Roman Davis

17,349 Views | 126 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by UrsaMajor
calfanz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roman Davis. Is he eligible?
Gkhoury2325
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calfanz said:

Roman Davis. Is he eligible?


Not for the first part of the season. I believe he can return after December sometime.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now what happened?
4thGenCal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Academic short fall - able to practice but not eligible till post first semester - providing he improves his grades. Team has just 9 scholarship players playing thru December.
petalumabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

Academic short fall - able to practice but not eligible till post first semester - providing he improves his grades. Team has just 9 scholarship players playing thru December.
He will have one more season of eligibility after this upcoming season. I hope that the staff calls it a career after this season...
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Conzo was undefeated at home for a year, so it's cool.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
No kidding.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.
This season, we push the narrative of being improved over last season (not hard).

Next year, same thing.

The staff has been landing some decent pieces. After two years of showing improvement, they up it a notch. Then we're off to the races. (Well, "off to the races" in a fairly-low-expectations sort of way.)

This is all predicated, of course, on Jones proving to be at least a DECENT coach, in terms of how the talent plays in real games.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnsk said:

What a putrid program.
My take is Cuonzo Martin, Mike Williams, Wyking Jones, Theo Robertson, Tim O'Toole, and possibly Jim Knowlton had/have different visions for the Cal basketball program. The transitions have not been pretty, but I expect things will be looking up as we achieve some coherence and stability.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
No one knows for sure if any recruit below maybe the top 20 or top 50 can compete on the floor. And these "people" don't come to Cal to please us. They come looking for a free ride, a chance to play basketball, and maybe for a Cal degree, (we hope). Maybe they came to Cal for the girls. Maybe they came because they got sold a bill of goods by a slick recruiter who could or couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. Or a couple dozen other reasons. But one of those reasons was probably not to make us Cal fans happy. If the recruits we are getting don't make us happy, I suggest we lend a hand. Go to high school games or club team games and find the best players yourself. Tell the Cal coaches about them. Promote them. Become a booster instead of a complainer. Give tons of money to the coaching staff so they can spend it on finding better recruiters, and better recruits. Do something positive, rather than lay the blame on the program or lay the blame on the kid who "can't compete" to your satisfaction, or can't keep his grades up to the level you want. Cal de-emphasized all major sports a long time ago, with the help of Title IX, the political climate at Cal, and the general waning of fan interest across the board in Bay Area college sports, in case you don't realize it.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or at least buy a tix and support the team

Recruits certainly can spot a good supportive fan base and game energy/atmosphere
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I get it. The fan base is sinking from angry to apathetic and attendance reflects that. Certainly not an exciting environment for a recruit. But I don't believe that my game attendance makes a lick of difference on whether or not the player succeeds in class.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:


Maybe they came to Cal for the girls.
I would have deep concerns about any recruit who chose Cal for the girls and question his judgment.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski said:

I get it. The fan base is sinking from angry to apathetic and attendance reflects that. Certainly not an exciting environment for a recruit. But I don't believe that my game attendance makes a lick of difference on whether or not the player succeeds in class.
you've got a point there
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.


A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We must go hard on the community college and transfer front or it's going to take years to rebuild.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

We must go hard on the community college and transfer front AND it's going to take years to rebuild.
FIFY
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Maybe they came to Cal for the girls.
I would have deep concerns about any recruit who chose Cal for the girls and question his judgment.
Me too.

Except that back in the day, I was accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal. I chose Cal, and was really happy to find that Cal had some girls who helped make the experience palatable.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.


A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
Where is this coming from? I thought Vanover was 7'-3". And Anticevich and Kelly are not midgets. The other position where we are small is point guard, with Austin being a bit undersized. So every team in the Big 5 conferences is bigger? I doubt it.

And I did hear Wyking Jones say we will shoot the ball a lot better this season, or something like that. Even without improved shooting from the veterans, the addition of Gordon, Bradley, Kelly et al, it sure looks like the shooting will be better. I also envision with a real point guard, who should be able to set his teammates up, and teammates who will look more often to get open, there should be more easy buckets, which will raise the team shooting percentage.

I'm not overly optimistic, as I have questions about the coaching, the rebounding, and the defense. But the offense should be a little better.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.


A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
Where is this coming from? I thought Vanover was 7'-3". And Anticevich and Kelly are not midgets. The other position where we are small is point guard, with Austin being a bit undersized. So every team in the Big 5 conferences is bigger? I doubt it.

And I did hear Wyking Jones say we will shoot the ball a lot better this season, or something like that. Even without improved shooting from the veterans, the addition of Gordon, Bradley, Kelly et al, it sure looks like the shooting will be better. I also envision with a real point guard, who should be able to set his teammates up, and teammates who will look more often to get open, there should be more easy buckets, which will raise the team shooting percentage.

I'm not overly optimistic, as I have questions about the coaching, the rebounding, and the defense. But the offense should be a little better.
You are having Vanover a true freshman big man that we have no idea whether he can play D-1 to play substantial minutes. In an ideal world he would not be a major part of the rotation right away. But we have to because we whiffed on all big men besides him. There was a reason we wanted them.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Re Davis. Wonderful, just wonderful. What else can go wrong.?
Go Bears!
calbearinamaze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As for Roman Davis....I've not been able to get a read of any kind on him. Anyway, I hope he returns
to the court and contributes.

Transfers have been mentioned. Certainly grad-transfers should be counted. How many wins
would CAL have had last year without Marcus Lee? I'll go with 6.9.

Last year we had the apparently real "mystery grad-transfer" who never arrived and whose identity
is known only to a precious few. Then there was the second "mystery (sort of)--- grad-transfer"
Matz Stockman. He had a fair/good/high??? chance of being our starting center. But he went "poof" and flew back to Minnesota.

I like the Gopherhole fan forum. I noticed a kindred, dark-comedy tinged with optimism/pessimism
sort of vibe so I checked their BB records. In 15-16 they went 8 wins and 23 losses. This did not endear Richard Pitino (Rick's son) to the fans. Last year's 15-17 record didn't help either.

He are two fairly recent posts:

Stockman is the mystery man. We don't know how good (or bad) he will be, but he probably will have to play a fair amount, at least initially, because of injury recoveries. Plus, we had to wait a year to see him.
AND
Technically, Stockman's not a newcomer since he was on the team and sat out last season, but he fits into that category since he's not played for the Gophers. There hasn't been much to analyze with Stockman since he arrived from Louisville. He played a bit in last year's open scrimmage at Williams Arena. He's a giant who plays a finesse game. The Norway native prefers to take 8-10 footers rather than post up and finish at the rim. Sound familiar Gopher fans? Yes, his skills are very similar to former U big man Ralph Sampson III. Instead of trying to force him to be a physical presence, it probably serves Minnesota's coaches best to let him play his game. If he can be half the shot blocker Sampson was it will go a long way to helping the Gophers replace Reggie Lynch's defense in the middle.





If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
No one knows for sure if any recruit below maybe the top 20 or top 50 can compete on the floor. And these "people" don't come to Cal to please us. They come looking for a free ride, a chance to play basketball, and maybe for a Cal degree, (we hope). Maybe they came to Cal for the girls. Maybe they came because they got sold a bill of goods by a slick recruiter who could or couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. Or a couple dozen other reasons. But one of those reasons was probably not to make us Cal fans happy. If the recruits we are getting don't make us happy, I suggest we lend a hand. Go to high school games or club team games and find the best players yourself. Tell the Cal coaches about them. Promote them. Become a booster instead of a complainer. Give tons of money to the coaching staff so they can spend it on finding better recruiters, and better recruits. Do something positive, rather than lay the blame on the program or lay the blame on the kid who "can't compete" to your satisfaction, or can't keep his grades up to the level you want. Cal de-emphasized all major sports a long time ago, with the help of Title IX, the political climate at Cal, and the general waning of fan interest across the board in Bay Area college sports, in case you don't realize it.
Well said, SFCity; although I'd add that you should NOT talk up Cal to the potential recruit himself, since that's an NCAA violation.
caltagjohnson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You morons are tiresome. Your comments have no effect on anything. Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.
ncbears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.
Where's the fun in that?
flounder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

You morons are tiresome. Your comments have no effect on anything. Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.
how would this board get ad revenue then?
parentswerebears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

You morons are tiresome. Your comments have no effect on anything. Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.

