Who was our last football- basketball 2-way guy? Was it Chezley Watson? Am I forgetting someone?
Who was the last real impact guy? Terry Kirby?
1 Like
Kirby and Matt Blundin. Percy Elsworth played as well 1 or 2 seasons after me
3 Likes
Thatâs right. I forgot about Ellsworth. He was great on the football team, but had already stopped playing hoops, I think, by 95-96.
1 Like
Mark Cooke played both for at least one season. I canât remember how much run he got in hoops, but donât believe it was much. Unfortunately, Mark is best known for not reporting in as the second tight end in what was supposed to be a two-tight-end formation on UVAâs short-lived go-ahead TD late in the 4th quarter of the November 1990 GT game. The TD (which we scored with only 10 men on the field) got called back for only 5 on the LOS, we had to settle for a tying field goal, and Scott Sisson took it from there. If you ask me, it should be legal to line up with only 5 on the LOS if you have only 10 on the field. But nobody will (or should) ask me.
6 Likes
Thatâs awesome!
3 Likes
Fresh lookin like CL 15 or so there
2 Likes
TP Stats: Between Division 1 and Division 2 there are 3,055 players currently in the Transfer Portal.
D1: 2,035 Transfers
D2: 1,020 TransfersCommitted: 1,820 Transfers (59.6%)
Uncommitted: 1,235 Transfers (40.4%)
2 Likes
Folks in the comments point out that that simple stat may not be totally accurate, as it wouldnât capture someone who went to D-III or NAIA, or had graduated and ultimately decided against doing a grad-year / COVID year somewhere, or returned to overseas. Have to imagine some of the folks in the latter categories put themselves in the Portal as kind of a âjust in case the right offer pops upâ situation, but were also willing to go on with their lives otherwise.
Still think itâs a big number that are âhomelessâ, of course, and itâs sad to see whatâs become in that situation.
4 Likes
Doesnât account for the âIâm not portaling, okay I am portaling, okay Iâm in the portal but Iâm gonna hang around Cville and get my degree and then figure out whatâs nextâ. Aka, the Dante Harris.
I mostly think the portal is a net negative for fans, and an annoyance for coaches, but I think itâs been okay for players.
On the financial front, things are overall positive for players. Because of the Covid 5th year, there are more players chasing the same schollies. But I think thatâs more than offset by lots of NIL money out there for everyone.
The only negative is the @DFresh11 point that guys might regret moving and having fewer ties down the roadâŚ
4 Likes
Which will drop drastically next year, could be a 30-40% drop in the number of portal players overall, which will increase demand and market value for the guys who do jump, and increase the value of having incumbents / homegrown players on the roster for coaches as the overall quality of transfers drops.
2 Likes
I think those portal figures count walk-ons too (âunaidedâ players in NCAA parlance). For last year, 161 out of the 431 MBB players that were active in the transfer portal after portal season was over were unaided players. And as mentioned before, transfers to non-NCAA programs count as active in the portal. Also, D2 transfers are much more likely to remain active in the portal after the season (63% of portal entrants in 2023 remained active), probably because they are going to a non-NCAA program much more often, so itâs a little misleading to group them together with D1.
Source:
D1: Transfer Portal Data: Division I Student-Athlete Transfer Trends - NCAA.org
D2: Transfer Portal Data: Division II Student-Athlete Transfer Trends - NCAA.org
3 Likes
Kenpomâs fairly entertaining take on the portal stats:
4 Likes
That said, it isnât always about scheduling a sure win. Many coaches feel an obligation to others in the profession who are not at schools with programs flush in funds. The guaranteed gates help keep lesser programs solvent. Then, there is always the issue of including HBCU institutions which I find very appropriate. While I donât believe the OOC schedule should be loaded with such games, I do believe it is right to schedule a few. Itâs worth remembering how fortunate we are as members of the University of Virginia family. We shouldnât take it for granted, and I donât think we should forget that there are others who are not so blessed.
2 Likes
KP with the qualitative research! Like to see it.
Iâm guessing the engagement farmers would say âWe just said âuncommittedâ, which is mostly right. People simply took away the wrong idea.â The vicious cycle continues âŚ
1 Like
I agree thatâs an issue (low majorsâ revenue sources), but Iâm not sure the buy game economy is a great way to solve it.
I also think thereâs probably D-1 bloat. There are a hundred or so more D-1 schools than there were a few decades ago
1 Like
And, that brings up a notion which I have always entertained. I really believe that the NCAA Menâs Basketball Tournament should be expanded to include all Div 1 teams. Let it become a true âplay downâ tournament. Among other things, it would only add a weekend plus a series of play-in games. It would generate considerably more revenue. It would allow all the participants to share in the proceeds. For those that say it prolongs the season too far, simply reduce the regular season from 28 to 26 games before conference tournaments. In my view, everyone wins. Especially the fans as the possibilities of Cinderellas expands. Everyone loves a Cinderella!
My personal preference would have these attributes:
- a somewhat standard set of scheduling criteria across at least the power 6 schools
- Some form of revenue sharing across schools, so that Power 6 doesnât need to schedule so many cupcakes (for extra home games) and lower revenue teams donât depend on those checks to fund their departments
- fewer conference games, and more noncon games later in the season
- And in slight tension with the above, more games among the better teams
I donât know the best way to accomplish all that, but I do know the current system leads to coaches trying to game the system a bit. Clemson canât get enough good noncon games. And other mid acc teams. But then you have Otz and Sampson avoiding tough games becaus theyâre worried about conference schedulesâŚ
1 Like
It effectively is if you consider the conference tournaments, whose winners are automatic qualifiers, as part of it.
Win your conference tournament and advance.
The only argument at that point is for conferences that either (a) donât invite their worst few teams to the conference tournament [which, boo hoo, whatever, win more], or (b) arenât giving a fair chance to new conference members [like Jordan Minor at Merrimack in 2023, which is actually an injustice].
5 Likes
Except that the conference tournaments donât generate the sort of revenue for their participants which an expanded NCAAT would. Which was sort of my point. Then, there is the increased exposure, too.