Oversigning at Indiana

[theboat]

It is truly a flawed system. Highschoolers don't committ for 1 year. They committ for 4-5 years. And if they decide to change their mind, they have to pay a price either financially or with time.

Then you have The Hair who can sign a 10 year deal and walk the next day and not think twice about it.

 

[hawkfan33]

I think Crean and Pitino jr. are bringing a new ethos to Big Ten bb.
Pitino had an assistant call up Alex Foster,a recruit who signed a LOI with Minny in November and told him that Pitino and Minny were ''going in a different direction''....so Foster was told to move on.

Basically, for Pitino,even signed LOI's are disposiable,and not binding for the school,because it was signed before Pitino arrived in Minny.

If coaches and schools continue to push the envelope,they are going to kill their golden goose...ie. free labor to bring in millions for coach and school. I could see this whole thing coming tumbling down between the OBannon suit,and future suits from players who are treated poorly by scumbag coaches like Pitino.

That's not unusual with coaching changes. Why bring a player in who you don't want? Pitino Jr wasn't the guy who recruited him.

If the players don't like being used for "free labor", they can go get a real job or play overseas.

 

[hawkfan33]

It is truly a flawed system. Highschoolers don't committ for 1 year. They committ for 4-5 years. And if they decide to change their mind, they have to pay a price either financially or with time.

Then you have The Hair who can sign a 10 year deal and walk the next day and not think twice about it.

Unless they are good enough to leave for the NBA after one year or two or three, or they decide they could get more playing time somewhere else, or they improve a lot once they get on campus and realize they can now play at a better school. The number of kids who play all four years at one school is quickly declining.

 

[Section136]

Unless they are good enough to leave for the NBA after one year or two or three, or they decide they could get more playing time somewhere else, or they improve a lot once they get on campus and realize they can now play at a better school. The number of kids who play all four years at one school is quickly declining.

In 2 out of the 3 scenarios you listed, the student athlete would have to sit out a year.

Coaches and players definitely play by a different set of rules.

 

[WindsorHawk]

I don't care what other schools in our conference or elsewhere do. If Iowa evaluates a kid, convinces the kid to come here over the available options and signs the kid then develop the player. If the player can't be as good as expected then it goes back to an inaccurate evaluation IMO.

Make the kid the best player he can be...could end up with a May when the kid is a senior. I don't remember the last time an Iowa player averaged 5.2 points per game his senior season and had such a huge impact on the team, the fans, the program, etc. If there are issues within the team, academics, getting in trouble, etc. then that's a different conversation.

 

[hawkfan33]

In 2 out of the 3 scenarios you listed, the student athlete would have to sit out a year.

Coaches and players definitely play by a different set of rules.

Not if they graduated early or get a waiver. There's plenty of circumstances you can transfer under and play immediately.

 

[ssckelley]

Has Iowa ever revoked a scholarship because of performance issues? Heck even players like JR Angle were kept on scholarship for 4 years.

Freeman perhaps?

 

[Section136]

Has Iowa ever revoked a scholarship because of performance issues? Heck even players like JR Angle were kept on scholarship for 4 years.

Freeman perhaps?

Freeman transferred, IIRC. Just another player Lick drove out of here doing damn near unfixable damage to the basketball program.

 

[ssckelley]

But didn't Lick pretty much tell him to leave, that he was going a different direction?

 

[WindsorHawk]

Has Iowa ever revoked a scholarship because of performance issues? Heck even players like JR Angle were kept on scholarship for 4 years.

Freeman perhaps?

I have no recollection of this ever happening and don't think it will. Fran has previously said he had to do it once in his coaching career...attitude problem that couldn't be fixed.

 

[WVHawk]

Might want to check out how Urban is running things at tOSU. He learned in the SEC and has commented that the Big Ten needs to step up recuriting.

