College Coaches Who Refuse to Release Athletes

[quote]Setauket415 wrote:

Any coach has the autority to release the athelete or not. It is up to them.[/quote

Actually, the release is granted by the athletic administration at any NCAA school, not the coach. In some cases the administration will grant what the coach wishes in a given situation, but again, it is up to the administration. I know several schools that have a blanket policy that there will be no releases.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of the NCAA rules are in place because of basketball and football. This includes the transfer rules (there are several that apply). In the 50s it was common for FB/BB programs to raid other programs (offer money under the table, etc). The transfer rules are in place because of the indiscretion of the major money sports.

and the cross country/track coaches are the beneficiaries of a harsh football/bb rule, which they will gladly abuse so that they don't have to do the right thing.

Has everyone forgotten that there is an appeal rule that your coach/administration has to notify the denied athlete of in writing? Of course it depends on the leanings of those that sit on the appeal committee, but often times (maybe even all the time, I can't remember right now) they are composed of people outside of the athletic department that are usually more sympathetic to the concerns of the student.

Exception, not the rule wrote:

the ball is in the coach's court, as it should be. Athletes every year feel an ever growing sense of entitlement that shouldn't be there. They're a cog in the wheel, they aren't the wheel.

If you aren't training for the event you'd like to be, talk to your coach. If you want to transfer, talk to your coach. If you want to receive an exception, make a good case when you talk to your coach. If you have a good reason, most reasonable coaches will listen and try to help within their power to do so.

All roads that lead to success and happiness in athletics starts with the coach. It may not end there, but it should start there.

Ever growing sense of entitlement that shouldn't be there?? I thought this was America, not communist China or Ethiopia... America is the land of the free if I remember correctly. We pick our schools here, we pick our coaches and what we want to do with our lives. This rule was made for football and basketball and other sports coaches abuse it's power. It doesn't make any sense in cross country or track. I thought the job of the coach was to COACH THE SPORT. Thats it. Not to govern how you live your life. Sure they can help guide you, thats what they are there for. But important decisions such as if you want to transfer should be entirely up to the individual. Perhaps coaches are the ones who feel too much entitlement.

Good discussion above from both sides. My school seems to have a blanket policy to grant any releases without question. I try to look at things from a student-athlete perspective and also think about what is the right thing for each individual. I've had a number of transfers out (and a few in) in the 6 years I've been coaching. In almost all cases the kids have come to me early in the process. I appreciate them keeping me in the loop and will do anything I can to get them to a place where they can have an educational experience that meets their needs.

Only once have I requested we not grant a release. Had one athlete (not a runner) who didn't tell me he was transfering until late April. I had worked real hard with this kid for 2 years, given him a ton of personal attention to the detriment of some other team members. He had gone from a back of the pack racer to a mid pack racer and had a lot of potential. All that said I still would have had no problem with granting a release, however I happened to run into the coach at the school he was transfering to and found out they had been working together for 2 months. I felt that was such a breach of common courtesy and so far beyond NCAA rules regarding tampering with student-athletes at other schools. But our athletic office went to our standard policy and granted him his release.

Oh, to make things worse, despite the fact that I told him in April to get into the office before he left school and get his waiver, he never bothered to come in. I got a call from his parents in September wondering why he was having eligibility issues at his new school.

The most disappointing thing was this kid went to a top level program and his development almost completely stagnated. When he left my program he was around 35th in the league out of about 70 racers. As a junior he got into the mid-high 20's but only raced about half the meets. He redshirted as a senior and then got hurt his final year and missed all the racing. What a waste.

Compliance: Thanks for your excellent remarks on this process.

I am a Division I coach. I haven't had many athletes over the years request the exception, but I have generally granted it if the athlete is upfront and honest. I had an athlete that went home over the summer knowing that he wasn't coming back to school (although I did not know) and called me up the day before school started informing me he was going to another DI school. I was upset because the large scholarship he was getting (largest on the team) could have been used for so many other deserving athletes. I made this athlete sit out a year. So I think the main point in all of this is the power relationship definitely favors the school/coach, but if athlete will learn to be mature and honest, and not try to go behind their coaches back, usually it will work out for the best. Any athlete who acts selfishly, and tries to damage the program should not expect to get their way.

Many good points in the discussion. Rare for Lets Run.

so a 400 m runner enters school A. He chose school A because it was the best option available to him. He gets pretty darn good as a freshman at school A. He looks around and sees that school B has a much better 4x4. They seem to go to better meets. Their gear looks nicer. He decides he wants to go to school B because it is a better option.

So what many of you are saying is that this kid should allowed to go?

And what if he gets there and finds school C is a national championship team, should he be released again?

I mean this is America the beautiful, he should have freedom of choice right?

Well the NCAA has thought of all that. They have rules in place. The rules allow for appeals and the appeals process is as independent of athletics as possible. So if an EXCEPTION is warranted it can be granted in the case that a coach is just being "spiteful."

The coach CAN NOT stand in the way of a kid leaving a team. He can not stop him from going to another school or ten other schools. But that doesn't mean they have to assist them by allowing them to compete or receive aid immediately at the new school.

There is no free agency in NCAA athletics. Smaller schools or schools with less overall talent or resources are not minor leagues for larger schools with more resources. That is THE WAY IT IS. If you don't like it, pay to go to school and run unattached.

ps: I am not at all opposed to granting exceptions, however one must realize that it is an exception to a rule that exists. if an exception is not warranted then the rule applies.

compliance--

Stop hiding behind the NCAA. We're talking about what is just and right here, not what the NCAA currently legislates. I don't have to begin listing the examples where the NCAA created rules that exceeded their authority and had to revise, do I (limited-earinings coaches?)?First, every other student at that school has the right to transfer as a "free agent" as many times as they choose (and accept scholarship money in the transfer). Second, the athlete has no guarantee past each year that they will be renewed (only an appeal process) but the school has a guarantee that the athlete cannot leave without penalty. Third the athlete owes nothing more to the coach that develops them than that coach owes to the athlete, so therefore if the athlete can't go, neither should the coach be allowed to leave at the end of their contract.

Once again, these are students who are (ostensibly) enrolled to take classes and graduate, not athletes who are there to perform for their team. The athletic scholarship is an incentive for the student to attend that school and participate, not a term of indentured servitude.

I think many people don't look at the coaching side of "releasing" an athlete, and don't respect the contract a student-athlete signs to accept a scholarship. First, it isn't necessarily the coach who decides on releasing an athlete, it is the athletic director. Additionally, when it comes to transferring schools, many college athletes handle themselves very poorly (as stated earlier on this thread), and prove to be a detriment to the current program, all while receiving scholarship money to do so. Another large issue during times of transfer is the illegal contact of student-athletes from other coaches. There is a process to follow when transferring, and many times this process is abused or circumvented.

If you want to use a "regular student" for comparison, understand that universities can take away academic scholarhsip money for low grades, but an athletic department cannot take away scholarship dollars for lack of athletic performance. Also, it is very difficult to take away someone's athletic money, because the affected athlete always has the right to appeal, which he or she almost always wins. Stop harping about not releasing athletes until you know about the process. Compliance is 100% correct, and this is based on fact, not uninformed opinion.

I've been a D-1 coach for 16 years, so I'm completely informed about all aspects of this issue. If you think athletic departments don't take away scholarhips for athletic performance and that the student almost always wins the appeals, you are the one who is severely uniformed.

I'm not against athletes being held accountable for misconduct, I'm only against the imbalance that exists in the process as well as the hypocrisy that departments promote in saying that these are students first.

Finally, don't confuse the fact that compliance is correct about the process of transfers with the idea that such a system is equitable or just.

If it were just about going to school and taking classes then the student-athlete wouldn't accept an athletic scholarship.

Coaches aren't giving athletic scholarships to the kid with the best GPA they are giving them to the kid with the best athletic ability. They are paying in advance for something. That something is the service of the student-athlete.

Baylor will not release kids

equitable and just, you say that as if they were synonyms. The system isn't equitable, but the system is just.

Just as there are kids on the same team on unequitable scholarships.....

All kids will be treated justly or fairly, but they won't be treated equally, nor will there be equal expectation of performance.

Fair....yes

Equal....no

And if both the student-athelte and the coach act justly in the process, all will work out fine. If not, the rule exists to protect the coach, and an appeals process exists to protect that athlete. Sounds a lot like real life to me.

Congratulations, compliance. Your attitude is directly in agreement with what is wrong with collegiate athletics.

It's not service--it's participation. Its sports, for god's sake. It does not deserve priority over a well-meaning student's freedom to choose his own academic path and gain the best financial situation he can.

Take a look back over the postings and realize that these rules emerged from the FB and Basketball coaches' desire to maintain their competitive status and not lose their best athletes (while still retaining the right to dump the trash).

It all points back to using the students for the benefit of the coaches, programs, departments and schools while stripping them of their rights.

If you don't think student-athletes are in school to take classes and graduate and that their athletic participation is anything more than extra-curricular, then you are part of the problem in college athletics.

I'm not saying its going to change or even improve. But I will stand up and say that our priorities are F-ed up and the students are the ones who pay the price in the long run.

so as a D1 coach you give your scholarships to anyone who asks? A male 5:00 miler can call you and ask for an athletic scholarship because he really really wants to take classes and graduate? Do they keep score at your track meets?

And read the mission statements for division 1 and division 3 in your NCAA manual, then get back to me about particiapation.

The student-athlete by nature of being BOTH must follow all the rules of the general student body and additionally they must follow all NCAA, athletic department and team rules. That's the deal.

If you want to do intramurals and participate, then go right ahead. But if you want to get an athletic scholarship, then there are some rules you need to follow.

The fact that you feel compelled to disclose your lengthy experience level as a DI coach doesn't make you sound any more intelligent. You are arguing about your opinion, which is understandable. There are other factual perspectives out there besides yours.

There are athletic departments which abuse their authority, and treat student-athletes like crap when they don't want them - I am not disputing that. However, in my years as a DI coach, almost every athlete I have had, or heard about from coaching colleagues has qualified for one-time transfer, and granted their release. I have not witnessed the "imbalance" to which you are referring. That is my experience - this is fact, and not my reactionary opinion. At the highest levels of DI, it is more cut-throat, and less about what is best for the student-athlete. The problem at these schools is that many times the student-athletes are not informed about their rights when they are run out of town for not running fast enough, or not listening to the coach's every wish. Maybe you have seen this hypocrisy, I haven't.

Finally, how i construe "compliance's" comments is my choice, and I can draw any conclusion I wish. You are free to disagree. I said he is 100% correct - I agree with him, and am impressed that someone has accurately described the intent of the NCAA rules, and how they fit the situation on this typically blowhard opinionated message board.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the one year sit-out less a punishment to the athlete and more a detriment to inter-collegiate recruiting?

It might not seem "fair" to the athlete, but it is designed to protect the athlete from becoming an expendable commodity to be traded loosely between univerisites.

To "APR" -

In your mind, is there any possible situation where a student-athlete at his or her request should not be given a full and complete release to transfer whereever they want to go?

Do you feel that the one-time transfer policy should not be limited, but they should be able to transfer as often as their eligibility allows?

Division III just passed, a few years ago, a very open transfer policy, but Divisions I and II certainly have more restrictions. Many schools or conferences have added their own policies to further restrict or enable transfers.