University of Virginia Library

From The Sidelines

Mike Wilkes
&
The Cagers

By Hugh Antrim

THERE'S AN INTERESTING piece of news that slipped out
into the world yesterday. Mike Wilkes, last season's high scorer on
the basketball squad, not long ago approached Coach Bill Gibson
to ask if he might try out for the team, hoping to play the
remainder of the season.

After consulting the rest of the coaching staff and the team,
Mr. Gibson denied Wilkes the permission to come out, but
welcomed him to try to play out his eligibility next winter.

COACH GIBSON'S DECISION can not only probably be well
argued, but also the whole situation may well have something to
say about the present condition of Virginia basketball.

Wilkes had contacted Coach Gibson as early as January 19
about the possibility of his coming back onto the team, and Mr.
Gibson, then about to depart on a recruiting trip, told Wilkes he
would reply on the 26th, once he could talk to his coaches and
team.

"MIKE HAS PERFORMED a hundred per cent for me," said
Mr. Gibson. The coach added that Wilkes' decision to return to
basketball was a "real noble gesture." Coach Gibson's reasoning
on the matter goes as follows: that because the squad, as
individuals and as a team, had overcome considerable
disadvantage in attaining a level of achievement and unity that
has surprised a number of people around here, it would,
therefore, be unfair to the team members to jeopardize individual
accomplishments and to jeopardize present squad cohesiveness.
As Mr. Gibson phrased it, "but after what we've been through... I
didn't feel I could do it to them at this stage. The kids are too
good."

So Mike Wilkes, an undisputedly fine basketball player, will
remain absent from the Cavalier line-up. One's initial response
would be to blame Coach Gibson for not moving to bolster his
team with the addition of "blue chip" personnel. After all, had
not Mike Wilkes acted in good faith requesting a try-out for the
team, and should not any qualified applicant be allowed that
try-out?

WELL, MR. GIBSON thinks differently in this matter, and we,
somewhat reluctantly, agree with his decision. It would make
sense that a possible year of eligibility next season would be of
more value than just one month's playing. And if a Tim Rash or a
Frank DeWitt lost a starting or active role in Virginia basketball
and forfeited much hard work, such a loss and forfeiture would seem unjustified.

Mike Wilkes agrees, "I felt his reasoning reasonable. I was not
at all upset; I was a little disappointed... I wanted to play." Wilkes
has decided not to leave Charlottesville and is currently enrolled
in the Graduate Education school. Wilkes had originally come to
his coach because "I thought I might be able to help the team out
during the month of February." As to whether Wilkes intends to
return to University Hall basketball next season, as Mr. Gibson
hopes, is another question. On the subject of playing next winter,
he said, "I'm giving it some thought. I'm not sure I'd be eligible
or not."

ELIGIBILITY is a bit of a sticky issue. There is apparently an
ACC ruling which requires basketball and baseball (not football)
players to be undergraduates although Wilkes matriculated at the
University before that ruling was put into effect. At any rate, Mr.
Gibson would certainly petition the conference headquarters in
Greensboro in behalf of Wilkes, if the latter should decide he
wants to play.

But the whole issue is not so interesting because of the
mixture of the above facts. The entire issue and the way in which
it was handled are beyond suspect. The two parties involved seem
in accord with the outcome, and there are apparently no
ill-feelings on the subject. Even the most eager journalist would
be hard pressed to assign overtones of blame or deficient integrity
to either Mr. Gibson or Mike Wilkes.

THE POINT IS that this was a situation, which by its very
nature could have been controversial shadowed by questions of
motive intent, that was quickly, and we feel justly, resolved.
Now all of this deals with a rather isolated incident that perhaps
has been blown out of proportion and newsworthiness, but it too
plainly indicative of something that we hope should be
considered valuable a real athletic concern, especially from
within the department, for an individual's point of view, and a
subsequent respect of this point of view.

The line drawn in college athletics designating proper conduct
between coach and player, and player and coach, is often a fuzzy
one that line between amateur and professional competition is
all but illegible. It's just nice to know that every now and then
people in the athletic world are concerned enough about what
they are doing to do it right. But we won't be holding our breath
until the next time.