Bait and Switch: Schools not following through on verbal scholarship offers - How common is it? What's the solution?

The sport I would really like to hear about is girls lacrosse. I live in Md, and girls lax is huge, and girls make verbal commitments as young as 8th grade?

http://www.laxmagazine.com/college_women/DI/2015-16/news/011316_eighth_graders_commitment_brings_iwlca_imlca_recruiting_proposals_to_light_florida_select_caitlyn_wurzburger

I walked on to a solid D1 program. End of sophomore year, I was well ahead of several guys there on athletic scholarships. Coach found money for me, unprovoked. I was just there to run and try to help the team. Didn't even occur to me that I deserved scholarship money. So there's a good story.

girlslax wrote:

The sport I would really like to hear about is girls lacrosse. I live in Md, and girls lax is huge, and girls make verbal commitments as young as 8th grade?

http://www.laxmagazine.com/college_women/DI/2015-16/news/011316_eighth_graders_commitment_brings_iwlca_imlca_recruiting_proposals_to_light_florida_select_caitlyn_wurzburger

I live in md. Maybe we should go for a run.

The idea of a verbal offer is absurd for a HSer.

1) It means nothing.

2) It's stupid.

If i had a kid, I"d say, "We'll start to think about college in 10th grade."

These kinds of scholarship reductions/removals occur all the time. It depends on the school and its coaching staff, but again, it happens all the time. At my mid-pack D1 school in one of the big conferences, this happened to several people every year. People who had underperformed during the year always dreaded their year-end scholarship meeting with the head coach.

Yes indeed wrote:

These kinds of scholarship reductions/removals occur all the time. .

Which is why the Big Ten banned reductions. Scholarships in the Big Ten are for 4 years.

I'm in MD too, we should hit the bricks one day rojo! As for the whole scholarship thing...

I had received a partial scholarship, ran a top 5 all time mark for my school in my event, which includes a ton of Kenyan and Australians from the 1980s, and was not considered for any sort of increase. Who cares. They then recruited two freshmen guys who got full rides, and three girls who got the same. None of which ever performed better than me in any race on a relative scale. I ended up even faster, and they (as my team liked to say) "got their money and were just happy to be there"

I'm glad someone started a thread about this. Finally someone is pulling back the curtain on places that are admired for how fast they run, how many championships they win, without ever looking INSIDE.

when you as a recruit/family fall for the "okie doke" of the big school with the football game and the 3 different uniforms, and the cool locker room, then you get what you deserve. The kid and family were blinded by glitz and glamour, and excited to run back home and tell everyone they were going to "big name U." The HS coach got his once in a lifetime brag. Then you get there and the reality hits.

So you as a recruit/family BETTER ASK great questions on your visit. You better get things in writing.

An ethical coach holds some money back for deserving kids ALREADY in their program. An ethical coach knows in the Fall or early indoor who is outperforming their scholarship and makes plans to take care of THEIR OWN TEAM, before spending it all on incoming kids.

But to answer the original question YES it happens all the time that you people have scholarships reduced, or have promises made that are never kept. And kids are comfortable or happy otherwise and don't transfer, yet struggle. As in all things, BUYER BEWARE.

I don't know how often it happens. The solution is to name and shame. Kids being recruited deserve to know what coaches have been guilty of this in the past.

You shouldn't get a decrease if you're improving and making it to Nats. That's nuts.

But, the problem I see is the exact opposite. Kids that get significant schollys who don't perform, but they're essentially locked into their scholarships for 4 years.

If I were a coach, I would definitely take away $ from people not putting forth the effort so I could give $ to kids that are busting their butts.

If you don't, it creates a lot of bad incentives and chemistry on a team.

I wouldn't take away $ if a kid's injured, but I've seen several kids use injury as an excuse. If you're on scholarship and you're injured, then you better be doing everything you can to get healthy. If you are, you keep your $. If not, you may get $ cut.

My pitch during recruiting would be simple (given that most men, at least, don't get full rides). If you work hard, you'll not only maintain, but potentially increase your $. But I expect you to do the work.

It's actually not allowed to reduce based on athletic performances.

Can only reduce for academic, misconduct, etc.

