Very interesting story on players getting run off

Donate To GopherHole


The rule is to one sided. When a player is forced out against their will the school should loose that scholership for a year.
 

FOT, wasn't saying that it isn't commonplace.

I'm just not sure that it is right. I don't believe that a scholarship is a four-year guarantee, but I also don't think that a kid should have his life screwed with because a coach makes an evaluation mistake.

Let's look at the kid who got run off from Missouri. I'm sure Mike Anderson sold him on the school and how a Mizzou degree will help him in life and the networking opportunities of being a Mizzou basketball player. And if a kid is good enough to get a scholarship from there, he probably passed up some good mid-major programs from strong academic schools.

Now he's going to Southeast Missouri State. Yeah, that's the same.

I don't know what the answer is. But there are kids who really get hurt by the system and get treated like parts that can be tossed aside.

It is bad when a guy gets run off in March, but it is compounded by the fact that there are many schools that don't have scholarship slots at that point. Or they don't have a scholarship slot that they can use on that dude's position.

And then what happens when a guy redshirts, plays the next year and then gets run off. He loses a year.
 

anonymous said:
FOT, wasn't saying that it isn't commonplace.

I'm just not sure that it is right. I don't believe that a scholarship is a four-year guarantee, but I also don't think that a kid should have his life screwed with because a coach makes an evaluation mistake.

Let's look at the kid who got run off from Missouri. I'm sure Mike Anderson sold him on the school and how a Mizzou degree will help him in life and the networking opportunities of being a Mizzou basketball player. And if a kid is good enough to get a scholarship from there, he probably passed up some good mid-major programs from strong academic schools.

Now he's going to Southeast Missouri State. Yeah, that's the same.

I don't know what the answer is. But there are kids who really get hurt by the system and get treated like parts that can be tossed aside.

It is bad when a guy gets run off in March, but it is compounded by the fact that there are many schools that don't have scholarship slots at that point. Or they don't have a scholarship slot that they can use on that dude's position.

And then what happens when a guy redshirts, plays the next year and then gets run off. He loses a year.
Click to expand...

Players who don't want to be recruited over should go to Mid-Major or Low-Major schools.

It's the nature of the beast. Since scholarships were tightened (to 13), it's gonna happen.

The limit used to be 25 (in the 1960's). Teams routinely signed 6 or 7 recruits for the frosh team and kept 15 (or more) on the varsity - sophs, juniors, and seniors.

Lefty Driesell ran Tubby off at Maryland in 1969 before he ever attended a class. He wound up at High Point.
 


Good article, Thanks for Posting

This is why athletes should be paid a salary similar to a University marketing representative. Let's start treating Division I athletics like what it actually is--the entertainment business. Then much of the criticism the athletes receive on these so-called fan pages would be justified.

And for the record FOT, just because something is a commonplace practice, doesn't make it right, morally or otherwise. It's about time the Department of Justice and/or some other legal body investigated this situation.

The people who contribute most to the athletic department's bottom-line are the ones most abused by this current system--the student athlete.
 

.... but it isn't fair!

I hate this mentality. Face the facts, life isn't fair. Life is tough, you face many obstacles and trials along the way. Suck it up.

So a kid should hold back and hinder a program for 4-5 years because he isn't good enough to play?

My perspective is, as a player, I would WANT the coach to be honest with me about my chances for playing time. Tell me NOW that it's going to be an uphill battle, etc. Let me make an informed decision about where I want to go to school.

I faced this dilemma coming out of HS; go to a higher level program with no guarantees whatsoever or take the lower division with almost certain playing time. I somewhat regrettably took the "easy" way out, went to a smaller school and started for 3 years; turns out I DID have the talent to play at the higher level but the decision was already made.

It's not like the player doesn't have choices. He can still choose to stay, not play basketball, and pay for his own education at a fine academic institution, like 98% of the other students. OR, he can transfer to another school, possibly lesser competitively, and get his free ride; still a pretty damn good deal for him, isn't it?

I don't know why we're so reluctant to be honest with young people, but rather coddle them and make them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. That's just no the way life is. Get used to it. The coach or school has a responsibility to let these kids/players know that they're just not likely to play and let them make an informed decision about their future.
 

Well, in some aspects it may seem wrong, but there's also an argument that it's really not all that unfair. When you are awarded an academic scholarship, and then you post a 2.4 GPA, you best believe you are getting that scholarship revoked. If you obtain an athletic scholarship, I can see the side of "hey, you aren't good enough to play, so I'm revoking your athletic scholarship". I see the shadiness of it though, and it does just kinda make you feel off about the whole situation. I think coaches just need to be honest about stuff, make it plain that this is a one year deal and you need to earn that scholarship every single year. And for kids who may be borderline, they need to recognize there's some risk for them, since this is the way the system is in place, fair or not.
 

