Matt Haarms transferring from Purdue

Donate To GopherHole

skiumah1 said:
Haarms just doesn't seems like a good fit here. I got him behind Robbins if he does commit here. I'm thinking waiver is gonna pass so all kids can play. I'd like to see Peterson or other guard/wing at this point. Not planning on a Walton commit.
Click to expand...

I don’t think Pitino would take Haarms unless he doesn’t think Robbins will get to play right away
 


BarnBall said:
Curious why Haarms has the Gophers on his list?
Click to expand...
Yeah it seems like fun to have Haarms and Robbins both playing big minutes, and on the floor together, but it isn't realistic. Somebody had mentioned this earlier, it's easier for smaller guys to guard up than bigger guys to guard smaller guys. Neither of these guys move that well laterally, at least I know Haarms doesn't, to be able to guard down. Just doesn't seem like a fit. I like Robbins over Haarms.
 



UpAndUnder43 said:
I don’t think Pitino would take Haarms unless he doesn’t think Robbins will get to play right away
Click to expand...

Have you looked at our roster? You also much have never seen how the Gophers have NEVER had a bench under Pitino. Haarms is a much better player than the other kid and it's not close. He would start and get major minutes here and anywhere else he decides on. To me, it doesn't matter who else is here, he would instantly become your #5 player.
 

Go Gophs said:
Have you looked at our roster? You also much have never seen how the Gophers have NEVER had a bench under Pitino. Haarms is a much better player than the other kid and it's not close. He would start and get major minutes here and anywhere else he decides on. To me, it doesn't matter who else is here, he would instantly become your #5 player.
Click to expand...

no. Never looked at the roster. How does one find that?

Haarms is better than Robbins, who everyone nationally says is better than Haarms? ok.
 

Would love to add Haarms, but just can't see him coming here with the uncertainty surrounding Robbins' eligibility status for next season.
 




BleedGopher said:

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

One blue blood. One with a great history with grad transfers. And one who must have recruited him really hard. This is the most fascinating of all the grad transfers as I see it. Well known player. Decent, if not all-conference, and a difference maker for any team he joins.
 

Holy Man said:
One blue blood. One with a great history with grad transfers. And one who must have recruited him really hard. This is the most fascinating of all the grad transfers as I see it. Well known player. Decent, if not all-conference, and a difference maker for any team he joins.
Click to expand...
Mark Pope the new BYU coach is really really good and has a history working with posts. My guess is TT and maybe BYU
 

manderson1984 said:
Mark Pope the new BYU coach is really really good and has a history working with posts. My guess is TT and maybe BYU
Click to expand...

Haarms doesn't really fit the Kentucky mold, but the prospects of a national championship can be enticing.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Here’s the plan.
Haarms transfers to Gophers. Sits a year.
Click to expand...
I know you were joking around in your post, but I just want to confirm if Haarms actually could sit a year? I don't think so?

According to this: https://purduesports.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/matt-haarms/8369

he joined Purdue it looks like for the spring 2017 semester (did not play, but was enrolled). And so his NCAA five year clock then started. Meaning it expires at the end of fall 2021 semester.

So if he sits the 2020 season, he would technically only be eligible to play through the fall? Otherwise, he would need to be granted an extension of his clock. That is usually done through a hardship waiver, which has fairly tight requirements to meet. You can't just get one because you want one.
 



builtbadgers said:
Seriously , several elit programs make use of them. Hell , one of the most gifted transfers available is insisting on sitting out no matter the ruling because he wants the upside. UVA redshirted their best freshman this year, his choice !
Click to expand...
That is what Pitino has been doing for a few years, using a transfer year as a red shirt.
 

MplsGopher said:
I know you were joking around in your post, but I just want to confirm if Haarms actually could sit a year? I don't think so?

According to this: https://purduesports.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/matt-haarms/8369

he joined Purdue it looks like for the spring 2017 semester (did not play, but was enrolled). And so his NCAA five year clock then started. Meaning it expires at the end of fall 2021 semester.

So if he sits the 2020 season, he would technically only be eligible to play through the fall? Otherwise, he would need to be granted an extension of his clock. That is usually done through a hardship waiver, which has fairly tight requirements to meet. You can't just get one because you want one.
Click to expand...

He'd be injured or something. He definitely cannot sit on his own.
 





No sex, or even touching, if he's not married, either. Or drinking. Or drugs.

Gotta be tough for someone outside "the clan" to accept.
 

