Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

And speaking of Chauca, Jones would likely have halved his current problem by keeping him on the roster instead of moving him out to add Winston or McCullough. Even if he only rode the bench, his scholarship would have freed up this year.

---

But therein lies WJ's BIG MISS..
He apparently thought 4 years of AM and/or DW would be better than 1 more year of BC.

Bzzzz!
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

He was either impulsive, excited to be the head coach, or he simply just expected to be able to get these guys to move on, not considering the 2014 conference "promise".

---

Well, he gave up the bird in the hand (Chauca, who he knew couldn't contribute too much), for the two in the bush (who he hoped might be able to contribute).

Also, it has been reported here by reliable sources that there was also another situation going on with Chauca, which contributed to his departure from the team.

---

Thanks Big C - this is what I remember as well. A number of posters seem to only see stats, roster spots and black and white. There are many reasons why a player may not fit with a team besides their position and stats. It is up to the coaching staff to address those issues quickly for the benefit of the team.

BeachedBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

And speaking of Chauca, Jones would likely have halved his current problem by keeping him on the roster instead of moving him out to add Winston or McCullough. Even if he only rode the bench, his scholarship would have freed up this year.

---

But therein lies WJ's BIG MISS..
He apparently thought 4 years of AM and/or DW would be better than 1 more year of BC.

Bzzzz!
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

He was either impulsive, excited to be the head coach, or he simply just expected to be able to get these guys to move on, not considering the 2014 conference "promise".

---

Well, he gave up the bird in the hand (Chauca, who he knew couldn't contribute too much), for the two in the bush (who he hoped might be able to contribute).

Also, it has been reported here by reliable sources that there was also another situation going on with Chauca, which contributed to his departure from the team.

---

Thanks Big C - this is what I remember as well. A number of posters seem to only see stats, roster spots and black and white. There are many reasons why a player may not fit with a team besides their position and stats. It is up to the coaching staff to address those issues quickly for the benefit of the team.

---

True.
then the 4-yr rule should go away.

bluesaxe said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure what competitive advantage you see that I didn't when the obvious one is retaining scholarships.

---

My point was there is a competitive advantage, but not to the blue blood well monied schools.

---

I have said all along this situation is unique to schools like Cal where a degree is worth a lot more than just playing tiime.

I don't think too many people would stick around at Kentucky/Alabama/et al just for the degree.

---

OTOH there are excellent academic schools that play basketball at a less competitive level that could be options, so the choice might not be quite as stark. Though this certainly isn't an issue at Alabama, no doubt about that.

---

There are many options, just in California. The Big West itself has 5? UCs and Cal Poly SLO. All of which are top-notch academic schools. The WCC may not be as academically up there, but many potential programs there as well. That's assuming Winston wants to stay on the West. McCullogh may wish to return homeward.

concordtom said:

---

Again, why create the rule then?
That question remains unanswered.
You can't have the rule if it's going to be ignored.

---

I'm still too lazy to research this, but my recollection is that the spirit of the rule was - at certain Big 12 and SEC institutions that are more singularly focused on sports, players were being kicked out of SCHOOL, not just off the team. The Big 10 and Pac 12 put in the 4-year rule and lobbied the other big conferences to join in to prevent this. Again, I believe it started with a school that moved from Big 12 to Big 10. Don't recall the name, but rhymes with HornBuskers.

I don't believe the 4-year rule is intended to focus on what many on this thread are assuming (the issue with two freshman not cutting it at the P12 level). My recollection may be foggy, but to CT's point - does anyone have better info on this? Maybe the BI staff?

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Again, why create the rule then?
That question remains unanswered.
You can't have the rule if it's going to be ignored.

---

I'm still too lazy to research this, but my recollection is that the spirit of the rule was - at certain Big 12 and SEC institutions that are more singularly focused on sports, players were being kicked out of SCHOOL, not just off the team. The Big 10 and Pac 12 put in the 4-year rule and lobbied the other big conferences to join in to prevent this. Again, I believe it started with a school that moved from Big 12 to Big 10. Don't recall the name, but rhymes with HornBuskers.

I don't believe the 4-year rule is intended to focus on what many on this thread are assuming (the issue with two freshman not cutting it at the P12 level). My recollection may be foggy, but to CT's point - does anyone have better info on this? Maybe the BI staff?

---

I have the same recollection, BB, although I, too, admit that my recall is somewhat hazy. That would appear to be the spirit of the rule, in any event.

If a player isn't good enough to crack the rotation, it seems that there are three options. He can stay on the team and sit on the bench. In general, this does no one any good, IMO--the team loses a slot, and the player just sits. He can transfer and play somewhere else. Or he can leave the team and remain at the school.

This isn't youth soccer where everybody who is on the team is guaranteed equal playing time regardless of talent. If a player isn't good enough, it is the school/program's responsibility to ensure that he is able to get an education and/or play somewhere else, not abandon him. I don't see the Cal coaches trying to abandon DW and AM (no matter what CGB posters say). I just see some uncertainty about what the ultimate outcome should be.

I can't help but think some of this has to do with the NCAA rule limiting scholarships to 13. In the modern game with the increase in losing players to injury, transfers, not to mention the difficulty of evaluating recruits, this places a lot of pressure on coaches to try and create openings for scholarship players when there are no more than 13. I feel It is similar to the regulations to implement affirmative action, a well-meaning idea to create openings where there were few, but which injured those who were passed over in favor of the rule. It created a no-win situation for administrators, who often had to make decisions which they might have felt were unethical or maybe even immoral, and which often caused resentment by the injured party.

I think back once again to the 1960s. There were no limits on scholarships back then, and Cal in 1959-60 had about 45 players on scholarship, 17 on the frosh, about 17 on the varsity and maybe 10 on the JV's. Only 5 of the members of that frosh team went on in later years to play on the Cal Varsity. What happened in the cases of those frosh players who did not move on? I personally know 3 who left the team for academic reasons, and they all felt the pressure of trying to stay in school. I also don't know if the scholarship was for one year or four, but I assume one condition for a player to keep the scholarship would be to make the Varsity or JV team the following season, when varsity tryouts were held. Another condition for those scholarships was that Coach Newell required each player to work 20 hours a week at a campus job. Stop working, and you lose the scholarship. In any case, if you had problem player, or a player who was not good enough to continue on scholarship, he would just be told at the end of varsity tryouts that he had not made the team, and that was that. It really eliminated the ethical problems coaches face today with a having to let a player go, so they can get access to their scholarship and bring in a fresh player. I don't think we will ever be going back to a system where freshmen aren't allowed to play varsity, nor will we go back to an era of unlimited scholarships, but raising the limit on scholarships to 16 or 17 per team might alleviate some of the pressure on coaches to fill or create vacancies to fill on a roster. Whether there is enough money available for the additional scholarships, or whether there are enough quality recruits to fill the spots would both be big questions.

SFCityBear said:

---

I can't help but think some of this has to do with the NCAA rule limiting scholarships to 13. In the modern game with the increase in losing players to injury, transfers, not to mention the difficulty of evaluating recruits, this places a lot of pressure on coaches to try and create openings for scholarship players when there are no more than 13. I feel It is similar to the regulations to implement affirmative action, a well-meaning idea to create openings where there were few, but which injured those who were passed over in favor of the rule. It created a no-win situation for administrators, who often had to make decisions which they might have felt were unethical or maybe even immoral, and which often caused resentment by the injured party.

I think back once again to the 1960s. There were no limits on scholarships back then, and Cal in 1959-60 had about 45 players on scholarship, 17 on the frosh, about 17 on the varsity and maybe 10 on the JV's. Only 5 of the members of that frosh team went on in later years to play on the Cal Varsity. What happened in the cases of those frosh players who did not move on? I personally know 3 who left the team for academic reasons, and they all felt the pressure of trying to stay in school. I also don't know if the scholarship was for one year or four, but I assume one condition for a player to keep the scholarship would be to make the Varsity or JV team the following season, when varsity tryouts were held. Another condition for those scholarships was that Coach Newell required each player to work 20 hours a week at a campus job. Stop working, and you lose the scholarship. In any case, if you had problem player, or a player who was not good enough to continue on scholarship, he would just be told at the end of varsity tryouts that he had not made the team, and that was that. It really eliminated the ethical problems coaches face today with a having to let a player go, so they can get access to their scholarship and bring in a fresh player. I don't think we will ever be going back to a system where freshmen aren't allowed to play varsity, nor will we go back to an era of unlimited scholarships, but raising the limit on scholarships to 16 or 17 per team might alleviate some of the pressure on coaches to fill or create vacancies to fill on a roster. Whether there is enough money available for the additional scholarships, or whether there are enough quality recruits to fill the spots would both be big questions.

---

This is a good observation. That said in the era of T9, I don't see any male rosters expanding.

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I can't help but think some of this has to do with the NCAA rule limiting scholarships to 13. In the modern game with the increase in losing players to injury, transfers, not to mention the difficulty of evaluating recruits, this places a lot of pressure on coaches to try and create openings for scholarship players when there are no more than 13. I feel It is similar to the regulations to implement affirmative action, a well-meaning idea to create openings where there were few, but which injured those who were passed over in favor of the rule. It created a no-win situation for administrators, who often had to make decisions which they might have felt were unethical or maybe even immoral, and which often caused resentment by the injured party.

I think back once again to the 1960s. There were no limits on scholarships back then, and Cal in 1959-60 had about 45 players on scholarship, 17 on the frosh, about 17 on the varsity and maybe 10 on the JV's. Only 5 of the members of that frosh team went on in later years to play on the Cal Varsity. What happened in the cases of those frosh players who did not move on? I personally know 3 who left the team for academic reasons, and they all felt the pressure of trying to stay in school. I also don't know if the scholarship was for one year or four, but I assume one condition for a player to keep the scholarship would be to make the Varsity or JV team the following season, when varsity tryouts were held. Another condition for those scholarships was that Coach Newell required each player to work 20 hours a week at a campus job. Stop working, and you lose the scholarship. In any case, if you had problem player, or a player who was not good enough to continue on scholarship, he would just be told at the end of varsity tryouts that he had not made the team, and that was that. It really eliminated the ethical problems coaches face today with a having to let a player go, so they can get access to their scholarship and bring in a fresh player. I don't think we will ever be going back to a system where freshmen aren't allowed to play varsity, nor will we go back to an era of unlimited scholarships, but raising the limit on scholarships to 16 or 17 per team might alleviate some of the pressure on coaches to fill or create vacancies to fill on a roster. Whether there is enough money available for the additional scholarships, or whether there are enough quality recruits to fill the spots would both be big questions.

---

This is a good observation. That said in the era of T9, I don't see any male rosters expanding.

---

I don't think it should be hard. I would not expand scholarship limits. The Bear Bryant "He'll never play for Bama but he'll never play for anyone else" concept was very real. USC used to do that all the time convincing 8 guys they were going to b THE tailback at Tailback U. I believe basketball and football would not be competitive today if the scholarship limits had not been implemented.

I think it is simple. The school offers a player a four year scholarship. Whatever happens, he has a four year scholarship. He makes the team or he doesn't. He counts against the 13 limit as a freshman. If he doesn't make the team thereafter, he is cut and he no longer counts. He maintains his scholarship no matter what. If he wants to play he transfers. If he doesn't, he can stay with a free education. There is no incentive to push him out the door or trump up phony charges or phony injuries. Add to that that we eliminate the rule for sitting out a year on transferring. Everyone has a one year commitment other than the scholarship that is for four years.

At what level of competitive sports is a player guaranteed a spot on a team for more than the existing season? Even with guaranteed contracts, teams can cut the guy and pay the salary. As far as I'm concerned guys need to earn their place on the team. As long as the scholarship is still available or the player can transfer unfettered, he is not really out anything. I do realize and sympathize that it is hard to be told you aren't wanted on the team. Nobody likes to be cut. But high school teams cut players. Travel ball teams cut players. Pro teams cut players. That is the tough part of life. Sometimes you don't succeed. As I said previously, it does no good to these guys to sit them on the bench of a team that doesn't want them. If basketball is their dream, they should go find someone who want to help them fulfill that dream.

Isn't there some discussion about making freshmen ineligible again? Theoretically, for all sports. I don't know what that does to scholarship limits, since if you have freshmen ineligible, it's tough to field a complete team (starters and bench).

Two comments:

Oaktown's suggestion is eminently sensible. The only tweak I would make is that if a player's scholarship is converted to academic, he remains ineligible at that school for the duration of his stay. This eliminates the chance of "stashing" a decent player for a year to make room for a OAD.

Regarding the questiion of ncbears, the Rice Commission suggested making freshmen ineligible again.

Another benefit that the players received: They got acceptance into the #1 public university in the world and got approximately 25% of their BA completely paid for. That would be a dream for tens of thousands of current high school juniors and seniors.