Monty519 said:
Well, in some aspects it may seem wrong, but there's also an argument that it's really not all that unfair. When you are awarded an academic scholarship, and then you post a 2.4 GPA, you best believe you are getting that scholarship revoked. If you obtain an athletic scholarship, I can see the side of "hey, you aren't good enough to play, so I'm revoking your athletic scholarship". I see the shadiness of it though, and it does just kinda make you feel off about the whole situation. I think coaches just need to be honest about stuff, make it plain that this is a one year deal and you need to earn that scholarship every single year. And for kids who may be borderline, they need to recognize there's some risk for them, since this is the way the system is in place, fair or not.
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of "academic" scholarships and not all require that you maintain a 3.0 GPA to retain them (especially those reserved for what are called "underrepresented groups").

Most athletes that are being recruited by University programs would fall under the "underrepresented" designation and those requirements are similar to the NCAA's "adequate progress towards a degree" requirement.

Athletic recruiters (coaches) tell prospective students and their parents that their students will receive four-year scholarships, not one-year deals. They rarely, if ever, go into the "small print" details.
 



The problem I have with it is that the kid is penalized through no fault of their own. They have to sit out a year after the transfer. The school and coach, even though they made the mistake, pay no penalty.
 

Drex96 said:
This is why athletes should be paid a salary similar to a University marketing representative. Let's start treating Division I athletics like what it actually is--the entertainment business. Then much of the criticism the athletes receive on these so-called fan pages would be justified.

And for the record FOT, just because something is a commonplace practice, doesn't make it right, morally or otherwise. It's about time the Department of Justice and/or some other legal body investigated this situation.

The people who contribute most to the athletic department's bottom-line are the ones most abused by this current system--the student athlete.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with it. Players have other options if they don't like it.
 

Drex96 said:
There are all kinds of "academic" scholarships and not all require that you maintain a 3.0 GPA to retain them (especially those reserved for what are called "underrepresented groups").

Most athletes that are being recruited by University programs would fall under the "underrepresented" designation and those requirements are similar to the NCAA's "adequate progress towards a degree" requirement.

Athletic recruiters (coaches) tell prospective students and their parents that their students will receive four-year scholarships, not one-year deals. They rarely, if ever, go into the "small print" details.
Click to expand...

You don't get an athletic scholarship cause of your race, you get it because of your merits, which are based off your ability to play the sport. Most merit-based scholarships require more than just the NCAA minimum to keep it. Of course, basketball skill really isn't a very objective thing like a GPA is, so that blurs the line. But just saying, I wouldn't compare scholarships for underrepresented groups with athletic scholarships.

Do they really tell them they're getting a four year scholarship? Or do they just let the student assume they're getting one even though nothing ever actually says it? I have a feeling they never sit in there and guarantee a kid four years, everyone involved just operates under the assumption that they'll get it.
 

jovs said:
The problem I have with it is that the kid is penalized through no fault of their own. They have to sit out a year after the transfer. The school and coach, even though they made the mistake, pay no penalty.
Click to expand...

Yup, this is the biggest objection I have also. A player being cast aside (meaning separation is the school's idea) should be allowed to move on without penalty. In fact, I might even consider allowing him an extra year if feasible.
 



Monty519 said:
When you are awarded an academic scholarship, and then you post a 2.4 GPA, you best believe you are getting that scholarship revoked. If you obtain an athletic scholarship, I can see the side of "hey, you aren't good enough to play, so I'm revoking your athletic scholarship"
Click to expand...

This is the one point that makes sense, and I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are awarded an athletic scholarship, and then you can't compete with the competition....see you later. This isn't 6th grade sports where everyone gets a shot, the fans pay for these kids and the programs, and the fans deserve the best 5 players on the court. I don't want pity playing time for those gomers who got an athletic scholarship and tried to coast through school...grow up, buck up, and play the way your were recruiting and you won't get your scholarship revoked for a better player.
 

SCSU Gopher Fan said:
This is the one point that makes sense, and I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are awarded an athletic scholarship, and then you can't compete with the competition....see you later. This isn't 6th grade sports where everyone gets a shot, the fans pay for these kids and the programs, and the fans deserve the best 5 players on the court. I don't want pity playing time for those gomers who got an athletic scholarship and tried to coast through school...grow up, buck up, and play the way your were recruiting and you won't get your scholarship revoked for a better player.
Click to expand...

the only issue i can see with this is with an academic scholarship if you get below a 2.4 you are done. With the athletic scholarship if you average 1 point a game in 35 minutes per game, you only lose the scholarship if someone better comes along.

my point is, with an academic scholarship you lose it soley for the fact YOU did bad, athletic scholarships get taken not by any "fault" (other than maybe not improving enough) of your own, but because the school thinks someone else is better.

