Recent NYTimes article on Bazakas

1,765 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 19 hrs ago by SoCalie
BearCam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It doesn't appear that Cal did anything unethical (besides not paying for the summer courses) but still not great press. It's clear Bazakas was done, and his scholarship was year to year. Too bad the NYTimes casts the program in a poor light.

https://nyti.ms/3kOL0CH
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearCam said:

It doesn't appear that Cal did anything unethical (besides not paying for the summer courses) but still not great press. It's clear Bazakas was done, and his scholarship was year to year. Too bad the NYTimes casts the program in a poor light.

https://nyti.ms/3kOL0CH
The athletic program deserves to be cast in a poor light. They did not follow NCAA or University policy and tried to screw a kid who was acting in his own best interest by opting out. As for ethics, Wilcox should have been more forthcoming with the guy so he could plan his schedule accordingly. This incident casts a shadow over Wilcox. He totally dropped the ball on this one.

This is just a reminder that athletes are nothing more than interchangeable parts in a machine. Yes, things are changing but we still have a long way to go before athletes fully earn the respect they should be accorded.



LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think an interesting aspect of this is, who reads the "College Football" section of the NYT?
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur said:

I think an interesting aspect of this is, who reads the "College Football" section of the NYT?
People who subscribe to The Times read The Times: We ten million deep staters.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur said:

I think an interesting aspect of this is, who reads the "College Football" section of the NYT?
It was on the front page of the online edition that I receive daily.
Lomiton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Why is it set up to limit scholarships?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
wow. 18% read the entirety of the online edition? Thats amazing. How do they navigate it all?

smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

wow. 18% read the entirety of the online edition? Thats amazing. How do they navigate it all?
add-on number of nyt views from reprints in understaffed local papers
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

71Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
wow. 18% read the entirety of the online edition? Thats amazing. How do they navigate it all?


Heck, I read it every day. Of course, I'm retired.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
That begs the question how much of the country is considered a 'news consumer'... and does something like QAnon qualify as news?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
According to Pew, 41% of the adults get their news from TV (FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC), 34 % from social media (ugh), and 16% from newspapers either hard copy or onlkie.


So let's see boys and girls, 18% times 16% is a little under 3% of those who actually listen to the news look at the NYT assuming Statista is accurate. Than again, the NY Times actually reports how many different people look at their website regularly and subscribe to their paper, and their own numbers say 5 million digital subscribers, and they have a whopping 841,000 hard copy subscribers. There are other types of readers as well ,to top out just over 6 million NYT readers on all mediums. This from their 2nd quarterly report for 2020. Then you can ask how many read sports articles? Think about the stereotype of NYT readers when you try to answer that. Like I said, don't expect this to have traction.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

71Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

To answer one question, very few people read newspapers (or even their websites) anymore. Where the NY Times put this, is really irrelevant. This will not get much coverage. This website is not representative of the rest of the country in that has mostly erudite readers, and if that sounds snobbish, so be it. You are looking at Cal grads, many with grad degrees.

The story is not even attracting many posts from different people. Walk-ons start off as mercenaries, and typically you don't receive a permanent scholarship unless you are permanent starter. Recent examples: Ooms, Laird. You can have it one year if there is room and have it yanked the next. This happens routinely. Anyone with a different expectations is deluding themselves. If you have eligibility, you can always transfer too someplace that will give you a permanent scholarship. You have bargaining power to the extent of your performance.

This was a well written story, with an obvious sympathy towards the player's situation. But a lot of this is that as a walk-on, your scholarship is year to year. If you are not producing for the team, opt out or otherwise, the scholarship goes to someone who is performing. The article points that harsh reality out. Bazakas could have gone to a school where he was guaranteed a scholarship, and he elected not to. Amusingly, the articles suggests he could have gone to Furd (as if Cal is a consolation prize). This may rude awaking, but Furd's approach to walk-ons is the same as Cal, as it is in essentially all P5 programs.

