I .... <t>Watched the entire game. Amazing effort by Tenn and the shot by the walkon guard towards the end killed the Kansas comeback.<br/> <br/> Pearl can coach so this ends upset weekend in college basketball.</t>
Larry, that guy is McBee. He had scholarship offers to some mid majors but walked on at Tennessee instead. They say that he was a good high school QB as well. He hit that 3 pointer with 2 seconds left on the shot clock.
A short bench can hurt over a long season. However many teams play with a 7 - 8 man rotation and it sounds like you have at least one good walk on. Hopefully he earns a scholarship for himself.
Things didn't look too good when we had our two best players out with 4 fouls sitting on the bench for a few minutes. One of the two, Prince, actually fouled out with less than 2 minutes to play.
I don't doubt that a short bench will cause some problems during the season. However if you can beat this team then Tennessee should have no problem winning enough games to get into the Big Dance. Then anything can happen.
The Kansas team spent 45 minutes in the dressing room sorting out just what had happened. But sports writers and bloggers found multiple story lines. Here's a look at the coverage: One of my favorites:
It looks like two of them are reinstated. And this is not a knock. Read the article and I think that Pearl and Tennessee acted with thought about this situation. I think Pearl is a fine coach. Tatum and Goins Reinstated
I saw that yesterday in this article. It still doesn't mean that they will play immediately, at least that is what I read from this Pearl quote:
Williams remains suspended. I can't remember for certain but I think Williams was the one that had the marijuana. Williams is the one we need the worst. He is the main rotation for Wayne Chism, or "big man".
For the record Tom I believe that Pearl is making the right decision. I do not say that because of any in depth knowledge of the situation, but because of several things I have read and also because of some personal beliefs. The people closest to the situation, Pearl and UT have looked at the situation and made a reasoned decision. I also believe that situations like this that involve young people we have a much better chance of having them learn right from wrong when they are in places where they are comfortable, such as their basketball team. I think far to often we are willing to throw a young player under the bus rather than using positive reinforcement to help them learn the right way to live. I believe that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement. And I think Bruce Pearl is a person who understands this
I think this is where Bill and I have a fundamental difference. While I don't believe in bringing the hammer down on every kid who gets into some off campus trouble. I do suspect the coach is the last person who knows what's right for the kid, I believe in many instances his judgement is clouded by how valuable the kid is to his team. I do favor punishments, unless a felony is involved, where the kid stays in school and works on his academics but misses the all (or part) of his season and if he meets the goals set out for him (community service, whatever) then he can return to the team next season. Obviously there are many levels of offenses between a felony and a kid who gets caught with a beer, as such there should be many levels of punishment. While I doubt it would have much impact on kids today, if I were a coach I would lay out clearly to the kid and to his parents during orientation when he enrolls that bad behavior has consequences.
Terry, I am not sure we have a fundamental difference. In the Tennessee case it was not just Pearl that made the decision it was a judicial panel or something similar. In the case of Carlos Dunlap it went as high as the President of the college. So if the fundamental difference is leaving it up to the coach then we are in agreement. I think that type situation has to do with the coach, college policy and whatever review process is in place for such situations for all students. This was done in the Tennessee case and I think they did the right thing, at least they went about it in the right way. I'll leave it to you as to whether or not we have fundamental differences after what I said above.
I'm not certain that anyone at the college should have the final say in these situations. I do know that I don't feel comfortable with my coach having the final say. There is a distinct conflict of interest there. A student council would have peer pressure. An academic board could contain people with a vendetta against athletics. To me, that only leaves the legal system. I believe that to be the only truly non-biased group. The legal system runs slow and can cause an innocent party to lose the better part of a season. However, these kids need to know that is a possibility and to not put themselves in those positions. So, read between the lines and you will see that I am not 100% happy that these two guys are coming back before the legal process is over. I hope they don't play until that time.
Tom, I remember a few years ago that JoPa took a lot of heat for allowing a player who had some legal trouble to play. He was really raked over the coals. When about a year later things did wrap up the kid was innocent. Had not JoPa stood behind him he would have lost much of his college career. I also remember the Duke situation where the whole team, the coach and anyone concerned with the Lacrosse team were thrown under the bus. In the end the prosecuting attorney was disbarred and all charges dismissed. But things could not be put back where they were. No matter, I understand where you are coming from, I just believe in a more compassionate system that does not allow the coach to make all the decisions.