Cutting scholarship players

[Bob_Loblaw]

No more disgusting than players choosing to leave to play for another school. It's a 2-way street.

You seriously think it's the same thing?

Don't get me wrong, that's annoying too. However, the kids you are cutting are wanting to stay at the U. Furthermore, a basketball player who transfers has less of an impact on the University, then if a Coach tells who kid, well you better pack your stuff up and go to a different school.

I don't think the situation should be a two-way street. Personally, I think that if a kid comes to the U, gets the grades, doesn't cause trouble but just happened to not be the basketball player you thought he'd be, a good program will should just live with their scouting error. Take Mav for instance, I don't think he is capable of being a Big 10 player, but I hope he graduates from the U. He deserved it.

 

[howieramone]

The idea of cutting players or not-renewing players scholarship offers is disgusting. Part of being a Coach is being able to know who to give a scholarship to and who not to give a scholarship to. These Coaches are going into 16/17/18 year old kids home and asking them to attend the University of MN because THEY think they will help the basketball team. If the players don't turn out to be as good of basketball players as the Coaches hoped, they shouldn't get cut.

If I was a recruit or a recruit's parent and I knew that this kind of stuff was going on at a particular school, I would definitely hold that against the Coach.

+1

 

[howieramone]

You seriously think it's the same thing?

Don't get me wrong, that's annoying too. However, the kids you are cutting are wanting to stay at the U. Furthermore, a basketball player who transfers has less of an impact on the University, then if a Coach tells who kid, well you better pack your stuff up and go to a different school.

I don't think the situation should be a two-way street. Personally, I think that if a kid comes to the U, gets the grades, doesn't cause trouble but just happened to not be the basketball player you thought he'd be, a good program will should just live with their scouting error. Take Mav for instance, I don't think he is capable of being a Big 10 player, but I hope he graduates from the U. He deserved it.

+1

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Exactly. It's a two way street. If guys can transfer before 4 years is up why can't coaches cut them before 4 years is up?

However, I think anyone who is "cut" should not have to sit a year when they transfer.

I thought you wanted a two-way street? Why should only the "cut" players get to avoid sitting out a year? Shouldn't every player? I mean, in your world on how this should work, a Coach should be able to cut kids every single season without any ramifications. If it's a two-way street, shouldn't the kids be able to leave without any ramifications?

 

[brucekaupa]

If a kid is promised a scholarship of X years, then the school should honor it. But I also say the kid should be penalized for leaving early. The school made a commitment to the kid, and there is an opportunity cost because a school does not have an endless number of scholarships to give out.

If a kid is promised a scholarship of X years, where X is < 4, and the kid accepts it, then he does so with the understanding that it might not be extended. In that case, it's pretty clear the school is saying, "We really value the contribution you can make for the period of this scholarship...but we expect better players to be coming in the year after it is over...so, help us out and get a free ride in the interim." The school should be under NO obligation to extend it "just because". I put T-Busch into this category.

 

[brucekaupa]

And don't get me started on coaching contracts...

 

[zambam]

I thought you wanted a two-way street? Why should only the "cut" players get to avoid sitting out a year? Shouldn't every player? I mean, in your world on how this should work, a Coach should be able to cut kids every single season without any ramifications. If it's a two-way street, shouldn't the kids be able to leave without any ramifications?

Are you trying to say coaches shouldn't be allowed to cut players? I disagree with this sentiment. Players go into the situation knowing that they could lose their scholarship at any time. There are risks to everything in life, why should this be any different? If there is someone that is better at the same thing than you are, it's just the way it is.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Are you trying to say coaches shouldn't be allowed to cut players? I disagree with this sentiment. Players go into the situation knowing that they could lose their scholarship at any time. There are risks to everything in life, why should this be any different? If there is someone that is better at the same thing than you are, it's just the way it is.

I don't think coaches should be allowed to cut scholarship players. Players go to the schools with at least the implicit promise that they will graduate from the school that they choose. The risk should fall onto the Coach who scouts the kid and offers him a scholarship. Do you think Tubby walks into a recruits home and says "I'd like to offer Mav a scholarship this season and after that, we'll see"?

