Campus Tryouts?

I

IowaFanSince82

Well-Known Member
do you think coach fran will hold open tryouts to get a couple of walk-ons?

This was the one thing I could never figure out about lick, he had his son on the team, but never once opened up tryouts for the team. We have what 9 players last year, hold a try-out and find some decent athletes so you can at least scrimmage against. I mean there are some solid HS ball players who go to Iowa and don't play. Hold on-campus tryouts and see if you can find a diamond in the rough. I am sure there has to be 1 or 2 decent athletes walking around on that campus that could help out our team.

I know Xavier held a simliar thing, because they had 2 roster spots open and they filled them with two players who actually ended up playing a little bit. I have also heard of several other schools who did this same thing.

Just a thought, I really don't see any negative to it.
 
Remember Darryl Moore?

He held his own, and then some, after being informally recruited to join the team based on his play in Fieldhouse pickup games.

Watching that guy play in person was a treat - freakish athleticism, which was something that Iowa's team needed at the time (and now).

I've wondered what the "Gray Team" concept might look like under Fran's watch as well. Especially for next year, given the open spots on the team.
 
This is not the 80's. Title IX has made it impossible to have a gray squad. That is the reason Coach Lick only had 2 walk-ons. The numbers have to equal out and so there were only 2 spots available last year, Lil Lick and Neari. The guys that play against the women's team count too, and so that was why Lick's hands were tied and why he didn't allow more walk-ons.
 
Was Jason Bauer a walk-on?

Who were some of the most successfull walk-ons? It's nice to go back down memory lane.

Was Kevin Smith (was he the smaller point guard some yrs back)?
 
BullHawk said:
This is not the 80's. Title IX has made it impossible to have a gray squad. That is the reason Coach Lick only had 2 walk-ons. The numbers have to equal out and so there were only 2 spots available last year, Lil Lick and Neari. The guys that play against the women's team count too, and so that was why Lick's hands were tied and why he didn't allow more walk-ons.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? Neari and Lil Lick were not on scholarship. A lot of schools have 3/4 walkons on the end of there bench.
 
BullHawk said:
This is not the 80's. Title IX has made it impossible to have a gray squad. That is the reason Coach Lick only had 2 walk-ons. The numbers have to equal out and so there were only 2 spots available last year, Lil Lick and Neari. The guys that play against the women's team count too, and so that was why Lick's hands were tied and why he didn't allow more walk-ons.
Click to expand...

Don't think the number of walk-ons matters to title IX. It is the number of scholarships you give. Could be wrong but don't think so.
 
BullHawk said:
This is not the 80's. Title IX has made it impossible to have a gray squad. That is the reason Coach Lick only had 2 walk-ons. The numbers have to equal out and so there were only 2 spots available last year, Lil Lick and Neari. The guys that play against the women's team count too, and so that was why Lick's hands were tied and why he didn't allow more walk-ons.
Click to expand...


Title IX only applies to the actual number of scholarships available. It has nothing to do with walk-ons, gray squads or anything like that. Guys that practice against the women's team count as absolutely nothing.
 
KJ22 said:
Title IX only applies to the actual number of scholarships available. It has nothing to do with walk-ons, gray squads or anything like that. Guys that practice against the women's team count as absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The number of walk-ons counts against the number of male participants...
 
This is the language that Title IX uses to define a "participant," which is what they measure:

•[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Participants = those athletes who a) are receiving the institutionally sponsored support normally provided to athletes competing at the institution involved (e.g. coaching, equipment, medical/training services, on a regular basis during a sports season) b) are participating in organized practice sessions and other team meetings c) are listed on the eligibility or squad lists d) b/c of injury cannot meet a,b, or c but continue to receive financial aid (based on athletic ability)


Whether the athletes are on scholarship or not is irrelevant.

That said, the rule hasn't changed since the Davis era, so either the school is enforcing it more strictly and the administration has capped the size of the basketball roster, or there is some wiggle room that Lick and Alford declined to take advantage of. I'm not sure which of these is the case. I do know that while the open tryout thing sounds pretty good in theory, it's tough to find guys that actually want to make the commitment to the team, to NCAA-mandated study hours, to eligibility requirements, to film sessions, etc., without the promise of actual playing time.
 
The title IX problem is a simple fix. All Gary has to do is ask Lisa to add the same number of walkons in her program as the guys use. They don't get training table or travel to games so they don't add any expenses to the AD budget. If you don't want to use them on the court use them as team managers.
 