 

[JRD90]

I know it seems like a shady practice, but I don't have a problem with "cutting" a kid. It's usually a kid that isn't playing much, or not at all, so why not move on. The only thing I'd like to see is a rule that says if the kid's skills are not good enough for him to get another D1 scholarship somewhere else, his original school should still have to pay his tuition if he chose to stay at the original school to finish his degree. I know players who have to quit playing due to injury still remain on scholarship, so too should kids who get "cut".

 

[ICHAWK]

I have no recollection of this ever happening and don't think it will. Fran has previously said he had to do it once in his coaching career...attitude problem that couldn't be fixed.

Lickliter basically forced Freeman off the team. If Freeman would have stayed Lickliter let it be know that he would not play much. It was the first very stupid move Lickliter made...

Freeman had a stressfracture which forced him to miss the first 10 games of the season and he rushed back to play to help the team. He averaged 13.8 ppg, shot 38% on 3 point shots and was 3rd team all Big 10. It looked like he was just starting to breakout as a player. He was the only player on Iowa capable of creating offense off the dribble as well. On top of that he was a great student as I remember him having like a 3.9 GPA in Finance so he was taking real classes and doing well.

This move caused Chicago area people to really start to question Iowa. It was an African American player with great grades, was not a problem off the court, played hard and Iowa still didn't want him on their team. I know it was a move that caused some people to wonder about the Iowa program at the time.

 

[Tierney]

Lickliter basically forced Freeman off the team. If Freeman would have stayed Lickliter let it be know that he would not play much. It was the first very stupid move Lickliter made...

Freeman had a stressfracture which forced him to miss the first 10 games of the season and he rushed back to play to help the team. He averaged 13.8 ppg, shot 38% on 3 point shots and was 3rd team all Big 10. It looked like he was just starting to breakout as a player. He was the only player on Iowa capable of creating offense off the dribble as well. On top of that he was a great student as I remember him having like a 3.9 GPA in Finance so he was taking real classes and doing well.

This move caused Chicago area people to really start to question Iowa. It was an African American player with great grades, was not a problem off the court, played hard and Iowa still didn't want him on their team. I know it was a move that caused some people to wonder about the Iowa program at the time.

Freeman and lil lick played the same position.

 

[WindsorHawk]

Lickliter basically forced Freeman off the team. If Freeman would have stayed Lickliter let it be know that he would not play much. It was the first very stupid move Lickliter made...

Freeman had a stressfracture which forced him to miss the first 10 games of the season and he rushed back to play to help the team. He averaged 13.8 ppg, shot 38% on 3 point shots and was 3rd team all Big 10. It looked like he was just starting to breakout as a player. He was the only player on Iowa capable of creating offense off the dribble as well. On top of that he was a great student as I remember him having like a 3.9 GPA in Finance so he was taking real classes and doing well.

This move caused Chicago area people to really start to question Iowa. It was an African American player with great grades, was not a problem off the court, played hard and Iowa still didn't want him on their team. I know it was a move that caused some people to wonder about the Iowa program at the time.

Yeah, I remember the Freeman situation and didn't like it one bit. However, I responded to the question of whether a scholarship had ever been revoked and to my knowledge that has never happened. Freeman still had his scholarship. He was just told he wasn't going to play. I agree it was a really dumb move by Lick and it never should have happened.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Which is complete ********.

In theory have the one-year renewable scholarship makes some sense. If a player just is not putting forth the effort or violates team rules (without breaking the law) the coach can just tell them their scholarship is not being renewed and be done with it.

But in practice, where the coaches can get rid of players just because they aren't good enough or they have recruited better players, the rule stinks. It seems reasonable that if a kid is putting in the time, complying with team rules, but just isn't as good as the coaches had hoped, they should stay on scholarship.

The situation at Indiana is quite ridiculous.

 

[DodgerHawki]

I know it seems like a shady practice, but I don't have a problem with "cutting" a kid. It's usually a kid that isn't playing much, or not at all, so why not move on. The only thing I'd like to see is a rule that says if the kid's skills are not good enough for him to get another D1 scholarship somewhere else, his original school should still have to pay his tuition if he chose to stay at the original school to finish his degree. I know players who have to quit playing due to injury still remain on scholarship, so too should kids who get "cut".

