Matthew Mayer may be a 6ft. 9In.clone

He's Pete Maravich still in puberty I tell ya.

He's Rick Barry without the skank habit!

Does anyone else think of Maravich?

Mayer looks like him (taller), his jump shot is similar, he is kinda sloppy with the uniform, no defense, scores a lot

Of course i remember Kool. How could I forget? One of our best shooters ever. Does Mayer have a quicker release, at least?

Pistol Pete is a HOF er...i will pull for this kid to do the same....that is score 44 ppg in college every game

The only resemblance he has to Lace Dunn thus far is how sloppily he handles the ball and how quick he is to throw up shots even when he's double teamed and he has wide open teammates near the basket. But I do think he has significant potential to improve as he gains experience.

chorne68 said:

---

Matthew Mayer may be a 6ft. 9In.clone

---

I think he has a much nicer skill set then Dunn. Dunn could shoot. He can shoot and pass.

I just hope he has the stats that Dunn had at Baylor....

Media Bear said:

---

Maravich had an entire array of passing and ball handling skills that are several notches above Meyer's

Comparison is a bit of a stretch IMO ...

---

He just reminds me of him. I doubt he scores 44 points in a game. He just looks like Maravich running and shooting.
I was impressed.

Maybe a stretch

Mayer just needs a good polishing. If he can improve as much as Tristan Clark has from frosh to soph....then whoa...katie bar the door.

He really gets a good look at the rim. I m buying him.

Setshot is right.

He needs to develop as a ballhandler and his shooting opportunities will improve.

Love to hear about great players of the past. Great stuff! Thx.

I'm sure Mr. Mayer appreciates the comparisons. Let's hope he creates his own special Baylor legacy.

setshot said:

---

Frosh players were not eligible for varsity play, so Maravich does not have the record for first year players....

---

I can't recall the reasoning behind this. Do you know?

High schools in Texas had the same restrictions for years, which I assumed had to do with physical maturity & the potential for injuries. That is, not permitting a 14 year old adolescent to compete in a contact sport with 18 year old men.

The theory behind the ban on varsity play for frosh (and that was true for all the collegiate sports) was that it permitted young collegians an opportunity to become acclimated to college, to their classroom studies, and to the campus culture before they became actively engaged in high level, demanding competition. Redshirts were for sophomores, not freshmen, who had abbreviated schedules and traveled with the varsity to the universities that were included in that schedule. Otherwise, they played junior colleges on occasion (we played a home and home with Lon Morris Junior College my frosh year). The frosh football team (the Baylor Cubs) played on Thursdays and usually had a six game schedule.

During and shortly after World War II freshmen were eligible for varsity play, but this changed by 1948. Some of the frosh football squads were quite large. I think that there were about 47 frosh football players in my class in 1950. At that time you could give partial scholarship help to qualified walk ons. Texas (famously or infamously, depending on your point of view) gave 65 or more scholarships yearly in the Darrell Royal era, primarily to deny many of those players to rival programs in the old SWC. When caps were put on scholarships he began to take his lumps and decided to retire into the Athletic Director's position at UT. That did not occur until the 1970s, so his two national championships have an asterisk as far as I am concerned.


Of course, all the large state schools developed their own farm systems in football and basketball, often subsidizing players attending designated junior colleges. The cheating that went on was, by a sort of "gentleman's unspoken agreement" ignored, and anyone reporting it was likely to find themselves ostracized by their colleagues in the coaching fraternity, and might even be called on the carpet by their own administrative superiors. Apple carts were sacrosanct and should not be tipped over, and even the journalists were in on the game.

The decision to permit freshmen to play on the varsity was an accompaniment to the other reforms, including the salary cap, as bodies were needed for practice and talent was too highly valued to be wasted for a year. Most of the freshmen were likely to be redshirted and no one left early for the professional ranks for many years, so there was a time of stability in the transition years.

The rising costs associated with collegiate athletics was not entirely due to Title IX considerations, as most athletic programs then and now operated at a loss, supported by the general fund and by donors, so any reform which could reduce expenditures received a fair hearing, and these matters were all bundled together and given the gloss of being done in the best interest of the student athletes. What we see today is the logical extension of those earlier systems, nurtured by the benign neglect of the NCAA governing body whose greatest concern has always been to maintain the status quo and avoid any dilution of their own power by doing something which might lead to a Congressional hearing. That, above all else, would open up the Pandora's Box that is the NCAA and they could not withstand the public scrutiny that would ensue.

Still playing pro ball in Portugal.

setshot said:

---

The theory behind the ban on varsity play for frosh (and that was true for all the collegiate sports) was that it permitted young collegians an opportunity to become acclimated to college, to their classroom studies, and to the campus culture before they became actively engaged in high level, demanding competition. Redshirts were for sophomores, not freshmen, who had abbreviated schedules and traveled with the varsity to the universities that were included in that schedule. Otherwise, they played junior colleges on occasion (we played a home and home with Lon Morris Junior College my frosh year). The frosh football team (the Baylor Cubs) played on Thursdays and usually had a six game schedule.

During and shortly after World War II freshmen were eligible for varsity play, but this changed by 1948. Some of the frosh football squads were quite large. I think that there were about 47 frosh football players in my class in 1950. At that time you could give partial scholarship help to qualified walk ons. Texas (famously or infamously, depending on your point of view) gave 65 or more scholarships yearly in the Darrell Royal era, primarily to deny many of those players to rival programs in the old SWC. When caps were put on scholarships he began to take his lumps and decided to retire into the Athletic Director's position at UT. That did not occur until the 1970s, so his two national championships have an asterisk as far as I am concerned.


Of course, all the large state schools developed their own farm systems in football and basketball, often subsidizing players attending designated junior colleges. The cheating that went on was, by a sort of "gentleman's unspoken agreement" ignored, and anyone reporting it was likely to find themselves ostracized by their colleagues in the coaching fraternity, and might even be called on the carpet by their own administrative superiors. Apple carts were sacrosanct and should not be tipped over, and even the journalists were in on the game.

The decision to permit freshmen to play on the varsity was an accompaniment to the other reforms, including the salary cap, as bodies were needed for practice and talent was too highly valued to be wasted for a year. Most of the freshmen were likely to be redshirted and no one left early for the professional ranks for many years, so there was a time of stability in the transition years.

The rising costs associated with collegiate athletics was not entirely due to Title IX considerations, as most athletic programs then and now operated at a loss, supported by the general fund and by donors, so any reform which could reduce expenditures received a fair hearing, and these matters were all bundled together and given the gloss of being done in the best interest of the student athletes. What we see today is the logical extension of those earlier systems, nurtured by the benign neglect of the NCAA governing body whose greatest concern has always been to maintain the status quo and avoid any dilution of their own power by doing something which might lead to a Congressional hearing. That, above all else, would open up the Pandora's Box that is the NCAA and they could not withstand the public scrutiny that would ensue.

---

That, and John Wooden's freshman teams were beating his varsity and his varsity was winning 9 straight natties.