The idea that cutting players is just a natural part of the process is immoral in my opinion. Essentially, the argument is that they are 1 year scholarships and if the coaches can find a player who is better, they should be allowed to swap those players out (without any ramifications). Now ok, lets keep that thinking going...

Every year, each team has 13 scholarships available and the coaches get to choose who to fill up their roster with. Now, shouldn't those players be able to say, "this year, I want to play for Kansas" without having to sit out a year. I mean, essentially they aren't scholarship players.

 

[stocker08]

Dude...YOU won't know we've run into the issue until after it's resolved. (Unless Tubby consults with you on the daily basis.) The only time we have a chance to worry about it is NOW.

Yes, and YOU don't know that Tubby is even considering cutting a scholarship player, or if Lockett is actually even considering coming here (unless Tubby consults you on a daily basis). I am concerned about the group of players who are currently on the team. Have you considered that the season isn't even over yet? It is too early to be worried about pure speculation.

 

[howieramone]

I don't think coaches should be allowed to cut scholarship players. Players go to the schools with at least the implicit promise that they will graduate from the school that they choose. The risk should fall onto the Coach who scouts the kid and offers him a scholarship. Do you think Tubby walks into a recruits home and says "I'd like to offer Mav a scholarship this season and after that, we'll see"?

The idea that cutting players is just a natural part of the process is immoral in my opinion. Essentially, the argument is that they are 1 year scholarships and if the coaches can find a player who is better, they should be allowed to swap those players out (without any ramifications). Now ok, lets keep that thinking going...

Every year, each team has 13 scholarships available and the coaches get to choose who to fill up their roster with. Now, shouldn't those players be able to say, "this year, I want to play for Kansas" without having to sit out a year. I mean, essentially they aren't scholarship players.

+1

 

[Johnnyboy18]

You may feel bad for cutting a scholarship player than you would also feel bad for denying a player who's mom has cancer and is a good player its a lose lose situation.

 

[gopherMD]

It all comes down to informed consent IMO. All scholarship players sign an agreement which states that the contract is year to year based on performance as well as academic progress and conduct. Unless the coach guarantees you 4 years you realize you can have the scholarship terminated. That is understood. Like any job if you do not perform up to expectations you may lose the scholarship. It should serve as motivation for the players. The reality is hundreds of kids are cut in try-outs at various levels of competition every season so college players should probably not be exempt. That said it seems rather cold and calloused and hopefully the involved players will come to terms with it find a school where they can play.

 

[scher215]

You may feel bad for cutting a scholarship player than you would also feel bad for denying a player who's mom has cancer and is a good player its a lose lose situation.

This. No one has said this is an easy situation. No one has said it is a "good" situation. There is a bit of good and bad in here. Let's start with the obvious bad:

Trent Lockett's mother. Her having cancer and it getting worse is a horrible situation every single way you look at it. There is no benefit to this what so ever and it is a sad sad situation and you cannot help but feel terrible for Trent and his entire family. Assuming Trent decides the U is the place for him, you then have the bad result of having to see someone who worked his butt off for the U of M leave. Same thing if Trevor comes back. It creates the unfortunate need of "cutting" someone. Now, don't get me wrong, the biggest negative is what the Lockett family is going through, but it is also not good to see ANY player leave for voluntary or involntary reasons.

There is some good here, however, as well.

The non-basketball good would be that Trent gets to be MUCH closer to his mother, she can watch him on TV or at games all the time, he can be close to her and his family whenever he wants to be and they need him. That is a positive of coming to the U. Another possible positive is that were it to be Chip or Mav or Ingram who leave due to Trevor/Lockett they can find a better situation which includes more minutes and more focus in the offense. While I'd hate cutting any Gopher, the truth is those three likely won't see a lot of playing time and may be open to the opportunity to go elsewhere to find it and I'd wish them great success wherever that is.

