Chronicle story on basketball team makeover

18,850 Views | 135 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Civil Bear
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 2:27p, 6/1/18
OaktownBear said:



CT thinks they have a 4 year right to play on the team, so not letting them play on a team they are not qualified for is putting them through hell.

I'm not happy that Jones missed this badly on recruiting 2 guys, but that is a competency issue, not an ethical one. If there is any evidence he is humiliating them or trying to make their lives miserable, I'd like to know because I'd want him fired immediately. Selecting his roster based on ability is not that. They are either Cal students in which case they take an awesome scholarship that they now get with no further work, or they are basketball players and they go somewhere else. It's a choice. Cal has lived up to its bargain whether it is the what these two hoped for or not.

1. You're damn straight I feel they have a right to be on the team for 4 years (minus transgressions which we haven't heard of). Isn't that what's written in the contract? There isn't a clause that says if you suck you are out. Perhaps there should be.
2. how F'ing stupid is it to cut them from the team ONLY BECAUSE they aren't as good as guys that Jones wanted more and they won't leave?
3. Jones is stupid to have used the "banished from team" move in retailiation for them not acquiescing and leaving, because he will have two fewer players in practice and on the bench. Well, I suppose he could get an unlimited (?) number of walk-ones to take their place. I guess that was his trade-off, and he could care less.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:43p, 6/1/18
no one has a "right" to be on the team. This is the real world. We don't give out participation trophies. They have a 4 year ride worth more than 100,000. I would LOVE for SCT Jr. to be so wronged by a college. Where do I sign?
Reply Quote
4
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:08p, 6/1/18
I think Winston had potential and with time would have been an adequate back up if not a better practice player then the next walk ons from the Rsf. Problem is Jones hasnt got the time and needed someone who could play like a 5th year senior now. After last years diaster, he knows he is on the hot seat. So he took desperate measures to try to get better players which hadn't happened. So now we get bad press and2 less scholarships.

A player like Coleman could be convinced. So far the other two haven't left. So Winstons father played the game and maybe told his son to wait until Wyking was screwed. Well that has past and still neither one has found a decent place to transfer. If one or both doesnt leave, this will affect the team for years and severely hamper the next coach.

Go Bears!
Reply Quote
2
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 3:36p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
OaktownBear said:



CT thinks they have a 4 year right to play on the team, so not letting them play on a team they are not qualified for is putting them through hell.

I'm not happy that Jones missed this badly on recruiting 2 guys, but that is a competency issue, not an ethical one. If there is any evidence he is humiliating them or trying to make their lives miserable, I'd like to know because I'd want him fired immediately. Selecting his roster based on ability is not that. They are either Cal students in which case they take an awesome scholarship that they now get with no further work, or they are basketball players and they go somewhere else. It's a choice. Cal has lived up to its bargain whether it is the what these two hoped for or not.

1. You're damn straight I feel they have a right to be on the team for 4 years (minus transgressions which we haven't heard of). Isn't that what's written in the contract? There isn't a clause that says if you suck you are out. Perhaps there should be.
No, it's not. The rule is the school must honor the 4-year scholarship. It doesn't say the player must be able to remain on the team.
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 5:34p, 6/1/18
socaltownie said:
no one has a "right" to be on the team. This is the real world. We don't give out participation trophies. They have a 4 year ride worth more than 100,000. I would LOVE for SCT Jr. to be so wronged by a college. Where do I sign?


Especially Cal. The only school my daughter ever wanted and had worked her entire life until that point to gain acceptance to (but did not).

My next door neighbor in the dorms was an undersized third string OL. Harry Edwards convinced him that football had taken him as far as it could by getting him into Cal but he would not play in the NFL. So my friend quit the team to focus on academics--ended up getting a Cal Masters Degree. He is far more successful now than he would have been in all likelhood If he had continued with the time and travel comitment for football.

No one wants to have someting "taken away" and I do feel that these guys were "wronged" but I also believe that if they really take stock of their futures, they have been presented with a tremendous opportunity.
Reply Quote
4 edits
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 6:21p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
OaktownBear said:



CT thinks they have a 4 year right to play on the team, so not letting them play on a team they are not qualified for is putting them through hell.