MplsGopher said:
No sex, or even touching, if he's not married, either. Or drinking. Or drugs.

Gotta be tough for someone outside "the clan" to accept.
Click to expand...

Maybe he's eligible for the Jim McMahon/Jack Morris waivers.
 



Piscator said:
What religion does condone these? Sign me up!
Click to expand...

There are quite a few reasonable religions that don't focus on pre-marital sex or drinking. And the whole idea that God or Jesus really care about drugs - Jesus was definitely smoking marijuana on the regular - is hilarious. Most drugs weren't even a concept thousands of years ago, so how would Jesus speak against something that didn't exist? Oh that's right, it's just some other guy's interpretation of what Jesus WOULD HAVE thought. Gotta love religion!
 

WriterGoph said:
There are quite a few reasonable religions that don't focus on pre-marital sex or drinking. And the whole idea that God or Jesus really care about drugs - Jesus was definitely smoking marijuana on the regular - is hilarious. Most drugs weren't even a concept thousands of years ago, so how would Jesus speak against something that didn't exist? Oh that's right, it's just some other guy's interpretation of what Jesus WOULD HAVE thought. Gotta love religion!
Click to expand...
Right. Wasn't the desire to have hemp banned because it was too competitive against other crops for some reason or another, so they cooked up a way to ban it by banning weed? I feel like something close to that is the truth.
 

MplsGopher said:
Right. Wasn't the desire to have hemp banned because it was too competitive against other crops for some reason or another, so they cooked up a way to ban it by banning weed? I feel like something close to that is the truth.
Click to expand...

I mean, if you go back to Prohibition, the government has had a history of banning things it's scared of, but more importantly hasn't figured out a way to regulate and tax yet. There are a lot of interesting documentaries now on the "War on Drugs", but shit pretty much went sideways HARD in the late 60's/early 70's when Nixon was trying to get elected. He actually privately believed in a policy that rehabilitation, treatment and education was the proper way to handle drug addiction. But he realized that for a big section of the country (votes he desperately needed) drugs were a polarizing subject. So he went with a harsh campaign policy that called for arrests and prison time so he could stump about that and in turn win the election. That's basically how America got on this path for such a huge prison population (many people locked up for years for petty drug offenses) and tons of recidivism. 50 years later and the "War on Drugs" has really done nothing as far as limiting drug availability or use. However, state governments are finally recently starting to realize that decriminalizing certain substances, utilizing drug treatment instead of jail time, researching a lot of these substances for their therapeutic qualities and - in some cases - legalizing for recreational use, is much more effective than feeding an overcrowded prison system and ruining (mostly minorities') lives.
 

Not to mention, pretty much the primary source of income for street gangs, as well as drug cartels.
 


MplsGopher said:
Not to mention, pretty much the primary source of income for street gangs, as well as drug cartels.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is if our government was more progressive - like Netherlands or Portugal or Uruguay - they could regulate certain drugs for quality (making them safer) AND tax them and really take a big chunk of the cartel's business away. Granted, there will always be a black market, but if people had the choice to go to the pharmacy or government lab to get their cocaine or LSD (just two examples), they'd probably prefer knowing it's safe than buying from a dealer. Again, not everybody, but many would.

And yes, there are certain drugs that probably shouldn't be available. Meth really doesn't have any positive benefit - but this is also the same Big Pharma government that brought you adderall and vyvanse and ritalin (in essence legal meth from someone who was prescribed all three at different periods of my life). Heroin is obviously not good, but the problem is that the government already allowed a ton of people to get hooked on Oxy - and then they start using heroin (that's often spiked with fentanyl when they run out of Oxy. So how do you solve that? Believe everyone will stop doing opioids and say a prayer OR provide a state-regulated option to help make sure people don't die - some states are already doing this by providing clean needles and/or methadone clinics.

Sorry, I could debate or speak about this for days. But in the end, our government's choices to try and make an example out of addicts and poor people who are struggling has led us to the current mess with cartels and such. The demand is never going away. They should accept that fact and try something different.
 

MplsGopher said:
Right. Wasn't the desire to have hemp banned because it was too competitive against other crops for some reason or another, so they cooked up a way to ban it by banning weed? I feel like something close to that is the truth.
Click to expand...
Hemp threatens many industries as it can be used to produce goods we use on an everyday basis in a cheaper and more efficient way, money and greed is exactly why it's not used more commonly
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom