UCLA and King

Do we really need another questionable 6-and-a-half forward?

I'm not sure his character fits our program anyhow.

King has shown a lack of commitment not once, but twice. I don't think he would be a positive addition to the team.

He is a young kid that made a mistake and deserves a second chance. We can always use more depth. Keep him away from $C at the very least.

kings dad says theyre looking at usc, nova, zags...not ucla? shouldve been the first sqaud they mentioned... his attitude remdinds me of jelani mccoy and ryan wright... not a good fit.

I'm not sure his character fits our program anyhow.

King has shown a lack of commitment not once, but twice. I don't think he would be a positive addition to the team.

This may be a really wild and crazy suggestion, but how about we let the coaching staff look into it and make that decision on their own. If they want your input, they'll probably let you know.

"This may be a really wild and crazy suggestion, but how about we let the coaching staff look into it and make that decision on their own. If they want your input, they'll probably let you know."

If we had wanted to give input to the coaching staff, we would've sent it to them instead of posting it here, which is a forum for discussion and opinions.

If we had wanted to give input to the coaching staff, we would've sent it to them instead of posting it here, which is a forum for discussion and opinions.

That's a good idea. You guys should do that. They could probably use some humor right about now.

This would all be fine if the opinions were based on things like, oh, I don't know, interviews with the kid, evaluations of his game, etc. Instead they're based on essentially nothing. We have people commenting on his character and commitment from people who know absolutely nothing about him other than he committed to UCLA, had a change of heart, and now has left Duke, a school they probably don't think he should have gone to in the first place. No internal knowledge of what went into the decision making process, or at least none proffered.

In addition, these opionions apparently run counter to what the coaching staff believes, a coaching staff that has done reasonably well in terms of scouting talent over the last few years. At this point, they've apparently done nothing other than make an inquiry. If there are problems there, they'll figure it out and everyone will move on. You guys are criticizing moves that they haven't even freaking made yet.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I wasn't criticizing any move(s) of the coaching staff.

I was giving my opinion on an athlete. I used the term "questionable" to refer to his basketball game. I do have this channel called ESPN that apparently plays all of Duke's games. Does that not qualify as an evaluation of his game? Even if I didn't see him play, wouldn't watching him pretty much always sitting on the bench tell me something?

Further, I questioned his character because of the facts that (a) it was widely reported that he committed to Duke WITHOUT notifying UCLA that he had a change of heart and (b) because of an article in the Duke newspaper that he wasn't getting more playing time because of various personality and conditioning problems.

I understand your point, and if I had no basis whatsoever for making my earlier statements I would agree that I was out of line. Of course I don't know the kid personally, so I'm basing my opinion on what I read.

Who's criticizing moves by the coaching staff? The coaching staff does a phenomenal job. We're just stating our perceptions and opinions about the player's attitude and decision-making, which aren't based on "essentially nothing", but rather his decisions as reported by the media.

I'll agree that backing out of the commitment to UCLA wasn't necessarily a bad move since he made the decision before he even entered high school. However, backing out of his commitment to Duke (which is a decision he made during his senior year) after only one season implies that he was either again rash in his decision-making or impatient about his role on the team, neither of which is a great character trait.

Sure, he's a young kid; however, you didn't see the same behavior from Collison when Farmar was starting or from Mata-Real when his playing time decreased after Love arrived. Contrary, to your assertion, one CAN form an educated opinion about a person without knowing him/her personally. Otherwise, elections of public officials would have no place in our society.

However, backing out of his commitment to Duke (which is a decision he made during his senior year) after only one season implies that he was either again rash in his decision-making or impatient about his role on the team

Or it implies that Coach K said to him "hey, I don't see much time for you next year". Or it implies that he simply didn't like being that far from the West Coast. It implies a whole host of possibilities. He's hardly the first West Coast kid to transfer from Duke.

one CAN form an educated opinion about a person without knowing him/her personally.

I didn't say you needed to know him personally. But to this point, you haven't reference interviews, public statements, etc. I'm pretty sure when we vote, there's a bunch of those types of things from politicians, so the analogy isn't particularly apt.

I used the term "questionable" to refer to his basketball game.

Then say that. "Questionable" doesn't really convey a lot of information. I realize that this is just the comment section of a blog post, but just calling someone questionable without providing any particular factual basis doesn't really do anyone any good. I'm not asking for a detailed scouting report, but if you think he's questionable as a player and may not fit in at UCLA, you might want to elaborate a tiny bit. Personally, I've only seen him play once, when he was at MD. I try to avoid Duke as much as possible. But then again, that's why I'm comfortable leaving it up to the experts.

I'll make sure to footnote my opinions from here on.

Look, I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops, but this was a particularly benign post from Brian, essentially saying that UCLA is potentially looking into the possibility of maybe thinking about deciding if they're going to take a gander at King. It's a useful piece of information (thanks, Brian), but that's pretty much all it is.

Now, if we want to debate whether King's a fit, then let's do it. But this hardly rises to the level of something that deserves comment either way. If you're going to comment on it, it ought to be something more than a drive by "I don't think he's a fit" type of comment.

Why do I need to read and reference an interview when I can deduce something from what's been reported? Do I need to read a bio of a celebrity who's been divorced multiple times within just a few years to realize that he/she either lacked commitment or was a poor decision-maker? No, I can determine that by his/her actions that were reported in the news.

"Or it implies that Coach K said to him 'hey, I don't see much time for you next year'."

Doesn't that say something about the player's resolve, determination, and commitment to the team rather than self?

Doesn't that say something about the player's resolve, determination, and commitment to the team rather than self?

Not necessarily. If anything, going to Duke shows poor decision making on King's behalf, considering Duke always has about four guys that play that same position (which is probably why they keep bowing out early lately). But still, the point of throwing that out there is that are a bunch of possible reasons he could be leaving. It could be for any of them, or a combination of many. Maybe it just wasn't a good fit. People leave jobs all the time for reasons like that.

It's not necessarily an indictment of the player or the school/coach. And it's certainly not something that should keep UCLA from at least entertaining the possibility of bringing him in if they think he can help the Bruins.

Seitz,

I don't mean to bust your chops either. I should have put a smiley face at the end of my footnote comment as I was trying to let you know it wasn't a big deal. I understand and respect your opinion, and I'm very aware that people often take shots at players without any real basis.

I think the kids got talent. Hasn't been allowed a chance to showcase it. Kids don't just get recruited in Junior High for no reason. I'm sure he'd be interested in coming to UCLA and wasn't considering UCLA b/c of how he reneged the first time and probably thought he wasn't welcome back.