I don't always agree with you, but when I do, I REALLY do!
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

You morons are tiresome. Your comments have no effect on anything. Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.
You mean like how Cal was going to have the best frontcourt in the conference last year? You do remember that prediction, don't you?
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

SFCityBear said:

calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.


A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
Where is this coming from? I thought Vanover was 7'-3". And Anticevich and Kelly are not midgets. The other position where we are small is point guard, with Austin being a bit undersized. So every team in the Big 5 conferences is bigger? I doubt it.

And I did hear Wyking Jones say we will shoot the ball a lot better this season, or something like that. Even without improved shooting from the veterans, the addition of Gordon, Bradley, Kelly et al, it sure looks like the shooting will be better. I also envision with a real point guard, who should be able to set his teammates up, and teammates who will look more often to get open, there should be more easy buckets, which will raise the team shooting percentage.

I'm not overly optimistic, as I have questions about the coaching, the rebounding, and the defense. But the offense should be a little better.
You are having Vanover a true freshman big man that we have no idea whether he can play D-1 to play substantial minutes. In an ideal world he would not be a major part of the rotation right away. But we have to because we whiffed on all big men besides him. There was a reason we wanted them.
While I don't disagree with you, you and I don't decide who plays. WJ does the deciding. I was responding to a post which said the "team" is "small". Team means everyone on the roster. The poster mentioned nothing about who would play and who would not. The poster said nothing about the quality of any of the players, only their height. He said they were small. The team, in my opinion, is not small, until we see who the coach puts on the floor in real games. The average height of a team in D1 is 6'-5". Cal's roster averages 6'- 5-1/2". Cal's 10-man roster, excluding all walk-ons, averages 6'-6" tall. Cal averages more in height than the average D1 team. Again, in my opinion, if the team's players average less than 6-5 in height, then the team is a small one.

Here are the D1 average heights by position, with Cal players:

Point guard: average 6-1. (Austin 6-0, McNeil, 6-3, Orender 6-0)

Shooting guard: average 6-3. (McNeill 6-3, Bradley 6-4, JHD 6-5, Zhao 6-4, Serge 6-4)

Small forward: average 6-5. (Sueing 6-7, Gordon 6-7, Bradley 6-4, Erving 6-5)

Power Forward: average 6-7. (Kelly 6-8, Anticevich 6-8, Sueing 6-7, Davis 6-7, Welle 6-7

Center: average 6-9. (Anticevich 6-8, Kelly 6-8, Vanover 7-3)

These are D1 averages. P5 average heights will be slightly higher. In any case, Cal is not small. Even when Cal will go small, the front line will likely be 6-8, 6-7, and 6-7.

On paper, Cal is taller than the D1 average at Shooting Guard, Small Forward and Power Forward. The only positions where Cal is shorter than the D1 average are Center and Point Guard. And if Vanover is included at Center, then Cal's center on average, is taller than the average D1 center. Where Cal is small is on the far end of the bench, where the walk-ons sit. Orender is small for a point, Erving small for a forward, and the tallest walk-on is Welle at 6-7.





SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
No one knows for sure if any recruit below maybe the top 20 or top 50 can compete on the floor. And these "people" don't come to Cal to please us. They come looking for a free ride, a chance to play basketball, and maybe for a Cal degree, (we hope). Maybe they came to Cal for the girls. Maybe they came because they got sold a bill of goods by a slick recruiter who could or couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. Or a couple dozen other reasons. But one of those reasons was probably not to make us Cal fans happy. If the recruits we are getting don't make us happy, I suggest we lend a hand. Go to high school games or club team games and find the best players yourself. Tell the Cal coaches about them. Promote them. Become a booster instead of a complainer. Give tons of money to the coaching staff so they can spend it on finding better recruiters, and better recruits. Do something positive, rather than lay the blame on the program or lay the blame on the kid who "can't compete" to your satisfaction, or can't keep his grades up to the level you want. Cal de-emphasized all major sports a long time ago, with the help of Title IX, the political climate at Cal, and the general waning of fan interest across the board in Bay Area college sports, in case you don't realize it.
Well said, SFCity; although I'd add that you should NOT talk up Cal to the potential recruit himself, since that's an NCAA violation.
I didn't mention it because I thought every fan knows that, or they should know it, so thanks for adding it.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

SFCityBear said:

calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

Big C said:

KenBurnski said:

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.
The stench seems to be waining, of late.
We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.


A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
Where is this coming from? I thought Vanover was 7'-3". And Anticevich and Kelly are not midgets. The other position where we are small is point guard, with Austin being a bit undersized. So every team in the Big 5 conferences is bigger? I doubt it.

And I did hear Wyking Jones say we will shoot the ball a lot better this season, or something like that. Even without improved shooting from the veterans, the addition of Gordon, Bradley, Kelly et al, it sure looks like the shooting will be better. I also envision with a real point guard, who should be able to set his teammates up, and teammates who will look more often to get open, there should be more easy buckets, which will raise the team shooting percentage.

I'm not overly optimistic, as I have questions about the coaching, the rebounding, and the defense. But the offense should be a little better.
You are having Vanover a true freshman big man that we have no idea whether he can play D-1 to play substantial minutes. In an ideal world he would not be a major part of the rotation right away. But we have to because we whiffed on all big men besides him. There was a reason we wanted them.
While I don't disagree with you, you and I don't decide who plays. WJ does the deciding. I was responding to a post which said the "team" is "small". Team means everyone on the roster. The poster mentioned nothing about who would play and who would not. The poster said nothing about the quality of any of the players, only their height. He said they were small. The team, in my opinion, is not small, until we see who the coach puts on the floor in real games. The average height of a team in D1 is 6'-5". Cal's roster averages 6'- 5-1/2". Cal's 10-man roster, excluding all walk-ons, averages 6'-6" tall. Cal averages more in height than the average D1 team. Again, in my opinion, if the team's players average less than 6-5 in height, then the team is a small one.

Here are the D1 average heights by position, with Cal players:

Point guard: average 6-1. (Austin 6-0, McNeil, 6-3, Orender 6-0)

Shooting guard: average 6-3. (McNeill 6-3, Bradley 6-4, JHD 6-5, Zhao 6-4, Serge 6-4)

Small forward: average 6-5. (Sueing 6-7, Gordon 6-7, Bradley 6-4, Erving 6-5)

Power Forward: average 6-7. (Kelly 6-8, Anticevich 6-8, Sueing 6-7, Davis 6-7, Welle 6-7

Center: average 6-9. (Anticevich 6-8, Kelly 6-8, Vanover 7-3)

These are D1 averages. P5 average heights will be slightly higher. In any case, Cal is not small. Even when Cal will go small, the front line will likely be 6-8, 6-7, and 6-7.

On paper, Cal is taller than the D1 average at Shooting Guard, Small Forward and Power Forward. The only positions where Cal is shorter than the D1 average are Center and Point Guard. And if Vanover is included at Center, then Cal's center on average, is taller than the average D1 center. Where Cal is small is on the far end of the bench, where the walk-ons sit. Orender is small for a point, Erving small for a forward, and the tallest walk-on is Welle at 6-7.






Yah well (no pun intended) we'll see. It's also that you list all those guys at PF and they are not traditional PFs who bang. I have to see how Kelly plays. We may be "small" more in the way we play. And it's basically two of the same guys from the PF pool that also play center except for Vanover who is a true freshman. I hope it works out.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:


Well said, SFCity; although I'd add that you should NOT talk up Cal to the potential recruit himself, since that's an NCAA violation.
I didn't mention it because I thought every fan knows that, or they should know it, so thanks for adding it.
shocky doesn't
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.