seen to have no impact on revenue generation. Business exist to secure profit. Period. And that sole directive now applies to most corporatized athletic departments. It was likely unintentional, but it was the outcome nonetheless. And when we speak of profit, we're not limiting that to the intake of dollars for an athletic department alone.

 

I believe you're making a false dichotomy here.  It should absolutely be a profit motive for an institution to have good player development.  That's how games are won, programs are built, and money is made.  Therefore, player development is a mutual benefit to the institution and the player.  

 

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

I agree with you on fan values, btw. Which goes to show that a profound dissonance still exists between what a fan might value and what an athletic department or television content producer might value. Hence the constant clashes between fans and departments when there is no winning. or the entertainment value is seen as poor. But I don't believe that most fans give two $&*&s about a players "growth": these are rationalizations for the demands they make to the player to subordinate their ambitions to those of the fan. Sure, there are exceptions. Probably quite a few. But let's face it: how fans react to losing belies that claim.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how this could be quantified, but a lot of fans are selfish, insecure assholes.  There's no question about that.  I agree there is dissonance here.  As a slightly connected tangent, I look at radio programming as incredibly dissonant.  The AM stations that cover Husker athletics are loaded with hate radio at all times besides games where athletes who look like the people they demonize regularly are suddenly the darlings of our community.  Unless, of course, as you point out, the athletes aren't winning games.  

 

That said, I'm probably just a little less cynical.  I think the athletes who stick it out and show growth are pretty much universally celebrated and can win over most fans on a personal level.  

 

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

As you point out as well, this is a social dynamic, not exclusively a collegiate one. We exist in a system that drives everyone towards defending what they perceive as their self-interest. It should shock no one that they're going to learn that lesson, too, because that's precisely what they're getting taught from birth in one form or another.

 

 

 

Sure.  The college athlete thinking independently and the transfer "epidemic" is definitely chickens coming home to roost in many respects.  My personal concern is that today's obsession with victimhood on both sides of the isle has contributed to a lack of grit among the backend of my generation.  I don't believe this to be a theory or a different lens.  I think there is a noticeable difference between this generation's inability to handle adversity compared to the ones prior.  Having said this, the main reason for this lack of grit has as much to do with apathy as toughness (I should've said that earlier), and the apathy is the result of cynicism derived from growing up such glaringly hypocritical times.  The apathy is the fault of generations prior.  All are punished.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so with this transfer, X is sitting at 13 scholarships and unless Bluiett declares for the draft, they're presumably full up for 17-18...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of had a bit of a chuckle when I read this quote in the Iowa State Daily:

 

The Cyclones now have three scholarships available for the 2017-18 season and are still searching for some big men to sure up their presence in the paint. They have their eyes on junior college forward Shakur Juiston and Nebraska transfer Ed Morrow Jr., according to Alex Halsted of 247sports.

 

The chuckle is Ed's alleged "want" to play more on the outside...by the way, Ed is visiting Pitt next week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't matter where he goes or what any coach whispers in his ear. Ed's skill set is mixing it up down low, and that's where every team he's on is going to need him. Every place he goes is going to look exactly like Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tcp said:

doesn't matter where he goes or what any coach whispers in his ear. Ed's skill set is mixing it up down low, and that's where every team he's on is going to need him. Every place he goes is going to look exactly like Nebraska.

 

Well, except, perhaps, for the wins and losses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swmckewon said:

 

Well, except, perhaps, for the wins and losses. 

 

If Ed is willing to come off the bench, he can come off the bench for a winner program that might run past the first weekend of the NCAA tourney.

 

I don't see him starting in the post for a program any better than the one he's leaving.

 

He's not going to start anywhere as a wing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

If Ed is willing to come off the bench, he can come off the bench for a winner program that might run past the first weekend of the NCAA tourney.

 

I don't see him starting in the post for a program any better than the one he's leaving.

 

He's not going to start anywhere as a wing.

 

 

 

I can't say with any confidence that Morrow would or wouldn't start at any given position. He'll have a year to retool his game, and maybe he will. He also might not. 

 

But I'd think he'd go to a school that has multiple NCAA Tournaments in the last 4 years. Horne did. 

 

Kind of like Chad Johnson did once upon a time. Johnson wasn't a better player at Pitt than he was at Nebraska. He played less. But he played on a Sweet 16 team, too. 

 

Edited by swmckewon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam he has a lot of work to do to retool his game to be a wing at the college level.  He was as bad defensively in space as Horne was.  His shooting range was about 5 feet in and ball handling reminded me of Andrew White's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, nustudent said:

Still dont believe for one second he actually believes/expects to be a wing.

 

Yeah, really.  He has to be the dumbest man on the planet to think his game is a wing type player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nustudent said:

Still dont believe for one second he actually believes/expects to be a wing.

Yeah, I think what is he's saying is that he (1) doesn't want to play center at 6-7 and (2) wants to expand his game by working on his ball handling and outside shooting. The simplified version is that he wants to be a wing, which makes it easier to ridicule. It doesn't seem like NCAA caliber teams would be looking at him if he marched into the coach's office and said "I'm going to play wing." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nustudent said:

Still dont believe for one second he actually believes/expects to be a wing.

 

You probably also wouldn't believe he wanted to leave last year because he wasn't getting enough playing time even though he spent most of the year injured. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

You probably also wouldn't believe he wanted to leave last year because he wasn't getting enough playing time even though he spent most of the year injured. 

I heard this from a very, very reliable source as well.  To bad, soooo sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thattimeofyear4 said:

Lol I'm thinking jordy did

Sent from my SM-S320VL using Tapatalk
 

 

Guess it depends on whose perspective you look at it from. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.