Maybe the only way to assemble a complete team now is to have a few less scholarships and more
walk-ons !!!

GWRising wrote:

BC wrote:

Have we given up hope of hearing news of a pick up?

No JC is out there working. Patience. We had one that we lost at the last minute but there are others. The pandemic has made this a slower process because kids can't come to campus for an official visit right now.

Was it Santos that we lost or a transfer? (Or someone else?)

GWRising wrote:

GW0509 wrote:

What interested me and it’s why I bolded it was Brelsford saying it was “pointless” to play college basketball if your not showcasing your talents, presumably as a starter. Considering all the success we’ve had with 6th men throughout our history, it would really a stink if that is the mindset going forward. It also completely dispels the notion that the scholarship to our school means anything outside of playing time on the team.

As stated earlier I do think Brelsford had a case given the depth chart at PG that his odds of playing there were low, but it’s unfortunate that it seems like kids today would rather “showcase their talents” than potentially be a role player on a winning team.

FWIW in a recent interview Bamisile expressed the same sentiments as his reason for leaving VA Tech so this isn’t a GW is cursed thing.

We are moving to a place where kids would rather be the star of a bad team than a role player on a good one. Gone is the team first mentality for most. The me first mentality has replaced it. There are exceptions in college basketball but that is generally what we are looking at these days.

Also everyone has pro aspirations except only about 3% will actually be pros to any meaningful extent (livelihood) whether here or abroad. 

How dare a kid look after himself???  Team first is a fine attitude, but can we please be realistic.  Jc surely promised Tyler an opportunity to compete for a position to start, and probably told him he would compete for pg playing time.  This off-season saw the team add depth to that position, pushing Tyler out,  Tyler was not going to play a lot.  His opportunity even to compete diminished significantly. 

What’s changed is that players are not punished for wanting to play.  Rather than sitting on a bench while considering sitting out a year, the players can move.  And the value that they get (I.e education, room, board) is the same everywhere.  If my options are to make the same amount wherever I go, I’m going to the place where I can play.  Wouldn’t you?

GW69 wrote:

danjsport-very well done!!Couldnt agree more.Everyone on this board has acted on their self-interest
multiple times in their life.Altruism is real and clearly exists but the notion that 19 year olds should be 
more “team” oriented is a “romantic” artifact.

Sorry, Barry- I know this is off topic.  But JC is here because he didn't want to be the coach at his previous school.  AND HE HAD A CONTRACT!  He chose his own self interest (for whatever reasons) over team and loyalty.  Is JC's generation of coaches more "me first" too?  What about the coaches before that?  Tired of the kids being told to stay in their place and being called selfish or "me first" if they don't.

The times have indeed changed.  I accepted a job at a local advertising agency out of college.  Three weeks later, I was offered my dream job in the world of sports.  In the end, I felt that I could not leave a job I had only started three weeks earlier with a clear conscience.  Seven months later, the agency lost a very large client and I was soon out of a job.  Where was the loyalty that I had shown to the agency?  And this was many years ago.

This all boils down to perspective.  Brelsford has every right to feel that he was recruited over and was never going to receive the opportunity that he believes he deserves.  Any evaluation of JC is going to involve his won-loss record and he should have the right to improve his team.  Hard to fault either party.

The only thing I'll add is that IMO, I don't think that JC wants to develop a reputation for having too many players leave his program each year.  This has now been two consecutive years of high turnover but I do believe that the new transfer rules coupled with the extra year of player eligibility brought about from Covid has served to rationalize this.  That said, I don't think we will want to continue to see upwards of half of the roster turning over annually.  There is something to be said for a core group of players staying together and learning how to play and win together.  Look at how the Pops/Mike/Carl/JR/Omar teams or the Kethan/Joe/Pato/KevLar teams progressed over time.  These are the models I believe we would all feel more comfortable getting back to witnessing.

danjsport wrote:

GW69 wrote:

danjsport-very well done!!Couldnt agree more.Everyone on this board has acted on their self-interest
multiple times in their life.Altruism is real and clearly exists but the notion that 19 year olds should be 
more “team” oriented is a “romantic” artifact.

Sorry, Barry- I know this is off topic.  But JC is here because he didn't want to be the coach at his previous school.  AND HE HAD A CONTRACT!  He chose his own self interest (for whatever reasons) over team and loyalty.  Is JC's generation of coaches more "me first" too?  What about the coaches before that?  Tired of the kids being told to stay in their place and being called selfish or "me first" if they don't.

Comparing coaches to student-athletes is patently ridiculous unless you also want to compare them to every other "employee" in America including other employees on campus like professors. If you want "student-athletes" to be treated like employees then let's tax their scholarships as employment income and let them earn and go where they can. Let's also pay them what they are worth in terms of differential scholarships - for example, the football player gets more because he is worth more to the school than the women's soccer player who brings no revenue. 99% or more will find that system to be far worse economically and sports sponsorship and participation will decline rapidly at the college level. Everybody is for complete freedom except when you understand freedom costs money and results in disparate results. Every coach is not paid the same ... why should we expect every student-athlete to be paid the same even on the same team?

Somewhere, somehow we need to get back to the idea that college is about the education not playing a sport. 

danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

GW0509 wrote:

What interested me and it’s why I bolded it was Brelsford saying it was “pointless” to play college basketball if your not showcasing your talents, presumably as a starter. Considering all the success we’ve had with 6th men throughout our history, it would really a stink if that is the mindset going forward. It also completely dispels the notion that the scholarship to our school means anything outside of playing time on the team.

As stated earlier I do think Brelsford had a case given the depth chart at PG that his odds of playing there were low, but it’s unfortunate that it seems like kids today would rather “showcase their talents” than potentially be a role player on a winning team.

FWIW in a recent interview Bamisile expressed the same sentiments as his reason for leaving VA Tech so this isn’t a GW is cursed thing.

We are moving to a place where kids would rather be the star of a bad team than a role player on a good one. Gone is the team first mentality for most. The me first mentality has replaced it. There are exceptions in college basketball but that is generally what we are looking at these days.

Also everyone has pro aspirations except only about 3% will actually be pros to any meaningful extent (livelihood) whether here or abroad. 

How dare a kid look after himself??? Team first is a fine attitude, but can we please be realistic. Jc surely promised Tyler an opportunity to compete for a position to start, and probably told him he would compete for pg playing time. This off-season saw the team add depth to that position, pushing Tyler out, Tyler was not going to play a lot. His opportunity even to compete diminished significantly.

What’s changed is that players are not punished for wanting to play. Rather than sitting on a bench while considering sitting out a year, the players can move. And the value that they get (I.e education, room, board) is the same everywhere. If my options are to make the same amount wherever I go, I’m going to the place where I can play. Wouldn’t you?

First of all how do you know what JC promised Tyler? Were you there?

Second of all even accepting that he did make such a promise ... the promise was an opportunity to compete not a promise of the result of that competition. We've come to an inflection point in college basketball and in many other aspects of life. Most kids really don't want to compete ... rather they want a result guaranteed and handed to them. As a coach said to me recently ... we are no longer preparing them for the journey of life rather we are preparing the journey of life for them. This will not end well for either college basketball or society in general.
 

Last edited by GWRising (4/21/2021 12:20 pm)

GWrising, let's throw this out there.  Why does this have to be a matter of the player wanting things handed to them?  Instead, maybe Tyler sees how much he played this past season, sees who our newcomers and returning players (including Amir) will be, and concludes that there isn't room for him at GW because the guys in front of him are at the least more experienced and quite possibly, simply better players.  If Tyler concludes that the guys in front of him deserve to be in front of him because they are better players, why would it be imperative for him to stay and compete?  

If Tyler comes to GW thinking that there's really two guys in front of him, and a year later sees that there are as many as 4 guys in front of him, I'm not quite sure why he should be faulted for leaving?  And by the way, far better to do it now than during the middle of a season.

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

GW69 wrote:

danjsport-very well done!!Couldnt agree more.Everyone on this board has acted on their self-interest
multiple times in their life.Altruism is real and clearly exists but the notion that 19 year olds should be 
more “team” oriented is a “romantic” artifact.

Sorry, Barry- I know this is off topic.  But JC is here because he didn't want to be the coach at his previous school.  AND HE HAD A CONTRACT!  He chose his own self interest (for whatever reasons) over team and loyalty.  Is JC's generation of coaches more "me first" too?  What about the coaches before that?  Tired of the kids being told to stay in their place and being called selfish or "me first" if they don't.

Comparing coaches to student-athletes is patently ridiculous unless you also want to compare them to every other "employee" in America including other employees on campus like professors. If you want "student-athletes" to be treated like employees then let's tax their scholarships as employment income and let them earn and go where they can. Let's also pay them what they are worth in terms of differential scholarships - for example, the football player gets more because he is worth more to the school than the women's soccer player who brings no revenue. 99% or more will find that system to be far worse economically and sports sponsorship and participation will decline rapidly at the college level. Everybody is for complete freedom except when you understand freedom costs money and results in disparate results. Every coach is not paid the same ... why should we expect every student-athlete to be paid the same even on the same team?

Somewhere, somehow we need to get back to the idea that college is about the education not playing a sport. 

Honestly, I'd be fine if the players were treated like employees.  Coaches shouldn't be able to make money off of students, unless students can make money off of students.  Make education a fringe benefit attached to compensation that each employee can negotiate.  Allow players to unionize.  Allow the players to capitalize off their own name and likeness.  If a basketball player can make more than a soccer player, so be it.  If that means a school has to cancel the soccer program, so be it.  If businesses can't make money--they shouldn't exist.  But businesses shouldn't be able to thrive off of virtually free labor (yes, an education has a value attached to it--but that value does not cost as much as the number attached to it).  If the business can't pay the people that make them the money, it should no longer exist.  I'm comfortable with the cost.

Also, let's avoid the concept of getting back to education.  That's long gone (if it ever existed).  The NCAA just asked the players to take time out of their schooling to go to Indy for weeks to participate in a basketball tournament that made a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of money.  Players are asked to attend practice daily and spend their "free time" studying.  Waking up at the crack of dawn, playing games, traveling, etc. does not support education.  This is not about the education.  College sports is about money.  Coach K makes 9M a year.  Mark Few makes 1M a year.  You stated that Mike Lonergan is making a whole bunch a year NOT to coach.  Maybe college coaches would have to take less so players could make some money.  Maybe the school president would have to make less money. College sports--at least basketball and football--has not been about education since long ago--and certainly lost since the Fab 5 (and sooner than that, in reality).  
 

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

We are moving to a place where kids would rather be the star of a bad team than a role player on a good one. Gone is the team first mentality for most. The me first mentality has replaced it. There are exceptions in college basketball but that is generally what we are looking at these days.

Also everyone has pro aspirations except only about 3% will actually be pros to any meaningful extent (livelihood) whether here or abroad. 

How dare a kid look after himself??? Team first is a fine attitude, but can we please be realistic. Jc surely promised Tyler an opportunity to compete for a position to start, and probably told him he would compete for pg playing time. This off-season saw the team add depth to that position, pushing Tyler out, Tyler was not going to play a lot. His opportunity even to compete diminished significantly.

What’s changed is that players are not punished for wanting to play. Rather than sitting on a bench while considering sitting out a year, the players can move. And the value that they get (I.e education, room, board) is the same everywhere. If my options are to make the same amount wherever I go, I’m going to the place where I can play. Wouldn’t you?

First of all how do you know what JC promised Tyler? Were you there?

Second of all even accepting that he did make such a promise ... the promise was an opportunity to compete not a promise of the result of that competition. We've come to an inflection point in college basketball and in many other aspects of life. Most kids really don't want to compete ... rather they want a result guaranteed and handed to them. As a coach said to me recently ... we are no longer preparing them for the journey of life rather we are preparing the journey of life for them. This will not end well for either college basketball or society in general.
 

Was I there?  Of course not.  Am I willing to bet that Tyler got an offer with at least an opportunity to compete.  Yes.  But he doesn't have that opportunity.  He just got two guys brought in ahead of him that weren't here when he committed.  Guys who were likely assured good roles and good minutes, or they would have transferred elsewhere.  His opportunity to compete against Lincoln Ball and JNJ and maybe a freshman coming in is very different than having to compete against Bishop and Bamisile, and Adams, and Freeman.  All while not being able to get minutes at the position he believes is most valuable. The concept that these guys don't want to compete is insane.  Of course they want to compete.  It is what they do for a "living" (that they aren't paid in cash for).  Want to make a market where players stay? The solution is easy- pay them and give them contracts.