So, someone might want to check into that.

trying to keep up wrote:

It's actually not allowed to reduce based on athletic performances.

Can only reduce for academic, misconduct, etc.

So, someone might want to check into that.

Sure it is, at the end of each school year. There's no NCAA prohibition on reducing aid, or dropping it entirely. You just can't do it for athletics reasons DURING the period of the award.

Now, if the conference requires a 4-year award period, then there can be no reductions for athletics reasons during that time. But most are on the year-to-year schedule.

This is something Johnson (Oregon head coach) is quite fond of doing this. It's happened to a number of athletes at Oregon since hes taken over. They're promised scholarship money in the future that they never receive even if they perform. They reduce or cut kids to 0 in June with no warning. They especially love to do this to transfers because they know they can't leave to another D1 without sitting out a year. It happened to a few girls that transferred in as sophs or juniors recently. Be wary of Oregon if you need that scholarship to get through school, RJ is ruthless.

LookAtTheRules wrote:

trying to keep up wrote:

It's actually not allowed to reduce based on athletic performances.

Can only reduce for academic, misconduct, etc.

So, someone might want to check into that.

Sure it is, at the end of each school year. There's no NCAA prohibition on reducing aid, or dropping it entirely. You just can't do it for athletics reasons DURING the period of the award.

Now, if the conference requires a 4-year award period, then there can be no reductions for athletics reasons during that time. But most are on the year-to-year schedule.

New rules implemented in 2015. It's not permissible to reduce because of athletic performance reasons.

That include after the year for renewals.

With the costs of college skyrocketing, most kids need and and all help that they can get with the college costs so stuff like this is a real crappy deal. One thing to have a small debt from college, something else entirely to have a 6 figure debt from college

Contract law is state law and can vary from state to state. Anyone with a legal issue involving contract law should consult a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction and should not rely on anonymous message boards for legal advice.

Generally speaking, the main issue on enforcing an oral agreement is the statute of frauds. Oral contracts are generally enforceable unless they fall under the statute of frauds. Contracts involving an interest in real property, contracts for the sale of goods worth more than $500, contracts to guaranty a debt and contracts that cannot be performed in less than a year are the most common examples of contracts that fall under the statute of frauds and must be in writing to be enforceable. In the case of a promise for a college scholarship, if the promise is for a scholarship for just one year, it can arguably be performed in under a year as the school year will run from the end of August through May. But if the promise is for more than a year, the statute of frauds will bar enforcement of the contract. Without a contract, there are equitable remedies (promissory estoppel, etc.), but those are complicated. There could be a claim for fraud if you can show that at the time the promise was made, the coach had no intention of keeping his word. That is a very difficult burden because the coach will probably always be able to show that things changed between the time of the promise and the time scholarships were awarded (budgets changed, needs changed, etc.).

Then you have to consider sovereign/governmental immunity when dealing with a public school. This doctrine also varies from state to state. But in general, governmental entities are immune from suit for contractual liabilities. You actually have to get permission from the legislature to sue the government on a contract claim. There are various ways that immunity can be waived and some states craft different exceptions.

ncaa man wrote:

New rules implemented in 2015. It's not permissible to reduce because of athletic performance reasons.

That include after the year for renewals.

Can you cite the Bylaw, please?

LookAtTheRules wrote:

ncaa man wrote:

New rules implemented in 2015. It's not permissible to reduce because of athletic performance reasons.

That include after the year for renewals.

Can you cite the Bylaw, please?

Yeah, I'm curious too as the NCAA site has the following language, which seems inconsistent with such a rule:

"If a school plans to reduce or not renew a student-athlete’s aid, the school must notify the student-athlete in writing by July 1 and provide an opportunity to appeal. In most cases, coaches decide who receives a scholarship, the scholarship amount and whether it will be renewed."

Yes indeed wrote:

At my mid-pack D1 school in one of the big conferences, this happened to several people every year. People who had underperformed during the year always dreaded their year-end scholarship meeting with the head coach.

Did you read the article? She didn't underperform. Before the year started, she says she asked them what she needed to do. She exceeded it and even scored at NCAA indoors.

It's almost like college athletes should get together and together, collectively, bargain for a set of rules that would protect them. I wonder what we would call it.