Morrow leaving

[cipsucks]

21 hours ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

Seriously. Forget these basketball coaches coming to talk to him. I want Washut's next tweet to be that Riley is talking to Ed in the dining hall showing him a clipboard of TE routes over day old pizza.

Maybe MJ can join them.

[a0t0w0]

Fuller I get.

Horne I could see wanting a more defined role somewhere else.

 

Morrow and mj? Never would have guessed they'd leave.  Especially Michael.  What the flip is going on in the locker room

[basketballjones]

If MJ leaves something very sketchy is going on. He seemed basically like the voice of the team and was one of the first guys to tweet about "next year" and thanking the Husker fans.

[HuskerCager]

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

[Huskerpapa]

Looks like Iowa State is after Ed as well.

http://cyclonefanatic.com/2017/04/recruiting-iowa-state-actively-pursuing-nebraska-transfer-ed-morrow-jr/

[Dead Dog Alley]

2 hours ago, HuskerCager said:

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

 

Unless by some miracle you could get a splash hire, it's too late to make a change this season. All you would get is Just Another Guy With A Five Year Plan. I'm sure he made feelers around and didn't get much interest from anybody that would really do well.

 

Plus Eichorst has to survive the next two years of a brutal schedule and a potentially bad offense for football. That's what will make or break his career.

[BirdsOnTheBat]

Just an opinion of an old guy who values commitment but I fully expect to be crucified by this but........   IF these guys are leaving because they "don't like Miles" or they don't like the playing situation and are throwing temper tantrums because they are not getting there way, or, or, or.....   I am firmly in the camp get the hell out and don't let the door hit them in the ass, or put a spike in the door and make sure it hits them.  Feels like a bunch of today's kids, just like the majority of college, hell even high school, athletes of today who feel it better be there way or it's the coaches/staff's fault and they have no part in the situation.  Today's kids are just plain spoiled and today's parents are solely to blame and yes, I do understand that I am saying the same thing Socrates stated how many millenniums ago.   JMHO.

[The Polish Rifle]

3 hours ago, BirdsOnTheBat said:

Just an opinion of an old guy who values commitment but I fully expect to be crucified by this but........   IF these guys are leaving because they "don't like Miles" or they don't like the playing situation and are throwing temper tantrums because they are not getting there way, or, or, or.....   I am firmly in the camp get the hell out and don't let the door hit them in the ass, or put a spike in the door and make sure it hits them.  Feels like a bunch of today's kids, just like the majority of college, hell even high school, athletes of today who feel it better be there way or it's the coaches/staff's fault and they have no part in the situation.  Today's kids are just plain spoiled and today's parents are solely to blame and yes, I do understand that I am saying the same thing Socrates stated how many millenniums ago.   JMHO.

 

All joking aside, that's just the nature of sports in general now, and its not just the kids. Coaches spend a year at a school and bounce for greener pastures (see Underwood). There really is a reduced sense of loyalty - doesn't matter if you're 20 year old or 60 years old.

[swmckewon]

I think it's more of a postmodernism thing, in which one's own worldview preempts any standard "moral" worldview of any particular institution, tradition or authority. 

 

In practical terms, it looks like: Why shouldn't I look out for me? You're going to look out for you, and the most powerful among us always look out for themselves without fail. If (insert celebrity/politician/sports star here) gets his or her own way by always being tactical and always looking for the better deal - and is celebrated for doing so - why shouldn't I try to get mine? Isn't that just being a good consumer? 

 

For parents, it's: Hey, I want my kid to succeed, and yeah, you say success looks like him being a good teammate, but it doesn't get him any headlines, or the special treatment, so why shouldn't we look for a situation where he gets that? Why shouldn't he get to play whatever he wants and get whatever he wants? You would if you could. 

 

To be clear: I reject this worldview for faith reasons. But I see it, and I empathize with it. The people at the top seem to get whatever they want however they want it, selflessness is on the wane, and a natural question tends to be: If they won't, why should I? If everybody's out for themselves, what do I gain by being in it for others? 

 

I think there are good answers to that question, of course, but I'm not sure they're answers that a postmodern America - especially in sports - want to hear. 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by swmckewon

[atskooc]

3 hours ago, swmckewon said:

I think it's more of a postmodernism thing, in which one's own worldview preempts any standard "moral" worldview of any particular institution, tradition or authority. 