The roster will be filled. It always amazes me that fans somehow don't think a coach has any idea who he is going to bring in and assumes he doesn't know a certain player or prospect is available. Trust me, he has a plan A, B, C and maybe D. I would guess he has at least 12-15 prospects both JC and recruits that he is focusing on if he doesn't get Larson and Brust in. My feeling is that both will be Hawkeyes going into next year. Its all drama right now.
 
olivecourt said:
This is the language that Title IX uses to define a "participant," which is what they measure:

•[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Participants = those athletes who a) are receiving the institutionally sponsored support normally provided to athletes competing at the institution involved (e.g. coaching, equipment, medical/training services, on a regular basis during a sports season) b) are participating in organized practice sessions and other team meetings c) are listed on the eligibility or squad lists d) b/c of injury cannot meet a,b, or c but continue to receive financial aid (based on athletic ability)


Whether the athletes are on scholarship or not is irrelevant.

That said, the rule hasn't changed since the Davis era, so either the school is enforcing it more strictly and the administration has capped the size of the basketball roster, or there is some wiggle room that Lick and Alford declined to take advantage of. I'm not sure which of these is the case. I do know that while the open tryout thing sounds pretty good in theory, it's tough to find guys that actually want to make the commitment to the team, to NCAA-mandated study hours, to eligibility requirements, to film sessions, etc., without the promise of actual playing time.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not particularly up to date with legal stuff like this (I'm a 20 year old guy, what do I care about Title IX? lol). But is it a violation just for the men's team to have more participants? I could see it if the guys had more participants and the women weren't allowed to. But if Barta were to tell Bluder, "Hey, you CAN have more players on the roster if you WANT them", and Bluder were in turn to say "No thanks, I'm happy with the roster I have", then wouldn't it be okay for the men to have a bunch of walk-ons? The women would have the same opportunity in that scenario, Bluder just chose not to use it.

Title IX I believe guarantees equal opportunity, and if the women's team doesn't want to add more players, that's fine. But as long as they're allowed to add players like the men, then there's no problem, correct?
 
tm3308 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not particularly up to date with legal stuff like this (I'm a 20 year old guy, what do I care about Title IX? lol). But is it a violation just for the men's team to have more participants? I could see it if the guys had more participants and the women weren't allowed to. But if Barta were to tell Bluder, "Hey, you CAN have more players on the roster if you WANT them", and Bluder were in turn to say "No thanks, I'm happy with the roster I have", then wouldn't it be okay for the men to have a bunch of walk-ons? The women would have the same opportunity in that scenario, Bluder just chose not to use it.

Title IX I believe guarantees equal opportunity, and if the women's team doesn't want to add more players, that's fine. But as long as they're allowed to add players like the men, then there's no problem, correct?
Click to expand...

Nope. Title IX looks at participation, not opportunity. There have been some attempts to redefine this, but for now, that's how the law is being applied.

It's also important to realize that the men's basketball team isn't being compared to the women's basketball team. Instead, the number of men's basketball players are pooled with all of the male athletes, which are then compared to the number of all the female athletes. If this ratio is roughly comparable to the ratio of men to women at the university as a whole, then the university is in compliance. (There are two other options for compliance, but I don't know as much about them.)

One of the main difference between now and the 1980s is not Title IX itself (which has been law since the early 70s), but the fact that more women are going to college than men. This makes it more difficult to comply with the proportionality test.
 
Well then someone better call foul on texas! When we played them last fall they had 5 players on the floor and something like 11 on the bench. I know NCAA allows you to have 12 or 13 schloarship players. So how are they getting away with it and we can't?

Its pretty despressing to see Iowa warm-up and they can barely do 2 line lay-ups. We should be able to get 15 players at least on our roster!
 
olivecourt said:
Nope. Title IX looks at participation, not opportunity. There have been some attempts to redefine this, but for now, that's how the law is being applied.

It's also important to realize that the men's basketball team isn't being compared to the women's basketball team. Instead, the number of men's basketball players are pooled with all of the male athletes, which are then compared to the number of all the female athletes. If this ratio is roughly comparable to the ratio of men to women at the university as a whole, then the university is in compliance. (There are two other options for compliance, but I don't know as much about them.)

One of the main difference between now and the 1980s is not Title IX itself (which has been law since the early 70s), but the fact that more women are going to college than men. This makes it more difficult to comply with the proportionality test.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, it needs some serious re-tooling. The way I see it, it should look at opportunity. If the women choose not to take advantage of it, then they can't complain. They have the same opportunity. That's not fair in the least to handicap the men's programs just because the women's programs choose to not take advantage of opportunities.
 
I could be wrong, but I thought Title IX only pertained to the number of mens teams vs. the number of womens team, and not to the actual number of participants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top