I know this is just my opinion, but I feel that most of the time the decision to transfer is a very personal one. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, but I feel it's not right to assume you know what's going on in a player's head or what's going on between a player and his teammates/coaches. 

In this case, it might be as simple as Maceo not wanting to play and risk contracting COVID-19.  It might also be something else. And it could be a combination of things.  But unless the player has told you what he is transferring, does it do any good to write things that reflect badly people?  It's potentially hurtful to all parties involved. Of course, it's up to each of us to decide if we want to write such things or not.  I'm not saying what anyone else should do, but I would suggest you think before you write some something else that will hurt the feelings of someone or their standing in their community.  And given what's going on the world and that's it's the holdiday season, wouldn't a little generosity and/or compassion be nice?

I feel like Maceo deserves our gratitude and good wishes for a safe and bright future. Best of luck in everything you do Maceo Jack and thank you for everything you've done for GW.  

Last edited by 22ndandF (12/24/2020 9:11 am)

Sad to see Maceo leave. From a fan's point of view he is a class act. We all must wish him well.

Interesting that he leaves in the middle of the season. He could have stayed for the complete season and would have just as much eligibility next year at a new school. 

I fear that is just one indication of the mess that is the men's basketball program. Saying JC didn't run him off because he didn't tell Maceo to leave doesn't make much sense.  JC is responsible even if he didn't say anything to Maceo about leaving. He limited Maceo's playing time. He created the atmosphere on the team. The coach is responsible.  He is in charge of a team with a 1-6 record that looks disorganized on the court. A team he told us was an improvement from last season's team. He can say the team is improving, but I think most people interested in GW basketball believe winning matters.  It doesn't take a genius to watch the way the team plays, see the losses mount and the look at the players' faces to realize this is a team in turmoil. As has been said so well on this board, it looks like JC has no idea how he wants his team to play.

We don't know what JC is saying to the team, but we can watch press conferences. And I realize what coaches say press conferences is mostly BS, but after the Charlotte game to say essentially that this team has the capability and talent to be one of the best teams in the A-10 doesn't  make sense. In fact the whole press conference seemed bizarre.

The way the season is headed it looks like we are taking a big step backwards. And it looks like we will see more transfers after the season. If that's the case JC has an excuse next year, just like this year, when he says that with so many new players that they need to learn to play together.
 

Maybe Maceo just wants to get off a sinking ship. As a fan, I know I want to.

Jack transferring can be seen as both a win/win and a lose/lose situation.  On the negative, we are not as good without him as we were with him (good, of course being a relative term).   Further, the manner of his leaving does leave a bit of a bad taste in his mouth.   I am not sure that he was forced off the team; however he went from a starter to a substitute, as pointed out his minutes were slashed, but what may have been the final straw was in the past 2 games, we were down by one point with the ball, and in one game he was not part of the play drawn up and in the next game, he was not even on the court.   Although I am sure that the coach did not intend that as an intentional insult to Maceo, that had to hurt.   As I had posted earlier, if the coach thought there were five better players on the team than Maceo, he was wrong.  On the other hand, there is a big upside to what just happened.  From Maceo's point, he gets off (as moneybox puts it) a sinking ship and can look forward to one more year in basketball where he can play a meaningful role on a competitive team (hello Butler?).   Also, despite being a senior, there was only a small group of players he has played with before, and no one for more than one season.  IFrom GWs standpoint, everyone knows that this season is all about the future, which means the development of the new players.  Although Maceo's staying may (emphasis on may) have helped us win one or two more games, at this point, the development of our future is more important.   Maceo was no longer in our short or long term plans.  As for this year, I don't recall either the name of the MLB player or owner, who had an MVP season on a last place team but was denied a raise because, in the words of the owner, we finished last with you and we can finish last without you.   Or to put it another way, we wee 1-6 with Maceo and we can go 1-6 without him.  Maceo was a scorer who brought little else to the team in terms of rebounding or defense (which I had thought improved last season but seemed to regress this season).  This team already has plenty of scorers that cannot adequately defend.  In the end, I liked Maceo and will miss him.   I thought that Maceo and maybe Nolan were the only 2 somewhat competent players that played for Mojo (although Mojo did recruit competent players in Paar and Battle, but they never played for him).   I wish him nothing but the best, but I also look forward to seeing what the kids can bring.