Also amusing for the ever income equality sensitive NY Times is that Bazakas' parents could easily pay the tuition. The scholarship may have very well been transferred to a player whose parents could not afford tuition (or tuition is a financial strain). But I guess that doesn't make as good a story. That Cal "mistakenly" tried to screw Bazakas for the rest of the scholarship he was awarded, doesn't look good, but again the article was quite clear in reporting Cal's side of the story (you do wonder why it took a formal appeal to fix that "mistake"). I don't even really blame Wilcox. If he moves a scholarship over to someone else, it is up to compliance to administer how that works, not the coaching staff. '71 is right that Cal should get criticized for failing to do that and then compounding the problem by not correcting the mistake, and requiring a hearing.

In the job market, not all job positions are created equal. The same can be said for football rosters. My two cents.

According to a survey completed in Feb. 2020, 18% of news consumers read the online edition of The NY Times.

Source: Statista.com
That begs the question how much of the country is considered a 'news consumer'... and does something like QAnon qualify as news?
yes if they say they listen to news. So think about '71's statement. 79% of Americans say the follow the news. So multiply what percentage of that the NYT has and you get .0288 times 79% or roughly a little over 2% of the public looks at the NYT. Then ask what percent of that reads sports stuff, and you can really get a good idea how little impact this article will have unless picked-up by other sources.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

BearCam said:

It doesn't appear that Cal did anything unethical (besides not paying for the summer courses) but still not great press. It's clear Bazakas was done, and his scholarship was year to year. Too bad the NYTimes casts the program in a poor light.

https://nyti.ms/3kOL0CH
The athletic program deserves to be cast in a poor light. They did not follow NCAA or University policy and tried to screw a kid who was acting in his own best interest by opting out. As for ethics, Wilcox should have been more forthcoming with the guy so he could plan his schedule accordingly. This incident casts a shadow over Wilcox. He totally dropped the ball on this one.

This is just a reminder that athletes are nothing more than interchangeable parts in a machine. Yes, things are changing but we still have a long way to go before athletes fully earn the respect they should be accorded.




I don't understand the bolded statement. Per the article, WIlcox told Bazakas (and several other walk ons) "shortly after last season" that their scholarships likely would not be renewed. Several guys entered the portal; Bazakas chose to stay and take his chances.

"Bazakas was among six walk-ons who received scholarships last season and were eligible to return in 2020. Wilcox made it clear that the aid was for one year and that subsequent years could be awarded if Cal had scholarships available.

Two of those players were certain to have their scholarships renewed because of their strong play. Shortly after last season ended, the four others were called into Wilcox's office, one by one, and left with a similar impression: that their aid was very much uncertain for the next season. Some of their spots, for example, could be taken by transfers who would fill more urgent needs."

So Bazakas knew a decision to award him a scholly would be late - after grad transfers and other transfers were addressed. Grad transfers = summer or fall 2020. At the time Bazakas opted out (June), he knew he didn't have a scholarship. Did he think opting out would (or should) change that? That makes no sense.

Cal didn't handle the summer scholarship properly. But I don't see how Wilcox could have been more forthcoming. Bazakas planned his own schedule knowing his uncertain situation and that any scholarship was uncertain and would be offered late (if at all).
ajm9191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was told that The NY Times is following the football team throughout the season. Guessing this story came about as a result of that effort.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What exactly did we do wrong? He was a walk-on. He opted out.

Regardless, his scholarship is year to year anyways.

Also, he's by far the worst starting olineman I've ever seen in my 25 years of following Cal football.
SoCalie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well...it could be a smart move for Bazakas, financially. If he was told that it was unlikely that he would have a scholarship for this school year, the best way to try to get this year paid for IS by "opting out". During the whole players' union saga, weren't players told that they could "opt out" of playing this season/year and NOT lose their scholarship? So, perhaps Bazakas thought that it was a way around the system. In other words, he could "announce" that he is "opting out" of playing this year and, in doing so, it would trigger the university's duty to pay for the school year. (20-21) Some might consider that to be clever.

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Strykur said:

I think an interesting aspect of this is, who reads the "College Football" section of the NYT?
It was on the front page of the online edition that I receive daily.

Also, it was tweeted out by the main NewYork Times Twitter account.

Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

71Bear said:

BearCam said:

It doesn't appear that Cal did anything unethical (besides not paying for the summer courses) but still not great press. It's clear Bazakas was done, and his scholarship was year to year. Too bad the NYTimes casts the program in a poor light.

https://nyti.ms/3kOL0CH
The athletic program deserves to be cast in a poor light. They did not follow NCAA or University policy and tried to screw a kid who was acting in his own best interest by opting out. As for ethics, Wilcox should have been more forthcoming with the guy so he could plan his schedule accordingly. This incident casts a shadow over Wilcox. He totally dropped the ball on this one.

This is just a reminder that athletes are nothing more than interchangeable parts in a machine. Yes, things are changing but we still have a long way to go before athletes fully earn the respect they should be accorded.




I don't understand the bolded statement. Per the article, WIlcox told Bazakas (and several other walk ons) "shortly after last season" that their scholarships likely would not be renewed. Several guys entered the portal; Bazakas chose to stay and take his chances.

"Bazakas was among six walk-ons who received scholarships last season and were eligible to return in 2020. Wilcox made it clear that the aid was for one year and that subsequent years could be awarded if Cal had scholarships available.

Two of those players were certain to have their scholarships renewed because of their strong play. Shortly after last season ended, the four others were called into Wilcox's office, one by one, and left with a similar impression: that their aid was very much uncertain for the next season. Some of their spots, for example, could be taken by transfers who would fill more urgent needs."

So Bazakas knew a decision to award him a scholly would be late - after grad transfers and other transfers were addressed. Grad transfers = summer or fall 2020. At the time Bazakas opted out (June), he knew he didn't have a scholarship. Did he think opting out would (or should) change that? That makes no sense.

Cal didn't handle the summer scholarship properly. But I don't see how Wilcox could have been more forthcoming. Bazakas planned his own schedule knowing his uncertain situation and that any scholarship was uncertain and would be offered late (if at all).


Let me help you. Virtue signaling, finger wagging and moralizing are to 2021 what acid wash jeans, K-Swiss and Wayfarers were to 1984. It's what the in crowd does. It's a lot uglier and more destructive than previous fads, but nevertheless it's all the rage.
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...


Nothing "seamy" to see here oh Self Righteous Pompous One.

Non scholarship walk on guy who earned a one year
Scholarship. A mistake was made on summer tuition, it's been rectified and then he opted out. End of story.
He was happy to be a walk on. He evidently was happier to be a walk off.
Lomiton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:


Also, he's by far the worst starting olineman I've ever seen in my 25 years of following Cal football.


Seriously Hank, this might be the stupidest comment I have ever read on Bear Insider. Congrats.
Lomiton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why is it set up to limit scholarships?

LTime, outwardly the scholarship limit is protect competitive balance. Back in the day, programs used unlimited scholarships to hoard players.

The fact that the cartel imposed scholarship limit saves college athletic programs money that can then in turn be used to overpay coaches/administrators, build grand buildings and subsidize other sports is pure bonus.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok I can think of an opposite case of a kid who started 12 games under Dykes and did not get a scholarship due to Dykes stringing him along. Just imagine how that must have felt. Wilcox rectified that as well. So all I can say is that Wilcox is a fair minded coach.

Henry is a good kid. Super strong as well. A grinder too and always had a smile on his face. Unfortunately he lacked too much talent to take up a permanent starting spot. Henry is a beyond smart kid and will have a promising future in whatever his endeavors will be. Henry thank for your hard work and coming back from injuries to give it your all. Best wishes to you and your family.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alkiadt said:

71Bear said:

Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...


Nothing "seamy" to see here oh Self Righteous Pompous One.

Non scholarship walk on guy who earned a one year
Scholarship. A mistake was made on summer tuition, it's been rectified and then he opted out. End of story.
He was happy to be a walk on. He evidently was happier to be a walk off.
Ok.

Non scholarship walk on guy earns a one year scholarship.
Player opts out due to concerns regarding COVID.
The Athletic Dept. attempts to screw him over in violation of NCAA and UC Berkeley policies.
Player is unnecessarily compelled to go through an arduous appeal process to right the wrong.
Coach is less than forthright in his conversation with player.
Player completes education at the cost of 15K.

College athletics is an industry ripe for change. Quite frankly, seamy doesn't begin to describe the current situation. However, that change is in the wind. One can only hope the scales will be more balanced once the coming reform is implemented.




wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Alkiadt said:

71Bear said:

Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...


Nothing "seamy" to see here oh Self Righteous Pompous One.

Non scholarship walk on guy who earned a one year
Scholarship. A mistake was made on summer tuition, it's been rectified and then he opted out. End of story.
He was happy to be a walk on. He evidently was happier to be a walk off.
Ok.

Non scholarship walk on guy earns a one year scholarship.
Player opts out due to concerns regarding COVID.
The Athletic Dept. attempts to screw him over in violation of NCAA and UC Berkeley policies.
Player is unnecessarily compelled to go through an arduous appeal process to right the wrong.
Coach is less than forthright in his conversation with player.
Player completes education at the cost of 15K.

College athletics is an industry ripe for change. Quite frankly, seamy doesn't begin to describe the current situation. However, that change is in the wind. One can only hope the scales will be more balanced once the coming reform is implemented.





In the first paragraph it seems that way other than the $15K. The amount his well to do parents ultimately paid for tuition was for a period that occurred after his scholarship expired. At least the NYT got that right.

As for the last paragraph about ensuing reforms I had a chuckle. With operating deficits, TV and sponsor revenues to be down dramatically with less viewers and fans, most athletes are gong to see a retrenchment. One of the impacts of COVID besides the immediate revenue losses has been a reduction in interests in most sports. At the college level, players will feel lucky to have a scholarship, as team cuts should be anticipated. The money won't be there, at least for some time.

The Pac player threat not to play seems pretty pathetic at this point when the players are begging to play.
#weareunitedwithdesperation
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Alkiadt said:

71Bear said:

Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...


Nothing "seamy" to see here oh Self Righteous Pompous One.

Non scholarship walk on guy who earned a one year
Scholarship. A mistake was made on summer tuition, it's been rectified and then he opted out. End of story.
He was happy to be a walk on. He evidently was happier to be a walk off.
Ok.

Non scholarship walk on guy earns a one year scholarship.
Player opts out due to concerns regarding COVID.
The Athletic Dept. attempts to screw him over in violation of NCAA and UC Berkeley policies.
Player is unnecessarily compelled to go through an arduous appeal process to right the wrong.
Coach is less than forthright in his conversation with player.
Player completes education at the cost of 15K.

College athletics is an industry ripe for change. Quite frankly, seamy doesn't begin to describe the current situation. However, that change is in the wind. One can only hope the scales will be more balanced once the coming reform is implemented.





How was the coach less than forthright with the player? That is just a lie. He was given a one year deal with no expectation of a second. It happens all the time. Then he was told that there may not be a scholarship, and the team may have more immediate needs to fill. Was Wilcox supposed to consult the oracle or something? Who reads the future for him?

Bazakas signed up for school with the expectation of paying, just like every student who doesnt attend with a scholarship in-hand. Is it Wilcox's fault they arent scholarship football players, too?

I mean, the first few bullets, OK, but the the fifth is a lie, and the sixth is irrelevant.


Finally, the change in the wind is blowing strongly the other way.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Alkiadt said:

71Bear said:

Lomiton said:

LunchTime said:

One of my favorite BG pictures is with Bazakas.

Scholarships are a wild thing. If you opt out before its been granted, it seems obvious that it wouldnt be granted, Athletic or not. I dont think anything under the larger umbrella, like grants, would be given if you opted out of the reason for the exchange to exist before it was offered. If you apply for a cancer research grant, and then go tell them you wont be researching cancer, you would probably be unlikely to be awarded the grant.

He opted out before the deadline to get a scholarship. Wilcox is not under any obligation to settle his books before they are required to be settled. He gets paid to find the best athletes to play on his team, and needs the scholarships as a tool to get that done. I dont see any ball dropping on his part. Just business of managing a football team. The summer fees is scummy on the surface, but bad admin paperwork is a constant in everything.

Other than "exposing" how the world works, I am not sure what the point of the story is, other than "College football bad." Despite my personal feelings towards Bazakas (my feelings are good).
Lunch, I think the greater question in this instance is why is the system set up in such a way that forces people like Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson, others and an institution like Cal to have to do these things? Particularly since the sport that Bazakas, Wilcox, Larson and others brings in millions upon millions in revenue?
Because many people refuse to acknowledge the seamy underside of the current system of college athletics...


Nothing "seamy" to see here oh Self Righteous Pompous One.

