Evansville Aces at Bradley Braves (Wed, Feb 1st)

[Ace Dad]

I apologize to the Purple Aces that the Braves did not give them a better effort. Evansville is really improved. Bradley's players have gotten quite a bit worse that last couple of seasons while the rest of the league has gotten better (the league as a whole).

Bradley has two players who would play any type of real minutes on all other MVC teams. In a weird way the more blowouts, the better. Hopefully that will convince the Prez and AD that Geno Ford should be able to clean some roster space for more scholarships.

I really like Colt Ryan and the freshman center has some potential. Aces should compete next year.

"Cleaning roster space?"

What about developing the player from year 1 to year 2 to year 3 and year 4?

If a player cannot develop into a D1 caliber player by his Junior year, then it is fair to tell the player that he will not play much his last two years. Some players will transfer. However, to do this to more than 1 or 2 players is not right.

The player makes a committment to the University.

[havoc]

I am not a big fan of cleaning roster space. These kids are 18 years old when they make a commitment. A commitment that if it doesn't pan out, they lose an additional year if they go somewhere else. While I think it is acceptable for coaches to sway kids that aren't going to see much playing time to smaller programs, I do not like the cleaning roster spot mentality. Schools should go out of their way to commit four years to those kids even though the NCAA rules that athletic scholarships are year to year. It is totally unfair to the kid.

If a kid receives an academic scholarship from a University and doesn't meet certain requirements the student has his/her scholarship revoked. Why should athletes be able to not meet expectations and still keep their scholarships?

[Ace Dad]

I am not a big fan of cleaning roster space. These kids are 18 years old when they make a commitment. A commitment that if it doesn't pan out, they lose an additional year if they go somewhere else. While I think it is acceptable for coaches to sway kids that aren't going to see much playing time to smaller programs, I do not like the cleaning roster spot mentality. Schools should go out of their way to commit four years to those kids even though the NCAA rules that athletic scholarships are year to year. It is totally unfair to the kid.

If a kid receives an academic scholarship from a University and doesn't meet certain requirements the student has his/her scholarship revoked. Why should athletes be able to not meet expectations and still keep their scholarships?

Havoc, apples and oranges:

The kid on the academic scholarship is not subject to the subjectivity of a new coach or a coach who is eyeing a better prospect.

The purely academic student only has to maintain a X.X GPA. There are no students standing in line to take his place. If he keeps the X.X GPA he stays on scholarship. This is black or white. Either you took 15 hours or you did not. Either you maintained a 3.2 GPA or you did not.

A Freshman basketball player has to play how many minutes to keep his scholarship? How many points must he score? How many rebounds must he make? What about his Junior year? Must he go from 2.2 PPG to 10.2 PPG?

Academic Deans do not drive to work trying to figure out how to "run off" kids on academic scholarships?

D1 coaches sometimes drive to work trying to figure out how to convince a basketball player to transfer down so they can re-use the scholarship on a better prospect.

The better programs do not run off players. The better programs counsel kids early on and help them find a better basketball home. And, if the player does not want to leave, some programs "eat the scholarship." It is called integrity.

[havoc]

Havoc, apples and oranges:

The kid on the academic scholarship is not subject to the subjectivity of a new coach or a coach who is eyeing a better prospect.

Grades in college courses aren't up to subjectivity?

The purely academic student only has to maintain a X.X GPA. There are no students standing in line to take his place.

Colleges have infinite resources to offer academic scholarships to as many students as they want?

It's not nearly as apple/oranges as you might think. If an athlete isn't living up to expectations he/she shouldn't continue to receive a scholarship.

[Ace Dad]

Havoc, apples and oranges:

The kid on the academic scholarship is not subject to the subjectivity of a new coach or a coach who is eyeing a better prospect.

Grades in college courses aren't up to subjectivity?

The purely academic student only has to maintain a X.X GPA. There are no students standing in line to take his place.

Colleges have infinite resources to offer academic scholarships to as many students as they want?

It's not nearly as apple/oranges as you might think. If an athlete isn't living up to expectations he/she shouldn't continue to receive a scholarship.

I teach graduate level courses. My livlihood is not dependent on the subjective grades I give. If several of my students fail, I still have a job. If several of my students do extremely well, I still have a job.

A D1 coach's livlihood is based on how many games he wins, keeping his players out of trouble, and ensuring enough graduate to satisfy the institution or NCAA.

The Professor has no need to subjectively manipulate or evaluate his students. The D1 coach wants all his recruits to pan out. But, if 1 or 2 do not, they find a reason to run the kid off.

Here is the conversation the college coach has with the parent:

Parent: "If Jimmy is not as good as you think he will be, does that mean you will take him off the team?"

Coach: "We believe Jimmy will develop into an impact player by his Junior year and I plan on attending Jimmy's college graduation."

Parent: "I hear that sometimes you guys do not renew scholarships or run off players."

Coach: "Ma'am, other schools may do that, but at Your Alma Mater University, we pride ourselves with developing our players and making sure they graduate."

Parents and kids go in knowing that NCAA athletic grants-in-aids are one year. They understand that there are no 4 year full rides. That said: if a college recruits and offers a player, the school should stick with the player as long as he is meeting academic requirements, being a good citizen, and doing the best he can on the basketball court. There is only one time when you release a player from a scholarship based on basketball: when the player is not trying to develop or work hard or it is obvious the player will never play at the D1 level. The coach then helps the kid find a lower D2 or mid D3 program.