 

In practical terms, it looks like: Why shouldn't I look out for me? You're going to look out for you, and the most powerful among us always look out for themselves without fail. If (insert celebrity/politician/sports star here) gets his or her own way by always being tactical and always looking for the better deal - and is celebrated for doing so - why shouldn't I try to get mine? Isn't that just being a good consumer? 

 

For parents, it's: Hey, I want my kid to succeed, and yeah, you say success looks like him being a good teammate, but it doesn't get him any headlines, or the special treatment, so why shouldn't we look for a situation where he gets that? Why shouldn't he get to play whatever he wants and get whatever he wants? You would if you could. 

 

To be clear: I reject this worldview for faith reasons. But I see it, and I empathize with it. The people at the top seem to get whatever they want however they want it, selflessness is on the wane, and a natural question tends to be: If they won't, why should I? If everybody's out for themselves, what do I gain by being in it for others? 

 

I think there are good answers to that question, of course, but I'm not sure they're answers that a postmodern America - especially in sports - want to hear. 

 

 

 

I didn't expect to ever see postmodernism referenced on this board.

 

I guess that opens up chatter about Monty Python, Douglas Adams, the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and a buncha others who deconstruct the standard.

 

Takes me back to my undergrad days, that's for sure.

[HB]

We didn't engage in post-modernism at our house.   Had plenty of "old-school", however.  Seems to work.  

[Chuck Taylor]

7 hours ago, atskooc said:

I didn't expect to ever see postmodernism referenced on this board.

 

I guess that opens up chatter about Monty Python, Douglas Adams, the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and a buncha others who deconstruct the standard.

 

Takes me back to my undergrad days, that's for sure.

Postmodernism is the pseudointellectual term to describe the perception that relativism is overtaking society. You could say Socrates engaged in postmodernism. So next time you're shaking your fist at a cloud, just tell your neighbor you're a postmodernist. Or an anti-relativist. 

[jimmykc]

Postmodernism sounds an awful lot like what we called existentialism when I was an undergraduate. For our next assignment we will read Camus' "The Stranger". MJ and EM will lead the discussion.

[colhusker]

Damnit this thread has gotten to the point I need a dictionary.  Next thing there will be math involved.

[tcp]

16 hours ago, swmckewon said:

I think it's more of a postmodernism thing, in which one's own worldview preempts any standard "moral" worldview of any particular institution, tradition or authority. 

 

In practical terms, it looks like: Why shouldn't I look out for me? You're going to look out for you, and the most powerful among us always look out for themselves without fail. If (insert celebrity/politician/sports star here) gets his or her own way by always being tactical and always looking for the better deal - and is celebrated for doing so - why shouldn't I try to get mine? Isn't that just being a good consumer? 

 

For parents, it's: Hey, I want my kid to succeed, and yeah, you say success looks like him being a good teammate, but it doesn't get him any headlines, or the special treatment, so why shouldn't we look for a situation where he gets that? Why shouldn't he get to play whatever he wants and get whatever he wants? You would if you could. 

 

To be clear: I reject this worldview for faith reasons. But I see it, and I empathize with it. The people at the top seem to get whatever they want however they want it, selflessness is on the wane, and a natural question tends to be: If they won't, why should I? If everybody's out for themselves, what do I gain by being in it for others? 

 

I think there are good answers to that question, of course, but I'm not sure they're answers that a postmodern America - especially in sports - want to hear. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to leverage my old day job here, but this has nothing to do with post-modernism. If anything, it's an old throwback to Marxian critiques of capitalist values (relentless self-interest and its effect on social transactions).

 

The players are smarter in many ways than we are/were. You simply can't ask a player to be enthusiastic about their own exploitation by profit maximizers merely for your entertainment and your own interest. Cold truth is that they understand the institution of collegiate sports far better than most fans. The colder truth is that what fans are doing is asserting that their interests as consumers of entertainment supersedes the interests of others. And they couldn't even begin to explain why that is.

 

One of the most odious posts anyone can make on a college sports board is to whine about the "values" of loyalty, commitment, hard work, blah effity blah when every institution involved in this spectacle is out to make money and exhibits none of those values. I believe the old school term was, "hypocrisy".

[Hooper]

I don't dispute what Sam and others posted in this thread with respect to the me-first culture that permeates college athletics these days. However, none of that excuses the reality that we have a basketball program with a broken culture -- a program led by a coach who exudes positive energy in public, but in private mostly exudes negative energy. It doesn't change the fact that the leader of our basketball program has a coaching style that wears players down emotionally to the point that they have no loyalty to him, dislike playing for him and eventually just want to get as far away from him as possible. If you believe I'm engaging in speculation here, think again.