Im fine with the scholarships being taken away if the school no longer wants you, but if the school cuts the player i dont get why they should be forced to sit out a year, it wasnt there choice.
 

In a logical world, scholarships would guarantee 4 years of free school. The player wouldn't be guaranteed a spot on the team and the coach could kick the kid off the team and pick up somebody new in the off-season. If the player decides to transfer while the coach still wants him, the player sits out a year. If the kid gets kicked off the team for any reason, he's free to sign anywhere immediately.
 

I can see both sides to the issue. The one point I strongly disagree with is this quote from Ogee: "I don't know why we're so reluctant to be honest with young people, but rather coddle them and make them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. That's just no the way life is. Get used to it. The coach or school has a responsibility to let these kids/players know that they're just not likely to play and let them make an informed decision about their future."

I don't feel like you can have it both ways, the adult with a big name and high prestige position does everything but kiss the feet of the high school junior/senior while telling him how "great" he is and how well he will fit in with the program. One year later (in the case of the Missouri kid), that same coach is running the kid off his team. Why can't we expect the adult to be "honest" with the kid during the recruiting process? The coach is doing exactly what you dislike to get the kid on campus, then turns around and is "honest" when his needs change.
 

I can understand that perspective...

EG#9 said:
I can see both sides to the issue. The one point I strongly disagree with is this quote from Ogee: "I don't know why we're so reluctant to be honest with young people, but rather coddle them and make them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. That's just no the way life is. Get used to it. The coach or school has a responsibility to let these kids/players know that they're just not likely to play and let them make an informed decision about their future."

I don't feel like you can have it both ways, the adult with a big name and high prestige position does everything but kiss the feet of the high school junior/senior while telling him how "great" he is and how well he will fit in with the program. One year later (in the case of the Missouri kid), that same coach is running the kid off his team. Why can't we expect the adult to be "honest" with the kid during the recruiting process? The coach is doing exactly what you dislike to get the kid on campus, then turns around and is "honest" when his needs change.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I should point out though, that I didn't read the article regarding the Mizzou player and I wasn't speaking to that particular issue; I was just speaking about the process in general. It could very well be the Mizzou kid got a raw deal. My apologies for not reading before responding (or that I have yet to read it).

I think it's also fair to point out, PARTICULARLY in this era of information so freely available and accessible, I would be shocked if any player entering the realm of college athletics these days hasn't heard of or maybe even knows somebody personally, who has experienced a situation like this.

Bottom line, if they don't KNOW that things like this are a very real possibility, they're just not doing their homework (pardon the pun). I think if you're a D1 prospect in any sport, you know the drill, none of this should be a shock.
 

is this what happened with travis busch and payton here at the U? Or did they both legitimately want to transfer?
 

scher215 said:
is this what happened with travis busch and payton here at the U? Or did they both legitimately want to transfer?
Click to expand...

Busch was a walkon that was only given a scholarship because one was open. Payton had four academic years and was able to graduate.
 

scher215 said:
is this what happened with travis busch and payton here at the U? Or did they both legitimately want to transfer?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they would have stayed if they were kept on scholly, IMO... I think it is fair to assume they were "encouraged" to go in order to sign higher profile players.
 

Gopherbadgerman, where do you come up with this stuff? Neither of these players had a situation even remotely similar to what is being discussed here. Travis Busch was a walk on who was given a scholarship on a year by year basis (just like JAS) and Kevin Payton was a Gopher for 4 years and was able to graduate.

The Gophers didn't have to "encourage" either player to go, their commitment to both players was met. A better example in recent Gopher history would be Limar Wilson or Engen Nurumbi. Both of those players left with eligibility remaining and transferred down a level (or levels). Not keeping Kevin Payton for a 5th year hardly is in the same stratosphere.
 

Say it with me now:

Eliminate athletic scholarships.

I have never once heard a single persuasive response to this idea.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I hate this mentality. Face the facts, life isn't fair. Life is tough, you face many obstacles and trials along the way. Suck it up.

So a kid should hold back and hinder a program for 4-5 years because he isn't good enough to play?

My perspective is, as a player, I would WANT the coach to be honest with me about my chances for playing time. Tell me NOW that it's going to be an uphill battle, etc. Let me make an informed decision about where I want to go to school.

I faced this dilemma coming out of HS; go to a higher level program with no guarantees whatsoever or take the lower division with almost certain playing time. I somewhat regrettably took the "easy" way out, went to a smaller school and started for 3 years; turns out I DID have the talent to play at the higher level but the decision was already made.

