Roman Davis. Is he eligible?
calfanz said:
Roman Davis. Is he eligible?
He will have one more season of eligibility after this upcoming season. I hope that the staff calls it a career after this season...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.
No kidding.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.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.
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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
This season, we push the narrative of being improved over last season (not hard).KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
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.KenBurnsk said:
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.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.
I would have deep concerns about any recruit who chose Cal for the girls and question his judgment.SFCityBear said:
Maybe they came to Cal for the girls.
you've got a point thereKenBurnski 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.
KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
FIFYfat_slice said:
We must go hard on the community college and transfer front AND it's going to take years to rebuild.
Me too.Yogi Bear said:I would have deep concerns about any recruit who chose Cal for the girls and question his judgment.SFCityBear said:
Maybe they came to Cal for the girls.
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.calumnus said:KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
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.SFCityBear said: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.calumnus said:KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
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.
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.SFCityBear said: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.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.
Where's the fun in that?caltagjohnson said:
Why not just cool it and see how the season plays out.
how would this board get ad revenue then?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.
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?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.
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.KoreAmBear said: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.SFCityBear said: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.calumnus said:KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
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.
I didn't mention it because I thought every fan knows that, or they should know it, so thanks for adding it.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.SFCityBear said: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.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.
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.SFCityBear said: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.KoreAmBear said: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.SFCityBear said: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.calumnus said:KoreAmBear said: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 said:The stench seems to be waining, of late.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.
A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!
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.
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.
shocky doesn'tSFCityBear said:I didn't mention it because I thought every fan knows that, or they should know it, so thanks for adding it.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.