Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unconfigured Ad Widget 7

Collapse

AP story on universities yanking scholarships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AP story on universities yanking scholarships

    COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- After scoring just 22 points all season in mop-up duty, Missouri freshman forward Tyler Stone has no illusions of bolting college for the NBA after a single year.
    Instead, the 6-foot-7 Memphis native is a different sort of one-and-done: a college athlete leaving a school sooner than his family expected as a prized recruit takes over his scholarship.
    "I can't see how a school can love him to death one year and the next year cut him loose," said his mother, Sharon Stone. "They had to get rid of somebody."
    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.
    College sport watchdogs -- and, occasionally, athletes themselves -- tell a different story. They see unkept promises and bottom-line decisions at odds with the definition of student-athlete.
    Those discrepancies apparently have caught the attention of the U.S. Justice Department. Its antitrust division is investigating the one-year renewable scholarship, with agents interviewing NCAA officials and member schools. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined comment because the probe, announced on May 6, is ongoing.
    "This happens a lot more than anybody even believes," said New Haven management professor Allen Sack, a former Notre Dame football player and vocal NCAA critic. "You're allowed to do it. According to the NCAA, there's nothing wrong with it.
    "Coaches don't go out of their way to clarify (scholarship length). They make it as vague as they possibly can."
    At Missouri, the school announced on April 12 that Stone and sophomore guard Miguel Paul were transferring to seek more playing time. Two days later, the Tigers signed a pair of the country's top-rated junior college transfers, rugged 6-foot-8 forward Ricardo Ratliffe and guard Matt Pressey, whose younger brother Phil will also join Missouri as a freshman in the fall.
    Missouri coach Mike Anderson called the timing of the two announcements coincidental. Both Stone and Paul had previously expressed interest in seeking a fresh start, he said, calling their decisions to leave "mutual."
    "I don't have a lot of guys go in and out of my program," he said. "My kids are like my family, and I want my family to be happy. If you're not happy, then maybe this is not the right place."
    Paul told The Associated Press that "the coaches wanted me to stay but I told them this wasn't the place for me." He is transferring to East Carolina.
    Stone, meanwhile, will play for mid-major Southeast Missouri of the Ohio Valley Conference after sitting out the required year for Division I transfers. He declined an interview request, but his mother spoke with the AP at length in several interviews and made it clear that her son was pushed out.
    She described a celebratory spring break barbecue touting her son's first year in college. Her son went back to campus afterward and, hours later, called with unexpected news. "He came back (to Columbia) Monday and said, 'I have to transfer,"' she recalled. "I thought he was going to graduate from that school."
    Exactly how often athletic scholarships are revoked to make room for better players is hard to quantify, though a pair of recent studies on turnover in college basketball offer a few clues.
    The National College Players Association, an advocacy group that lobbies for athletes' rights, found an average roster turnover rate of 22 percent among the 65 schools in the 2009 NCAA tournament. That works out to 169 players out of 775 possible returners.
    The group includes players who lost scholarships for academic reasons or who sought transfers, but excludes graduating seniors and those who left for the NBA.
    The University of North Carolina's College Sport Research Institute found that 11 of 95 Division I schools studied had at least 20 percent roster turnover for the 2009-10 season. The UNC study also excluded injured players as well as those who turned pro or graduated.
    Both studies include Kentucky, where seven players on Billy Gillespie'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.
    Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart said that Calipari was honest with the team he inherited.
    Players were told up front whether or not they fit into Kentucky's plans. Either "we have a spot for you or we can help you go someplace else," Barnhart said.
    Advocates for athletes say players who leave against their will often stay quiet, so they can save face by requesting a transfer and getting a recommendation from their now-former coach that will help them jump more easily to a new school.
    The one-year renewable scholarship, with a limit of five years of athletic aid, has been in place since 1973. Kevin Lennon, the NCAA's vice president for academic and membership affairs, said the 37-year-old policy has not been a frequent topic of concern among member schools. He noted that NCAA rules require colleges to provide athletes who lose scholarships with an appeals option, typically consisting of a campus panel formed from outside the athletics department. But such arbitration is not common, he acknowledged.
    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."
    In football, former Colorado State kicker Durrell Chamarro expected to stay at the school that recruited him for his entire college career. After a redshirt freshman year and another season as a backup, he hoped to emerge as a starter by his senior year.
    Instead, former Rams coach Sonny Lubick told Chamorro in the spring of 2007 that his scholarship had been revoked. Chamorro was invited to remain with the team as a walk-on, but the only child of a retired southern California school teacher and a waitress couldn't afford out-of-state tuition of more than $17,000 a year.
    "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.
    Lubick retired in 2007 and now works in community outreach at Colorado State's business school. He recalled that Chamorro was put on notice after his first year on scholarship that "you've got to be better. We'll give you one more year."
    The retired coach added that NCAA rules allow schools to sign up to 25 scholarship athletes each year but with a roster limit of 85 players -- a system that assumes some students won't have their aid offers extended.
    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."

