Jordan Cruz Transfer
- Thread starter dsm405
- Start date
Based on the below links, Jordan Cruz was not starting at Utah, but had the best shooting percentage on the team from deep (3-point land).
Tigers add Utah transfer Jordan Cruz for 2019-20
https://www.pacifictigers.com/sports/w-baskbl/2018-19/releases/20190115ks68tm
This was just posted by Utah on 12/14/2018--very recent.
Now at Utah, Cruz is playing a bench role, filling in for players and rotating into key spots. She's a self-described "shooter", and spaces the floor well for the other guards and bigs on the team. She's currently shooting 66% from deep, first on the team.
https://utahutes.com/news/2018/12/14/womens-basketball-jordan-cruz-growing-on-and-off-the-court.aspx
You know, it is interesting how many young ladies have been courted and made decisions on attending schools and playing forprograms, Power 5 or Mid Major, only realize they didn't quite make the best decision and end up transfering out of the school/program.
the list i'm sure unfortunately will grow;
Haley Vice Neat- Boise State now Seattle U
Loretta Kakala- Loiusville now UOP
Valerie Higgins USC now UOP
Jordan Cruz Utah now UOP
Josetta Fatusei Utah now Santa Clara U
Mallory Maguire Oregon now Boise State
Helenya Hill San Jose state now TBD
Sarah Bates UCSB now Kansas State
A'Shanti Coleman Arizona now Boise state
Gabby Green Cal now LMU
how would picking baylor or louisville, two teams that are in the top ten consistently a bad decision?
Maybe “bad decision” is a improper reference.
I would think these ladies preference would be to be an active participant on the team they chose. Once they arrive on campus the realities and rigors if that specific D1 program may have been a bit more than they has anticipated
I would think these ladies preference would be to be an active participant on the team they chose. Once they arrive on campus the realities and rigors if that specific D1 program may have been a bit more than they has anticipated
IMO just because a school/program is consistently in the Top 10 does not mean it’s a good fit for a kid. I think a lot of decisions are made because of the reputation or status (ranking) of a program and/or player.
A lot of coaches get it wrong as well. They go after players who are ranked, but really don’t do their homework to see if the player will fit well within their program. The player gets there, and then the coaching staff realizes the player isn’t as good as they thought they were, IQ may not be what they expected, or maybe they are, but they just don’t fit well within their system.
A lot of coaches get it wrong as well. They go after players who are ranked, but really don’t do their homework to see if the player will fit well within their program. The player gets there, and then the coaching staff realizes the player isn’t as good as they thought they were, IQ may not be what they expected, or maybe they are, but they just don’t fit well within their system.
I think there are players that while in high school rely their superior athletic ability and are not really asked or exposed to the game from an all around approach. Weight training, learning structured system terminology, numerous offensive and defensive schemes and plays that may never had been taught in high school, understanding scouting reports, balancing time as a D1 player with college academics. Once they arrive in college and are exposed to many of these aspects it can be overwhelming at the same time trying to adjust from being away from home for an extended period of time.
I truly believe that many young players don't really take these things in to consideration. They may fall in to the grand allure of a major D1 program but may not be ready for the "shock to the system" of the day in and day out grind of being a D1 athlete.
I truly believe that many young players don't really take these things in to consideration. They may fall in to the grand allure of a major D1 program but may not be ready for the "shock to the system" of the day in and day out grind of being a D1 athlete.
Very well said Coach! All the intangibles that don’t show up in the box score. Pay attention players,parents this decision is bigger than you thought.
I think it's important to look at the whole school (academics, student body, diversity, program success, location) before making a decision. UConn is a GREAT program, but it is in the middle of nowhere and it gets cold! That could be a HUGE shock to a kid from California. I remember Jackie Gemelos from SMS committing and then recommitting and going to USC. Beach or horrible winters? lol
Also, I think it's safe to say that players like a Haley Jones will succeed in any environment because she's just a superb athlete and has an incredible basketball IQ. Then there are people just below her that are great players but don't develop over their 4 years at a HS/AAU because they run systems instead of really teaching the game.
I think there's some wonderful teaches out there that aren't on the national scene and some coaches that have systems where a player may not benefit from things a particular school runs (pressing, zone, man, transition vs. running sets). When they get to a school, it could be TOTALLY different than just going on a visit, watching practice, etc.