The other good about Lockett and/or Trevor coming here is the fact that 2012-2013 / 2013-2014 may be the two most important seasons for the future of Gopher basketball. Those two seasons, IMO, will play a HUGE role in what Tyus Jones, Vaughn, etc. will do in 2014. If Lockett arrives and Trevor returns and the Gophers become a national story, make the tournament easily, win the Big 10, make a tourney run etc. and Tubby proves that if you give him talent like that he can do outstanding things with it, that will obviously weigh heavily on Tyus' mind. Tubby needs to produce wins to sign Tyus and move this program to the next level. As much as I'd hate, again, for Chip, Mav or Ingram to leave, if that is what it takes to change this program forever towards the better, that is something I hope Tubby is willing to do.

You cannot tell me that a big tourney run in 12/13, followed by an improved 2013 class, followed by a successful season in 13/14, followed by signing Tyus and company, followed by more big runs, wouldn't be the best chain of events Gopher basketball could hope for and you improve the odds of step 1 happening by making room for Trevor and Lockett.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The Lockett situation has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Everyone thinks that in some situations, like family illness, a person like Lockett should be able to go to a school closer to his home without sitting out a year. That really has nothing to do with our discussion.

There are extreme situations like Lockett where he should not have to sit out a year. Just like there are extreme situations like Royce White or other players who get into trouble who need to go and have their offer pulled. Neither of these scenarios are the issue at hand.

We are talking about players who have done nothing wrong except not live up to some basketball expectation.

Also, the argument that we'll be a better basketball team in 2014 doesn't really matter to me. For me, some things are just "right or wrong". The results don't dictate whether something is more or less right. If Tubby cut Mav this year and we don't land Tyus, does that make it more wrong? Of course not. To me that argument is akin to saying, it's wrong, but i'm willing to live with it for the sake of wins. I'm not even ripping on anyone for having that belief, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

Lastly, again, if we wanted this to be a two-way street and only looking out for the impact of W/L on the program, then the kids should be allowed to do that too. Next season, Rodney should be able to say, "I'd like to try out Kansas and make a run deep into the tournament" without sitting out a season. For him, that choice would probably result in more wins, so it makes it right?

 

[howieramone]

The Lockett situation has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Everyone thinks that in some situations, like family illness, a person like Lockett should be able to go to a school closer to his home without sitting out a year. That really has nothing to do with our discussion.

There are extreme situations like Lockett where he should not have to sit out a year. Just like there are extreme situations like Royce White or other players who get into trouble who need to go and have their offer pulled. Neither of these scenarios are the issue at hand.

We are talking about players who have done nothing wrong except not live up to some basketball expectation.

Also, the argument that we'll be a better basketball team in 2014 doesn't really matter to me. For me, some things are just "right or wrong". The results don't dictate whether something is more or less right. If Tubby cut Mav this year and we don't land Tyus, does that make it more wrong? Of course not. To me that argument is akin to saying, it's wrong, but i'm willing to live with it for the sake of wins. I'm not even ripping on anyone for having that belief, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

Lastly, again, if we wanted this to be a two-way street and only looking out for the impact of W/L on the program, then the kids should be allowed to do that too. Next season, Rodney should be able to say, "I'd like to try out Kansas and make a run deep into the tournament" without sitting out a season. For him, that choice would probably result in more wins, so it makes it right?

+1

 

[scher215]

The Lockett situation has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Everyone thinks that in some situations, like family illness, a person like Lockett should be able to go to a school closer to his home without sitting out a year. That really has nothing to do with our discussion.

There are extreme situations like Lockett where he should not have to sit out a year. Just like there are extreme situations like Royce White or other players who get into trouble who need to go and have their offer pulled. Neither of these scenarios are the issue at hand.

We are talking about players who have done nothing wrong except not live up to some basketball expectation.

