Women's Recruiting

[VULB#62]

Yes, but nobody wants to tie down for 4 years, the coaches or the student/athletes

Dude, the athlete is ALREADY tied down, remember?  The coach/institution has ALL the cards.  Look at the dude trying to transfer from Oklahoma State in football, or that guy who wanted to leave Wisconsin in basketball a year or so back.  Look at Eddie Vanderdoes NOW for cripey.

A freshman player who plays every game, averages 12 minutes a game, and is then released from their scholarship.  She should be able to play immediately.  No questions asked.

Can I give a freakin' AMEN.

In business, people sign non-competes and non-disclosures all the time and are bound by them if they decide to voluntarily leave for greener pastures. It protects the hiring company from people who might steal intellectual property, etc. That's appropriate, logical and fair.  However, if a person is fired, he/she is usually free to sign on with a competitor because the laws of our land guarantee each of us the ability to earn a living doing what we have been trained for.

I view this as a similar situation.  This kid upheld her part of the NLI hiring process and, apparently, got fired despite that.  Termination was not her choice.  She did not attempt to transfer.  Her compensation (a degree) was denied her (unless she would pay for it herself and cease doing what she was trained to do that her got her admitted (hired) in the first place).  As in business, the non-compete (NLI) should be void and she should be free to go where she wants (and is wanted) and play immediately.  Her rights have been denied, pure and simple.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Not that I disagree that the NLI system is broken...BUT, regarding EV...

1) bad/no legal advice.  Signing it does nothing for him--as an elite talent, he could go wherever he wants.  It's like Pascal's Wager, with no positive outcome, only "meh." and "HOLY CRAP!!!1!"

2) I don't think you're thinking of the same thing.  If you are, please give an example.  In this case, the school is the one that has the power to bind or release.

3) He could have picked UC-Santa Barbara by your logic.  The kid should go where he wants.  It really shouldn't matter why.

Bottom line: these kids should be paid, not serfs.

[ARCInsider]

Not that I disagree that the NLI system is broken...BUT, regarding EV...

1) bad/no legal advice.  Signing it does nothing for him--as an elite talent, he could go wherever he wants.  It's like Pascal's Wager, with no positive outcome, only "meh." and "HOLY CRAP!!!1!"

2) I don't think you're thinking of the same thing.  If you are, please give an example.  In this case, the school is the one that has the power to bind or release.

3) He could have picked UC-Santa Barbara by your logic.  The kid should go where he wants.  It really shouldn't matter why.

Bottom line: these kids should be paid, not serfs.

The bottom line is, HE signed the contract.  Whether or not it is a good contract is a moot point.  He knew what he was getting into, or he at least had every opportunity to.  It's not ND's job to explain the contract to him or double and triple check with him to make sure he REALLY wants to sign it.  He shouldn't have signed it. 

I think there is an easy fix to this.  NLIs are binding on both sides for the first year of the scholarship.  If a school releases a student athlete, he or she should be free to transfer and play immediately.  That would protect both sides. 

[LaPorteAveApostle]

That doesn't make sense.  So the school can change its mind, but the kid can't?

Ridiculous.

PROTIP:  when given the choice to side between a corporation worth nine figures and a preternaturally-talented eighteen-year-old kid, side with the latter.  Anyone who doesn't is a Yankees fan who roots for the house in blackjack.

[ARCInsider]

That doesn't make sense.  So the school can change its mind, but the kid can't?

Ridiculous.

PROTIP:  when given the choice to side between a corporation worth nine figures and a preternaturally-talented eighteen-year-old kid, side with the latter.  Anyone who doesn't is a Yankees fan who roots for the house in blackjack.

Neither side can change their mind in the first year.  But I suppose you are right that after the first year the school has a choice but the player does not.

So, I'll ask you again...how would you fix it?  If you allow kids to choose whatever they want, whenever they want, doesn't it just become chaos? 

And is being a Notre Dame fan roughly equivalent to being a Yankees' fan?  I believe it might be.  But I don't root for the house in blackjack...so I only somewhat resemble that remark.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

But I don't root for the house in blackjack...so I only somewhat resemble that remark.

What you are proposing is that the school be allowed to change its mind.  "Sorry kid!  But you're immediately eligible somewhere else! ...What?  All the dance cards are full?  Oh welp!"  But if the KID wants to change his/her mind, there should be some kind of appeals process, because right now what has to happen is ND giving in, but they don't want to, because of the precedent it would set.

Bottom line:  the elite kids don't ever have to sign because any school that knows its sauce will hold their space.  It might better be argued that the NLI helps the middle and lower classes of athlete.