I'm not happy that Jones missed this badly on recruiting 2 guys, but that is a competency issue, not an ethical one. If there is any evidence he is humiliating them or trying to make their lives miserable, I'd like to know because I'd want him fired immediately. Selecting his roster based on ability is not that. They are either Cal students in which case they take an awesome scholarship that they now get with no further work, or they are basketball players and they go somewhere else. It's a choice. Cal has lived up to its bargain whether it is the what these two hoped for or not.

1. You're damn straight I feel they have a right to be on the team for 4 years (minus transgressions which we haven't heard of). Isn't that what's written in the contract? There isn't a clause that says if you suck you are out. Perhaps there should be.
2. how F'ing stupid is it to cut them from the team ONLY BECAUSE they aren't as good as guys that Jones wanted more and they won't leave?
3. Jones is stupid to have used the "banished from team" move in retailiation for them not acquiescing and leaving, because he will have two fewer players in practice and on the bench. Well, I suppose he could get an unlimited (?) number of walk-ones to take their place. I guess that was his trade-off, and he could care less.
Okay, you know what? I'm finally ticked off. If you are going to relentlessly blast someone's ethics you need to actually be correct about facts. If you think they should be handed orange slices and participation trophies for four years that is your right. But you do not have the right to change the facts and accuse a coach of intentionally humiliating a player with no evidence that has happened or accusing him of retaliation with no evidence.

1. People have explained this to you 85 times. The contract is for a scholarship. It is not for a place on the team. There does not need to be a clause that says if you suck you are out because there is no clause that gives you a spot on the team. It gives you a scholarship. Cal is giving them their scholarship. I know of no team at any competitive level that guarantees a multi year spot on the team. Even professionals with guaranteed contracts only get guaranteed SALARY. If they suck the team cuts them and eats the salary.

2. They were cut because they are not Pac-12 level players and the coaches don't think they ever will be.

3. They were not "banished". They were cut. They did not earn a spot on the team with their performance. So they are not on the team The move was not retaliation like they were asked to leave, wouldn't, and then the coach said fine, then, I'll banish you from practice. They were cut. They were called in, told that there was no place on the team for them and offered their scholarship or help finding another school. If you are going to accuse the coach of retaliating, you need to have some evidence for it.
Reply Quote
5
helltopay1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:30p, 6/1/18
Always nice to hear from a fellow Lowellite. go Indians!!That was before Lowell went all pansy and politically correct and became the Cardinals. Remember our colors??Cardinal Red & White.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 6:54p, 6/1/18
Banished, cut... same difference.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 6:58p, 6/1/18
"The contract is for a scholarship"... in exchange for what? To do what?

Stupidest deal I ever heard of if Jones is going to hand out scholarships for nothin'. He's only got 13, and he just blew 2 of them. If he continued in this vain, he'd have none. No players. No team. So what would be the point?


Reply Quote
2
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:09p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
"The contract is for a scholarship"... in exchange for what? To do what?

Stupidest deal I ever heard of if Jones is going to hand out scholarships for nothin'. He's only got 13, and he just blew 2 of them. If he continued in this vain, he'd have none. No players. No team. So what would be the point?


Thats different (BY FAR). Jones is making his bed. He will lie in it like a big boy. Now if he WHINES ("I was playing with 11") that is far different. But I don't think we will see that.

I DO NOT support Jones. I want him GONE GONE GONE and KNOW we can do better. But I also think you have to let a coach coach and support the school and the AD letting the coach do that.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 7:10p, 6/1/18
"Okay, you know what? I'm finally ticked off. If you are going to relentlessly blast someone's ethics you need to actually be correct about facts. If you think they should be handed orange slices and participation trophies for four years that is your right. But you do not have the right to change the facts and accuse a coach"

Fact: Jones offered a basketball scholarship, which is a four year commitment, whether the kid can hit a 3 or not. Jones didn't write it that way, it's league policy.

Fact: Jones cut the kids despite any transgressions.

I don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand WHY they got cut. It isn't about altering facts, it isn't about orange wedgies and participation trophies. It's about deduction, Watson.

Fact: reducing your scholarship players from 13 to 11 after one subpar freshmen year with no expectation of replacing them? Come on.

I'm sorry you are angry. The storyline seems pretty clear. It's a very unfortunate one.
If Jones doesn't want to honor the 4-yr scholarship deal, he should have gone about it in a way that would have been successful, not blow up in his face. I'm curious to hear how this goes across the land. MB says it's constant. So are these two families the only ones to stand firm and not transfer? Is Cal the only school where this happens?

I don't know what other families at other schools think about this situation. Could our two boys be landmark cases?
Reply Quote
1
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:14p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
"Okay, you know what? I'm finally ticked off. If you are going to relentlessly blast someone's ethics you need to actually be correct about facts. If you think they should be handed orange slices and participation trophies for four years that is your right. But you do not have the right to change the facts and accuse a coach"

Fact: Jones offered a basketball scholarship, which is a four year commitment, whether the kid can hit a 3 or not. Jones didn't write it that way, it's league policy.

Fact: Jones cut the kids despite any transgressions.

I don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand WHY they got cut. It isn't about altering facts, it isn't about orange wedgies and participation trophies. It's about deduction, Watson.

Fact: reducing your scholarship players from 13 to 11 after one subpar freshmen year with no expectation of replacing them? Come on.

I'm sorry you are angry. The storyline seems pretty clear. It's a very unfortunate one.
If Jones doesn't want to honor the 4-yr scholarship deal, he should have gone about it in a way that would have been successful, not blow up in his face. I'm curious to hear how this goes across the land. MB says it's constant. So are these two families the only ones to stand firm and not transfer? Is Cal the only school where this happens?

I don't know what other families at other schools think about this situation. Could our two boys be landmark cases?
A) Cal is somewhat unique. We have pressure to win, the school is an ELITE institution of HE but we are not that good athletically. I can see how the stars align on this.

B) We have an f'ing first time coach. Are you SURPRISED he butchered player evaluation and got desperate? I am NOT. Most coaches do not make this rookie mistake. We have....a rookie.

C) But the kids got cut because they are NOT pac-12 players. They probably also were not ready to accept that. Clearly Daddy wasn't. Sucks but welcome to 21st century america. SoCal Senior would have wacked me on the head, told me "Suck it up buittercup" and then regaled me with stories of the depression.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:16p, 6/1/18
I don't care that Jones wanted an upgrade.
I care that he uses his power to banish these kids as a result of not being able to convince the, to leave.
He should have said (he's how I'd have liked it):
"I want you to transfer. You are not good enough and I want better players."
"No, I don't want to leave."
"Please?"
"No"
"Okay, I see I have little power here, so let's just forget this conversation and see if you can earn playing time."

Instead he said," oh yeah? Well I'm the coach, and you can keep your scholarship and stick it where the sun don't shine, but you are off the team, and I will play with 11! Hmmphfff!"

Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:20p, 6/1/18
But the kids got cut because they are NOT pac-12 players.

He only shoots himself by cutting them.
He needs 13, not 11.
Whatever. I guess when they said no he was like, "I never want to see their faces again." Totally understandable.
But he doesn't get the stewardship, father-coach figure award. I'd never send my kid to him now.
Reply Quote
1
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:24p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
I don't care that Jones wanted an upgrade.
I care that he uses his power to banish these kids as a result of not being able to convince the, to leave.
He should have said (he's how I'd have liked it):
"I want you to transfer. You are not good enough and I want better players."
"No, I don't want to leave."
"Please?"
"No"
"Okay, I see I have little power here, so let's just forget this conversation and see if you can earn playing time."

Instead he said," oh yeah? Well I'm the coach, and you can keep your scholarship and stick it where the sun don't shine, but you are off the team, and I will play with 11! Hmmphfff!"

CT you are projecting. What if the kids were cancerous - sulking about not getting their due (oh yea, we have NEVER had a player do that). What if the dad was pestering every day? What if during the year Jones saw no indication that the kids would put in the time, etc. etc. etc.

Do you REALLY think he is being this way? I don't. And I am the biggest critic of the guy there is.

From what we saw last year I think it pretty clear - Jones saw they did not have the skills to play at this level. I saw nothing to say that wasn't true - and that, given their height and body types this wasn't an issue of late bloomers. Finally, I DONT WANT a kids that has to put in 60 hours in the gym to crack the line up - cause the kid also needs to go to school cause they are not going to the NBA and they need the degree.