The issue is that it flies in the face of everything the NCAA and schools claim to be about, which is supporting student-athletes. In the situation you cite, it effectively lets an Indiana operate with a scholarship limit of 15 rather than 13. By being able to show the door to the bottom of the roster who have done nothing wrong except not being as good as other players Indiana has recruited, it makes a mockery of the scholarship limit and to what the schools at least pretend to be about (having kids get degrees).

The reason why it's not just fair to the kid to "move on" is that the kid (or their family) is now on the hook paying for the rest of their college education. I'm sure during the recruiting process that the coach was extremely upfront with the kid, stating that they would evaluate his situation each year. More likely the coach told the kid and his family that the coach's top priority was the long-term well-being of the kid, and they would provide every support system to make sure they got their degree. Except, of course, when we have the opportunity to get a better player down the road.

 

[hawkfan33]

The issue is that it flies in the face of everything the NCAA and schools claim to be about, which is supporting student-athletes. In the situation you cite, it effectively lets an Indiana operate with a scholarship limit of 15 rather than 13. By being able to show the door to the bottom of the roster who have done nothing wrong except not being as good as other players Indiana has recruited, it makes a mockery of the scholarship limit and to what the schools at least pretend to be about (having kids get degrees).

The reason why it's not just fair to the kid to "move on" is that the kid (or their family) is now on the hook paying for the rest of their college education. I'm sure during the recruiting process that the coach was extremely upfront with the kid, stating that they would evaluate his situation each year. More likely the coach told the kid and his family that the coach's top priority was the long-term well-being of the kid, and they would provide every support system to make sure they got their degree. Except, of course, when we have the opportunity to get a better player down the road.

If a kid who got "cut" from Indiana can't find another D-1 school that will offer him a scholarship then he should probably think back and enjoy how awesome his time was on the Hoosier basketball team because he obviously didn't deserve it.

 

[hawkeye12345]

The only way to eliminate this is to turn all scholarship offers into 4 year commitments by both parties with an optional 5th year due to medical hardship or normal redshirting.

The commitment can be broken by the school for misconduct, grades, or other similar offenses.

The commitment can be broken by the players if head coach leaves or documented family hardship that allows player to relocate closer to home while continuing their education. Basically a player can't be asked to leave for bogus reasons to get their scholarship.

If the player leaves for any other reason than listed above, the athletic program is on the hook for paying the tuition for the kids to attend their school AND they can not give that scholarship to another player to back fill. If the players disenrolls from the school then school owes the player no tuition but scholarship is still locked up.

Basically, its a 4 year commitment from both the player and the institution with an optional 5th year that is tied to one specific player. Each program has 13 scholarships that can be allocated at one time. No more than 13 scholarships can be given, period.

Example :

Player X is offered a scholarship to attend Iowa. Player X accepts the scholarship. Once that player enrolls at Iowa, Iowa is bound to that scholarship for 4 years with an optional 5th year. If player X leaves Iowa after 2 years for the NBA then Iowa can not offer that scholarship to another player until the end of the 4th year (no optional 5th year in this scenario). I call this the Kentucky rule. Enough of the one-and-done programs. Recruit players that are going to be there to get an education (cough, cough) or at least pretend that they are trying to get one.

 

[Section136]

Player X is offered a scholarship to attend Iowa. Player X accepts the scholarship. Once that player enrolls at Iowa, Iowa is bound to that scholarship for 4 years with an optional 5th year. If player X leaves Iowa after 2 years for the NBA then Iowa can not offer that scholarship to another player until the end of the 4th year (no optional 5th year in this scenario). I call this the Kentucky rule. Enough of the one-and-done programs. Recruit players that are going to be there to get an education (cough, cough) or at least pretend that they are trying to get one.

Why on earth would you punish college programs for a rule that David Stern and the NBA made? Its their age limit that is forcing all the one and dones.

If you did this you would see A TON of kids just going to play in Europe for a year and then go to the draft. This idea would do a lot more harm to the college game than good.