ADVERTISEMENT

Kansas State Transfer Jevon Thomas to Seton Hall

So why do we have scholarship offers out to all these guards and we take this guy
 
seems like the most realistic and probably the best guy we can get at his point. Think it's worth the gamble

I agree that he's a decent option. I'm curious to see how this board will react if that happens. When he was at Rutgers, his playing style and personality were not admired here. Will that suddenly change if he becomes a Pirate, even though he doesn't seem to be the player he was before the injury? Also, there has been criticism of both Gibbs and Sina for committing to multiple schools during their college careers. Will that type of pattern suddenly be deemed okay should Carter land in South Orange?

I understand that most sports fans judge players first and foremost by the uniform they wear. If he's our player, he's an asset. If he plays for the hated rival, he's a bum. Still, it's especially interesting in this case due to all the earlier opinions expressed about Carter on this board. It would be nice to read what people think about Carter BEFORE he makes his decision. That won't happen, however, as most posters won't be able to determine whether he's good or bad until he commits.
 
What is interesting is Carter seems to be a kid who needs the ball in his hands. It is clear that the ball will be in IWs hands and Khadeens too. How will a player like Carter blend in here? Seems like we have the same situation we just had with Sterling and IW both needing the ball in their hands and a coach who has not been able to make that work. New player, new day but possibly more of the same.
 
Section, that's obviously a legitimate concern. Carter will also want major minutes. And though minutes aren't supposed to be "promised," it's likely that Willard did something like with Sina to keep him from transferring a year ago. While you would think Carter's primary role would be to spell Whitehead and Carrington, it's also possible that Willard goes three guards for extended periods. With no Mobley, that would make for a very small team with Rodriguez and Delgado at the four and five, which suggess that Mobley will in some ways be missed more than Gibbs. Carter has a strong personality and, as you stated, likes to have the ball in his hands. A lot of "meshing" needs to happen, and, considering this coach's track record, it would be interesting to see how roles are assigned and accepted should Carter come on board.
 
When you are in the state of desparation you will talk yourself into any recruit being the right one...welcome to SHU basketball.
 
Not to denigrate the incoming class. but the most distressing recruiting trend is that Willard is only landing kids where Seton Hall is clearly their best offer, conference-wise. If not for Seton Hall swooping in, these young men would likely all be headed for a lower-level conference (or, in Carter's case, DePaul, which is pretty much the same thing). While it's true Willard got off to a slow start with recruiting, last year's Morton class should have given him a new lease on life. So you would have expected Seton Hall to be battling major-conference schools for players, rather than the schools who were actually interested in the players signed. Even if a couple of these players pan out, it's a risky strategy, as Willard and his staff don't seem to be willing to build relationships with higher rated players. They just want to "work" on sure things -- kids who won't say no to Seton Hall because they don't have any other big-time offers. It's lazy recruiting. Then again, people on this board already know that.
 
Fair enough. But tell me this. What makes your post carry any weight?

My post is based up his statistics playing 2 years at KState. What is your opinion based on? I would really like to know because it seems like you are pulling it out of your ass.
I try to answer that: He talked to Mensa member Jerry Lucas at the '89 finals.
 
"But multiple sources told Gannett New Jersey there could be more roster movement that would open the door for a guard with immediate eligibility."

APP
 
Excerpts from March 25 Kansas City Star article:

“As for Jevon, he has worked diligently to succeed in our program both athletically and academically. He has made tremendous strides during his time at K-State, but he’s come to the decision he wants to be closer to home. We wish him the best as he moves forward in his college career.”

Thomas exits following a rocky season in which he led the Wildcats with 102 assists and averaged 4.5 points while starting 25 games, but also had to talk his way back onto the roster earlier this month when Weber briefly kicked him off the team before a road game against Texas.

Coaches were high on Thomas when he arrived, saying he had the talents to replace Angel Rodriguez, a former starting point guard who transferred to Miami at the conclusion of his sophomore year. But Thomas’ development was slowed when the NCAA granted him partial eligibility as a freshman, requiring that he sit out games and practices during his first semester. Weber often referred to Thomas as a freshman this season, saying he was robbed of crucial developmental opportunities.

From Kansas City Star
 
sounds like he's a mediocre offensive player at best, but looks like he can be a potential PG option, play good defense and run the offense. Has a year to work on his shooting before becoming eligible.

As I mentioned before; beggars can't be choosers. Need some bodies and hope for the best. Suboptimal to say the least, but until real change happens this is what we have to deal with.
 