I think your view is being tainted by the one sided Brandon C. saga - which mostly to me shows he is the entitled 20 something we all were at one time. To me, again, it is bad scholarship decisions and then a bungled exit process. My guess is that we play with 11 next year and then, the year after (you know, the year those kids would be sitting out at a JC or at podunk tech) we get the rides back...for coach Turner.
Reply Quote
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:47p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
I don't care that Jones wanted an upgrade.
I care that he uses his power to banish these kids as a result of not being able to convince the, to leave.
He should have said (he's how I'd have liked it):
"I want you to transfer. You are not good enough and I want better players."
"No, I don't want to leave."
"Please?"
"No"
"Okay, I see I have little power here, so let's just forget this conversation and see if you can earn playing time."

Instead he said," oh yeah? Well I'm the coach, and you can keep your scholarship and stick it where the sun don't shine, but you are off the team, and I will play with 11! Hmmphfff!"



You keep assuming that they were cut in retaliation for not leaving. Like he asked them to leave, they said no, and he got mad and said "I'll show you. Screw you. You are off the team."

My understanding is he decided they were not good enough and that it did not benefit the team to keep them. By the way, his decision whether you think he shoots himself in the foot or that 13 is better than 11. Most coaches I know would disagree with you. I digress. Upon deciding they do not benefit the team, he informed them of the decision and their options. Stay with scholarships or leave to seek a school that wants them.

You keep stating that he "banished" them in response to their decision not to leave. That is an assumption. My understanding was that they were cut from the get go. Because they weren't good enough. Life is hard. No anger. No retaliation. Just a sober decision from a coach that 2 players didn't have what it takes. Coaches always have that right. I don't know why this is different from any other coaching situation.

If you have evidence that cutting them was in retaliation for their decision not to leave, please present it.
Reply Quote
1
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:06p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
"Okay, you know what? I'm finally ticked off. If you are going to relentlessly blast someone's ethics you need to actually be correct about facts. If you think they should be handed orange slices and participation trophies for four years that is your right. But you do not have the right to change the facts and accuse a coach"

Fact: Jones offered a basketball scholarship, which is a four year commitment, whether the kid can hit a 3 or not. Jones didn't write it that way, it's league policy.

NOT FACT: show me the league policy that says they are on the team. The league policy is they get a schollie.

Fact: Jones cut the kids despite any transgressions.

As hundreds of thousands of kids and adults are cut from teams at every level purely on the basis that they are not good enough. Why do you think they are entitled- and don't say their contract because you are flat wrong.


I don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand WHY they got cut. It isn't about altering facts, it isn't about orange wedgies and participation trophies. It's about deduction, Watson.

Sorry Sherlock. You ain't got no evidence. I have plenty of evidence supporting the assumption that they got cut because they stink. And by the way, you are right it isn't about participation trophies. It is about your entitled bullshyte.

Fact: reducing your scholarship players from 13 to 11 after one subpar freshmen year with no expectation of replacing them? Come on.

You obviously never coached anything and frankly I wonder if you ever played anything. Having guys who suck on the team is a really bad dynamic. It causes discord and drags the team down.

I'm sorry you are angry. The storyline seems pretty clear. It's a very unfortunate one.
If Jones doesn't want to honor the 4-yr scholarship deal, he should have gone about it in a way that would have been successful, not blow up in his face. I'm curious to hear how this goes across the land. MB says it's constant. So are these two families the only ones to stand firm and not transfer? Is Cal the only school where this happens?

I don't know what other families at other schools think about this situation. Could our two boys be landmark cases?


The storyline only seems clear to you because you decided what happened early on and you won't listen as people tell you over and over that it didn't happen that way. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to state things as fact because you don't need to be a rocket scientist. Does it ever occur to you what a shyte you will feel like if it turns out you are wrong?
Reply Quote
5
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:18p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
"The contract is for a scholarship"... in exchange for what? To do what?

Stupidest deal I ever heard of if Jones is going to hand out scholarships for nothin'. He's only got 13, and he just blew 2 of them. If he continued in this vain, he'd have none. No players. No team. So what would be the point?