 

You guys can keep blaming millennial culture or whatever other labels you want to put on it. It won't change the inherent culture of this program, which is excessively negative and emotionally draining and demoralizing for its players. These same millennials populate our football program too, yet they're not transferring in substantial numbers. Why is that?

 

With MJ, we're talking about nearly ONE THIRD of our scholarship players transferring out of the program in the off-season. Think about that for a second. That's the equivalent of TWENTY-SIX football players transferring out in one year! If Glynn leaves, we're talking about 5 of 13 scholarship players transferring, which would represent nearly 40% of our scholarship players leaving the program. If people want to blame all of this on millennial culture, be my guest, but I believe you're externalizing something that is, to a great extent, internal in nature.

[Silverbacked1]

1 hour ago, colhusker said:

Damnit this thread has gotten to the point I need a dictionary.  Next thing there will be math involved.

 

or selin' will kont

[swmckewon]

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

Sorry to leverage my old day job here, but this has nothing to do with post-modernism. If anything, it's an old throwback to Marxian critiques of capitalist values (relentless self-interest and its effect on social transactions).

 

The players are smarter in many ways than we are/were. You simply can't ask a player to be enthusiastic about their own exploitation by profit maximizers merely for your entertainment and your own interest. Cold truth is that they understand the institution of collegiate sports far better than most fans. The colder truth is that what fans are doing is asserting that their interests as consumers of entertainment supersedes the interests of others. And they couldn't even begin to explain why that is.

 

One of the most odious posts anyone can make on a college sports board is to whine about the "values" of loyalty, commitment, hard work, blah effity blah when every institution involved in this spectacle is out to make money and exhibits none of those values. I believe the old school term was, "hypocrisy".

I think this is a bit much, but I'd agree that today's athletes have average-to-poor role models at best when it comes to selflessness. Brad Underwood did not make a selfless decision. He knew the situation his AD at Oklahoma State was in, chose to be offended one year after understanding that situation, and bailed on the job. If I were in the Illinois beat writer pool, one of the first questions I'd ask is: "How can you tell your players to be patient with you when you didn't show any patience at your previous job? Why should they do something you couldn't do at Oklahoma State?" 

 

On another note: I assume you were against Tim Miles banning his players from the perks of the locker room a few years ago? 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by swmckewon

[twinswingohuskers]

By the way the Doc comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek!!!

[Fullbacksympathy]

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

Sorry to leverage my old day job here, but this has nothing to do with post-modernism. If anything, it's an old throwback to Marxian critiques of capitalist values (relentless self-interest and its effect on social transactions).

 

The players are smarter in many ways than we are/were. You simply can't ask a player to be enthusiastic about their own exploitation by profit maximizers merely for your entertainment and your own interest. Cold truth is that they understand the institution of collegiate sports far better than most fans. The colder truth is that what fans are doing is asserting that their interests as consumers of entertainment supersedes the interests of others. And they couldn't even begin to explain why that is.

 

One of the most odious posts anyone can make on a college sports board is to whine about the "values" of loyalty, commitment, hard work, blah effity blah when every institution involved in this spectacle is out to make money and exhibits none of those values. I believe the old school term was, "hypocrisy".

 

Good post.  I have a few thoughts:

 

I think exploitation is beyond a stretch, and I tend to land fairly left on the political spectrum.  College athletes aren't minimum wage or outsourced factory workers.  If skilled players are the only thing giving college basketball value, then the D-League should be killing college basketball revenues.  Like all commercial products, college basketball's value will always be determined by the consumer dollar.  Therefore, there must be something about the amateurish nature of college athletics that is meaningful to the consumer.   

 

But even that is a non-argument because most athletic programs lose money on every sport besides football--which funds the other sports.  So, when you are referring to college athletes, I can only assume you're referring to women as well, who lose tens of millions of dollars a year for most major universities.  Who is being exploited in that situation?

 

Lastly, an extremely low percentage of college athletes turn pro, so how is a college education, food, housing, tutors, trainers, etc., not adequate payment for what the vast majority of players are bringing to the table?  Now, do players have rights within their contract that they are using?  Absolutely, and more power to them for using the limited contractual freedom they have to maximize their value as they see fit.  

 

I agree that loyalty in college athletics is, indeed, hypocrisy, but only because other universities' donors are willing to buy out contracts.  I also don't believe that consumers can be summed up so simply.  Yes, there are the blue hairs that want players to essentially be unquestioning, patriotic yesmen to their alma matter, which is basically a stupid, conservative, lingering baby boomer ideal.  But I think a lot fans--be them older or younger (me, a millennial)--are concerned for the players and their lack of toughness and grit in their willingness to face adversity rather than transfer.  It's usually more about seeing potential squandered due to a player being too mentally soft to learn.  We look at the Tai Websters of the world as what so many players could be if they just stick to the plan for four years, and so many aren't doing that because, quite frankly, they aren't as tough as Tai Webster, and we worry about those kids.  

 

Changes that I think should be made:  1.  High end players should be able to receive endorsements from non-conflicting brands.  2.  All players should be allowed to have jobs, period.  3.  Individual players should be allowed to split money with universities on the use of their likeness.  4.  Any player should be allowed to have an agent.  

[Silverbacked1]

should be able to work in the off season for sure

[khoock]

I'd be okay with athletes getting a stipend of some sorts, kinda like an allowance. Allow them to be young adults and have some money to go on dates or by themselves something nice. Nothing crazy but a little something.

[tcp]

5 hours ago, LK1 said:

 

Good post.  I have a few thoughts:

 

I think exploitation is beyond a stretch, and I tend to land fairly left on the political spectrum.  College athletes aren't minimum wage or outsourced factory workers.  If skilled players are the only thing giving college basketball value, then the D-League should be killing college basketball revenues.  Like all commercial products, college basketball's value will always be determined by the consumer dollar.  Therefore, there must be something about the amateurish nature of college athletics that is meaningful to the consumer.   

 

But even that is a non-argument because most athletic programs lose money on every sport besides football--which funds the other sports.  So, when you are referring to college athletes, I can only assume you're referring to women as well, who lose tens of millions of dollars a year for most major universities.  Who is being exploited in that situation?

 

Lastly, an extremely low percentage of college athletes turn pro, so how is a college education, food, housing, tutors, trainers, etc., not adequate payment for what the vast majority of players are bringing to the table?  Now, do players have rights within their contract that they are using?  Absolutely, and more power to them for using the limited contractual freedom they have to maximize their value as they see fit.  

 

I agree that loyalty in college athletics is, indeed, hypocrisy, but only because other universities' donors are willing to buy out contracts.  I also don't believe that consumers can be summed up so simply.  Yes, there are the blue hairs that want players to essentially be unquestioning, patriotic yesmen to their alma matter, which is basically a stupid, conservative, lingering baby boomer ideal.  But I think a lot fans--be them older or younger (me, a millennial)--are concerned for the players and their lack of toughness and grit in their willingness to face adversity rather than transfer.  It's usually more about seeing potential squandered due to a player being too mentally soft to learn.  We look at the Tai Websters of the world as what so many players could be if they just stick to the plan for four years, and so many aren't doing that because, quite frankly, they aren't as tough as Tai Webster, and we worry about those kids.  

 

Changes that I think should be made:  1.  High end players should be able to receive endorsements from non-conflicting brands.  2.  All players should be allowed to have jobs, period.  3.  Individual players should be allowed to split money with universities on the use of their likeness.  4.  Any player should be allowed to have an agent.  

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

 

[colhusker]

Question, don't these kids get a free education if they are on a scholarship?  I realize they had not allowed to work in the off season, which I think is dumb, although the cushy jobs at Kearney were for the athletes while I was out there, as I was let go as a painter for the school once they learned I was not an athlete, but the lack of a job can't be why they transfer at such a high rate anymore, which I think was what this thread was about at one time.  Granted I spent a lot of time in the sun yesterday.

[hhcmatt]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:35 PM, huskercwg said:

Looks like Iowa State is after Ed as well.

http://cyclonefanatic.com/2017/04/recruiting-iowa-state-actively-pursuing-nebraska-transfer-ed-morrow-jr/

 

If anyone wants to seems like they know about schools talking to Morrow before anyone else all you really need to do is check out his twitter follows

 

Pitt, Auburn, Marquette, Iowa St, Nevada, Marquette, KSU, Xavier

I'm sure Xavier sold him on the anchoring the 1-3-1 but if he's truly about playing in the NBA that doesn't exactly seem like a way to showcase being a defender. 

Not sure who will be on the roster but Iowa St looks like it would be a great fit for him in terms of playing small post players, uptempo, and midwest location.