Not to be forgotten are the young ladies have stayed at their original choice longer than 1 year and seem to be enjoyong success in their D1 college decision.
Naje Murray- San Diego state
Myah Pace- Univ of San Diego
Khyala Rooks-Univ Washington
Danae Marquez- San Jose state
Meagan Anderson- San Jose state
Alasia Styles- Cal Berkley
Destiny Graham -Arizona
Madeline Holland-St Marys
Tahlia Garza- UC Irvine
Kristy Brown- Cal Poly
Lianna Tillman-UOP
Jasmine Jones-LMU
Kat Tudor-OSU
Sabrina Onescu-Oregon
Minyon Moore-USC
There are probably a few others I'm missing.
Naje Murray- San Diego state
Myah Pace- Univ of San Diego
Khyala Rooks-Univ Washington
Danae Marquez- San Jose state
Meagan Anderson- San Jose state
Alasia Styles- Cal Berkley
Destiny Graham -Arizona
Madeline Holland-St Marys
Tahlia Garza- UC Irvine
Kristy Brown- Cal Poly
Lianna Tillman-UOP
Jasmine Jones-LMU
Kat Tudor-OSU
Sabrina Onescu-Oregon
Minyon Moore-USC
There are probably a few others I'm missing.
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I just went through the transition, lived it with my own kid, so if anyone understands I do.
The crazy thing in all this is players being penalized (having to sit out a year) for transferring and the stigma behind it. These young ladies are still kids (17-19), making grown up decisions, most with the guidance of their parents. My daughter was only 16.
As grown ups we don’t always get it right the first time, but we expect kids to do it. Oh, but a coach can take another job, leave a program without any warning, and it’s ok. Crazy!!!!
The crazy thing in all this is players being penalized (having to sit out a year) for transferring and the stigma behind it. These young ladies are still kids (17-19), making grown up decisions, most with the guidance of their parents. My daughter was only 16.
As grown ups we don’t always get it right the first time, but we expect kids to do it. Oh, but a coach can take another job, leave a program without any warning, and it’s ok. Crazy!!!!
Last edited:
College athletics are a business, pure and simple. Coaches are coaching for their jobs. It's strictly professional at the four-year level, Division I and Division II. Scholarships are involved. The stakes are higher. It's a far, far cry from AAU (heaven help us) and high school (heaven help those really bad programs too).
As I've said numerous times, if athletes have to sit out a year for going to a different school, so should coaches and athletic directors. All are adults, so what's the difference?
The difference is kids are there to GET an education, not follow a coach. Coaches are hired as professional coaches. You can argue that at BCS men's schools it's different, but you don't really see women making millions of dollars playing hoops. I hate the notion that it's not fair for the kids...Bull Crap. There are rules in place and if you don't like it, then don't play and pay for your own school.
Yes the university/NCAA makes a lot of money on these kids but they're getting a FREE education. Shoot...I'm still paying off student loans and will till I'm damn near 60. Kids should make a decision based on factors of: what if the coach leaves? Would I still want to be in an environment like this? Can I see myself going here if everything was removed? Clay, college athletes are "Amateur" and coaches are professional...plain and simple. If I had a daughter at a D1 school, she picked it mainly because of a coach, coach leaves, would I or my daughter be mad? YES! But in the end, she's getting a good, free education and I think we're losing sight of that!
College athletes are not amateurs if they're getting a scholarship. College athletes are not amateurs if their labor generates income for their school (regardless of whether it's profitable or not -- colleges makes that choice).
And what harm is done to anyone by allowing them to transfer without sitting out? The "investment" of the school in the athlete is no different than its investment in its athletic director or golf coach or history professor. Why should the athlete be limited in ways that others associated with the university are not?
And why is there some moral value in not transferring? Is there a moral value in staying in a job or relationship that doesn't work for you if there are other options? Why is it a moral negative for a student/athlete to move to a different school and not a moral negative for a coach to move to a different school?
The issue here is about fairness, and treating all those who are associated with an institution the same way.
And what harm is done to anyone by allowing them to transfer without sitting out? The "investment" of the school in the athlete is no different than its investment in its athletic director or golf coach or history professor. Why should the athlete be limited in ways that others associated with the university are not?
And why is there some moral value in not transferring? Is there a moral value in staying in a job or relationship that doesn't work for you if there are other options? Why is it a moral negative for a student/athlete to move to a different school and not a moral negative for a coach to move to a different school?
The issue here is about fairness, and treating all those who are associated with an institution the same way.
Clay, they are defined by the NCAA as being amateurs, or else colleges wouldn't be getting in trouble for paying players actual money...so don't play the dumb semantics game. Like I said, if students don't like the system, change it, abide by OR don't play.
Let me put it to you like this...AD's, Coaches, history professors, golf coaches ALL have college degrees. They put in their time, received their degrees and are PROFESSIONALS. College kids DO NOT have a degree and the spirit of collegiate athletics (I know it's far from it) is STUDENT-athlete. Do you think that Haley Jones is qualified to be the provost at Stanford next year as a freshman? "Why should the athlete be limited in ways that others associated with the university are not?"
I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning....So you're okay with "Tommy" the basketball player, attending Baylor (1), Kentucky (2), USC (3) and Cal State Eastybay (4) during his 4 years in college? Because that's what would happen. Oh, Kentucky needs a point guard to win a national championship, I'll go there. No wait, USC has all the tools to be national champions...I'll go there, I've got myself national championship rings-now I'm going home to play for the fun of it and for my friends and family. I just think the notion is stupid and would open up a pandoras box that would be terrible or the game.
And when you're talking about generating income, do you know how many schools in the country actually end in the black at the end of the year? between 24-30. Yup THAT'S IT! You'd be very surprised of the "income" that a lot of these schools generate. Then the next question is what is, or what should the role of athletics be at the university level...especially if so many colleges are operating in the red?
"The issue here is about fairness, and treating all those who are associated with an institution the same way." Life is not fair, Clay, and if you think it is, I want to live in your world. You cannot treat EVERYONE at the university the same way. Should a Gardner make the same as the president of the university, or the cook as much as a professor? The bottom line is that these are young adults. Don't know squat about life and do impulsive things with or without parents consent. Do I have a problem with kids transferring? No, but I don't think they should be able to transfer w/o penalty unless there are extenuating circumstances, which the NCAA has allowed on many occasions.
Last edited:
Norcal,
Many great points ! By the way...........
Isn't jumping around to form an instant all star team when you think your team can't win a championship fast enough the era we are presently in the NBA ala Lebron James, Kevin Durant style?
Well said norcal.. and just to tack onto this point.. how many of those 24-30 schools only end up in the black solely because of football? And how many schools end up in the red because the profits from football and mens bb goes to cover EVERYTHING else? Football and big time men's basketball is what pays for a lot of other sports to operate.
First, the fact that schools report that they don't make money on athletics doesn't take into account donations, alumni interest, enrollment, etc. If athletics was a money loser overall, why do colleges do it? And why do more colleges keep coming to Division I instead of leaving?
The people who run universities can add and subtract, and in a time where colleges are squeezed financially, if they could save millions by cutting athletics, many would do so. The fact that none have tells us that athletics does, overall, produce income for the college, though not necessarily directly.
Second, what would be wrong with a person going to four different schools in four years?
Third, what does having a college degree have to do with the ability to make decisions about your life? So any person without a college degree shouldn't have the same freedoms as someone who does? Or are you saying age is the defining factor? So any 30-year-old is smarter than any 18-year-old? Or any 30-year-old with a college degree should be able to do things a 21-year-old can't?
Fourth, the only reason amateur athletics exist at all is that in the middle of the 19th century, the elite colleges in England wanted to have a rowing competition and name a champion. But obviously the men who worked on the rivers on boats would easily win any such race -- so the rich aristocratic elite decided that athletic competition could only be for amateurs, so that they would have a chance to win.
I really see no justification for the distinction between professional and amateur in sports. The United States operates on a more-or-less free market basis, in which people are supposed to be able to make decisions about spending money based on their own notions of self-interest. Why shouldn't that apply to athletics?
And finally, just because life is unfair, does that mean we should support systems that make it more unfair? To take an extreme example, life is unfair, so slaves should accept their lot? Less extreme, life is unfair, so if the rich manipulate the system to get richer, that's OK?
The people who run universities can add and subtract, and in a time where colleges are squeezed financially, if they could save millions by cutting athletics, many would do so. The fact that none have tells us that athletics does, overall, produce income for the college, though not necessarily directly.
