(12-31-2016 12:48 PM)Just Buc Wrote: There is nothing to "nail down." PJ is the 5th big in a 4 man rotation pure and simple. Nothing more than skills. Doesn't matter if he's 7' or 5'. The growing obsession with this is becoming comical especially with the conspiratorial secrets aspect now injected. And Forbes doesn't owe anybody an explanation just because they buy a ticket.
First of all, yes, you're *technically* correct to say that Forbes doesn't owe us an explanation. But we all know that. And yes, we're hyper-sensitive to these kinds of issues because of the nonsense bartow put us thru for A LONG FREAKING TIME. bartow didn't "owe" us explanations, either, but yet we suffered thru his years of obfuscatory coachspeak and maddeningly awful coaching "decisions". And then he had the gall to criticize the fact that some fans were leaving early in an already-lost fiasco of an embarrassing loss. You can't have it both ways. And no, to be clear, Forbes is not this way, is unlikely to become like that, and I think we're all quite happy with him in charge here - despite what you attempt to portray our attitudes as.
All *THAT* said......there is this unwritten, non-formal "contract" between a university, it's athletics team, and it's fans. The fans give money, voluntarily, to support athletic programs, and they buy tickets to support athletic programs. The fans, for the most part, enjoy this, and continue to do it. The university benefits, obviously, financially. The players, at least ostensibly, get an education. Yet the players are still individuals, with rights to privacy, both personally and academically. So, no, Forbes technically owes us nothing, on such specific issues. But without "us", there is no Forbes, and there is not much of an intercollegiate athletics program. So it behooves the athletics administration to at least keep the fans modestly informed, so that they know what they're "getting into" (and "getting in to" (haha)) when they buy tickets, or help provide scholarships, etc.
With all that as background, what was the big difference today between this game and Savannah St.'s, in terms of Jurkin's PT? He played 11 minutes today (vs. HMP's 15), vs. 0 in the previous game, which although not quite as much a blowout, was as easily in hand by the middle of the second half. I don't know the answer, but I bet there is one that's more than you proffer. And listen, I'm not one of the huge PJ apologists on here. I'm pretty positive that I'm the first one who months ago pointed out his slow foot speed makes him less of an asset than otherwise. In fact, I may have mentioned that last season, but I'm not gonna go back and search for it. And in general, I'm actually a big fan of allowing the coach his 'freedom' to manage minutes as he sees fit. That's what he's there for. I don't *quite* agree he's the 5th man on a 4-man rotation, however, because: a) he and Banks do different things; and b) he and Burrell do different things; and c) he and Glass do different things, although their (his and Glass's) roles are pretty close. But anyway, I'm not going to argue he's "more valuable" than any of those. (Although I personally think he's a bigger help than Banks **in some situations**, but I know most here wouldn't agree with that.)
Now, further, with *that* said, your viewpoint doesn't jive with what Trey quoted Forbes as saying about Jurkin in practice. And since now Forbes has VERY forcefully said a player has to earn his PT in practice, something isn't adding up. Has Forbes been reading this board and decided to let us have our man? Could be. I don't know. But you don't just let a guy sit when you're up 20+ against Savannah St., and then put him in for good stretches 2 days later against VMI in a similar situation without some underlying cause. There's almost certainly more to it than we can see. And that's ok, too, but I really think Forbes *should* have brought it up, if a "reporter" wasn't going to.