College Coaches Who Refuse to Release Athletes

Easy way= dont release anyone.

dui = serious misconduct in the eyes of most athletic departments. and certainly grounds for removing the scholarship immediately. I like the rationalization that "we didn't even have a meet that weekend." Like breaking the law is ok on off weeks. shows the misguided logic of some student-athletes.

??????????????? wrote:

I got a question, What if you are on athlete who is not on scholrship, but have times good enough to go elsewhere. If youve been cleread by the NCAA, will you not be penalized a year?

Same rules apply, coach has option to recommend to athletic department to grant exception or not. If not, student has right to appeal.

But this raises an interesting situation. The coach has a finite amount of scholarship dollars he can use. So if he is doing a good coaching job, kids improve, including walk ons. Some walk-ons might surpass scholarship kids on the same team. So what is a coach to do?

Does he not recruit new athletes, just keep giving more money to the existing team? That would eventually lead to a stagnant program. Would not all hell would break loose if the coach took money from one team member for inferior performance and gave it to the walk on.

For a team to improve one of two things must occur:

replace graduating athletes with athletes of similar quality but on smaller scholarship or replace graduating athletes with better athletes on the same size scholarship.

Ultimately a coach is looking to build the best team his scholarships can buy. But if he is a good "performance coach" and has walk ons or partials that improve they want more money. If he doesn't give it, he might be seen as "unfair" and kids might want to transfer. If he does increase the scholarship then it will affect the amount of scholarships he has available to recruit with which will ultimately affect the overall quality of team. And again, if he tries to reduce a scholarship of someone that may not be performing, that kid and family will cry "unfair."

It is a tough balancing act to field a strong team, deal with scholarship limitations in the fairest way, and create a content team atmosphere. Keeping everyone happy all the time is a tough job.

Wow - so much misinformation floating around all over. Thanks very much Compliance for hanging with the mess and for very accurately and calmly pointing out both the rules and the issues surrounding the rules. I'm not surprized APR has gone away. I can't believe he/she was an actual coach as claimed. Your point about juggling scholarships between newcomers and walk-ons who have improved is spot on. It was definitely one of the most frustrating aspects of my 15 years of college coaching. I was always trying to recruit kids through the fall and winter and trying to offer reasonable amounts while keeping in mind I had one or two guys to reward who were doing great things for us for little or no scholarship monies. We were not fully funded and I had about 2 scholarships to work with for the middle-distance and distance runners. Many programs I think fall into similar situations. Also taking scholarship dollars away from kids is much more difficult than most think. The NCAA requires particular reasons even after the year is completed as do most administrations, not to mention the fact that most coaches have formed a relationship with the parents during the recruiting process. Coaches who get a reputation for pulling the trigger quickly on kids scholarships get to be known quite quickly in their region and most high school coaches who are on the ball do a good job of steering their kids clear of them. In all my years of coaching I've had tons of kids asking/demanding more money at years end and only 1 young man who came to me and said "I stunk it up this year and I would like to give up my scholarship." He was too great a kid - no way was I taking his money back.

I'm back and have a few points:

1) I'm not saying that the rules for transfers will ever be changed. I'm not saying that as a coach I'll give releases to every kid who asks because I'm not going to bind myself to rules that no one else is following and committ career suicide. This is a rational debate about what is right, not an inquiry as to what the actual rules are. I'm saying that if it were a truly equitable system, there would be no limits on a student's ability to transfer and thereafter receive aid and participate. I'd also add that if this issue ever went to court, there would be at least a fair chance that the court would see it that way.

2) Show me the NCAA rule that says a student's aid cannot be cut for poor performance. It doesn't exist. Is this frowned upon at most schools? Yes. But we all know that coaches can find a few instances of more minor infractions which, put together, make a case for reduction or cancellation. And we all know that some schools have very sympathetic financial aid review boards toward the athletic department. We also know that most 18-22 year-old kids don't want to be in a program where the coach has made it clear that they don't want them.

3) Don't forget that an athlete who does have their scholarship reduced or cancelled doesn't have to be officially informed until July 5th. That gives them a whopping 2-4 weeks to get applications in to transfer. Very fair.

Man APR, you just don't get it do you? No one can keep an argument going like someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.

APR where are you getting your information?

2) 'Show me the NCAA rule that says a student's aid cannot be cut for poor performance. It doesn't exist'

rule:

Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability MAY NOT be reduced, canceled or increased during the period of award:

Based on a student-athlete's ability, performance, or contribution to a team's success; or

Because an injury prevents the student-athlete from participating; or

For any other athletics reason.

Please contact the certifying institution or conference for additional information. You also may contact the NCAA membership services staff at (317) 917-6222 if you have further questions

We have a saying for APR."Wrong and Strong"

Show me one error of fact, tough guy.

I think the real problem is that most people here think that college track and field is really important in the overall scheme of things.

I'm telling you as a veteran of the business that what's important is the well-being of the students and their academic interests. And if it happens to make a college track team a little less competitive, so what?