Cal's obligation - scholarship
Player's obligation - play basketball

When it is to Cal's detriment to enforce the player's obligation, it makes no sense for them to do so. The player has an obligation to play if asked. They do not have a right to play.

You have wrapped your whole belief into the idea that more bodies are better than fewer. No coach believes that.

I would here give you the absurd hypothetical that adding me to the team just to get to 13 would not be beneficial. But then it is not that absurd here. I'm actually tied with one of the players in shots made in my Cal basketball career. And given that the other guy has a parent causing problems the whole time, I think the argument that 11 is better than 13 is easy to make.
Reply Quote
3
stu
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 9:12p, 6/1/18
OaktownBear said:
Cal's obligation - scholarship
Player's obligation - play basketball

Thanks for the succinct summary.

Quote:
And given that the other guy has a parent causing problems the whole time, I think the argument that 11 is better than 13 is easy to make.

Our women's team has done pretty well with 10 or 11 on the roster. I'd like to see 13 but I agree it needs to be the right 13.
Reply Quote
1
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaliganbear • 10:15p, 6/1/18
socaliganbear said:
Big C said:
A half-way balanced article. A reader could see the title and read the first few paragraphs w/o ever getting into the Chauca/Winston/McCullough situation.

For true balance, if Chauca is going to "reach out" to the Chronicle, then maybe the article should also mention his transgressions that contributed to his situation and how Jones took the high road with those..
My guess is this isn't legal. And it's also just poor form.
It might be improper for Cal to say what happened but it shouldn't be illegal for the paper to print it. I'd say they have a responsibility to report it and confront Chauca with it. The reader deserves to know he may have an axe to grind and should give the reader enough info to decide for themselves.
Reply Quote
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 10:28p, 6/1/18
concordtom said:
Big C said:
concordtom said:
4thGenCal said:


Coach Jones has certainly taken the high road considering the number of transgressions that Chauca committed. While I won't detail them,
I don't know about Chauca, but what type of transgressions, if any, did McCullough and Winston commit?
None that we know of. You're familiar with the whole

I brought up Chauca and his transgressions because he has come forward to the media to talk about "his truth", but the entire truth paints him in a less flattering light.
My point is that McCullough and Winston committed no transgressions.so why should they be run off?

How about this. If Jones were not in with other recruits like Brown, needing their slots, he would NOT have asked M&W to leave. But he was, and he did. And when they said "no, we are staying" then the narrative is that he maligned them and tried to make their lives hell, hell enough to leave, by saying, "okay then, you're not going to play, practice, or get any other benefits associated with being part of the team. You are a wart upon the team and banished." That's the way I see it played out, and that's f'd up, man!

So, Jones' errors:

1. Recruited Committed (per conference rules) 4 year slots to borderline guys.
2. Recruited Committed (per conference rules) 4 year slots to borderline talent who he thought he could easily excuse and replace if they were borderline, or if he could catch better fish.
3. Getting caught up in a bad PR position by playing his cards to excuse them in a way where he looks like the bad guy.

Now his rep is hurt and so is the team. He'd better hope the remaining guys can win big and save his fanny so that this gets forgotten. Otherwise, fatal errors

It is NOT effed up. They suck. They got something of tremendous value their skill level did not merit. The gravy train is over. Fankly, who cares if they get to practice with the team or not. They are dead weight, useless, never going to contribute at this level. It does the program no good to keep them. You'd apparently prefer to make this a 4 or 5 year mistake by letting them be hangers on. That is absurd.
Reply Quote
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 10:38p, 6/1/18
OaktownBear said:
W





CT thinks they have a 4 year right to play on the team, so not letting them play on a team they are not qualified for is putting them through hell.

I'm not happy that Jones missed this badly on recruiting 2 guys, but that is a competency issue, not an ethical one. If there is any evidence he is humiliating them or trying to make their lives miserable, I'd like to know because I'd want him fired immediately. Selecting his roster based on ability is not that. They are either Cal students in which case they take an awesome scholarship that they now get with no further work, or they are basketball players and they go somewhere else. It's a choice. Cal has lived up to its bargain whether it is the what these two hoped for or not.
Finally some sanity. Thank you.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 12:48a, 6/2/18
OaktownBear said:


2. They were cut because they are not Pac-12 level players and the coaches don't think they ever will be..
Not sure I agree with this. Because of the timing, it looks like they were cut to try to make room for Brown, the MGT. and the other PG that apparently were all ready to commit. If coach thought they would never be Pac-12 level players he would have dropped the axe sooner like he did with Coleman. It was only when he felt he needed the schollies did he make his move. And frankly, I'm not convinced he knew at the time he couldn't just pull their scollies.
Reply Quote
3
UrsaMajor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civil Bear • 2:18a, 6/2/18
Civil Bear said:
OaktownBear said:


2. They were cut because they are not Pac-12 level players and the coaches don't think they ever will be..
Not sure I agree with this. Because of the timing, it looks like they were cut to try to make room for Brown, the MGT. and the other PG that apparently were all ready to commit. If coach thought they would never be Pac-12 level players he would have dropped the axe sooner like he did with Coleman. It was only when he felt he needed the schollies did he make his move. And frankly, I'm not convinced he knew at the time he couldn't just pull their scollies.
Except that he apparently told them at the outset that they could keep the rides if they chose not to transfer.

I think that this thread (and especially Concord's repetitive diatribes) demonstrates something positive about Wyking Jones. Just as in the Chauca case, he could have been more explicit in his reasoning and spoken of his private conversations; instead, he chose to take a higher road knowing he'd get shyte but not throw 19 year-olds under the bus. And indeed, he's getting undeserved shyte. Not that he doesn't deserve criticism for having made a couple of bad recruiting choices, but not for cutting kids from the team who aren't P12 players.

One last point: it's ironic that the same posters who say he shouldn't have signed AM and DW but filled the slots with walk-ons are now saying that he should keep AM and DW and not fill the slots with walk-ons.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:33a, 6/2/18
This thread was about the Chronicle story.
Notice I haven't spoken about the Chauca situation. It was done within the rules for Jones to gain an open scholarship while allowing The kid to keep his scholarship.
But who did Jones gain on the court by doing so? Honest question, I forget.

And Who will Jones gain by cutting DW and AM?

That's my point.
Those of you who think I think they should play on the court are kinda missing my point, that Jones has shot himself in the foot while not helping his student athletes out.

Anyways, most of the posters here disagree with me, and I accept that. It's okay. I just would have gone about it differently. My recruits woulda been my charges, and I'd have looked at them as developing individuals, not mercenary basketball players. Then again, I'm not making Jones' salary. And I coach a good bit of youth soccer, so I'm all about player development, individual growth, working with what I got.

Cheers, off to swim meet announcing.
Reply Quote
1
UrsaMajor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 6:06a, 6/2/18
concordtom said:
This thread was about the Chronicle story.
Notice I haven't spoken about the Chauca situation. It was done within the rules for Jones to gain an open scholarship while allowing The kid to keep his scholarship.
But who did Jones gain on the court by doing so? Honest question, I forget.

And Who will Jones gain by cutting DW and AM?

That's my point.
Those of you who think I think they should play on the court are kinda missing my point, that Jones has shot himself in the foot while not helping his student athletes out.

Anyways, most of the posters here disagree with me, and I accept that. It's okay. I just would have gone about it differently. My recruits woulda been my charges, and I'd have looked at them as developing individuals, not mercenary basketball players. Then again, I'm not making Jones' salary. And I coach a good bit of youth soccer, so I'm all about player development, individual growth, working with what I got.

Cheers, off to swim meet announcing.
you know, Tom, I kinda agree with you about looking at players as charges. The problem is, however, that Jones is paid to win games and will be fired if he doesn't. Unfortunately, in today's D1 sports, growth and development and $3 gets you a cup of coffee on your way out the door.

As for what Jones gets by cutting DW and AM, if they stay at Cal 4 years, he gets nothing. If they leave, he gets 2 scholarships he can use on better players.
Reply Quote
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 6:11a, 6/2/18
concordtom said:
Anyways, most of the posters here disagree with me, and I accept that. It's okay. I just would have gone about it differently. My recruits woulda been my charges, and I'd have looked at them as developing individuals, not mercenary basketball players. Then again, I'm not making Jones' salary. And I coach a good bit of youth soccer, so I'm all about player development, individual growth, working with what I got.
I also coach youth sports. Little league softball which is rec. Club softball which is competitive. I agree, at our level it's about development of the person and the player. It's natural to project what we do to this situation but of course it's 100% different, college athletics being a business with big money and pressure to win, etc. it just isn't the same. A coach who treats a D1 hoops or football program like youth sports will very soon be selling insurance or something similar.
Reply Quote
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UrsaMajor • 8:36a, 6/2/18
UrsaMajor said:
Civil Bear said:
OaktownBear said:


2. They were cut because they are not Pac-12 level players and the coaches don't think they ever will be..
Not sure I agree with this. Because of the timing, it looks like they were cut to try to make room for Brown, the MGT. and the other PG that apparently were all ready to commit. If coach thought they would never be Pac-12 level players he would have dropped the axe sooner like he did with Coleman. It was only when he felt he needed the schollies did he make his move. And frankly, I'm not convinced he knew at the time he couldn't just pull their scollies.
Except that he apparently told them at the outset that they could keep the rides if they chose not to transfer.

I think that this thread (and especially Concord's repetitive diatribes) demonstrates something positive about Wyking Jones. Just as in the Chauca case, he could have been more explicit in his reasoning and spoken of his private conversations; instead, he chose to take a higher road knowing he'd get shyte but not throw 19 year-olds under the bus. And indeed, he's getting undeserved shyte. Not that he doesn't deserve criticism for having made a couple of bad recruiting choices, but not for cutting kids from the team who aren't P12 players.

One last point: it's ironic that the same posters who say he shouldn't have signed AM and DW but filled the slots with walk-ons are now saying that he should keep AM and DW and not fill the slots with walk-ons.
I don't see where that is apparent. My apologies if I missed it, but I didn't read anywhere where that took place, and he didn't need to tell them for it to be the case. I do recall reading Jones had located landing places for both players before cutting them, so it all reads like the Coach was surprised or unprepared when the players didn't immediately give up their schollies and decided to finish out the semester instead.



Reply Quote
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:26a, 6/2/18
My guess Is jones told them they could keep their scholarships after he found out he could not take them away.I bet he doesnt say that if scholarships were still year by year.
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
KenBurnski
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:39a, 6/2/18
Is McCullough still 0-fer?
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UrsaMajor • 7:25p, 6/2/18
UrsaMajor said:
concordtom said:
This thread was about the Chronicle story.
Notice I haven't spoken about the Chauca situation. It was done within the rules for Jones to gain an open scholarship while allowing The kid to keep his scholarship.
But who did Jones gain on the court by doing so? Honest question, I forget.

And Who will Jones gain by cutting DW and AM?

That's my point.
Those of you who think I think they should play on the court are kinda missing my point, that Jones has shot himself in the foot while not helping his student athletes out.

Anyways, most of the posters here disagree with me, and I accept that. It's okay. I just would have gone about it differently. My recruits woulda been my charges, and I'd have looked at them as developing individuals, not mercenary basketball players. Then again, I'm not making Jones' salary. And I coach a good bit of youth soccer, so I'm all about player development, individual growth, working with what I got.

Cheers, off to swim meet announcing.
you know, Tom, I kinda agree with you about looking at players as charges. The problem is, however, that Jones is paid to win games and will be fired if he doesn't. Unfortunately, in today's D1 sports, growth and development and $3 gets you a cup of coffee on your way out the door.

As for what Jones gets by cutting DW and AM, if they stay at Cal 4 years, he gets nothing. If they leave, he gets 2 scholarships he can use on better players.
Right. I hear you. But why have the 4-year promise? Then should just scrap that then.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:30p, 6/2/18
This conversation makes me laugh. There are some rabid-for-wins folks on this board, and they smell blood.
To hell with any 19 yr old who gets in the way.

Let's also just call a spade a spade and pay the kids some of that cbs and espn contract money, too, then. Trade that for transfer-banishment.
Oh wait, universities want the money.

So, I guess, the 4-yr promise actually WAS a concession. We'll keep the money, and you guys can keep your 4-yr promise, and if your coach sucks at identifying good recruits (commonly known simply as "recruiting") then too bad for you.