Following is how some coaches run off players:

1. The coaching staff stops talking to the player.
2. The coach over-recruits the kid's position.
3. The coach asks a D2 program to contact his player.
4. Coach tells the kid he will never play in a future game.

[MoValley John]

A student athlete is recruited because the school believes that they can compete on the field or court. As such, the student athlete is expected to remain academically eligible. Should an athlete not remain academically eligible, the scholarship should be revoked.

On the other hand, if the student athlete is making it in the classroom and doing everything possible to meet all requirements, simply pulling the scholarship is wrong. The school took a chance, the student athlete took a chance, both should have to live with it. And if the athlete would be better served at a smaller level of institution, I would expect a coach to steer that student athlete in that direction. If that isn't possible, the coach should live with his original decision in recruiting the kid.

Keep in mind, the kid enters school expecting to study and play for four years. He expects to get his degree. Moreover, the NCAA prohibits students from transferring without sitting out a year, for many of these kids, that is not an option. I would change my stance if the NCAA amended transfer rules to allow a kid to transfer without penalty if the institution pulled his scholarship. Until the NCAA can figure out a tangible way to make that possible, once a student signs with a school, he holds zero power and the school holds all of the power. Until the playing field is leveled, schools should live with their mistakes in recruiting. In many of these cases, yanking a scholarship has the ability to ruin a kid's chance at an education. It was all promises in the recruiting process, now it's a kid with his life turned upside down.

If winning is more important than living with commitments made to 16, 17 and 18 year-old kids, it's time to reassess priorities.

[havoc]

[

I teach graduate level courses. My livlihood is not dependent on the subjective grades I give. If several of my students fail, I still have a job. If several of my students do extremely well, I still have a job.

Are you saying if none of your students pass or learning anything at all that you will continue to be employed? God bless unions.

There is only one time when you release a player from a scholarship based on basketball: when the player is not trying to develop or work hard or it is obvious the player will never play at the D1 level. The coach then helps the kid find a lower D2 or mid D3 program.

I agree, mostly, and I believe this is what the poster was talking about. The only part I disagree with is the D1 part. Like it or not, there are different levels of D1. A player might not be a Duke caliber player but could very well be a contributor at SEMO.

[Khan4Cats]

Interesting turn to this thread. Brings up the "cost of attendance" proposal that came out last fall that would allow schools/conferences to decide to pay an additional stipend to athletes. In addition to the stipend, there was a proposal to allow schools to offer a guaranteed four/five-year scholarship as another incentive rather than the year to year.

As to the "cleaning house" aspect, I don't think schools should be able to just dump players they don't want or that don't fit a new coaches system, nor do I thnk players should be able to be 'free agents' always, but I think there could be some modifications to the transfer rules when coaches leave, such as not having to sit out a year. It works if there is a familial relationship.

[Ace Dad]

[

I teach graduate level courses. My livlihood is not dependent on the subjective grades I give. If several of my students fail, I still have a job. If several of my students do extremely well, I still have a job.

Are you saying if none of your students pass or learning anything at all that you will continue to be employed? God bless unions.

There is only one time when you release a player from a scholarship based on basketball: when the player is not trying to develop or work hard or it is obvious the player will never play at the D1 level. The coach then helps the kid find a lower D2 or mid D3 program.

I agree, mostly, and I believe this is what the poster was talking about. The only part I disagree with is the D1 part. Like it or not, there are different levels of D1. A player might not be a Duke caliber player but could very well be a contributor at SEMO.

Note I said "several" and you took that and said "none." There are 16 students in my class, if several fail and the majority pass, no eyebrows are raised. However, if none passed or if all failed, the college should look hard at me as the problem. I do not belong to a union.

Another view: http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketb ... e-50850264

RICK WRIGHT Of the Journal, Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico)

The University of New Mexico Department of Mathematics & Statistics informs me that 14 are one more than 13. The Department of English, meanwhile, informs me that 14 is one more than 13.

In either case, current members of the Lobo men's basketball team don't have to be math majors to know at least one of their number will be gone by next fall.

Nor do they have to be English majors to know that, in basketball parlance, "run off" has nothing to do with excess rain water.

Run off: To strip a college player of his scholarship and remove him from the team, even if he's a decent student and not a discipline problem, usually to make room within the scholarship limit for a better player.

[tribecalledquest]

Ace Dad..I understand your point but you kinda spoke against it when you said the coaches job, and one they get paid HUGE dollars for is to win. You don't keep your job if you go 8-20 every year but have every kid with a 3.0 GPA or above. If it is going to be a big money, win at all cost business then coaches should be allowed to do what they can to win games with the rules of the NCAA. I understand it is harsh, but thats the business.

Now, I am sensitive to "running kids off". If Geno Ford doesn't think it is right or the Prez doesn't like doing it that is fine. I just want Bradley fans to understand that you then have to give Geno Ford 3-4 years to get a roster to his liking. That's all I'm saying. Can't have it both ways.

I don't think Geno Ford will "run" anybody off. But in an article in today's Journal-Star Dave Reynolds mentioned at least one player has left the program after the season since 1995....obviously the chances of a scholarship or two opening up is good.

I have no problem with a coach telling a kid "hey, Im not sure you will ever play here. I can help you find a school to transfer to (D2 or NAIA they can still get a scholarship). Or, you are welcome to stay and ride it out but I will recruit over you."

Im not advocating one way or another....although I do like winning and miss seeing it at Bradley