Mizzou Revokes Basketball Scholarships

**iowa_wildcat** · 05-25-2010, 06:23 AM

**CyinCo** · 05-25-2010, 06:38 AM

I don't like it. I'm sure it happens more often than people know. It is a competitive business and schools are going to do this to win.

**MNclone** · 05-25-2010, 06:48 AM

If a player is allowed to cut ties and leave when he wants, I don't really see why a University isn't allowed to do the same.
I don't think it is right, but I think the rules are applied in each direction.

**cyclonestate** · 05-25-2010, 07:01 AM

The NCAA likes to use the term "student-athlete", but it would be much more accurate to say "athlete-student".

**CyinCo** · 05-25-2010, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by MNclone

If a player is allowed to cut ties and leave when he wants, I don't really see why a University isn't allowed to do the same.
I don't think it is right, but I think the rules are applied in each direction.

I had the same thought process initially. However, different sets of players are in each bin. Those that want to transfer elsewhere are usually the best players. Those that the University wants to ship off aren't the best players. In a way, you penalize the players that get less play time due to the actions of the elite players.

**Cyforce** · 05-25-2010, 07:51 AM

I don't understand why a player that has their schollie yanked
strictly due to performance has to sit a year. Seems to me if a
school pulls an athlete's ride and he has no discipline issues he
should be able to play right away.

**CycloneErik** · 05-25-2010, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cyforce

I don't understand why a player that has their schollie yanked
strictly due to performance has to sit a year. Seems to me if a
school pulls an athlete's ride and he has no discipline issues he
should be able to play right away.

Agreed. I hate this whole thing, but if a guy gets this stunt pulled on him, there's no reason for him to be penalized.

**IcSyU** · 05-25-2010, 08:00 AM

They don't have to sit. Just transfer down.

**CyinCo** · 05-25-2010, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

Agreed. I hate this whole thing, but if a guy gets this stunt pulled on him, there's no reason for him to be penalized.

That seems like it would open a loophole of negotiating for schollie's to be yanked. If a student actually wanted to transfer and not sit a year, that student could lobby the coach or university to pull the scholarship. If the university didn't pull the scholarship, the student to just purposely be detrimental to the team and and give no effort at practice or on the court..

**CycloneErik** · 05-25-2010, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by CyinCo

That seems like it would open a loophole of negotiating for schollie's to be yanked. If a student actually wanted to transfer and not sit a year, that student could lobby the coach or university to pull the scholarship. If the university didn't pull the scholarship, the student to just purposely be detrimental to the team and and give no effort at practice or on the court..

I know. I figured that would be coming.

You can't make rules that prevent all manipulation of them, but you can at least have rules that take a shot at fairness. If the school yanks a scholarship through no fault of the player, the player shouldn't be penalized.

Possibly, there could be an appeals process for the school to show cause. At this point, you have to start dealing in documentation and it probably gets ugly, but there's a chance to be fair to both.

As it is, I think it's far too easy for players and coaches (who have set this example for a long time) to move around, and it's made the game too nomadic.

**SCNCY** · 05-25-2010, 08:22 AM

Isn't this kinda what happened with our transfer from NIU?

**CycloneErik** · 05-25-2010, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by SCNCY

Isn't this kinda what happened with our transfer from NIU?

Exactly.
I don't mind benefitting, but that shouldn't have happened to him.

**Tre4ISU** · 05-25-2010, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

Exactly.
I don't mind benefitting, but that shouldn't have happened to him.

I disagree in his scenario and here is why: He graduated. He held his commitment to the school he signed with for the duration of his education. I just don't have a problem with him being able to play right away.

I do have a problem with the ease of transferring. Chris Colvin, in the end, will not give up any PT or eligibility. Sure, he loses his redshirt on that year, but he wouldn't have used it anyway. I think that when a player transfers they should immediately forfeit their redshirt. That way, they lose a year of eligibility no matter what. It places a higher premium on loyalty. The one scenerio where maybe they should be allowed to use the redshirt on that sat out year is in a coaching change. In fact, my opinion is that they should be allowed to play right away in the event of a coaching change. To those of you who think guys sign to play for a school, you are wrong. They chose their school often based on the coach or the opportunity to win, not necessarily the school. That is how it is. WOuld I rather they chose based on the merit of the school and it's program? Yeah, I would, however it isn't the case and won't be the case until the NBA age limit is moved up. Then maybe that will change.

**CycloneErik** · 05-25-2010, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by yaman3

I disagree in his scenario and here is why: He graduated. He held his commitment to the school he signed with for the duration of his education. I just don't have a problem with him being able to play right away.

I do have a problem with the ease of transferring. Chris Colvin, in the end, will not give up any PT or eligibility. Sure, he loses his redshirt on that year, but he wouldn't have used it anyway. I think that when a player transfers they should immediately forfeit their redshirt. That way, they lose a year of eligibility no matter what. It places a higher premium on loyalty. The one scenerio where maybe they should be allowed to use the redshirt on that sat out year is in a coaching change. In fact, my opinion is that they should be allowed to play right away in the event of a coaching change. To those of you who think guys sign to play for a school, you are wrong. They chose their school often based on the coach or the opportunity to win, not necessarily the school. That is how it is. WOuld I rather they chose based on the merit of the school and it's program? Yeah, I would, however it isn't the case and won't be the case until the NBA age limit is moved up. Then maybe that will change.

I have no problem with Anderson playing right away. I love that he honored every bit of his commitment, apparently has done everything he should do, was still jerked around by his school, but isn't penalized. I like that there aren't consequences for him, because there shouldn't be.

I agree 100% on the event of a coaching change. That shouldn't penalize a player.

**iowast8fan** · 05-25-2010, 09:34 AM

If a player transfers on his own free will, he has to sit out a year. I think if a school forces a transfer of a kid without academic reasons, the school should have to sit on a scholarship for a year as well.