Ah, I see the light!!!
Reply Quote
1
Bear8995
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:04p, 6/2/18
concordtom said:
This conversation makes me laugh. There are some rabid-for-wins folks on this board, and they smell blood.
To hell with any 19 yr old who gets in the way.

Let's also just call a spade a spade and pay the kids some of that cbs and espn contract money, too, then. Trade that for transfer-banishment.
Oh wait, universities want the money.

So, I guess, the 4-yr promise actually WAS a concession. We'll keep the money, and you guys can keep your 4-yr promise, and if your coach sucks at identifying good recruits (commonly known simply as "recruiting") then too bad for you.

Ah, I see the light!!!
I talked to another alum today who feels like you do Tom. For me, they have a choice. They can stay for 4 years and get a degree or they can move on if they want to play basketball. So to me, they are getting a 4 year promise. No one should get to be on the team for 4 years no matter what.
Reply Quote
2
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 11:38p, 6/2/18
concordtom said:
UrsaMajor said:
concordtom said:
This thread was about the Chronicle story.
Notice I haven't spoken about the Chauca situation. It was done within the rules for Jones to gain an open scholarship while allowing The kid to keep his scholarship.
But who did Jones gain on the court by doing so? Honest question, I forget.

And Who will Jones gain by cutting DW and AM?

That's my point.
Those of you who think I think they should play on the court are kinda missing my point, that Jones has shot himself in the foot while not helping his student athletes out.

Anyways, most of the posters here disagree with me, and I accept that. It's okay. I just would have gone about it differently. My recruits woulda been my charges, and I'd have looked at them as developing individuals, not mercenary basketball players. Then again, I'm not making Jones' salary. And I coach a good bit of youth soccer, so I'm all about player development, individual growth, working with what I got.

Cheers, off to swim meet announcing.
you know, Tom, I kinda agree with you about looking at players as charges. The problem is, however, that Jones is paid to win games and will be fired if he doesn't. Unfortunately, in today's D1 sports, growth and development and $3 gets you a cup of coffee on your way out the door.

As for what Jones gets by cutting DW and AM, if they stay at Cal 4 years, he gets nothing. If they leave, he gets 2 scholarships he can use on better players.
Right. I hear you. But why have the 4-year promise? Then should just scrap that then.


The ENTIRE reason for the promise was that poor kids who lost their spots on the team because of performance or the coach not liking them or a new coach being hired or to recruit over them lost their scholarship also and frequently had to drop out with no degree because they couldn't afford to continue. In many cases they were the first in their family to go to college. This was a terrible result. So the promise was to give them a four year scholarship so they could graduate no matter what happened in their sport. Because they are supposed to be students. Education is supposed to be why they are in college.

As for us being cut throat wanting wins and not caring what happens to 19 year olds, my kid is 12. She is in a team where she will play the season unless there is a transgression. However, next season she will have to make the team again. She has been on such teams since she was 9. I know teams like this that have 7 year olds.

Your issue is you are insisting there was a promise that there wasn't. I'd also say your holier than thou bullshyte is pretty funny since your position basically displays that you belittle the value of giving a guy an education since the only thing you will assign importance to is being on the team. You can't even conceive of the idea that the point of the policy was to ensure these guys get an education.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:44a, 6/3/18
Your issue is you are insisting there was a promise that there wasn't. I'd also say your holier than thou bullshyte is pretty funny since your position basically displays that you belittle the value of giving a guy an education since the only thing you will assign importance to is being on the team. You can't even conceive of the idea that the point of the policy was to ensure these guys get an education.

Wrong.
It would be easier to have such discussions face to face, by the way.

I'm saying that it makes little sense to cut these guys (who presumably work hard in practice and fulfill all the components of team members other than play high pac12 level) simply because they wouldn't transfer and yield the Cal scholarship to someone else.
A coach needs practice players if nothing else. This is like self imposed sanctions if it plays out. Laughing stalk on the nationals scene: "Cal coach Jones has committed recruiting violations and self imposed lost two scholarships for 3'seasons as a result."

Second, the concept of charges and looking after your young men.

Anyways, we are repeating ourselves at this point. I love you all. Thanks for giving me a counter so I could consider things I never had before.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.