How many players can a coach keep happy?  Eight would be my best guess.   Then you need a couple of spares for emergencies.   I wish it were more like ten happy players and 3-5 happy to be in DC.

665 names in the transfer portal according to Verbal Commits.  Will probably hit 1000 before the end of March Madness.

Dr Mike wrote:

GW0509, Bergeron been shacking up with Mitchell's mother for at least a year. They live together. Story in the Globe. This story paints a very realistic picture of the prep school head school promises to deliver exceptional talent to the college in turn for an assistant head coach job and big salary ($450K). Bergeron did what he promised to do. Then Bergeron coaxes Mitchell to transfer to a probably major basketball playing college in which Bergeron becomes an assistant head coach. Sneaky because he does this behind McCalls back. All reported in the Boston Globe.

GW had a similar situation with Eddie Myers and Yinka Dare. Eddie responsible for recruiting Yinka, stashing him at Milford Academy, getting GW alumni to foot the tuition bill at Milford, Milford coached by a former Mike Jarvis player; Myers feels slighted; convinces Yinka he should go pro; Eddie ends up with a new red Jeep  Cheeroke; Yinka first round drat pick of the Nets. 

My point being with these two cases, assistant coaches are looking to make a name for themselves and will sell their soul for their financial benefit.  

Tony Bergeron has been involved in a relationship with Mitchell's mother for at least three years going back to their days at Woodstock Academy.  That is why both he and Tre ended up together at UMass.  Tony is now engaged to her and the three all presently live together.  Bergeron is also not just connected to Tre and he also brought several other players along with him to Amherst as eight of UMass’ 14 scholarship players attended Woodstock at one point or another.
 

Last edited by TJT85 (3/21/2021 12:43 pm)

From the Athletic- Top 35 Unsigned Transfers and High Schoolers
FWIWa subscription to the Athletic is the best money I sp nd each year

One ahead of Fats Russell

23. Jamison Battle, 6-7 wing, junior, George Washington

Battle is one of the premier shooters on the market. He averaged 17.3 points per game this year, but the team also weirdly iced him out at times and didn’t look his way. At 6-7, he can shoot over the top of defenders. And if you put him on a better team, he’s probably going to get even more clean looks from the corners and wings. There is some concern about his foot speed on defense, but it’s hard to look past Battle as a top option if you’re trying to find a three/four shooter with size. He has said he’s looking to go somewhere where he can win after George Washington struggled to get out of the A-10 basement.

Gwmayhem wrote:

"the team weirdly iced him out at times and didn't look his way."  That sure sounds like this was planted by someone.  Not something you would normally read in a Best Available Transfer article.

The vast conspiracy (national edition) against GW basketball continues...

Exactly. If you actually watched the games you could see that there were plays run to get Battle open but typically defenders just stayed with him since they knew if they shut him and Bishop down we had no one else who could score. I’m sure there are times when Battle was open and Bishop/Brelsford missed him, but to say we purposefully iced him out is flat out inaccurate.

In the same athletic article, they mention Jay Heath as someone that DC area schools will likely look at. 
"Heath is a walking bucket who has finished in the top 20 of scoring in each of his two seasons in the ACC. He can get to his pull-up with ease and knock down shots from distance while still creating. He could stand to improve as a playmaker for his teammates, though, as he’d be best off playing some point. Originally from Washington D.C., he should expect teams in that area in need of a combo guard to blow up his phone, given his proven high-major scoring prowess."

Last edited by GW18 (3/24/2021 9:37 am)

Gwmayhem wrote:

The Ross-Man! wrote:

Gwmayhem wrote:

"the team weirdly iced him out at times and didn't look his way."  That sure sounds like this was planted by someone.  Not something you would normally read in a Best Available Transfer article.

The vast conspiracy (national edition) against GW basketball continues...

The Ross-Man, I don't know about a conspiracy, but wouldn't you agree that this is a very unusual remark?  Highly doubtful that the writer watched a great deal of our games and came to this conclusion on his or her own.

Ok, maybe "iced" isn't the perfect word for what happened to Battle, but let's be real. There were plenty of times from the Navy game through the rest of the season that Battle was wide open and Bishop could have, but didn't pass the ball. 

GW0509 wrote:

Verbal Commits[/url] [url=https://twitter.com/VerbalCommits]@VerbalCommits·4h 
800+ names now listed. On this date last year, 439 names were listed. Updated daily: https://verbalcommits.com/transfers/2021

keep in mind numbers will be inflated this year with the extra year of eligibility.

Iced is a weird word, but the fact that The Athletic has the right idea.
In better words, Battle didn't get enough passes. We didn't look for him enough. We didn't create effective plays for him, effectively screen for him, despite his proven talent. It's hard to dispute that and also hard to understand why.
   A fair amount of his scoring this year at least seemed like it wasn't from his strength: 3 point shooting. He loves 3 point shooting.
It seems like Jamison forced some 3 pointers as that was the only way he was going to get to take them. Or felt he had to take what would normally be less than desirable 3 pointers when he got the ball in desperation as the shot clock was winding down. Fortunately some, though not enough, went in.
However, Jamison found other ways to score. It made him a better overall player, but less effective at his strength, which was also our glaring weakness, especially post- Maceo. And most important this lack of effectively utilizing his best skill probably left him frustrated. Especially at the end of games when Jamison was the guy you'd want taking the 3 point shot and we more than once dribbled around and shot long airballs.
Anyone think there was a reason why the person who wrote that did so? Did someone who knows Jamison tell him that? If it was planted, what was the reason why? Was it something that would be impolitic to say directly, but needed to be known? Or did The Athletic guy he see it in games? Hard to imagine he dreamed it up on his own, but possible. The Athletic seemed to notice appropriately an issue with Jamison's game, too, so it doesn't look this was a totally uninformed look.
   Certainly, TV announcers also noticed our lack of sharing the ball, if you needed another source other than your own eyes.
  It would be an understatement to say that the way we usually ran our offense (defense, too) was not successful. For example, as part of our few wins over decent teams, Battle scored a lot, like in Duquesne and Rhode Island (along with Bishop and Lindo). More balanced scoring propelled several of the rare successes this year. 
  Don't think Battle's face showed particular happiness with his secondary role, And he may have felt as an afterthought particularly in clutch times. Add on the fact that this was the year after being part of the A-10 All Rookie team and a proven player and scorer.