  • #2
    the scholarship is not an entitlement -- it is a gift from the university and, as noted, it is based on merit...
    I agree completely with the status quo - that a coach can decide on his own choice whether to give it or not on a year by year basis - even tho sometimes it seems (to some) unfair....

    but now the government wants to step in and rule on this....what a nightmare....some people who speak for the feds would FORCE each school to keep giving the rides for four full years!!!

    Geez....is there no end to the intrusion the government feels necessary in every aspect of human existence....this is one situation I hope they'll stay out of...
    next thing you know they'll mandate I still have to pay the kid who mows my grass even if he's having a bad day and decides to skip my lawn....

    Comment


    • #3
      BTW -- here is the exact other side of the story --
      John Brady the head coach at Arkansas State spotted the talent that a kid named Brandon Reed had.......
      then he was offered a scholarship to Arkansas State, the only D-I scholarship offer the kid had...

      Then the kid has a really good year, and wants to bolt and go higher....and here's what coach Brady says....

      "Arkansas State's John Brady just put out a statement saying he has not yet
      given Brandon Reed a release. ``We gave him a scholarship when
      other schools that saw him did not. It is a situation that really disappoints me, upsets me, is not right and does not sit well with me."


      ...so if the kid has the complete right to change his mind, quit, and go somewhere else just because he wants to do better, then I cannot see why the coaches who dole out the scholarships shouldn't have the exact same right!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tornado View Post
        the scholarship is not an entitlement -- it is a gift from the university and, as noted, it is based on merit...
        I agree completely with the status quo - that a coach can decide on his own choice whether to give it or not on a year by year basis - even tho sometimes it seems (to some) unfair....

        but now the government wants to step in and rule on this....what a nightmare....some people who speak for the feds would FORCE each school to keep giving the rides for four full years!!!

        Geez....is there no end to the intrusion the government feels necessary in every aspect of human existence....this is one situation I hope they'll stay out of...
        next thing you know they'll mandate I still have to pay the kid who mows my grass even if he's having a bad day and decides to skip my lawn....

        It is unfair. Period. Why can a school cut a player with no penalty, but a player has to sit out a year and possibly lose a year of eligibility? If a school can just yank a scholarship that easily I say it's only fair to remove and transfer regulations and completely do away with LOI's. Talk about a double standard that hurts the student greatly and benefits the school...

        More power to the government for righting a wrong committed by a STATE university and the NCAA rules. I'm all about putting the students first at a college, but maybe that's just me.

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a built in penalty for the coaches & schools that cut kids loose, and that article talks about it......


          "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.""


          but as also noted....would it be better for a coach to hold onto a kid who has little or no chance of ever playing??
          Note that Calipari is just being honest -- the kid is told the truth so he doesn't waste his time...

          But one other way the outcome hurts the coach, is that when a coach runs a player off...then he's generally left with an open scholarship in May or June - just when it is next to impossible to find anyone worth giving the scholarship to - thus most coaches don't really come out that far ahead anyway - and by running the player off is just giving the kid a shot at a better place to play.....

          Comment


          • #6
            Wouldn't it also affect the school's APR if it was consistently running off kids after a year or two?

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm in amckillip's corner more then yours on this T but I do believe that the Feds should not get involved. (honestly, I prefer that the Feds get involved with very little.) The NCAA though should give students, that are pushed out, the ability to go to another school and play right away. The one year penalty does hurt the student from getting another scholarship and that is an injustice.

              The criteria of being pushed out would be simple. A coach would have to admit that they are doing just that. If a coach does not want to go down that road then a player can request a hearing. I'm sure just like at work both parties will work it out. Life is not fair and coaches are doing all they can do to win and keep their jobs, within the rules. I'm sure players that work their tail off will be less likely to be shown the door.
              "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
              ??” Thomas Jefferson
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by amckillip View Post
                It is unfair. Period. Why can a school cut a player with no penalty, but a player has to sit out a year and possibly lose a year of eligibility? If a school can just yank a scholarship that easily I say it's only fair to remove and transfer regulations and completely do away with LOI's. Talk about a double standard that hurts the student greatly and benefits the school...

                More power to the government for righting a wrong committed by a STATE university and the NCAA rules. I'm all about putting the students first at a college, but maybe that's just me.

                It isn't really all that unfair. If you look at it from the view of an academic scholarship, it is the same. You have to maintain a certain GPA for each type of scholarship. Some require just 2.0, some require 3.0+, others more...

                If a guy is getting a free ride plus, plus, plus, he should have to maintain some sort of standard of play along with grades and conduct. If Coach Les wanted to boot someone off the team who he constantly saw slacking in practice, mediocre in the classroom, and an overall bad attitude, I say more power to him. That is his right. No different than if say Shumpert had committed early, came to Bradley for a year or two, then transferred to an ACC program. It is his right within the rules.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by amckillip View Post
                  It is unfair. Period. Why can a school cut a player with no penalty, but a player has to sit out a year and possibly lose a year of eligibility? If a school can just yank a scholarship that easily I say it's only fair to remove and transfer regulations and completely do away with LOI's. Talk about a double standard that hurts the student greatly and benefits the school...

                  More power to the government for righting a wrong committed by a STATE university and the NCAA rules. I'm all about putting the students first at a college, but maybe that's just me.
                  I agree with you but how do you regulate it. I don't like the having to sit out a year, never understood it. But then again, how do you know if a kid left because he wasn't going to get playing time or he wanted to move closer to home OR two of our best players decide to leave and go to another school. I don't know how to tell the difference. In the third case, I don't think college basketball should be a bunch of free agents moving from school to school without sitting out a year. But how do we know which is which. JMO. But I believe we should keep the government out of it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BU RICK View Post
                    I agree with you but how do you regulate it. I don't like the having to sit out a year, never understood it. But then again, how do you know if a kid left because he wasn't going to get playing time or he wanted to move closer to home OR two of our best players decide to leave and go to another school. I don't know how to tell the difference. In the third case, I don't think college basketball should be a bunch of free agents moving from school to school without sitting out a year. But how do we know which is which. I say keep the government out of it and I agree with what you said. JMO.
                    A coach would have to say he is yanking your scholarship because if he says anything differently then you have one and can elect to stay.
                    "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
                    ??” Thomas Jefferson
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tornado View Post
                      the scholarship is not an entitlement -- it is a gift from the university and, as noted, it is based on merit...
                      I agree completely with the status quo - that a coach can decide on his own choice whether to give it or not on a year by year basis - even tho sometimes it seems (to some) unfair....

                      but now the government wants to step in and rule on this....what a nightmare....some people who speak for the feds would FORCE each school to keep giving the rides for four full years!!!

                      Geez....is there no end to the intrusion the government feels necessary in every aspect of human existence....this is one situation I hope they'll stay out of...
                      next thing you know they'll mandate I still have to pay the kid who mows my grass even if he's having a bad day and decides to skip my lawn....
                      All it says is they are opening an antitrust investigation, the sky is not falling. Antitrust laws aren't new, and are designed to, god-forbid, maintain the flow of competition, which anyone that has ever screamed about socialism in the past couple of years should be all about. This is kind of one of the reasons the justice department exists - you don't know if a crime or an antitrust matter exists, till you actually investigate something.

                      And simply as a matter of my own knowledge, who is it that "speaks for the Federal government" that wants to enforce 4 year mandatory scholarships? There is really only one head of state....
                      Sungani umoyo womseko na wokonda waumbiri anznga.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SFP View Post
                        NCAA though should give students, that are pushed out, the ability to go to another school and play right away. The one year penalty does hurt the student ....

                        all rules and all laws do sometimes appear to hurt certain individuals...

                        But the reason and need for this one year penalty on transfers is so widely accepted and universally favored by everyone at every college that I can guarantee that even if the NCAA does away with it, the schools themselves (just as conferences have done) would get together and likely still want such a rule.
                        Every case would come down to claims that the kid was pushed out and so they'd all want immediate eligibility!!
                        If we didn't have such a rule, then the top college sports like football and especially basketball would be a literal circus and Chinese fire drill (no disrespect meant to anyone)...kids would be changing teams - sometimes every single year!! And a few unethical coaches would literally begin recruiting other teams' players (not that some of that doesn't go on now, but it would skyrocket if there were no penaly to transfer.)

                        Schools like Bradley would be hurt the worst...because our coaches do exhaustive and diligent scouting, digging, and recruiting and come up with a LOT of underrated players who are fine performers
                        but who were overlooked by the bigger schools (diamonds in the rough like TB, POB, Sammy, etc..)
                        The instant any of them had a decent year at Bradley - they'd get numerous under the table offers and they'd be gone to a bigger school.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In my proposal the coach would have to have yanked the scholarship. If a players says it was yanked because he wants to leave and in reality it was not then he would be able to stay and play. It is either yanked by the coach or it is not. I'm not sure how by eliminating the 1 year rule for yanked scholarships would hurt BU if anything it would help. Those players could suit up right away and help a mid-major team.
                          "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
                          ??” Thomas Jefferson
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tornado View Post
                            BTW -- here is the exact other side of the story --
                            John Brady the head coach at Arkansas State spotted the talent that a kid named Brandon Reed had.......
                            then he was offered a scholarship to Arkansas State, the only D-I scholarship offer the kid had...

                            Then the kid has a really good year, and wants to bolt and go higher....and here's what coach Brady says....

                            "Arkansas State's John Brady just put out a statement saying he has not yet
                            given Brandon Reed a release. ``We gave him a scholarship when
                            other schools that saw him did not. It is a situation that really disappoints me, upsets me, is not right and does not sit well with me."


                            ...so if the kid has the complete right to change his mind, quit, and go somewhere else just because he wants to do better, then I cannot see why the coaches who dole out the scholarships shouldn't have the exact same right!
                            http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/spor...t.asp?pID=5327
                            Here's the full statement from Ark. State on the kid who wants to be released so he can go to a higher level..

                            "Brandon Reed, through his father, has asked for permission to pursue other
                            opportunities as it relates to his basketball future. We have not as an
                            institution given him a release at this time.

                            I have talked with Brandon and his parents at length over the last week.
                            Arkansas State gave him an opportunity to play at a high level and put him in
                            a system that allowed him to showcase his talent and prove himself as a
                            player in his first year of Division I basketball. We gave him a scholarship
                            when other schools that saw him did not. It is a situation that really
                            disappoints me, upsets me, is not right and does not sit well with me.

                            But let me be clear, I have and always will want players at Arkansas State
                            that want to be here, want to wear the Scarlet and Black and be totally
                            committed without reservation to win the Sun Belt Conference and go to the
                            NCAA tournament. We have a wonderful school, great fans and have created
                            an opportunity for us to accomplish our goals.

                            This situation does not detour, nor does it stop, the desire or enthusiasm I 
                            have for this program and this community. We will continue to recruit good
                            players that appreciate and are committed to this university."

                            Comment

                            Unconfigured Ad Widget 6

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X