And think about this: If I run a good program where I carefully recruit students of good character, develop them well, and they know that my first concern is their best interest, then I'll actually have very few transfers.

that's DURING THE PERIOD OF THE AWARD, which means during the school year. I'm talking about at the end of the year.

Try again, buddy.

wasgoing to be a 20-4 grad wrote:

yea, well my stupid coach kicked me off the team because i got a dui one weekend. we didn't even have meet that weekend and he pulled my scholarship. don't tell me coaches can't pull your scholarship.

compliance wrote:

no a coach can't cut an athlete's scholarship at any point.

A coach can remove a scholarship during the term of the award for:

1. the athlete rendering himself ineligible for ncaa competition (grades, failed drug tests etc)

2. fradulent mis representation-i.e. knowingly committing fraud with ncaa documents, or making only token appearances at mandatory practices competitions etc

3. serious misconduct as determined by univesity administration

4. voluntarily withdraws from sport.

that is the only way a coach can take a scholarship during the term of its award which is one year, renewable.

Pay attention to number three. This guy obviously has worked in compliance.

APR wrote:

If I run a good program where I carefully recruit students of good character, develop them well, and they know that my first concern is their best interest, then I'll actually have very few transfers.

A very true statement and one that I hope most coaches aspire too. And in those few transfer situations, there are guidelines in place about how to handle them.

Your level of competitivness, the opinion and direction as dictate by athletic administration, and individual student-athlete circumstance will all play roles in which options are chosen.

Its july 1 not 5th, and they get 2 weeks after they recieved their written notice to request a hearing. Time is of the essence on both sides since aid cannot be increased or reduced after July 1, so usually this is done the week of conference or the week after, during end of season meetings. this usually means that at the very latest, and athlete knows whether they lost aid or not in the last week of May. I personally think that that you have these outlandish claims because you d!@#ed around some athletes by bending rules and now that you are retired or whatever, your concience wont let you sleep. Those boards never usually side on the athletic department any way unless the athlete is a raging alcoholic and got 2 mips and a dui (sorry, story close to me) .... dont misunderstand me, i agree with you with the whole well being thing, but your misleading with the mis information that you are dispelling

[quote]APR your ship is sinking wrote:

Its july 1 not 5th, and they get 2 weeks after they recieved their written notice to request a hearing. Time is of the essence on both sides since aid cannot be increased or reduced after July 1,

This is incorrect information, a student-athlete can have his scholarship increased up to the first day of classes. And even after that, if there is an administrative error (like a zero left off) changes can still be made.

Happens all the time. Often a coach will wait until all of his recruiting is done, then see what is leftover. They evaluate the possibility of having mid-year transfers, then he may start giving money to the seniors. Rationale is the money will go unused. So give it to the seniors because it comes right back to you at the end of the year, so you can recruit with it immediately.

Nothing more enjoyable than having seniors or their parents show up a few days before school and you ask them if they mind signing a new scholarship agreement for more and unexpected money. Makes for happy alums too!

Ok. I'm off by 4 days. Now tell me what outlandish claim is made. Show me what's misleading. I guess you think that its outlandish to say a student's best interest might be more important than winning. Congratulations. Sadly, you'll go far in college athletics.

And Compliance--there's no argument that circumstances differ and rules exist. Just tell me this: What's more important? Keeping your team competitive or dealing fairly with your athletes? And if its the latter, then you can't maintain the position that the institution should have any more leverage than the student in this situation.

You are correct about that. you can increase aid, but i dont believe it can be reduced after july 1. Correct me if i am wrong, dont want to sit in APRs sinking boat...

lol

By the way, let me reiterate my original point (long ago) that the APR now provides even more incentive for the institution to not release the student.

I don't think a competitive team and fair dealings with athletes are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think that is why the exception exists in sports like ours.

I think the NCAA recognizes that transfers can and do happen and that situations exist that call for an exception and therefore they make it available.

However, to remove the rule and therefore the need for an exception and allow athletes to be free agents and come and go as they please would have the potential to create such a level of disorder that it needs to be governed.

I agree that APR is a measure that tries to create accountability. While it may encourage schools not to provide exceptions, it also encourages schools not to "run off" kids for a potential better athlete.

APR also places the burden on the institution. If you are going to admit kids with low scores or grades because they are good athletes, then that same institution must have plans in place to keep these kids eligible and graduating.

The APR is giving 4 yr opportunities to many who in the past would need to attend a 2 year school first. So some would argue that APR is of benefit to student-athletes. It provides more opportunities and it requires schools to take a look at the adequacy of their academic success programs.

Schools don't like low retention rates for their student-body and they especially don't like low retention rates for athletics. Yet it is not enough of a concern to trackc the biology majors, or the english majors or the band members. However, and I don't have enough general information, but I would suspect that on average, student-athletes are retained and graduate at a higher rate than the general student body. this may not be the case for private schools, but at most state schools the student body is far more transient than the student-athletes that tend to be far more invested.

APR - how about a combination of both - treat your athletes fairly, but have expectations and standards. You can have a competitive team, and still deal fairly with your athletes.