Gwmayhem wrote:

GWRising, your efforts to defend this program are indeed your prerogative.  However, whether intentional or not, you really do insult the intelligence of so many posters here.  You can hide behind the notion that JC may never actually have told Maceo to leave the team.  I'm reasonably sure he didn't.  But the reality, as others have correctly pointed out, is that JC's decision to limit Maceo's playing time had to be the deciding factor in his decision to move on.  If the team were 6-1, then maybe Maceo does a better job of accepting his role, realizing that others who are playing in front of him are getting the job done.  But at 1-6, this clearly is not the case.

You cite his 21.4 minutes of playing time as a reason why Maceo's leaving over playing time is fake news?
Take it all in context.

As a sophomore, Maceo started 28 of 33 games, averaging 28.5 minutes per game.
As a junior, Maceo started 28 of 32 games, averaging 35.8 minutes per game.
As a senior, Maceo started 1 of 7 games, averaging 21.4 minutes per game.

His playing time is down by approximately 40% from a season ago.  That's a dramatic jump for anyone to endure let alone a senior.

So for you to continue to suggest that he was not run off the team might be true in a literal sense but in reality, the coaching staff's decision to no longer start him, to play him considerably less than he had been playing, and to actually achieve worse results rather than improved results, are the factors which has led to this decision.  Fake news?  Give me a break. 
 

What should really insult the intelligence of posters here is people making things up because they have no information aka Fake News.

No JC did not run him off in any way, shape, or form. A coach has the perogative to play his players as he sees fit within the context of the team. If we have now come to the place that Maceo or any player can demand a certain amount of minutes and if the coach disagrees, the coach is deemed to have run him off, good luck trying to build a program. Since when do players decide how much they play? Since when does seniority grant you that perogative? How do you know we'd be any better off if Maceo played more minutes? And if JC was really trying to get rid of him why would he have played him 21.4 mpg? He would have handed those minutes to Ball and Brelsford.

I'm sorry but Maceo decided to put himself over the team. He was playing over half the game. He had no reason to leave in December none whatsoever. He didn't have to return next season and playing second semester would not have changed that. But this is another example of today's "me" generation ... give "me" what I want right now or I'm out. Essentially, what Maceo is saying to his teammates is I'm with you but only if I play so many minutes and it's handed to me. I don't need to compete with you for those minutes. That is very disrespectful.

I like Maceo, Think otherwise he is a good kid. But whoever advised him that this was the right course of action should be ashamed. 

 

Last edited by GWRising (12/24/2020 12:32 pm)

GWRising:   You may be right that Maceo was not run off the team, and yes, you are certainly correct that a coach has the prerogative to play his players as he sees fit within the context of the team, but you will never convince me that the manner of his use over the first few games sent him a message loud and clear, whether or not it was intended.   How in heavens name do  you justifying having Sloan Seymour in the final seconds of a  game in which we were one point down over Maceo Jack unless it is trying to instill confidence in Seymour as opposed to winning the game.

jf wrote:

Will point out some of the stats that Maceo brought to the table in another post.
But if we are losing terribly, as with last year, what about losing with dignity, decency and honor?
There's a reason why we have no seniors, outside of walk on Ace.
  All of these good kids who gave their all to the program, including Mazz (cashiered by JC mid-season)
and Toro, played through tough times and injuries. 
And even with any deficiencies these players had, they were generally better than what we had on the court.
More on that with Mazz later.
  The future is James Bishop and Matt Moyers, If you are comfortable with that style of basketball and the results so far, great. Outside of a couple of Penders years, its never been the GW style.
Not naive to know players are not run off. But to get rid of players like Mazz and Maceo (who stayed for last year's crappy season even though Mazz was his best friend) mid-season, whether cut or effectively pushed out, along with sidelining Toro, shouldn't be what we're about.
It's frankly stupid from a basketball perspective. And not decent from a human perspective, with all this nonsense about student athletes (all these guys were leaders).
  Adding insult to injury, is all this sickening, hypocritical JC pap about loving the players more as we lose
more.
Let's be real: He has only shown love to players he recruited or can say he coached from day one. 
The others, such as Maceo, Mazz and Toro, haven't even gotten tough love.
And yet we lose to the likes of Hampton, UMBC, William and Mary and probably School Without Walls if we played them.
   Prefer to win, but will support the team in any case if the players try as hard as they can. Another issue.
   But if you need to see this from a what's in it for GW perspective, word gets around, especially when you do this to a coach's son. We're now even easier to recruit against.
  If you want to look at this from a university that represents us, not only is it harmful to our prospects  and shortsighted on the court, it's not honorable. It's simply wrong. 

JF, you seem to forget that college basketball isn't a democracy. The coach decides who plays and how much. If not  playing as much as they would like, players then have 3 choices: 

1. Accept the circumstances
2. Try to compete harder or make improvements to earn more PT
3. Leave

Toro, Mazz and Maceo had all 3 choices available to them. They decided to take option 3. .

That's it - there isn't really anymore to it than that..
 

Last edited by GWRising (12/24/2020 1:24 pm)

GW69 wrote:

LSF-really enjoying your posts.Well written-on point and logical.Thank you for being a voice of sanity 
on the board.I don’t post a lot but I do check in to see what’s happening so-I appreciate your contributions.
 

Thank you for those nice words. As a rule, when knowledgeable people/fans disagree, there is probably  merit to both sides of the argument. I try to see both sides.  Sadly, we live in a polarized, black or white world, where gray is ceasing to exist.

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (12/24/2020 2:11 pm)

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

GWRising:   You may be right that Maceo was not run off the team, and yes, you are certainly correct that a coach has the prerogative to play his players as he sees fit within the context of the team, but you will never convince me that the manner of his use over the first few games sent him a message loud and clear, whether or not it was intended.   How in heavens name do  you justifying having Sloan Seymour in the final seconds of a  game in which we were one point down over Maceo Jack unless it is trying to instill confidence in Seymour as opposed to winning the game.

Very easily. Seymour is a scouted three point shooter. His .429 percentage is the highest on the team for guys with multiple attempts. He was there as a decoy to stretch the defense. His man would likely not help off of him. From watching it several times, the play was to get the ball inside but Bishop was surprised by the trap and did not see Dean when he was open the first time. I think Seymour was surprised Dean didn't shoot it and instead passed to him.

Sorry, GW Rising, but I disagree. . Maceo could have been every bit the decoy that Sloan was (if that was the intended use), even if his 3,point range may be a couple of feet less, but Jack still would have brought much more to the Court in terms of offensive versatility than Sloan, especially in a one point game.  (Down by one, why would anyone be looking to set up a three point shot anyway?). Maceo is a senior who has led his team in scoring. He should not only have been in the game, but should have been a real scoring option, my point being that this vote of no confidence by the coach must have hurt.

We can agree to disagree here but I would point out what did Maceo do in his 15 minutes do that would convince you he has offensive versatility? Also, no one was looking for a 3-point shot, they were using a three point shooter to stretch the defense because no coach will leave a 43% three point shooter open in any situation. I am certain if you watch that play you will see the defender hugging Seymour exactly as anticipated.

I must be speaking another language. Seymour was not sent out there to shoot a three. Bishop was not sent out there to take a 30 foot Harden step back. Don't know how many times or different ways I can say it. Go back and watch the plays.
 

Last edited by GWRising (12/24/2020 4:38 pm)