Excerpts from March 25 Kansas City Star article:

Thomas exits following a rocky season in which he led the Wildcats with 102 assists and averaged 4.5 points while starting 25 games, but also had to talk his way back onto the roster earlier this month when Weber briefly kicked him off the team before a road game against Texas.

From Kansas City Star
Yikes! Should fit in well in KW's system, whatever that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBluePirate
Yikes! Should fit in well in KW's system, whatever that is.
The Trove just spoke to Thomas last night. My writer noted he came off very intelligent during their talk.

I will post some titbits here when the article is complete.
 
Because he's Willard's boss and has oversight responsibility for all the athletic programs at SH. By your definition Willard could, without checking with anyone , give a ship to a player who is under investigation for criminal activities. If you're suggesting that Pat has no say in who Willard recruits or in any other aspect of the BB program
then all the comments that's been posted on this Board that Pat sits down at the end of the season and goes over the results of the just completed season and discusses the pluses and minuses really doesn't happen. You would also have me believe that Lyons and Willard had no conversation on how he address the guard problem created by Gibbs departure especially given what has transpired this year.

While the AD should have little if any say who starts, who gets what minutes, the type of offense or defense a team plays any other aspect of the program are areas he can exercise his authority over and questioning the validity of using the last ship on a player who will not see the court for a year is a legitimate part of his responsibility.
hallgrad80- Pat Lyons is the AD not the head men's basketball coach. But by your definition you make him the head basketball coach. You give him the power to shape the team to his liking not the coach's. According to your definition Lyons could give the ok only to players that he wants thereby affecting the entire make up of the team. The coach would have to use only Lyons' players and Lyons could dictate to the coach who starts, how many minutes each player can play, etc. ,thereby interfering in the everyday running of the team. The original question that was posed was whether a transfer who has to sit out a year should be given a scholarship over a transfer who would be immediately eligible. I believe that this is the coach's decision not the AD's.
 
hallgrad80- Pat Lyons is the AD not the head men's basketball coach. But by your definition you make him the head basketball coach. You give him the power to shape the team to his liking not the coach's. According to your definition Lyons could give the ok only to players that he wants thereby affecting the entire make up of the team. The coach would have to use only Lyons' players and Lyons could dictate to the coach who starts, how many minutes each player can play, etc. ,thereby interfering in the everyday running of the team. The original question that was posed was whether a transfer who has to sit out a year should be given a scholarship over a transfer who would be immediately eligible. I believe that this is the coach's decision not the AD's.

Come on Ray you're exaggerating my view when you suggest that only Lyons' players would make up the roster and in my response to your original comment I specifically commented that Lyons should have no say with respect to the on court decisions as to who plays, starts , gets minutes, etc and now you're stating that I would give Lyons the authority to make those decisions and that's just plain not true. Now to get back to the point I was making is that an AD has veto power over any coach's decision to offer a ship to a player or on other player issues and should exercise that authority in certain cases where he feels it's not in the best interest of the school and the program. We've seen over and over players suspended or dismissed from the team on the AD's decision where the coach disagrees. We've seen cases where players are offered ships and the school withdraws that offer over the objection of the head coach. I can think of one classic case involving SH and Lyons where a player was offered a ship and accepted and that player was Aquille Carr where , after the Gonzo era bringing in a player with his conduct issues was clearly questionable and would you have said it was wrong for Lyons if he said that we were withdrawing the ship over Kevin's objection .That scenario never had to be visited but it would have been interesting had AC met the standards for entrance . I'm sure neither of our positions will change on what Lyons' role should be vis a vis approving ships and his oversight responsibilities.
 
Come on Ray you're exaggerating my view when you suggest that only Lyons' players would make up the roster and in my response to your original comment I specifically commented that Lyons should have no say with respect to the on court decisions as to who plays, starts , gets minutes, etc and now you're stating that I would give Lyons the authority to make those decisions and that's just plain not true. Now to get back to the point I was making is that an AD has veto power over any coach's decision to offer a ship to a player or on other player issues and should exercise that authority in certain cases where he feels it's not in the best interest of the school and the program. We've seen over and over players suspended or dismissed from the team on the AD's decision where the coach disagrees. We've seen cases where players are offered ships and the school withdraws that offer over the objection of the head coach. I can think of one classic case involving SH and Lyons where a player was offered a ship and accepted and that player was Aquille Carr where , after the Gonzo era bringing in a player with his conduct issues was clearly questionable and would you have said it was wrong for Lyons if he said that we were withdrawing the ship over Kevin's objection .That scenario never had to be visited but it would have been interesting had AC met the standards for entrance . I'm sure neither of our positions will change on what Lyons' role should be vis a vis approving ships and his oversight responsibilities.
hallgrad- Just like you exaggerated my point of view and tried to put words in my mouth. The final question is should the AD interfere with the recruiting of a transfer who has to sit out a year and dictate that the scholarship should only be used by a transfer with immediate eligibility. What do you think?
 