Second, what would be wrong with a person going to four different schools in four years?
Third, what does having a college degree have to do with the ability to make decisions about your life? So any person without a college degree shouldn't have the same freedoms as someone who does? Or are you saying age is the defining factor? So any 30-year-old is smarter than any 18-year-old? Or any 30-year-old with a college degree should be able to do things a 21-year-old can't?
Fourth, the only reason amateur athletics exist at all is that in the middle of the 19th century, the elite colleges in England wanted to have a rowing competition and name a champion. But obviously the men who worked on the rivers on boats would easily win any such race -- so the rich aristocratic elite decided that athletic competition could only be for amateurs, so that they would have a chance to win.
I really see no justification for the distinction between professional and amateur in sports. The United States operates on a more-or-less free market basis, in which people are supposed to be able to make decisions about spending money based on their own notions of self-interest. Why shouldn't that apply to athletics?
And finally, just because life is unfair, does that mean we should support systems that make it more unfair? To take an extreme example, life is unfair, so slaves should accept their lot? Less extreme, life is unfair, so if the rich manipulate the system to get richer, that's OK?
It's the age old question...why do colleges of higher learning offer sports if it's so financially draining to the institution? I don't know the answer. I will tell you this..having a successful sports program lifts the institution into a whole other category. Take Duke for instance. Pre-having the best men's program in recent memory (minus UCLA), their school was a good school but not GREAT. What happened after they started winning? They elevated their status and now a tier 1 school. Not that's extreme, but it does happen...look at George Washington after their NCAA run a few year ago.
#2-you may like the whole build a dream team, but I don't and think it would poor for the game. Again, I'm not against people transferring-not one bit. But to have a kids transfer without penalty would be just rubbish.
#3-Clay you've been in education long enough to know the answer to this question. Having a degree doesn't make you smarter than the next person, but it does show dedication and going through the process of obtaining knowledge in a special field to fulfill the prerequisites to get a job. Would you want a person who majored in communications doing brain surgery on your because he read an anatomy book?
Again, you ask questions but never answered if Haley should be the next Provost next year at Stanford.
Listen, there are countless examples of successful people without degrees having prosperous lives-Im not trying to be an elitist. But in the education system, it's quite different. I'm not sure if you know this but at most 4-year schools, you have to have a degree in order to teach, coach, administration, or be almost (I said almost) any type of decision maker. In your free-thinking mind, I'm not sure if you know this. I think you're just being coy and trying to prove your point.
#4-We don't need to know your historical, rhetorical diatribe of why we have athletics. We know you're smart. We don't need to have you cram it down our throats. The old rower in the 1800's has NOTHING to do with amateurism TODAY.
To the last point, the reason I bring it up is that I started to wonder why there is a distinction in the first place. Why should athletes be classified amateur or professional? What is the reason? And I'm asking ... I would like to know a justification, especially at the interscholastic level.
College athletes should be paid. Why is it such a stink if a college or high school player tranfers once twice who cares. Then they get punished 30 days,Year etc. When these coaches quit to take a different position everyone praises them. Student athletes have every right just like these adults when they change zip codes.
We have some high school kids changing zip codes every year and not sitting a day. Who are we kidding?
Definitely not a bad decision but I think the reason many transfer locally is two fold 1. Culture shock and 2. Homesickness
Many places like Baylor in Texas or Louisville in Ky are not as diverse as California. Also some of these places are not as tolerant or as liberal as we are here in California. Sometimes a 3 day visit you get one impression as coaches and recruiters want to make you feel comfortable. Then upon arrival, it is not the same as when you were visiting. So then the girls or boys feel lost and want to come home where they are comfortable
Last edited:
i am a transplant.... from the south/midwest to LA and now the bay... i wouldnt say it is more diverse here i would say the racist hide in plain sight in california... at least in kentucky and texas they tell you straight up how they feel about you or you can see it on the dodge ram bumper. As well as the racist in california are also the rich and elite. at least in the south they are in the trailer park which college students usually do not frequent anyway.
Exactly kids should be able to go and play anywhere they want. My point is we have some kids that move schools every year and are eligible while others move schools and sit. should be the same.
That's the other big problem: Those players with access to legal help have a significant advantage, which usually means the richer players can manipulate the system, in high school and college, but poorer ones can't.
Similar threads