Non scholarship walk on guy who earned a one year
Scholarship. A mistake was made on summer tuition, it's been rectified and then he opted out. End of story.
He was happy to be a walk on. He evidently was happier to be a walk off.
Ok.

Non scholarship walk on guy earns a one year scholarship.
Player opts out due to concerns regarding COVID.
The Athletic Dept. attempts to screw him over in violation of NCAA and UC Berkeley policies.
Player is unnecessarily compelled to go through an arduous appeal process to right the wrong.
Coach is less than forthright in his conversation with player.
Player completes education at the cost of 15K.

College athletics is an industry ripe for change. Quite frankly, seamy doesn't begin to describe the current situation. However, that change is in the wind. One can only hope the scales will be more balanced once the coming reform is implemented.
Non-scholarship walk-on guy earns a one-year scholarship.
Coach tells the player he most likely will not get a scholarship the following year but there is a chance he will if no one else better comes along.
Player opts out due to concerns regarding COVID. So no need to give the additional scholarship, as the player knew after calling the coach for months trying to see if he would get the scholly with little luck, but perhaps hoping that the hoopla of COVID would allow him to skate as a scholarship opt-out player (not understanding that Opt-Outs count against the total scholarship limit).
The Athletic Dept. attempts to screw him over in violation of NCAA and UC Berkeley policies.
The player is unnecessarily compelled to go through an arduous appeal process to right the wrong.
Coach is focused on the players who are actually playing and probably had his Admin handle this issue and never thought of it again.
The player completes education at the cost of 15K.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoCalie said:

Well...it could be a smart move for Bazakas, financially. If he was told that it was unlikely that he would have a scholarship for this school year, the best way to try to get this year paid for IS by "opting out". During the whole players' union saga, weren't players told that they could "opt out" of playing this season/year and NOT lose their scholarship? So, perhaps Bazakas thought that it was a way around the system. In other words, he could "announce" that he is "opting out" of playing this year and, in doing so, it would trigger the university's duty to pay for the school year. (20-21) Some might consider that to be clever.



Except Bazakas didn't lose a scholarship in 2020-21. He didn't have one to lose. Maybe he was trying to be "clever" as you suggest, but if that's his argument, it is transparently weak.
SoCalie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I understand that...and clearly I'm not expressing my point very well. (Sorry!)

I don't think that the university looks bad here, at all. In fact, I don't think the university should have paid for his summer classes. But, that's a separate issue.

I'm thinking that the player involved wanted to find a way to have this school year paid for - that this was a strategy for him. So, in the spring, he was told that he may not have a scholarship in the fall (and, he said he couldn't pin Wilcox down about it for months). Obviously, the player read the writing on the wall that he, ultimately, would NOT receive a scholarship for this school year. This is something we all agree on - that Wilcox would not know for sure if he would be able to give ANY walk-on a scholarship for this year until fall camp - when Wilcox is able to see exactly how many players transfer in/out, come in from junior colleges, are super talented new walk-ons, if there are season-ending injuries (such as with Gentle), etc. Keep in mind, in the past, Wilcox has announced which walk-ons would receive scholarships for the upcoming school year at the end of fall camp.

So, I think that, perhaps, before the player involved was actually "officially" told this information (that there were no scholarships for the walk-ons this year), he thought that he could take advantage of the "players can opt out without losing their scholarship" thing. In other words, I think he thought that IF he announced that he was opting out before he was "officially" told that he would not receive a scholarship (during fall camp), he could argue that because he "opted out" in the spring, the university should pay for his classes this year. (Emphasis added just for clarity)

To be clear, I do not agree with this at all. I know he did not have a guaranteed scholarship for this school year. I'm just saying that I believe he knew that, ultimately (by fall camp), the walk-ons would be officially told that there weren't enough scholarships this fall for walk-ons. As a result, he thought that if he opted out, say, in April, he could argue (in the fall) that the university is refusing to pay for this school year/is punishing him because he opted out months ago. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well so that it makes sense, or not? (BG??)

I think it's a clever attempt by him. BUT, I think that if anyone looks bad here, it is he - NOT the university. And, frankly, I don't even think he looks "bad" (other than the fact that he went to the press about it.) I also think most athletes would at least give it a try and see if the university would pay for this year - especially since he's worked his butt off for so many years.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.