the_setonian_72ppi.png


SHU gets KState transfer Jevon Thomas

Former Kansas State guard Jevon Thomas will transfer to Seton Hall, SNY.tv’s Adam Zagoria reported on Monday. Thomas will sit for the 2015-2016 season, but has two years of eligibility left.

“Well, first I felt comfortable, I knew a lot of the staff for years, but I was most impressed by the skill development,” the 6-foot Queens native told Zagoria.

In 2012, associate head coach of the Pirates Shaheen Holloway recruited Thomas out of high school, but Thomas chose Kansas State over Auburn and the Hall. He also played AAU under Seton Hall assistant coach Tiny Morton.

Thomas averaged 4.5 points and 3.3 assists last season over 25.8 minutes per game for the Wildcats.

On Thomas, Kansas State head coach Bruce Weber stated, “As for Jevon, he has worked diligently to succeed in our program both athletically and academically, he has made tremendous strides during his time at K-State, but he’s come to the decision he wants to be closer to home. We wish him the best as he moves forward in his college career.”

Seton Hall is also reportedly in the mix for Florida transfer Eli Carter as well as Rasheed Sulaimon, the troubled former Duke guard. The news of Thomas committing to SHU comes just days after the Pirates lost one of their own to transfer, Sterling Gibbs.

Olivia Mulvihill can be reached at olivia.mulvihill@student.shu.edu or on twitter @OliviaMulvihill

http://www.thesetonian.com/2015/05/04/breaking-news-shu-lands-kstate-transfer-jevon-thomas/
 
hallgrad- Just like you exaggerated my point of view and tried to put words in my mouth. The final question is should the AD interfere with the recruiting of a transfer who has to sit out a year and dictate that the scholarship should only be used by a transfer with immediate eligibility. What do you think?
Ray
I would say yes with certain qualifiers . I believe it is Ok for an AD to have the discussion with Willard as to why he's not going to bring in a player at a position of need who can play immediately rather then a player who is not eligible immediately. I would also see it appropriate for the AD to ask what other players are there out there that we're involved with that could play immediately and where we stand with them and if the response is positive that we could get one of them then I see nothing wrong with the AD saying let's hold off until the other , more beneficial scenarios play out.

The difference between our views is that you believe that what authority an AD has with respect to recruiting is interfering while I believe it's part of his job . For example I believe that it is certainly within an AD's authority to set recruiting boundaries , such as not taking partial qualifiers, not taking players who have personal conduct issues in their past as well as questioning why a program may be relying too much on transfers and why a program is not taking a player who can play immediately when doing so has a high priority especially for a clearly struggling program.
 
Ray
I would say yes with certain qualifiers . I believe it is Ok for an AD to have the discussion with Willard as to why he's not going to bring in a player at a position of need who can play immediately rather then a player who is not eligible immediately. I would also see it appropriate for the AD to ask what other players are there out there that we're involved with that could play immediately and where we stand with them and if the response is positive that we could get one of them then I see nothing wrong with the AD saying let's hold off until the other , more beneficial scenarios play out.

The difference between our views is that you believe that what authority an AD has with respect to recruiting is interfering while I believe it's part of his job . For example I believe that it is certainly within an AD's authority to set recruiting boundaries , such as not taking partial qualifiers, not taking players who have personal conduct issues in their past as well as questioning why a program may be relying too much on transfers and why a program is not taking a player who can play immediately when doing so has a high priority especially for a clearly struggling program.
hallgrad80- I'm in full agreement that the AD should set boundaries such as partial qualifiers and personal conduct issues but that was not the point here. If the coach after being advised of the recruiting boundaries wants to recruit a player the AD should not interfere because it is the head coach's team not the AD's. If the AD doesn't like what the head coach is doing then the AD should fire him. Now if you are implying that JT has issues you should be advised that 6 players are transferring from KSU and many of these players along with a number of seniors were suspended during this current BB season. Now one or two players being given suspensions one can see and attribute the suspension to the player's actions but six, seven or more now there is a problem with the coach and the program. So possibly the issue wasn't with JT but with the coach and his program.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT