concordtom said:

---

where is the justice?
Jones comes to the agreement with players for a four-year scholarship. John's decides he wants out of the contract and jettisons those players and continues to collect $1 million a year.
it's not right.
And it's not a CAL thing - it's an entire NCAA thing, and everybody knows it!

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

where is the justice?
Jones comes to the agreement with players for a four-year scholarship. John's decides he wants out of the contract and jettisons those players and continues to collect $1 million a year.
it's not right.
And it's not a CAL thing - it's an entire NCAA thing, and everybody knows it!

---

See I disagree with this and I think that it demonstrates what is actually not right. The attitude that the value is playing a sport, not the scholarship. Cal's side of the contract is that they provide a scholarship, not a roster guarantee or a playing time guarantee. If that is not of value to the player, they shouldn't be here or any other college for that matter. Find a pro league. Playing on the basketball team is the player's responsibility. Cal is giving the four year scholarship. You seem to think the value Cal is giving is a roster spot. That is not the contractual relationship, nor should it ever be for a college athlete.

If Giancarlo Stanton suddenly loses it and goes 6 months without a hit, the Yankees will cut him. Their responsibility is to pay the salary, which they would have to do. He does not get to stay on the team when he is not qualified. What team, beyond bottom level youth rec league sports, guarantees a roster spot to anyone?

I do not understand why you feel any player is entitled to a roster spot that he is not qualified for in the eyes of the coaching staff. He is entitled to the scholarship. I would be upset if Cal didn't provide that. And by the way, the second Cal doesn't want Jones as their coach, they will pay the buyout and he will by off the team as well. He continues to collect his contracted compensation ($1M for now) and guess what - the players continue to collect their compensation - their four year scholarship. If you don't think that is fair compensation (and I'm going to have to argue that I don't think there is anywhere that any of the players you are upset about could have gotten greater compensation for their basketball skills) that is another question. But if your idea is that part of the deal is that substandard players are guaranteed roster spots, I think they need to add orange slices and participation trophies to the scholarship contract.

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

where is the justice?
Jones comes to the agreement with players for a four-year scholarship. John's decides he wants out of the contract and jettisons those players and continues to collect $1 million a year.
it's not right.
And it's not a CAL thing - it's an entire NCAA thing, and everybody knows it!

---

See I disagree with this and I think that it demonstrates what is actually not right. The attitude that the value is playing a sport, not the scholarship. Cal's side of the contract is that they provide a scholarship, not a roster guarantee or a playing time guarantee. If that is not of value to the player, they shouldn't be here or any other college for that matter. Find a pro league. Playing on the basketball team is the player's responsibility. Cal is giving the four year scholarship. You seem to think the value Cal is giving is a roster spot. That is not the contractual relationship, nor should it ever be for a college athlete.

If Giancarlo Stanton suddenly loses it and goes 6 months without a hit, the Yankees will cut him. Their responsibility is to pay the salary, which they would have to do. He does not get to stay on the team when he is not qualified. What team, beyond bottom level youth rec league sports, guarantees a roster spot to anyone?

I do not understand why you feel any player is entitled to a roster spot that he is not qualified for in the eyes of the coaching staff. He is entitled to the scholarship. I would be upset if Cal didn't provide that. And by the way, the second Cal doesn't want Jones as their coach, they will pay the buyout and he will by off the team as well. He continues to collect his contracted compensation ($1M for now) and guess what - the players continue to collect their compensation - their four year scholarship. If you don't think that is fair compensation (and I'm going to have to argue that I don't think there is anywhere that any of the players you are upset about could have gotten greater compensation for their basketball skills) that is another question. But if your idea is that part of the deal is that substandard players are guaranteed roster spots, I think they need to add orange slices and participation trophies to the scholarship contract.

---

While I am in basic agreement with you on this, there is one thing:

In situations like this, the staff DOES NOT WANT the player to stay at the university, on scholarship. The reason they got rid of them in the first place is that thought they could offer the schollies to better players. If they have to eat the scholarship there is a good chance they are going to try and do something to make the player feel uncomfortable and eventually leave. So, maybe technically, the player can stay on scholarship, but can they really?

One solution would be to allow colleges to be able to switch the schollie from an athletic one to an academic one and therefore not count against the roster, but then you might have schools sifting through their rosters every year, trying to bury their mistakes. Of course, the vast majority of kids would probably rather leave, to go to a place where they could play.

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Doesn't really matter. Nevada came on late.

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Doesn't matter. There was a real reluctance from the family to play in the Mountain West.

Their tourney performance combined with their late adds plus Cal's inability to clear the roster room to make the moves they wanted to see were the clinchers.

---

oskidunker said:

---

If you aske a question that might suggest the slightest questioning of the Current basketball regime, you are likely to get a snarky, condecending, angry reply. It's best not to question anything here. . At least, that's been my experience.

---

KenBurnski said:

---

In 1926, the All Americans from the SF Boys Club of Southern Mission Street correctly predicted the signing location of their top teammate, Pass Passington. Passington set SFBCSMS records for pass attempts and completions, as well as sock height. Today's athletes use too many muscles and social media. I shot perfect free throw percentage when I played for the H Squad of my Junior High. In 1943, High Schools had twenty seven unique teams divided by sock length and ft percentage.

Robert Benchley used to like to smoke cigars, and I too, was a cigar smoker.

---