Also, the argument that we'll be a better basketball team in 2014 doesn't really matter to me. For me, some things are just "right or wrong". The results don't dictate whether something is more or less right. If Tubby cut Mav this year and we don't land Tyus, does that make it more wrong? Of course not. To me that argument is akin to saying, it's wrong, but i'm willing to live with it for the sake of wins. I'm not even ripping on anyone for having that belief, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

Lastly, again, if we wanted this to be a two-way street and only looking out for the impact of W/L on the program, then the kids should be allowed to do that too. Next season, Rodney should be able to say, "I'd like to try out Kansas and make a run deep into the tournament" without sitting out a season. For him, that choice would probably result in more wins, so it makes it right?

I guess I don't agree that it is wrong. If Coach K called tomorrow and said, I want to be the coach of the Gophers. Now, Tubby hasn't gotten into any trouble, he's run a clean program and everything, but if he hasn't performed to some "basketball coaching expectation" would it be wrong to fire Tubby and hire Coach K? I'd say no. Bottom line is winning. You do what is necessary to win that is within the rules of the NCAA.

 

[zambam]

All of these players are told that the scholarship is 1 year guaranteed and can be renewed until they are done playing for the team. They know this. When they sign the NLI, they are agreeing that they know this.

 

[brucekaupa]

It is too early to be worried about pure speculation.

Uh, no. This is a DISCUSSION forum where we DISCUSS things.

 

[brucekaupa]

+1

It's only March and you've already exceeded your "+1" quota for the year.

 

[Gold Vision]

It's only March and you've already exceeded your "+1" quota for the year.

+1

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

All of these players are told that the scholarship is 1 year guaranteed and can be renewed until they are done playing for the team. They know this. When they sign the NLI, they are agreeing that they know this.

I think that's the rub. I realize that the rule is that the scholarship offer is only guranteed for 1 season, however, I don't think that is what these kids are promised (directly or indirectly).

If a Coach walked up to a walk-on player and told him "we have a scholarship available, just for this season, are you interested?" I wouldn't have a problem with that kid losing the scholarship after the year was up. However, I think when Tubby is recruiting players he either implies or asserts that the plan is for the kid to graduate from the U of MN.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I guess I don't agree that it is wrong. If Coach K called tomorrow and said, I want to be the coach of the Gophers. Now, Tubby hasn't gotten into any trouble, he's run a clean program and everything, but if he hasn't performed to some "basketball coaching expectation" would it be wrong to fire Tubby and hire Coach K? I'd say no. Bottom line is winning. You do what is necessary to win that is within the rules of the NCAA.

I think that is where we disagree. I understand that it would be within NCAA rules and I understand how it might lead to more wins and losses next season. For me, getting the couple extra wins next season is simply not worth it. In a pure basketball standpoint, I also think it's incredibly near-sighted. I don't think a Coach who cuts players is going to have the best reputation and that stuff adds up in recruiting.

As far as the Coach K / Tubby Smith example, again, it isn't the same. Tubby could leave next year and coach wherever he wants. Tubby could also get fired next year. It really is a two-way street.

In college basketball, a coach can "cut" a player and replace him with another player that season. However, if a kid wants to leave, he has to sit out a season.

In my opinion, if coaches are allowed to "cut" players than players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out a season.

 

[zambam]

I think that's the rub. I realize that the rule is that the scholarship offer is only guranteed for 1 season, however, I don't think that is what these kids are promised (directly or indirectly).

If a Coach walked up to a walk-on player and told him "we have a scholarship available, just for this season, are you interested?" I wouldn't have a problem with that kid losing the scholarship after the year was up. However, I think when Tubby is recruiting players he either implies or asserts that the plan is for the kid to graduate from the U of MN.

I think when these players are recruited and offered the scholarship it goes more like "I'd like to offer this scholarship to you and if everything works out I want you to graduate from the U, but it is a scholarship that only is guaranteed one year at a time" I don't actually know but I assume they have to tell them the risk of taing the scholarship.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I think when these players are recruited and offered the scholarship it goes more like "I'd like to offer this scholarship to you and if everything works out I want you to graduate from the U, but it is a scholarship that only is guaranteed one year at a time" I don't actually know but I assume they have to tell them the risk of taing the scholarship.

If the coaches explained to the players that they could lose there scholarship because they get buried on the depth chart, that's a different debate. However, I don't think that happens (I could be wrong, it's purely a guess).

I would be shocked if a coach told a player that he might take the scholarship away if he doesn't develop into a starting caliber player.

 

[stocker08]

Uh, no. This is a DISCUSSION forum where we DISCUSS things.

Discuss things like "who gets their scholly pulled for a player who hasn't even mentioned the gophers." Yes, that is a great discussion for a message board of a team that IS STILL PLAYING. Should we strip their scholly before the season is even over?

 

[coolhandgopher]

If a player is being recruited hard by several colleges, I highly doubt that part of the conversation is "we'd love to have you join our program, we can see you being a part of conference champions and NCAA tourney runs, but keep in mind, these scholarships are one year renewable, so if you don't perform we may not renew your scholarship at some point." When I player commits to attend a university, I think the implicit understanding it is a mutual commitment for four years. I find it in extremely poor taste and bordering on unethical for players to be run off teams because their scholarship is wanted.

Now, there's some gray area here. . .in a scenario where a player hasn't developed and is sitting deep on the bench, if a coach is honest ("we're not going to pull your scholarship, but you're not going to get playing time unless we're beset by injuries") and helpful ("if you decide you want to transfer, I'll work to find the best situation for you") I'd be alright with that.

Also, if a player is told up front and honestly when a scholarship is offered that it's year by year and they are playing year by year for that scholarship, I think that's alright too. I have no idea whatsoever, but I feel like the situation with Maverick may have went down this way-he was a lightly recruited guard with no other major offers who basically committed on the spot having never visited Minnesota (as I recall). If you were Mav and Tubby Smith came to you in the spring and said "I need a guard and it may only be for a year or two, but it will give you a chance to play in the Big Ten" and Maverick agreed to those terms, that's fine in my book.

The issue I have is that I think more often than not, it's the first scenario that plays itself out time and again. Players who are feted and worshiped in the recruiting process land on the scrap heap a year or two later. It's a very ugly side of the game and whether it's Calipari, Crean, Calhoun or whoever else, I'd prefer that the program I follow not take that lead.

 

[howieramone]

If a player is being recruited hard by several colleges, I highly doubt that part of the conversation is "we'd love to have you join our program, we can see you being a part of conference champions and NCAA tourney runs, but keep in mind, these scholarships are one year renewable, so if you don't perform we may not renew your scholarship at some point." When I player commits to attend a university, I think the implicit understanding it is a mutual commitment for four years. I find it in extremely poor taste and bordering on unethical for players to be run off teams because their scholarship is wanted.

Now, there's some gray area here. . .in a scenario where a player hasn't developed and is sitting deep on the bench, if a coach is honest ("we're not going to pull your scholarship, but you're not going to get playing time unless we're beset by injuries") and helpful ("if you decide you want to transfer, I'll work to find the best situation for you") I'd be alright with that.

Also, if a player is told up front and honestly when a scholarship is offered that it's year by year and they are playing year by year for that scholarship, I think that's alright too. I have no idea whatsoever, but I feel like the situation with Maverick may have went down this way-he was a lightly recruited guard with no other major offers who basically committed on the spot having never visited Minnesota (as I recall). If you were Mav and Tubby Smith came to you in the spring and said "I need a guard and it may only be for a year or two, but it will give you a chance to play in the Big Ten" and Maverick agreed to those terms, that's fine in my book.

The issue I have is that I think more often than not, it's the first scenario that plays itself out time and again. Players who are feted and worshiped in the recruiting process land on the scrap heap a year or two later. It's a very ugly side of the game and whether it's Calipari, Crean, Calhoun or whoever else, I'd prefer that the program I follow not take that lead.

+1

 

[stocker08]

+1

 

[RoyalGopher]

Coaches never tell a recruit that they're scholarship is year-to-year, except maybe in very rare scenarios. I actually wouldn't be all that surprised if Ingram was told that his scholarship was year-to-year, though. He was a) only recruited to be a fill-in if Mbakwe left and b) wasn't even sniffed at by other BCS schools.