UND92,96

Is it a potential Title IX problem, or just a potential PR problem? As I see it, so long as schools such as Bemidji St., SCSU, Mankato and Duluth are funding programs, it might be tough to make the case that UND can't do the same. From what I've been able to gather, the problem might be that UND is spending at or above the levels of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Where is the money going exactly? The women's WCHA is essentially a bus league (other than Ohio St.), and Idalski isn't being paid as much as the Minnesota or Wisconsin coaches.

Granted, I don't know what new players UNC has coming in, but based on returnees I would be disappointed if they finished ahead of UND next year.

I don't think it means Baker is out. It might be a contingency plan, or it might mean others won't be back. Hypothetically, there might still be as many as four scholarships open right now, depending on who else won't be back. At this point, I'm only really counting on Hooker, Shanks, Cashman, Crandall, Seales, Collins, McDermott, Bernstine and Avants being on scholarship. Maybe Hobaugh will get one for his last year, but that's not necessarily a given. The other three or four are still questionable IMO.

Several early departures seem inevitable. With 15 scholarships, the lack of quality depth this year was a bit alarming. I wouldn't be surprised if there only end up being about four total juniors/seniors-to-be returning on scholarship.

UND adds a 6'6" juco post: http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=210025594

I guess to me there's a difference between simply saying "I don't know" or "I haven't heard anything" and saying "I'm hearing he may be back". I don't think the return or non-return of a basketball player necessarily warrants much press coverage, and I completely understand why UND isn't going to confirm or deny anything when the player hasn't announced plans to transfer, but you would think it shouldn't be all that hard to confirm that he doesn't plan to return to the team next year. Tyler must have told some people about his plans, given the number of normally pretty reputable posters who don't seem to have any doubts about his non-return.

Enough people have posted this to lead me to believe it's probably true, but it makes me wonder why it was that somebody--presumably close to the program--indicated to Miller that it was not yet a certainty?

The possibility of Tyler and DeRouen coming back, along with the possibility of Baker and/or McKinley transferring in, means there is a lot uncertainty about the use of the last few scholarships. You have to assume Hooker, Shanks, Cashman, Crandall, Seales, Collins, Bernstine, McDermott and Avants will all be on scholarship. That's nine. That leaves four more for some combination of Tyler, DeRouen, Baker, McKinley, Benton, Hobaugh or possibly even some other newcomer(s).

It will be very much like 2010-11. Unfortunately, distribution of scholarships among the classes has been an issue for several years now. It seems like there are always 9 or 10 devoted to back-to-back classes.

I would bet money that Jones would make sure a scholarship is available for both of those players if they choose to come to UND.

Does anybody have any information on whether Benton is or is not coming back? I believe there have only been two other situations under Jones like this, i.e. a fifth-year-senior-to-be on scholarship who played very little as a redshirt junior. Archer came back. Haugen did not. I don't really count Goodman due to his injuries.

He might be the most improved player I've ever seen from what he was when he arrived at Wisconsin, to what he's been the past two years. Ryan seems to have a way of finding/developing under-the-radar types into stars.

Will any of the half dozen or so players expected to declare for the NBA show up on campus again this year? On another note, Kentucky high school basketball must not be very good, since despite having a population of 4.4 million, none are apparently good enough to see the floor for Calipari. I think Pitino only had one at Louisville.

Duke has great talent, but is vulnerable if they get into any foul trouble since they have so little depth. I think Wisconsin is the team of destiny.

Hard to believe Bo Ryan didn't get a division I coaching job until he was 51.

Wisconsin and Kentucky tied at the half despite Kentucky shooting 60%.

Looks like they average a little over 600, with a high of 1465 against Minnesota.

I've got nothing against Tyler. I just hope he is getting his degree this spring. Otherwise, leaving is a mistake IMO. Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight it would be tough to argue that UND would not have been better served using that scholarship on a high school recruit a couple of years ago. As for Crandall, I'm not saying he necessarily should have played this year--just that he probably could have. Aaron Anderson was 140, and Troy Huff 170 as true freshmen, and they did just fine.

I don't mind a one-and-done transfer if he's considered the last piece of the puzzle for an already good team. But if Tyler truly is gone, and particularly if he took up a scholarship for the year he sat out, it didn't end up being a good move since clearly this was far from a good team. I'm not sure he gave us much, if any more than a combination of Antwi getting more minutes and Crandall not red-shirting could have also done. However, in all fairness I can't blame Jones too much for this one, unless he actually had reason to think Tyler was an early flight risk when be was brought in. Since that presumably wasn't the case, it was probably just a case of bad luck. But that's quite different from trying to claim it was worth it to have Tyler play for one season just because he scored 11 ppg and ate up a lot of minutes on a bad team. I don't see how that benefitted the program at all in the long run.

Was Tyler on scholarship for the year he sat out after transferring from Kansas City?

I will be perfectly honest with you. I don't think there's a very good chance Jones will be back after 2015-16, so I don't support the idea of bringing in a new assistant for one year. I don't think that's fair to that person, particularly when I believe Horner can be promoted, and a grad assistant can adequately perform the duties a director of basketball operations typically handles, at least for one year. Now, if one feels that there IS a realistic chance Jones has a future at UND beyond next season, then I understand why you might feel it's necessary to continue to have three assistants plus a director of basketball operations who is not a grad assistant.

I counted Horner as the fourth assistant. Jones was also a director of basketball operations immediately before he got the UND job. So if that isn't really considered a real coach, that brings up a whole other set of questions... In any event, I would suggest UND follow the Montana St. model--three full-time assistants, which would be Dirden, Grabowski and Horner, plus perhaps a grad assistant.

It saves money, for one thing. Personally, I feel that four assistants is overkill for a low-major program. Either put the savings away for some other pressing need within the basketball program (there are clearly some of those), or use some of it to increase the pay for the other three assistants (not necessarily advocating that one, but it's theoretically possible anyway).

If I were Faison, I would not allow Jones to hire another assistant from the outside for next season, unless somebody else leaves. Promote Horner, and maybe add a grad assistant. I know of at least three other Big Sky schools that get by with three assistants: http://www.msubobcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball#coaches_anchor Under the circumstances, that would seem to be the prudent move.

If I'm a coach and think I'm being underpaid relative to my peers, why do I want to extend my low-paying contract even longer? I suppose the thinking is--if I do badly, the lengthy contract guarantees me a decent buyout. And if I do well, they'll have to renegotiate, or risk losing me. Either way, the coach is in a better position than the school.