graguna said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

They haven't gone anywhere. The two scholarships are not available. What a disaster

---

I just looked outside. I'm happy to report that the sky is still there.

---

Yes it's still there. But this news is not a good look for the program.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

How quickly we forget the Kahlil Johnsons, Kaileb Rodriguezes, Jordi Gelis and Emerson Murrays of the world.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

What?!?! Maybe I don't understand what you're referring to, but Monty did it a number of times. First to mind is that Taylor Harrison didn't return from knee problems as well as Monty hoped. Monty suggested his PT would be zero and he 'medically retired' - but he still wanted to play (The medical option was an easy way for him to stay at Cal - that's how Taylor related the story to me). Maybe it wasn't as chatted about on BI, but it happened. Players were also sent off with Braun, Bozeman and Campanelli (maybe Kuchen too). Did I forget any of the coaches?

While I'm still waiting to see how well WJ can coach (per your closing sentence) - not sure it's fair to claim that he's doing something different than others. It's just that usually, we hear about it after the transfer.

If you're referring to the PR - you might have something there - as this seems noisy. But I'm not sure that is a reflection of Jones or the transparency and access that did not exist under prior coaches.

Big C said:

---

This is a tricky and somewhat unfortunate situation all around.

Let's say the players in question like it at Cal, would like to stay and graduate and are willing to work as hard as the average Pac 12 scholarship basketball player, maintaining a positive attitude.

Half of me says the coaches should tell them that they may never break into the rotation and they might consider transferring. HOWEVER, if they want to stay and work their butts off, they are welcome to and the coaches will treat them in a positive way (not trying to "run them off"). They have four years.

Of course, the other half of me scoffs at the first half, saying, "It's 2018, Pollyanna: The stakes are too high."

In the past, we've usually been able to get some sort of injury exemption for players. That, or, seeing the handwriting on the wall, they've decided to leave of their own volition, seeing more playing time elsewhere (or WAS it "of their own volition"?).

Interesting moral and ethical dilemma. Like I said, I am torn.

---

Polyanna or no, doesn't look good for Jones' morals or ethics to recruit and sign 2 kids and jettison them after 1 season,

If they were recruiting misses, that's on Jones.

joe amos yaks said:

---

Do you remember the pickup games at Live Oak Park, Berkeley? Pretty good competition...indie, hs and college,

---

Never played there. Mine were at a Church hoop off Dwight?! At RSF later and I believe a playground on Hearst. It was the 80's, so my memory is foggy.

The players themselves haven't announced anything. I have to imagine when all of this comes to light it will not be a good look.

MoragaBear said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

This is a tricky and somewhat unfortunate situation all around.

Let's say the players in question like it at Cal, would like to stay and graduate and are willing to work as hard as the average Pac 12 scholarship basketball player, maintaining a positive attitude.

Half of me says the coaches should tell them that they may never break into the rotation and they might consider transferring. HOWEVER, if they want to stay and work their butts off, they are welcome to and the coaches will treat them in a positive way (not trying to "run them off"). They have four years.

Of course, the other half of me scoffs at the first half, saying, "It's 2018, Pollyanna: The stakes are too high."

In the past, we've usually been able to get some sort of injury exemption for players. That, or, seeing the handwriting on the wall, they've decided to leave of their own volition, seeing more playing time elsewhere (or WAS it "of their own volition"?).

Interesting moral and ethical dilemma. Like I said, I am torn.

---

Polyanna or no, doesn't look good for Jones' morals or ethics to recruit and sign 2 kids and jettison them after 1 season,

If they were recruiting misses, that's on Jones.

---

The same scenario plays out hundreds of times across the country every year. Often it's an "injury retirement" or a "player choosing to transfer" but the initial discussions and realities are the same. It's just different that Winston and McCullough didn't at least initially want to leave a situation where they'd no longer play.

---

But why are we hearing about it at this stage?

MoragaBear said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

This is a tricky and somewhat unfortunate situation all around.

Let's say the players in question like it at Cal, would like to stay and graduate and are willing to work as hard as the average Pac 12 scholarship basketball player, maintaining a positive attitude.

Half of me says the coaches should tell them that they may never break into the rotation and they might consider transferring. HOWEVER, if they want to stay and work their butts off, they are welcome to and the coaches will treat them in a positive way (not trying to "run them off"). They have four years.

Of course, the other half of me scoffs at the first half, saying, "It's 2018, Pollyanna: The stakes are too high."

In the past, we've usually been able to get some sort of injury exemption for players. That, or, seeing the handwriting on the wall, they've decided to leave of their own volition, seeing more playing time elsewhere (or WAS it "of their own volition"?).

Interesting moral and ethical dilemma. Like I said, I am torn.

---

Polyanna or no, doesn't look good for Jones' morals or ethics to recruit and sign 2 kids and jettison them after 1 season,

If they were recruiting misses, that's on Jones.

---

The same scenario plays out hundreds of times across the country every year. Often it's an "injury retirement" or a "player choosing to transfer" but the initial discussions and realities are the same. It's just different that Winston and McCullough didn't at least initially want to leave a situation where they'd no longer play.

---

I don't blame them. Neither one is likely to make a professional career out of basketball and why go to a lesser school just for playing time when a Cal degree will be much more valuable to their future.

I really don't think this looks as bad as many make it out to be. There probably isn't a major college program that hasn't "invited a player to leave". And it's not simply a matter of schools retaining unfair power over players. When the major conferences voted to offer 4 year scholarships, many of the player representatives actually voted against it. The article below explains their reasoning.

* * *

"The SEC's athlete representatives took issue with a clause that would prevent schools from taking away scholarships, or in the case of sports with partial scholarships, reducing the amount of aid, from athletes for athletic underperformance.

"The student-athletes said, 'Don't do that,'" Jacobs said. "They said, 'Give them four years if you want, but you can pull it away if the players aren't performing.'"

Jacobs said one of the athletes explained that if a teammate isn't working hard, the scholarship should instead go to someone, even a walk-on, who would work harder "and help us win championships." The SEC athletes said they were communicating a consensus of their peers, who had been surveyed on that issue and others during a recent conference call.

"That was eye-opening," Jacobs said. "You should have seen us all look at each other. We just all made the assumption that this is what (the athletes) want. But it just goes to show you how competitive they are."

During the discussion forum later Saturday, athletes' opinions on the proposal were divided.

"No one wants to unjustly take an athletic scholarship away," Oklahoma center Ty Darlington said. "But this definitely restricts coaches. Coaches need to have the discretion to remove people from teams. There's always the guy who didn't fail a drug test, he's not ineligible, he didn't break a specific team rule, he's always at every practice and meeting but his attitude is terrible and he needs to go.

"(The proposal) is so vague. It will end up tying the hands of coaches. A vote against this is not a vote against student-athletes."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/17/college-athletes-ncaa-convention-sec-football/21921785/

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

LOL is right. MM never did anything wrong. Never put his hands on a player. Never ran a player off (see the list that others have posted--all coincidence). Never made a mistake in recruiting. Ain't revisionist history grand?

The problem is this: we can see basketball scholarships in one of two ways:

The primary purpose is to help the kid who receives the scholarship attend school and play ball. From this perspective, absent gross misconduct or academic failure, pulling the scholarship would be ethically wrong.

The primary purpose is to build a winning team and the benefits to the student-athlete are real but secondary. In this way, it is more analogous to a job. From this perspective, dismissing an employee who underperforms is appropriate, even if unfortunate.

In reality, IMO, it is a little of both (see, for example, the debates over paying players) and therefore not easy to negotiate. One could argue that WJ is being unfair to the two individuals by forcing them to choose Cal without basketball or basketball without Cal. OTOH, one could also argue that by holding scholarships "hostage," the two players would be acting unfairly to their erstwhile teammates (depriving them of two players who could help thel program). FWIW, as I see it, no one is "wrong" here; it's just an unfortunate situation. We can argue that WJ should not have offered either of them in first place, but I can see why he did. All coaches make recruiting errors. Let's hope this one works itself out.

UrsaMajor said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

OTOH, one could also argue that by holding scholarships "hostage," the two players would be acting unfairly to their erstwhile teammates (depriving them of two players who could help thel program).

---

'Hostage?' These kids qualified for Cal, were offered scholarships and moved to Berkeley to begin their college careers (one all the way from the midwest). They got up early every day to practice, by all accounts fulfilled their obligations, both athletic and academic, and are now being jettisoned.

The fault entirely rests with Jones.

I would not blame the kids one bit for staying at Cal, even if it costs the program scholarships.

I hope the people that are whining about WJ trying to restructure the roster and dismiss under-performers so we can win sooner aren't the same people that complained all last year about the team's performance. You can't expect to operate both a competitive business and a charity at the same time.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I really don't think this looks as bad as many make it out to be. There probably isn't a major college program that hasn't "invited a player to leave". And it's not simply a matter of schools retaining unfair power over players. When the major conferences voted to offer 4 year scholarships, many of the player representatives actually voted against it. The article below explains their reasoning.

* * *

"The SEC's athlete representatives took issue with a clause that would prevent schools from taking away scholarships, or in the case of sports with partial scholarships, reducing the amount of aid, from athletes for athletic underperformance.

"The student-athletes said, 'Don't do that,'" Jacobs said. "They said, 'Give them four years if you want, but you can pull it away if the players aren't performing.'"

Jacobs said one of the athletes explained that if a teammate isn't working hard, the scholarship should instead go to someone, even a walk-on, who would work harder "and help us win championships." The SEC athletes said they were communicating a consensus of their peers, who had been surveyed on that issue and others during a recent conference call.

"That was eye-opening," Jacobs said. "You should have seen us all look at each other. We just all made the assumption that this is what (the athletes) want. But it just goes to show you how competitive they are."

During the discussion forum later Saturday, athletes' opinions on the proposal were divided.

"No one wants to unjustly take an athletic scholarship away," Oklahoma center Ty Darlington said. "But this definitely restricts coaches. Coaches need to have the discretion to remove people from teams. There's always the guy who didn't fail a drug test, he's not ineligible, he didn't break a specific team rule, he's always at every practice and meeting but his attitude is terrible and he needs to go.

"(The proposal) is so vague. It will end up tying the hands of coaches. A vote against this is not a vote against student-athletes."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/17/college-athletes-ncaa-convention-sec-football/21921785/

---

I agree that this may not be that bad. In fact, maybe it'll show that we're finally taking Men's basketball seriously.

PtownBear1 said:

---

I hope the people that are whining about WJ trying to restructure the roster and dismiss under-performers so we can win sooner aren't the same people that complained all last year about the team's performance. You can't expect to operate both a competitive business and a charity at the same time.

---

I never complained once. I knew we were in for a difficult season just looking at the roster.

I also thought WJ did a poor job of balancing his recruiting class and this reaffirms that thought. Both players were reaches and that seemed pretty obvious, even at the time.

If he was operating the team as a business, those were bad business decisions, and bad decisions have consequences. It sucks that the kids are the ones suffering the consequences, not the coach who made the decision.

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

OTOH, one could also argue that by holding scholarships "hostage," the two players would be acting unfairly to their erstwhile teammates (depriving them of two players who could help thel program).

---

'Hostage?' These kids qualified for Cal, were offered scholarships and moved to Berkeley to begin their college careers (one all the way from the midwest). They got up early every day to practice, by all accounts fulfilled their obligations, both athletic and academic, and are now being jettisoned.

The fault entirely rests with Jones.

I would not blame the kids one bit for staying at Cal, even if it costs the program scholarships.

---

This was the point of my post earlier in the thread.

First of all, as Moraga noted, this sort of thing happens all of the time, all over.

The coach talks to the players after every season. If a certain player doesn't seem like he's ever going to break into the rotation, the coach usually tells him that and suggests he might consider going elsewhere. As it looks like in this case, the coach helps him look around for other opportunities.

Most of the time, the player takes him up on the offer, maybe going "down" to a mid-major. The players usually want to play, not be some place where they aren't really wanted.

But sometimes the player wants to stay at that school and eventually graduate. What happens then? Sometimes they get a "medical schollie" (injury). Sometimes they get eligible for other financial aid. Sometimes the coach sucks it up and keeps them for four years. Sometimes, in the case of a "jerk" coach, the player's life is made miserable. He is "run off". This can come back and ruin the coach's reputation, conceivably (and rightly so).

Hopefully, a solution can be worked out here that is satisfactory to all parties. I can't say the "fault" rests with Jones until we see how it all turns out.

Funny how Cuonzo Martin, when he first came here, said one of his mistakes at Tennessee was to, at first, offer some kids schollies out of desperation. Then he went and did it again (Chauca) and WJ went and did the same thing.

Again, I'm torn. If both the players want to stay and are willing to continue to work hard, maybe the ethical solution is to allow them to do so.

But maybe not... Part of the key will be how the staff is able to "finesse" the situation.

Big C said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

LOL. Mike Montgomery would never have done this. He had multiple opportunities, too. Wyking is going to Wyking, tho. He ain't a good enough coach, either way. Better talent won't hide the fact that he can't coach.

---

OTOH, one could also argue that by holding scholarships "hostage," the two players would be acting unfairly to their erstwhile teammates (depriving them of two players who could help thel program).

---

'Hostage?' These kids qualified for Cal, were offered scholarships and moved to Berkeley to begin their college careers (one all the way from the midwest). They got up early every day to practice, by all accounts fulfilled their obligations, both athletic and academic, and are now being jettisoned.

The fault entirely rests with Jones.

I would not blame the kids one bit for staying at Cal, even if it costs the program scholarships.

---

Most of the time, the player takes him up on the offer, maybe going "down" to a mid-major. The players usually want to play, not be some place where they aren't really wanted.

---

This is one of those "uniquely" 'Cal' problems (and a few other prestigious academic D1 schools) in that, for a player who will not make it to the next level, a Cal degree may (should?) be more important than just playing time. Which is why it's doubly important to make sure that recruits are a fit for Cal. That's why I place the blame on Jones. Both players were clearly reaches and yet he offered them anyway.

I fully understand and support the part about having conversations with kids about not being in the rotations, time to look for another school, etc. 2 things just seem a little different in this case. First, publicly leaking that these kids are off the roster before a soft landing (medial retirement, etc.) is figured out. Second, the timing after just 1 season... Just seems to indicate that Wyking didn't evaluate these kids well at all and he's strong-arming these kids. Just a bad look for us.

What is WJ doing wrong? He tells the players they won't play, and the players have the option to keep their grants and finish school. What is wrong with that? If the grants are not to be honored, then a real problem. Players come to compete. Some don't make it. Again, as long as the grants commitment is kept, what is the problem?

bearybear said:

---

I fully understand and support the part about having conversations with kids about not being in the rotations, time to look for another school, etc. 2 things just seem a little different in this case. First, publicly leaking that these kids are off the roster before a soft landing (medial retirement, etc.) is figured out. Second, the timing after just 1 season... Just seems to indicate that Wyking didn't evaluate these kids well at all and he's strong-arming these kids. Just a bad look for us.

---

This is what I've been thinking, exactly. This shouldn't be out in public yet. Was it leaked? And if so, why? It just looks bad.

bearybear said:

---

I fully understand and support the part about having conversations with kids about not being in the rotations, time to look for another school, etc. 2 things just seem a little different in this case. First, publicly leaking that these kids are off the roster before a soft landing (medial retirement, etc.) is figured out. Second, the timing after just 1 season... Just seems to indicate that Wyking didn't evaluate these kids well at all and he's strong-arming these kids. Just a bad look for us.

---

I feel bad about the first point as well. While I'm not sure who to 'blame' for publicly leaking this prematurely - that is the big problem. This happens a lot - but the timing of the leak is poorly managed.

