Revoked scholarships

[MADXSTER]

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=indystar&sParam=38647376.story

The NCAA says its rules are clear. Athletic scholarships are one-year, "merit-based" awards that require both demonstrated academic performance as well as "participation expectations" on the playing field.

Both studies include Kentucky, where seven players on Billy Gillispie's final squad didn't return once John Calipari took over in 2009 and brought his own recruits. Four of those former Wildcats have said publicly they were asked to leave the program.
...................................
Requiring Division I transfers to sit out a year before competing for a new school prevents coaches from recruiting players away from other schools, said Maryland basketball coach Gary Williams.

Coaches who routinely "run off" players risk sullying their reputation — and losing recruits to other coaches who would point out that track record, he added.

"I don't know many coaches who do that," Williams said. "If you develop a reputation for doing that, you probably won't be coaching very long."
.....................................

"I was told that as long as I maintained at least a 2.0 GPA and didn't break any rules, I would have my scholarship for four or five years," said Chamorro, who was also offered scholarships by Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington out of high school.

Chamorro, who had a 3.4 grade-point average at Colorado State eventually transferred to Cal Poly Pomona — but not before borrowing roughly $10,000 in student loans, changing his major because his new school wouldn't accept all of his transfer credits and taking a detour through junior college.

"They say whatever they think they need to get you to come to their school," he said. "But when you get there, they can do whatever they want."

[MADXSTER]

Alot of schools do not follow this sort of behavior. Unfortunately some are very obvious about it.

I'm glad to see that Xavier tends not to follow this trend. Almost all players that have been sent packing were because they were cancers to the team. In fact here have been several instances where players have had career ending knee surgeries and yet were kept on the roster. To me that speaks volumes.

[D-West & PO-Z]

The point is the players who make the NCAA and the schools all this money are always the ones getting screwed.

[XU 87]

Sort of tells you about Calipari's character that he ran 4 kids off the team because they weren't good enough.

[MADXSTER]

The point is the players who make the NCAA and the schools all this money are always the ones getting screwed.

I agree. But they are also paying the way for players who don't make the NCAA or the schools any money. Don't just look at the top schools.

Many players take the school for a ride as well, doing as little as they can just to keep that schoolie. It happens.

Some players are simply a cancer on the team. Some players get into legal issues and the school says enough.

It's kinda like hiring someone for a position at work. Until it comes right down to it, you really don't know how hard they are going to work. If they know they cannot be fired, many will simply take the easy rode.

[MADXSTER]

Sort of tells you about Calipari's character that he ran 4 kids off the team because they weren't good enough.

Yeah, if there was one rule change, for me it would be that if a new coach comes in, the current players would be guaranteed their schollie. If they wish to leave then so be it. But the coach should not be able to run them off, especially in that transition year.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I agree. But they are also paying the way for players who don't make the NCAA or the schools any money. Don't just look at the top schools.

Many players take the school for a ride as well, doing as little as they can just to keep that schoolie. It happens.

Some players are simply a cancer on the team. Some players get into legal issues and the school says enough.

It's kinda like hiring someone for a position at work. Until it comes right down to it, you really don't know how hard they are going to work. If they know they cannot be fired, many will simply take the easy rode.

No, I agree. I have been put on record in this scholly debate in the past in saying I dont think that it is definitely wrong to take a scholarship away from a kid. They are one year renewable committments that have requirements. If I can get my academic scholarship taken away I dont think it should be out of the realm of possibility for the athletic scholarship to be taken away.

However most of the rules go against the players and in favor of the schools and the coaches. For example the scholarship is a one year renewable committment for the school but it is a 4 year committment for the player. A school can drop a player with no reprecussions but a player cant do the same. I understand this is to prevent coaches from recruitting a player away from a school but it still favors the schools. It is not the only rule that does either.

[smileyy]

I'm kind of ok with a team not renewing a player's scholarship. I'm definitely _not_ ok with the player still having a sit for a year before playing anywhere else.

I'm also not ok with a team having to "permit" a player to transfer if he wants. It's rare, but schools _have_ blocked players from transferring. If a player wants to transfer, sitting a year is penalty enough.

[MADXSTER]

I would not be okay with North Carolina and Duke realizing how good David West or Brian Grant is and taking them away to play for them their senior year. Duke and NC would set up schools to become their minor league system. It could get ugly.

[smileyy]

I would not be okay with North Carolina and Duke realizing how good David West or Brian Grant is and taking them away to play for them their senior year. Duke and NC would set up schools to become their minor league system. It could get ugly.

Honestly, the college landscape has changed enough that this really isn't an issue any more. And you'd still have the problem of the sit-out year for the transfer, which neither side would be thrilled about.

OTOH, if a player wants to play somewhere else, why would you want them on your team? David West, for one, inked his loyalty on his arm.

[xu95]

If a scholorship is revoked, I don't think he has to sit out a year. I think they only have to sit out a year if they ask to get out of their scholorship.

xu95

[MADXSTER]

If a scholorship is revoked, I don't think he has to sit out a year. I think they only have to sit out a year if they ask to get out of their scholorship.

xu95

I don't think that is correct. That's part of what the article talked about.

[MADXSTER]

Honestly, the college landscape has changed enough that this really isn't an issue any more. And you'd still have the problem of the sit-out year for the transfer, which neither side would be thrilled about.

I was referring to having to sit out a year if you transfer.

[blobfan]

Yeah, if there was one rule change, for me it would be that if a new coach comes in, the current players would be guaranteed their schollie. If they wish to leave then so be it. But the coach should not be able to run them off, especially in that transition year.

What about building in exceptions: in the case of a coach leaving, players that stay are guarenteed their scholarship for one year, so long as they are not proven to violate academic or behavior standards; and student that wants to leave when their coach does is free to do so without sitting out a year, unless they follow the old coach. This would still prevent the old coach from poaching players and the new coach from dismissing players without cause, and give kids who wouldn't have chosen to work with the new coach a chance to go to another school without sitting out a year. Would that alleviate some of the abuse or just create more options for gaming the system?

[xu95]

I don't think that is correct. That's part of what the article talked about.

Well that's bullshit.

xu95

[xu05usmc]

The sitting out a year rule is kinda bogus. Only in men's and women's basketball, football, and men's ice hockey do transferring players have to sit out a year. All other athletes can come and go as they please even though the coach turnover rate is much higher in the sports that punish the athletes for transferring.

[MADXSTER]

The sitting out a year rule is kinda bogus. Only in men's and women's basketball, football, and men's ice hockey do transferring players have to sit out a year. All other athletes can come and go as they please even though the coach turnover rate is much higher in the sports that punish the athletes for transferring.

I didn't know that. Interesting.