I think RU may be the only program that looks at this as some sort of negative....I tend to read a lot of message boards and blogs over the years and fans are as cut-throat or moreso than the coaching staffs working for their respective schools.....
If we happen to miss out on more potential players that can ultimately get the roster to a step closer to an NCAA birth, would that be more acceptable OR would it be better to play everyone on scholarship, regardless of it taking away the chance to improve the roster??
We are all interested in all 13 scholarships used and if they aren't likely to factor into the rotation this year, then the fans here aren't bad people by thinking there is a potential better option elsewhere.
RU had a football player announce his transfer out this weekend and it's brushed off as somewhat of a positive aspect and the player is given his well-wishes to chase playing time or his desire to get on the field and play....somehow on the basketball end, if one or two of 13 kids doesn't play, there seems to be a thought that the player should play ahead of walk ons or there is some sort of participation trophy mindset.
In business (which every D1 program is at it's core), if you can get a better student athlete and it means one or two players depart the program every season, it's part of the business model to make room or try and upgrade your roster/team....especially one where the Head Coach is charged with rebuilding and getting the program to a winning level as soon as feasibly possible....I don't think it's any secret that Bullock got caught up in the HS media press clippings as a HS senior, but hasn't found the right position where he can find minutes.
Based on his play at Roselle Catholic, he may be overmatched to contribute early in his career at this level, which isn't anyone's fault, it just may be the reality. RU extended a full ride scholarship for last year and again this year and I believe RU and the staff reserves the right to try and improve the roster each and every season, regardless of how the appearance may be to the general public (ie, us fans, media etc). Rest assured, if RU doesn't make the NCAA tournament in the next 4 years and a non-contributing player is on the roster for all 4 of those years, that coach is assuredly going to be in trouble in 99% of those cases.
I think the only thing saving Bullock was his status of being a local product that desperately wanted an offer from RU....now that he has it, do we honestly believe that the player warrants an opportunity to play, just because the schedule or score of the game allows the starters to rest??
I respect some of the walk-ons moreso in some cases than the kids on ship, because of the dedication, conditioning, training and work put in, just to be a part of the program. So I'm fine with the walk-ons playing, the only reason we distinguish them, is based on perception that they aren't as good as the kids on ship....what if the walk-on is better??