I'm not so much in agreement with the second point. Not sure that he's strong arming these kids any more than other coaches. As for the 1-season issue - not sure the alternatives are better . . .

• Finding better recruits? Sure, that would have been better for an existing coach. But during a rough transition season for a first time coach - I am not too disturbed by his inability to find BETTER recruits.
• Leaving the scholarships open? That may have avoided the current PR problem, but better to give them an opportunity than dismiss them IMHO.
• Giving them another season? This just doesn't make sense in today's D1 basketball game. There just isn't going to be the PT here at Cal for them to improve as much as they need to.

I like the discussion on this thread, Am I the only oldie to thing about Robby Benson and the old movie One on One where he is asked and forced into surrendering his scholly but triumphs in the end? Hokey movie but definitely on topic. It was Blue Chips before Blue Chips came out.

MoragaBear said:

---

It wasn't leaked.

---

I will speculate no more. Any idea when it will get resolved?

Edit: Wrong question. Will it get resolved in time for Brown?

MoragaBear said:

---

It wasn't leaked.

---

MB - please explain. How are we discussing it if it wasn't leaked?

bearchamp said:

---

What is WJ doing wrong? He tells the players they won't play, and the players have the option to keep their grants and finish school. What is wrong with that? If the grants are not to be honored, then a real problem. Players come to compete. Some don't make it. Again, as long as the grants commitment is kept, what is the problem?

---

I think WJ miscalculated in thinking that by telling them they wouldn't be on the roster, they would immediately seek playing time elsewhere. At most schools, they probably would. But why turn down a full ride at Cal when you're not making it to the next level anyway?

If the committment is kept, then great for the kids. But then WJ is screwed for the next three years. It's almost like a self-inflicted probation.

MoragaBear said:

---

All you need to do is look at the language in the tweet about the players supposedly being blindsided. Does that sound like a program leak to you?

---

I guess I'm lost in the semantics. . . the information is out there and we are discussing it, so I thought that is what is meant by a leak.

MoragaBear said:

---

All you need to do is look at the language in the tweet about the players supposedly being blindsided. Does that sound like a program leak to you?

---

Who tweeted this?

Admittedly, "hostage" was a poor choice of words. You can say the fault lies with Jones, but it does with every basketball coach of a D1 program; they all make recruiting errors and try to rectify them be encouraging players to leave.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Admittedly, "hostage" was a poor choice of words. You can say the fault lies with Jones, but it does with every basketball coach of a D1 program; they all make recruiting errors and try to rectify them be encouraging players to leave.

---

What bothers me the most about this is it is happening in his very first year and when taking the job he said he understood the unique circumstances of coaching at Cal. He already pushed out a player who might actually have conceivably contributed last year as well, which I think compounds the error.

Given all that, he should have at least considered the possibility that marginal D1 kids might want to stay at Cal even if it means giving up basketball when he offered these scholarships up, especially given the Pac12's 4-year rule. It could very well end up costing him 2 scholarships for the next 3 years, and I don't think you can fault the kids one bit for that.

Simply put Jones will either win and stay or lose and be gone.

But lets give this a while to play out before we go all Sky is Falling Cal.

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Admittedly, "hostage" was a poor choice of words. You can say the fault lies with Jones, but it does with every basketball coach of a D1 program; they all make recruiting errors and try to rectify them be encouraging players to leave.

---

What bothers me the most about this is it is happening in his very first year and when taking the job he said he understood the unique circumstances of coaching at Cal. He already pushed out a player who might actually have conceivably contributed last year as well, which I think compounds the error.

Given all that, he should have at least considered the possibility that marginal D1 kids might want to stay at Cal even if it means giving up basketball when he offered these scholarships up, especially given the Pac12's 4-year rule. It could very well end up costing him 2 scholarships for the next 3 years, and I don't think you can fault the kids one bit for that.

---

NYC:

I don't fault the kids at all, and I hope I didn't imply that. At the same time, I don't fault Jones for doing what is pretty much SOP in D1 basketball. It hasn't worked out (yet), and wouldn't be so controversial if the news hadn't come out before the situation was resolved.