Scholarship question has been answered for basketball...

[DAWG61]

maybe it's just me that's been wondering this for awhile now but Mike and Mike is discussing it right now. Indiana has taken away a players scholarship because they signed too many. Teams are allowed to take a scholarship away if they find a better player right now. This rule won't be around long I don't think but as it is right now Rick Ray could sign more than the three he has for this years class and simply pull an existing players scholarship. So if I'm comprehending this correctly Kentucky or MSU or any team could sign 13 players each year and take away all existing scholarships on the team.

Of course I don't agree with a team being that drastic but it answers the Kentucky question and is something that has to be considered by Ray especially if his direct competition is doing this (Kentucky is and although not MSU's direct competition so is Indiana). This is ****** beyond description BUT it forces Ray to adapt or die as the current NCAA basketball environment is right now.

Being committed to a player for 4 years no matter what is the honorable thing to do but if your competition is not doing this it still comes down to wins and losses and coaches could find themselves out of jobs because they did the right thing. This is a problem. I'm not saying Ray should "cut" any current players but it forces us all to view signing classes differently in amount of players to be added if the current NCAA rules stay this way.

 

[engie]

It's common knowledge that scholarships are signed one year at a time. They just lock the school to the player for one year generally. How do you think our baseball team manages to have so much good attrition every offseason? The rules have been this way forever. Stans ALWAYS oversigned by 1-2 players, sometimes as many as 3, and "the numbers always worked themselves out."

A few years ago, the NCAA amended the rule so schools could sign guys to multi-year scholarships. I know Ohio St and Auburn have done this, but I think Au is the only one in the SEC that has(at least that I've seen published)...

 

[seshomoru]

If a player's scholarship isn't renewed...

does he have to sit out a year if he can get one somewhere else?

I have no idea and don't feel like googling.

 

[patdog]

Coaches in all sports have always been able to take scholarships away from players. Like engie said, they're on a year-to-year basis. Nick Saban routinely takes away 4-6 scholarships most every year. This is nothing new and I doubt it will change.

To answer the other question in this thread, the player still has to sit out a year even if his scholarship is taken away. It's not even close to being fair, but that's the rule.

 

[DAWG61]

Yes he has to sit out a year if he transfers to another D1 school.

 

[seshomoru]

Coaches in all sports have always been able to take scholarships away from players. Like engie said, they're on a year-to-year basis. Nick Saban routinely takes away 4-6 scholarships most every year. This is nothing new and I doubt it will change.

To answer the other question in this thread, the player still has to sit out a year even if his scholarship is taken away. It's not even close to being fair, but that's the rule.

How in the world is this not a big issue? At first glance it just seems so absurdly ridiculous that I can't believe the rule even exists.

The only way I can see this being needed is to prevent big programs from contacting a player at a smaller school that can play. However, would that not be easily preventable by the fact that the school the player is at has to release him from his scholarship or he has to sit out a year?

 

[haildearoldstate]

If a player's scholly is taken away he should not have to sit out a year,

unless it's associated with some type of misconduct.

 

[patdog]

Remember who makes the rules and who this rule benefits. Of course the players are getting screwed. But there's nothing they can do about it.

 

[patdog]

Things aren't always the way they should be. It's a terrible rule, but I don't see it changing.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

i would love to see msu in all of the big 3 sports offer some 2/3/4 year scholarships to players that the bama's and lsu's and florida's are after and only offering a year-to-year scholarship. sure, it might not sway the best fo the best recruits, but i bet it might get some 4* guys to think about it if you present them with the 4* and 5* guys that have been processed out at bama and elsewhere and show these guys the number of 4* and 5* already on the roster and some of those guys are going to get processed too. but we at msu are willing to make a longer term commitment to these kids.

it'd damn sure be a better approach than swag cans and baller proclamations that look like a 5 year old drew/wrote them.

 

[engie]

Do not want to see multi-year scholarship offers @ MSU. Especially in baseball, where we are more actively processing players due to the ridiculous scholarship limitations(EVERYONE has to process players in that sport to stay competitive).

Face it -- the guys worth taking the risk with those 4-yr offers are guys that are NEVER going to worry about getting their scholarships pulled elsewhere...at least not in advance...

 

[mstateglfr]

How in the world is this not a big issue? At first glance it just seems so absurdly ridiculous that I can't believe the rule even exists.

The only way I can see this being needed is to prevent big programs from contacting a player at a smaller school that can play. However, would that not be easily preventable by the fact that the school the player is at has to release him from his scholarship or he has to sit out a year?

This has always been a HUGE issue with me. Its absolutely terrible, and its why I fully support recruits who have power(the elite ones) holding off for as long as they can and want before they sign and give away what little power in the process they had.

What is absolutely terrible to me is that a coach can redshirt a player for their freshman season because of depth and because the recruit was either a project or needed a year to mature and improve. These players are typically the less heralded recruits. These players are alos typically the ones that dont then break into the rotation and are the most expendable for when a coach wants to push the player out in order to sign a better recruit.
So now you have a player who used his redshirt, but is pushed out of the program and must sit out a year at his new school. That means they lose a year of eligibility due to just sitting.
Its either that, or the player has to drop down to D2/NAIA in order to play right away.

Its absolutely terrible that the coach has such power. They can force the player to redshirt and then force them out of the program which by default forces the player to lose 1/4 of his college career.

 

[esplanade91]

Yes he has to sit out a year if he transfers to another D1 school.

I think a rule was proposed this past year and is expected to pass eventually that allows players with a 2.8 or higher to transfer and play immediately. I agree with it, although MSU would probably be 17d by it on a regular basis.

 

[patdog]

I completely agree. What purpose does punishing a player for leaving when he was never given the option to stay serve? I still don't see it changing though.