Vinny strikes again

Thanks for the civilized post. As I said, I was too vague in my initial post, but the post had nothing to do with Vin. I was just trying to show in my example how the academic scholarship thing can get manipulated if there weren't any NCAA rules and I did know there were rules that countered that, but didn't look them up. Thankfully you provided those rules and it does show how it is not so cut and dried. Coaches and athletic departments can and have gotten in trouble for working too closely with the admissions office and influencing their decisions.

Now in Hasay's case, if she is a great student and she applied to the University and was offered a full academic scholarship by the admissions office without any guidance from the athletic department, that would be allowed. She would not however be obligated to keep competing to keep her scholarship. If someone in the athletic department went to the admissions office and told them about this great recruit and that she should get the full academic scholarship and the admissions gave it to her instead of someone else who was more deserving, that would be a violation. I am assuming Hasay is on athletic scholarship however so they can have a litte more control over one of their best recruits ever.

Anyway, as you can see, the academic scholarships and how they were awarded would be hard to keep track of and I am sure many schools are violating this rule. Our compliance officer was very strict at our school and you could not get away with influencing the admissions office regarding academic scholarships. It is a rule that is abused and is why the rules you posted are so detailed.

Rules follower wrote:

Anyway, as you can see, the academic scholarships and how they were awarded would be hard to keep track of and I am sure many schools are violating this rule. Our compliance officer was very strict at our school and you could not get away with influencing the admissions office regarding academic scholarships. It is a rule that is abused and is why the rules you posted are so detailed.

I would agree that there is probably widespread temptation to violate the exception rules. I can't speak which verity as to how many coaches and schools actually violate them.

Speaking ancedotally from years of personal observation, it's often easy to self-rationalize venal motivations (e.g. jealousy, pettiness, pride) as actually being rightly motivated. I find it's often hard to admit why we're really holding on so tightly to a position. My "BS sensors" go on alert when I hear obviously overreaching claims.

People say that Vin gets his runners "unfairly" advanced. Based on what standard? How many appeals does Vin make and what percentage get approved, and how does that compare to others who have a comparable number of athletes competing at that level? Also, how many coaches really know the rules inside and out as compared to how many claim to know the rules? For example, how many coaches know the rules regarding advancing runners through rounds where there is a tie that has to be broken at the thousandths of a second?

When you are a Vin Lannana or Pat Henry, like it or not, you will find that you can attract a disproportionate number of really smart T&F athletes in addition to attracting a disproportionate number of T&F athletes that will run for no scholie at all, just because they want to be part of what they perceive is the best. In those environments, you may find that you don't need to exert personal control of your best athletes by pulling on athletic purse strings because those student-athletes are already sold out to being there.

Nike elite camp

Good post. I too would like to know how many protests Vin has made over his 30+ year coaching career. The vitriolic poster cites four instances over the past 11 years (two Stanford runners and two Oregon runners) as somehow being an abuse of the regulative right to protest results. If Vin or Pat Henry are upheld more often than others can't we attribute it to the communal respect they receive for their experience and knowledge of the sport, and not to some world-wide conspiracy?

Shouldn't all coaches advocate for their athletes at meets and try to get more kids scholarships? If they're breaking rules how come the NCAA isn't involved?

10/10

Mike Millier wrote:

Good post. I too would like to know how many protests Vin has made over his 30+ year coaching career. The vitriolic poster cites four instances over the past 11 years (two Stanford runners and two Oregon runners) as somehow being an abuse of the regulative right to protest results. If Vin or Pat Henry are upheld more often than others can't we attribute it to the communal respect they receive for their experience and knowledge of the sport, and not to some world-wide conspiracy?

I would hardly describe myself as vitriolic (nor would I ever use that word) but if that is how you see me I'll accept it.

You're missing the entire point here. Go back and search about AJ's advancement from 2008. Communal respect? There must have been communal disrespect for the other athletes involved then.

The larger issue is that someone of Vinny's stature can walk into the appeals room and tell the officials what happened, who was at fault and who will be advanced, and lesser known coaches can't even get an appeal looked at. If you've ever been in that room, with an athlete whose entire world is resting on this appeal, you'd agree that it's enough to pull your hair out.

Good try to shuffle off your inaccurate posts on this subject, but you don't have the facts. Fact is, there were specific additional cameras filming each event for the only purpose of potential protests. The protest rooom had the ability to immediately (upon protest) pull up the race/event in question at the specific second of the issue that led to the protest. So, the officials involved would view the issue to determine what had happened. Also, the athlete is not allowed in the room, and the athlete does not submit the protest--his/her coach does that.

BTW, there was only one protested event for the entire meet -- the men's 1500 meter prelim. Either this was an extraordinarily well run meet or all the coaches are intimidated by that mean old Vin Lananna who rules the whole show with an iron fist and gets his way with everything. Are you being vitriolic?...I'd say, yes.

Mike are you serious? Are you referring to the 2008 trials?

If so go back and watch footage of AJ's race and see if he was negatively impacted by the fall. After that, decide if the other runners (Kyle King was one, don't remember who the other was) were similarly impacted- negatively or otherwise. Now ask yourself why neither of them were allowed to compete in the next round.

Do you think Kyle and his coach weren't in the appeals room?

Do you know that they walked immediately over to appeals at the conclusion of the race and AJ had already been hand-written into the finals (mere minutes after the race)?

These both happened whether you want to believe it or not and the fact remains- If you run for Vinny and something happens in your heat, you will be advancing to the next round.

I only know of one other coach in the US that has powers like this and he happens to be an alum of that fine university that sports the green and yellow.

It sounds like Mike Miller is being overly simplistic on this. The fact that the top coaches (especially Lananna and Salazar) get tons of benefits- guys into meets without qualifying times, an 800 guy advancing because of a phantom shoe issue- has been written about before many times before. Mike do you think that Lananna doesn't have pull with the appeals committees?

LBC, I think that Vin Lananna knows the rules upside down. I also think that Vin Lananna has the respect of top USATF and NCAA folks based on his knowledge, diplomacy, and track record. I also think that a certain number of LR posters (yes, a few coaches are included here), don't have an adequate level of knowledge or experience of the sport to be accurately critizing and second guessing. The old saying goes something like, "when you are ignorant, it is like a blind man imagining what he thinks he sees".