It's not like the player doesn't have choices. He can still choose to stay, not play basketball, and pay for his own education at a fine academic institution, like 98% of the other students. OR, he can transfer to another school, possibly lesser competitively, and get his free ride; still a pretty damn good deal for him, isn't it?

I don't know why we're so reluctant to be honest with young people, but rather coddle them and make them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. That's just no the way life is. Get used to it. The coach or school has a responsibility to let these kids/players know that they're just not likely to play and let them make an informed decision about their future.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point. If a player has a conversation with the coach indicating that there won't be playing time for him, he should still has the option to stay there. Maybe he's content playing in practice and cheering from the sidelines. Maybe the school is close to home and he loves the campus. Maybe he wants to get his degree in four years and graduate, possibly leaving little time to play after the transfer year anyway.

These players aren't getting to make an informed decision, as you put it. They're being told to leave. If an athlete is maintaining grades, is a positive presence in the locker room, works hard in the weight room and in the gym, there's absolutely no reason his scholarship should be revoked. If the coach made a mistake in evaluating the player, that should be on him.

A coach has 13 scholarships anyway, for what...an 8-10 man rotation? There's room for some recruiting "misses" while still being able to put together a solid lineup.
 

Studwell55 said:
Say it with me now:

Eliminate athletic scholarships.

I have never once heard a single persuasive response to this idea.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who most likely grew up in a middle-class neighborhood with a roof over his head and food in his belly.

You seriously think it's a great idea to limit access to higher education for those who can least afford it? You have to be a Republican.
 

Studwell55 said:
Say it with me now:

Eliminate athletic scholarships.

I have never once heard a single persuasive response to this idea.
Click to expand...

Just because you haven't been persuaded doesn't mean that the ideas haven't been persuasive.

If you want non-scholarship sports, there's a whole buffet of D-III teams that you could choose to follow. I could choose to follow Hamline or Augsburg, they are right nearby. Or Saint John's is always good, although it is a little farther to get to the games. Saint Olaf's a little drive, but I like visiting Northfield, and you get the Um-ya-ya fight song.

Your proposal would eliminate the advantage most of the D-I schools had over the D-III schools, and turn all of college sports into the MIAC. But since what you want to create already exists, why not just follow what already exists, why reinvent the wheel?

I'm opposed to those who want to pay athletes, but sports does bring in a great deal of money to the school, a scholarship is fair exchange.
 

Wow...

Coogles said:
You've missed the point. If a player has a conversation with the coach indicating that there won't be playing time for him, he should still has the option to stay there. Maybe he's content playing in practice and cheering from the sidelines. Maybe the school is close to home and he loves the campus. Maybe he wants to get his degree in four years and graduate, possibly leaving little time to play after the transfer year anyway.

These players aren't getting to make an informed decision, as you put it. They're being told to leave. If an athlete is maintaining grades, is a positive presence in the locker room, works hard in the weight room and in the gym, there's absolutely no reason his scholarship should be revoked. If the coach made a mistake in evaluating the player, that should be on him.

A coach has 13 scholarships anyway, for what...an 8-10 man rotation? There's room for some recruiting "misses" while still being able to put together a solid lineup.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding condescending, you have to either still be a student or you can't have possibly been out in the real world for more than a handful of years.

Where on this EARTH (other than professional sports I guess but not even all sports) does anybody get a guarantee for the NEXT four to five years for something they did a year or two ago? In the real world, where most of us live, you either produce or you're looking for another job, REGARDLESS of how good you were last year.

No doubt, YES, some of these kids are put in tough situations but they have WAY more options in front of them than most other students. If they've had a scholarship revoked at a major D1 program, they can likely get a full ride at 100 other schools, not an option that most kids have.

Here's another "real world" analogy, regarding your argument for it being on the coaching staff if they made a mistake evaluating a player. If you sold 200,000 widgets for Company A last year and I hire you at Company B and you don't even come CLOSE to that kind of production for our company, I'm supposed to keep you on the payroll? Because you were good a year or two ago?

It's on the coaching staff if the player turns out to not be good enough? It can't POSSIBLY be because the player didn't work hard enough and stopped trying to improve his own skills?

At the same time, I'm sure some coaches without question conduct themselves unethically when it comes to these situations. Absolutely. Some kids get totally screwed. But for the most part, this is the way it is and this isn't anything new. Like I said, if you're an athlete of this caliber and you didn't know this was a possibility, you've got your head in the clouds.

And lastly, I don't even want to get into your closing comment about having a few dead spots on the roster for misses on recruiting. It's difficult for me to even comprehend how ridiculous that statement is. That's the kind of mentality that makes companies go under and that makes government agencies horrible business models. Dead weight is dead weight. These coaches are getting paid 7 figures to win games on a consistent basis. They ain't hanging onto 3-4 players because they're good cheerleaders and "stand up guys".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom