UK - 17 Scholarship Players

[LA Muskie]

ESPN is reporting that with the addition of Wall and assuming Weeks withdraws from the draft and returns, UK will have 17 scholarship players -- 4 over the limit. This seems more and more common, although I know of no situations as egregious as this. While athletic scholarships are technically renewable annually, the quid pro quo has generally been that student athletes keep their schollies so long as they remain in good standing at the school -- academically and conduct-wise -- even if they are hurt and can't play. Is that breaking down? If so, seems like yet another example of putting the NCAA, its member institutions, and coaches in positions far more preferable than that of the student athlete...

[boozehound]

So what do they do? They won't be allowed to play with 17 scholarship players I assume? I guess that they just have to take scholarships away from some kids.

This is not an ethical way to behave. At all. This is still COLLEGE basketball. There should be some ground rules to protect the players. I am disappointed in UK but not surprised.

[XU05and07]

One kid was on scholarship for one year...so there's one

Many of their fans want to let Liggins (sp?) go...there's two

the other two? don't know


The NCAA will turn its back on this because of the name on their jerseys

[GoMuskies]

Does the 17 include Michael Porter? He has already said that he is not going to play next year.

[DAllen15]

Not surprisingly, somebody at Kentucky can't count.

[XU05and07]

Kentucky - Where education pays

[dc_x]

Huggins and WVU are at 15 scholarships for next year:


West Virginia coach Bob Huggins isn't dealing with early entry draft anxiety after Da'Sean Butler and Devin Ebanks didn't consider declaring. The Mountaineers are one of the few Big East teams without any kind of draft drama. "They're really level-headed,'' Huggins said. The Mountaineers do lose senior Alex Ruoff, and they might not have Joe Mazzulla, who played in only seven games this past season due to a shoulder injury and now is indefinitely suspended after being arrested for domestic assault. Mazzulla can't participate in any basketball-related activities, but the Mountaineers did fine without him, reaching the first round of the NCAA tournament before losing to Dayton.

The recruiting class, as is the norm for Huggins, is expected to provide impact players (led by forwards Deniz Kilicli and Dan Jennings and JC guard Casey Mitchell). Huggins is at 15 scholarships with Mazzulla and will need to get down to 13 by August, something the school said it fully expects to be worked out soon (i.e., some attrition could be on the way).

[Muskie]

One kid was on scholarship for one year...so there's one

Many of their fans want to let Liggins (sp?) go...there's two

the other two? don't know


The NCAA will turn its back on this because of the name on their jerseys

UK won't be allowed to give out extra scholarships. Cal will just encourage a few to transfer.

[muskienick]

This type of situation seems to be just the right place to allow "castoffs" from overstocked programs like UK and WVU to be permitted to play immediately for their next school without having to wait a year.

The kids were forced out and should not be punished with a year in limbo by the NCAA. It also seems to be a punishment for the school absorbing such players since they would have to burn a scholarship for a year to accept such a player. The only immediate winners in the deal would be the programs that are doing the stockpiling of players. These programs can can sign as many kids as they please and then send them on their way if they can find new recruits who are better to take their place even before their eligibility runs out. (And, unless they are eligibility casualties, those Frosh recruits never have to sit out their first season like the players they replaced on the roster!)

Once again, the NCAA is designed to benefit the Big Six programs that have the power to work the system to the max. Programs in the lower conferences might be able to do similar "dirty deals" but only with far more lowly ranked players.

[Raoul Duke]

This type of situation seems to be just the right place to allow "castoffs" from overstocked programs like UK and WVU to be permitted to play immediately for their next school without having to wait a year.

The kids were forced out and should not be punished with a year in limbo by the NCAA. It also seems to be a punishment for the school absorbing such players since they would have to burn a scholarship for a year to accept such a player. The only immediate winners in the deal would be the programs that are doing the stockpiling of players. These programs can can sign as many kids as they please and then send them on their way if they can find new recruits who are better to take their place even before their eligibility runs out. (And, unless they are eligibility casualties, those Frosh recruits never have to sit out their first season like the players they replaced on the roster!)

Once again, the NCAA is designed to benefit the Big Six programs that have the power to work the system to the max. Programs in the lower conferences might be able to do similar "dirty deals" but only with far more lowly ranked players.

What is your solution? Impose a penalty on the school where the player transferred from? Players transfer from almost every school. I certainly can't think of any workable solution, but I do share your distaste over kids being forced out. Just nothing you can do about it.

[dc_x]

What is your solution? Impose a penalty on the school where the player transferred from? Players transfer from almost every school. I certainly can't think of any workable solution, but I do share your distaste over kids being forced out. Just nothing you can do about it.

How about this rule - Increase the scholarship limit to 16. And if you give a kid a scholarship, the scholarship is his and his only until he graduates from your school or 6 years, whichever happens first. If he leaves the school without a degree, you lose the scholarship until the 6 year mark passes.

It would make coaches think long and hard about recruiting kids who are bad characters, bad students, early entry candidates, etc.

[LA Muskie]

How about this rule - Increase the scholarship limit to 16. And if you give a kid a scholarship, the scholarship is his and his only until he graduates from your school or 6 years, whichever happens first. If he leaves the school without a degree, you lose the scholarship until the 6 year mark passes.

It would make coaches think long and hard about recruiting kids who are bad characters, bad students, early entry candidates, etc.
Sounds like a solution to me. The "no solution" response is a cop-out. There are plenty of viable options.

[boozehound]

How about this rule - Increase the scholarship limit to 16. And if you give a kid a scholarship, the scholarship is his and his only until he graduates from your school or 6 years, whichever happens first. If he leaves the school without a degree, you lose the scholarship until the 6 year mark passes.

It would make coaches think long and hard about recruiting kids who are bad characters, bad students, early entry candidates, etc.

I like that. It would be a kiss of death for many major programs so it will never happen, but it could help to make college basketball a collegiate sport again instead of the "NBA Lite" that it is turning into.

[Raoul Duke]

Well, the situation (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/11789509)seems to be *ahem* working itself out.

[Raoul Duke]

How about this rule - Increase the scholarship limit to 16. And if you give a kid a scholarship, the scholarship is his and his only until he graduates from your school or 6 years, whichever happens first. If he leaves the school without a degree, you lose the scholarship until the 6 year mark passes.

It would make coaches think long and hard about recruiting kids who are bad characters, bad students, early entry candidates, etc.

Hey, I certainly appreciate the sentiment. And like I said earlier, this type of situation at Kentucky also stinks to me. I just think there are too many pitfalls to that rule. First, guys like Calipari will see it as an extra 3 'freebies.' They'll continue to recruit questionable guys because they have an extra three spots to give. Second, schools are going to end up getting hurt through no fault of their own. What about the Churchill Odia's of the world?

[muskiefan82]

Here's a stupid idea.....The NCAA currently takes away scholarships from schools who aren't meeting the academic numbers they need...The NCAA could authorize more scholarships to schools who consistently meet and exceed the mark....

Would definitely increase the amount of academic fraud and violations at a lot of schools