Lol.
You're up, 7-5.

According to TOS, one of the two players that have been cut has requested his release. Best of luck to him.

Probably Winston

Why?

I found a lot of the comments on cgb mirrored comments here. Lotta people not liking the way it's sounding now, and lotta people just accepting it and moving on.

dear Mr. cohen. In the gangster movie (?) hit-man Al Pacino shows a beautiful, glittering diamond to the undercover FBI agent Donnie Brasco. Brasco takes out his magnifying glass and examines the diamond from all angles. He finally says, " it's a fugaze." ( Italian for fake)

Okay BeachedBear,
You're now up 10-5, and I've read again and given it some more thought and so am taking back my star.
Make it 9-5.

Did your missed employment situations include the backing of a conference 4-yr deal?
Was your missed employment situations for 18-19 year olds, one of whom moved across the country?
Was your missed employment situations at an educational institution where the stated purpose (as "student athletes") of the entire endeavor to develop individuals, character, personal growth?

The situation you describe does not correlate well enough to this.
Are we to just ignore the 2014 conference rule? I guess that has no backing. The Commissioner should be looking into this if he cares about folks following conference rules.

Well since Blueblood hasn't said it, AHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

If you cut the cord, cut it completely. They don't belong on the bench. I doubt they want to be there.

---

Just to throw this thought into the mix: In the old days (do they still do it now): Either in Law or Engineering, or both, or maybe more departments, legend has it that, the first day, the professor would tell the class: Look to either side of you as you sit there. One or more of you three are not going to make it here.

I do imagine that, at least in some departments (e.g., the ones that produce the Nobel Prize winners):

(a) having the highest quality students is a goal, and

(b) there is some kind of practice and/or procedure (formal or informal) of weeding people out.

Being who I am, I am not sure that cut-throat methods like that are the best educational and/or development tools; but I also know that, to a certain extent, in elite Universities, the natural tendency of humans (not least of which in that age group) toward even hyper-competitiveness may well provide such a mechanism on its own.

So, in that sense, the situation discussed in this thread is perhaps not unique to college athletics - although it seems apparent that, in the context of basketball, it is perhaps rawer, just because there are so few spots (and that, commensurately, on a football squad with some 85 spots, the dilemma may not be so keening).

---

Did you just lift a scene from Paper Chase?

---

I heard that story from an engineering major when I was a freshman (1954) so it clearly pre-dates "the Paper Chase"!

concordtom said:

---

Okay BeachedBear,
You're now up 10-5, and I've read again and given it some more thought and so am taking back my star.
Make it 9-5.

---

Down 5 and it's getting late in the thread, Tom. Might need to start fouling.

59bear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

If you cut the cord, cut it completely. They don't belong on the bench. I doubt they want to be there.

---

Just to throw this thought into the mix: In the old days (do they still do it now): Either in Law or Engineering, or both, or maybe more departments, legend has it that, the first day, the professor would tell the class: Look to either side of you as you sit there. One or more of you three are not going to make it here.

I do imagine that, at least in some departments (e.g., the ones that produce the Nobel Prize winners):

(a) having the highest quality students is a goal, and

(b) there is some kind of practice and/or procedure (formal or informal) of weeding people out.

Being who I am, I am not sure that cut-throat methods like that are the best educational and/or development tools; but I also know that, to a certain extent, in elite Universities, the natural tendency of humans (not least of which in that age group) toward even hyper-competitiveness may well provide such a mechanism on its own.

So, in that sense, the situation discussed in this thread is perhaps not unique to college athletics - although it seems apparent that, in the context of basketball, it is perhaps rawer, just because there are so few spots (and that, commensurately, on a football squad with some 85 spots, the dilemma may not be so keening).

---

Did you just lift a scene from Paper Chase?

---

I heard that story from an engineering major when I was a freshman (1954) so it clearly pre-dates "the Paper Chase"!

---

My father told me a professor said that to him when he was a freshman math major in 1959.

Sluggo

TheSouseFamily said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Okay BeachedBear,
You're now up 10-5, and I've read again and given it some more thought and so am taking back my star.
Make it 9-5.

---

Down 5 and it's getting late in the thread, Tom. Might need to start fouling.

---

I won.
I got responses to a fair social question.
It wasn't what those answers were but feedback.
I earned about 15 replies.

SurveyMonkey would be better, though.

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

If you cut the cord, cut it completely. They don't belong on the bench. I doubt they want to be there.

---

Just to throw this thought into the mix: In the old days (do they still do it now): Either in Law or Engineering, or both, or maybe more departments, legend has it that, the first day, the professor would tell the class: Look to either side of you as you sit there. One or more of you three are not going to make it here.

I do imagine that, at least in some departments (e.g., the ones that produce the Nobel Prize winners):

(a) having the highest quality students is a goal, and

(b) there is some kind of practice and/or procedure (formal or informal) of weeding people out.

Being who I am, I am not sure that cut-throat methods like that are the best educational and/or development tools; but I also know that, to a certain extent, in elite Universities, the natural tendency of humans (not least of which in that age group) toward even hyper-competitiveness may well provide such a mechanism on its own.

So, in that sense, the situation discussed in this thread is perhaps not unique to college athletics - although it seems apparent that, in the context of basketball, it is perhaps rawer, just because there are so few spots (and that, commensurately, on a football squad with some 85 spots, the dilemma may not be so keening).

---

Did you just lift a scene from Paper Chase?

---

I heard that story from an engineering major when I was a freshman (1954) so it clearly pre-dates "the Paper Chase"!

---

My father told me a professor said that to him when he was a freshman math major in 1959.

Sluggo

---

Said to me and my platoon the first day of bootcamp in '81. Didn't have the balls [thank God] to ask the DI if he lifted it from the Paper Chase.

Civil Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

If you cut the cord, cut it completely. They don't belong on the bench. I doubt they want to be there.

---

Just to throw this thought into the mix: In the old days (do they still do it now): Either in Law or Engineering, or both, or maybe more departments, legend has it that, the first day, the professor would tell the class: Look to either side of you as you sit there. One or more of you three are not going to make it here.

I do imagine that, at least in some departments (e.g., the ones that produce the Nobel Prize winners):

(a) having the highest quality students is a goal, and

(b) there is some kind of practice and/or procedure (formal or informal) of weeding people out.

Being who I am, I am not sure that cut-throat methods like that are the best educational and/or development tools; but I also know that, to a certain extent, in elite Universities, the natural tendency of humans (not least of which in that age group) toward even hyper-competitiveness may well provide such a mechanism on its own.

So, in that sense, the situation discussed in this thread is perhaps not unique to college athletics - although it seems apparent that, in the context of basketball, it is perhaps rawer, just because there are so few spots (and that, commensurately, on a football squad with some 85 spots, the dilemma may not be so keening).

---

Did you just lift a scene from Paper Chase?

---

I heard that story from an engineering major when I was a freshman (1954) so it clearly pre-dates "the Paper Chase"!

---

My father told me a professor said that to him when he was a freshman math major in 1959.

Sluggo

---

Said to me and my platoon the first day of bootcamp in '81. Didn't have the balls [thank God] to ask the DI if he lifted it from the Paper Chase.

---

Prof. Slottman said the same thing during our Freshman Welcome in 1979

concordtom said:

---

Okay BeachedBear,
You're now up 10-5, and I've read again and given it some more thought and so am taking back my star.
Make it 9-5.

Did your missed employment situations include the backing of a conference 4-yr deal?
Was your missed employment situations for 18-19 year olds, one of whom moved across the country?
Was your missed employment situations at an educational institution where the stated purpose (as "student athletes") of the entire endeavor to develop individuals, character, personal growth?

The situation you describe does not correlate well enough to this.
Are we to just ignore the 2014 conference rule? I guess that has no backing. The Commissioner should be looking into this if he cares about folks following conference rules.

---

CT -

Not a competition, so I'm neither up or down. However, as always, I love your enthusiasm and bringing a little fun to what is honestly a very un-fun topic.

Your points about the differences in the situation are valid, but I still think there is a lot of gray area before you get to your extreme viewpoint. The biggest one is that these are 18 year olds. All of mine were college grads, but many were from across the country and even overseas. I would also add that portraying an 18 year old with an athletic scholarship opportunity as victims, is a bit ingenuous when comparing them to the majority of 18 year olds.

Bottom line is that it appears that both guys want to stay at Cal and I take that as a good thing. I'm confident that both of them will end up in a situation that they will look back at in a positive way.

:gobears

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

One additional question. Given the possible scenarios, what is the effect on our APR
Option 1: both decide to go to another program to play
Option 2: both decide to stay, are not on the team but have their schollies
(Yes, I know there are other possibilities, just curious about these two options and how they'd affect our APR)

Civil Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

If you cut the cord, cut it completely. They don't belong on the bench. I doubt they want to be there.

---

Just to throw this thought into the mix: In the old days (do they still do it now): Either in Law or Engineering, or both, or maybe more departments, legend has it that, the first day, the professor would tell the class: Look to either side of you as you sit there. One or more of you three are not going to make it here.

I do imagine that, at least in some departments (e.g., the ones that produce the Nobel Prize winners):

(a) having the highest quality students is a goal, and

(b) there is some kind of practice and/or procedure (formal or informal) of weeding people out.

Being who I am, I am not sure that cut-throat methods like that are the best educational and/or development tools; but I also know that, to a certain extent, in elite Universities, the natural tendency of humans (not least of which in that age group) toward even hyper-competitiveness may well provide such a mechanism on its own.

So, in that sense, the situation discussed in this thread is perhaps not unique to college athletics - although it seems apparent that, in the context of basketball, it is perhaps rawer, just because there are so few spots (and that, commensurately, on a football squad with some 85 spots, the dilemma may not be so keening).

---

Did you just lift a scene from Paper Chase?

---

I heard that story from an engineering major when I was a freshman (1954) so it clearly pre-dates "the Paper Chase"!

---

My father told me a professor said that to him when he was a freshman math major in 1959.

Sluggo

---

Said to me and my platoon the first day of bootcamp in '81. Didn't have the balls [thank God] to ask the DI if he lifted it from the Paper Chase.

---

Said to my centuria by Marcus Caelius before The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 C.E.

(It's been around for a while...)

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

When it comes to MBB and Football, I gave up on the student-athlete hypocrisy a while ago (I share your concern). FWIW, my entertainment comes from the game and its affiliation with Cal and Berkeley. The other trappings that come with money are NOT for me, but I acknowledge that they ARE for a lot of people. In fact, I would guess that I am in the minority. I just accept it, grudgingly.

Someone earlier suggested that Jones was trying to run them out of Berkeley and I just don't buy it (yet). There are three things going on: Attendance at Cal, Financial Support and Playing on the MBB team. I think he's only removing them from the team.

As for the Power Conference rule, I have not read the details. But I understood that it's intent is NOT about this very thing. the first intent is to prevent lack of athletic performance as a cause to kick the student out of school (which was actually happening at some places in the SEC, I believe - but I'm too lazy to cite specifics). The second - is not removing the financial tuition (which could effectively have the same result). I believe that what Jones is doing (as well as all the other coaches) is still permissible under the rules as long as the players are provided financial support, if they remain at the school but are off the team.

As EricBear and MB mentioned, in most cases, leaving the team goes with changing schools and obviously financial support. In the case that either player wants to stay at Cal, but won't play bball, the financial piece needs to be sorted out. If the financial situation can't be sorted, then we have a bigger issue. Our mods have suggested we stay tuned, and I intend to do that. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Jones is trying to do something sinister or different until the process is complete.

Good points, again.
I wish they'd clairify it all.

All of these things are clarified in the Insider board. There is much more optimism there than on the free board, because there is a lot more information, including the Brown's thought process in their decision, in addition to the latest on the other two potentials for the program next year.

YamhillBear said:

---

One additional question. Given the possible scenarios, what is the effect on our APR
Option 1: both decide to go to another program to play
Option 2: both decide to stay, are not on the team but have their schollies
(Yes, I know there are other possibilities, just curious about these two options and how they'd affect our APR)

---

None, as long as they are in good academic standing.

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Jones is trying to do something sinister or different until the process is complete.

---

I wouldn't think there is any malicious intent. I think he reached and missed and is learning an expensive (in terms of scholarships) lesson on that. It only makes his job that much harder because I wouldn't think, at this point, that either guy is going anywhere.

It's often said that coming to Cal is a '40 year decision, not a 4 year one.'

This could be Jones' '4 year mistake.'

Civil Bear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

One additional question. Given the possible scenarios, what is the effect on our APR
Option 1: both decide to go to another program to play
Option 2: both decide to stay, are not on the team but have their schollies
(Yes, I know there are other possibilities, just curious about these two options and how they'd affect our APR)

---

None, as long as they are in good academic standing.

---

Correct. But I also believe that they need to transfer immediately (not sit out a semester) for us to not be penalized even if they are in good academic standing. Likely irrelevant but still part of the APR rule on transfers.

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

Right, but it's unclear what mechanism can be used to fund players staying for education only after being 'removed' from an active athletic roster. If there is no mechanism, then occupying up a slot of the basketball quota for scholarships does seem to be in the spirit of the rule.

If they transfer, as long as it wasn't due to badgering as seen the Northwestern case, the whole thing is unfortunately a public case of much ado about nothing.

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

I'm generally in agreement with this, UM, but there are still benefits that come along with an athletic scholarship that you don't get with an academic scholarship even if you're made whole financially. Things like access to a higher level of health care, academic support/tutoring, facility access, preferential class enrollment, training/nutrition/etc support are likely all things that a guy might value that go away when you're removed from an athletic scholarship in all likelihood. So, it's not quite an equivalent swap, leaving out the money and the basketball elements.

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

That seems like semantic nit-picking. The rule is there to keep players from being forced out without cause. In the past, a coach could simply choose not renew a player's scholarship. Now that coach can potentially lose the scholarship itself if the player chooses to remain, which, at present, seems to be the case here. You can't expect some other form of financial aid to take the scholarship's place from the school's side, aside from a medical waiver, since I'm pretty sure that would be an NCAA violation. The player could, conceivably, apply for other forms of scholarship and then voluntarily give up the scholly, but why would they?

One has to imagine that Jones was hoping they'd choose to transfer so that he could use those scholarships. At present, it seems he miscalculated. The rule, and only the rule, is the sole reason they might stay at Cal.

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

You can't expect some other form of financial aid to take the scholarship's place from the school's side, aside from a medical waiver, since I'm pretty sure that would be an NCAA violation. The player could, conceivably, apply for other forms of scholarship and then voluntarily give up the scholly, but why would they?

---

But why should it be an NCAA violation? the ivy schools give academic scholarships (ie grants instead of loans) to athletes all the time just because they are athletes. this doesn't seem all that different, except that the schools also give athletic scholarships.

ColoradoBear said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

You can't expect some other form of financial aid to take the scholarship's place from the school's side, aside from a medical waiver, since I'm pretty sure that would be an NCAA violation. The player could, conceivably, apply for other forms of scholarship and then voluntarily give up the scholly, but why would they?

---

But why should it be an NCAA violation? the ivy schools give academic scholarships (ie grants instead of loans) to athletes all the time just because they are athletes. this doesn't seem all that different, except that the schools also give athletic scholarships.

---

If that were an option, football and basketball powerhouses would be doing it on a regular basis, and the 4-year rule would be pointless, as would the need for a medical waiver on players moved off athletic scholarship.

I assume the other benefits are to help the athlete excel in their sport, and to assist with the additional rigor faced by someone who is going to college while also playing a sport. If these two players are no longer playing, they don't face that same rigor, and don't have the need for these additional benefits any more than any other student would have. I hope it gets worked out so we don't have to eat the two schollies, but if we do, we do. I'll still put the blame on Martin for leaving the program twisting in the wind. I can't blame Jones for trying to make some changes after a dire season.

Our team sucked and these two still couldn't crack the rotation. That's a pretty bad sign.

We don't know what is happening behind the scenes. The way the game seems to be played is that these kids should have played along to get medicals. Then Cal gets the slots back and they keep their free rides at Cal (see Alabama football). If the kids wouldn't play along and forced Cal's hands then so be it.

Also, although we generally don't like this type of thing, we need to acknowledge that coaches don't get brownie points for being nice, just winning and graduating kids. WJ has to do what he has to do.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Our team sucked and these two still couldn't crack the rotation. That's a pretty bad sign.

We don't know what is happening behind the scenes. The way the game seems to be played is that these kids should have played along to get medicals. Then Cal gets the slots back and they keep their free rides at Cal (see Alabama football). If the kids wouldn't play along and forced Cal's hands then so be it.

Also, although we generally don't like this type of thing, we need to acknowledge that coaches don't get brownie points for being nice, just winning and graduating kids. WJ has to do what he has to do.

---

I'm guessing that there must be documentation to turn an athletic scholarship into a medical waiver and the two players looked pretty healthy all year long. It would look pretty fishy.

The Cal Football and Basketball players that have done this in the past have had real, long-term injuries. Um, at least I THINK they did (anything's possible, I guess).

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

NewYorkCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BB,
It's all good, and thank you for the positive comments. I did not take malice from your prior, and yes, I was trying to add some intrigue to get folks to vote.
The vote were enough!

I think your non hoops experience adds a fair compare, but let me ask you this - how to reconcile that the conference created a rule in 2014 to protect against THIS VERY THING?
Apparently, the conference leaders were fully aware that this type of this occurs everywhere with regularity (as MB reminds us every year), and so they wrote in a code designed to specifically combat it. And here now, where it crops up again, we seem to want to just ignore the new policy as if it means nothing???

Seriously. Where is the integrity?

I could care less if it were stated up front, "perform or you're out". But that's not the code.
So, doesn't matter if it's 18 or 28 year olds. Thus, I should throw that prior concern of mine out.

Another concern I had, that this is hypocritical where it's happening at an educational institution where sports is merely (ideally and initially) designed to develop character, not win and make money. Well, I can drop that one, too. The hypocrisy exists. We are involved in profits here, fair enough. (I still do think they players should get a larger share of that $$$ but that's another angle.)

So, just back to the one question, please, what say you?

---

Don't think that the bolded sentence is quite accurate, CT. The rule was created to prevent kids being kicked out (and having no financial aid at all). If DW and AM stay at Cal with some kind of aid and/or transfer, there's no violation of the rule--either in letter or spirit.

---

You can't expect some other form of financial aid to take the scholarship's place from the school's side, aside from a medical waiver, since I'm pretty sure that would be an NCAA violation. The player could, conceivably, apply for other forms of scholarship and then voluntarily give up the scholly, but why would they?

---

But why should it be an NCAA violation? the ivy schools give academic scholarships (ie grants instead of loans) to athletes all the time just because they are athletes. this doesn't seem all that different, except that the schools also give athletic scholarships.

---

If that were an option, football and basketball powerhouses would be doing it on a regular basis, and the 4-year rule would be pointless, as would the need for a medical waiver on players moved off athletic scholarship.

---

I don't know the ins and outs of the rule (it's not an NCAA rule, though, it's conference by conference), but I don't see a competitive advantage as long as the conversion comes with ineligibility to play again. This way, the Alabamas wouldn't be doing it to stockpile players for a later year.