[jack]

The gate needs to swing both ways when it comes to scholarships. These schools invest a lot of time and money bringing in a player, and planning and building their programs around these players. A lot is at stake for these programs, and coaches, if a player decides to "de-commit". The situation with Ladd sticks out when discussing this. Leaving how she did was a major blow to the program, and possibly cost Freeman his job. I personally feel she should have sat out longer than she did before being allowed to play at Evansville.
I also think there needs to be a penalty for the school if a player is doing all they can to honor their commitment, and the school decides to release the player against their will. There are other schools this player could have gone with but chose the offer a particular school extended. perhaps loss of a scholarship for a period of time may be in order.
It also brings up another interesting issue. Situations like with Tabitha. You build a program around a specific player, you extend a scholarship and all the expense that comes with it, planning on a 4 year stint. As with our program, and going year round, these players can get their degrees in 3 years. I understand a player moving on to do after grad work elswhere, but I'm not sure I agree that they can take a year of elgeability with them to play elsewhere. I know she's not extended a 1 year scholarship, but if a school is so heavily invested in your edjucation, and pays your summer expenses so you can school year round, it may make sense to have to forfeit your final year of eldgeability, in all fairness to the school that had built you into their 4 year plan. Don't get me wrong, I wish Tab all the best, I'm just not sure I agree with how that situation works.

[valporun]

jack, Tabitha was originally recruited by Coach Freeman, so I don't know that Coach Dorow intended on Tabitha being the focal point for this coming season? Sure, Tab was in Coach Freeman's plans for four years, but Coach Dorow inherited her, and only went with her because what other scorers did she have from a roster that spent most of the season in the trainer's room, and not on the basketball court? While I hate the thought of changing the parameters of scholarships and NLIs to be even more confusing in wording than they already are, I think I have to agree that if a coach who recruited the player who is losing the scholarship for anything other than academic reasons, should be losing that scholarship for the next season or for the remainder of the time the student-athlete would have been on campus. Therefore, if the transfer we're getting was under this idea, than Coach Finkbiner, and any other coach who wants to pull this punch, would have to lose one scholarship for the next three years, or however many remained for the scholarship athlete they pulled the scholarship from. I guess this is my only way of making a scholarship bind for more than just the sport the athlete was signed to.

In terms of the penalties for losing the scholarship for anything other than academics, would be transfers, criminal matters, or the player loses eligibility for sanctions the NCAA deems necessary (i.e. inappropriate benefits or losing time due to playing overseas for teams that had professional contracts associated with them.) Academics, while an institutional and coaching staff control issue, can't always be a punishment towards the coaching staff, as they may have done all they could to get the student-athlete to attend classes and do the work, but with the Men's "One-and-Done" rule for basketball, those players already know their decision, so unless the NCAA requires attendance checks of all athletes, how can you cut scholarships for academic purposes without changing the "one-and-done" rule first?

[jack]

I understand that Tab was recruited by Freeman, and I also know their is an exemption to the rule to allow the player to leave if the recruited coach leaves, without losing a year of play, but I'm not sure in what year you are allowed to do so. I think the fact that Tab played one year under Dorrow, and still had a year remaining should account for something though. Kind of, a giving back to the institution that provided and payed for your edjucation. If it's true that she left because Valpo didn't offer the after grad work she wanted to do, so be it, but maybe a player leaves the elgeability behind if they graduate early and decide to leave. Just my opinion.
As for cutting scholarships due to academics, I'm not sure what you're meaning here. I don't think a school should lose a scholarship if a player isn't keeping up academically. I think they should if the player is keeping their part up, and is only let go because they aren't fitting into the game plan. I suppose that too would be subject to whether or not the recruiting coach is still there or not. If Dorrow didn't extend another year scholarship to Tab, by all means she should have the right to play elsewhere for her final year of elgeability. There will never be a perfect plan that protect both the school and the player, but I do believe they can make it fairer for both.

[historyman]

If a school posted this some where for student/athletes to read do you think in the end the said school might actually end up with more NLI signed?  Especially a school where the length of time a coach stays at the school is longer than most other schools.

Here is what the NLI guarantees the school:
• The player cannot be recruited by any other school.
• The player must enroll at the school for at least a year, or he/she must give up 25 percent of college athletic eligibility.
• Once said player is enrolled at the school, he/she is bound by NCAA transfer rules, which allow the school's coach to decide if the player can transfer and receive an athletic scholarship anywhere else. (Also, the athlete still must sit out a year after transferring regardless of whether the program released him or her to receive a scholarship.)
• All these penalties stay in effect even if the school fires the head coach or the head coach leaves (usually basketball) or the assistant coach who recruited the player takes a new job within a week of National Signing Day (usually football).
Here is what the NLI guarantees a player:
• Other schools aren't allowed to recruit him.
That's it.

[jack]

Here is what the NLI guarantees a player:
• Other schools aren't allowed to recruit him.
That's it.

Here in lies the problem.

[valporun]

historyman, I'm not sure that posting the information about NLIs around the athletic facilities would make a difference. Too many freshmen are way too impressionable and listen to the voices they are most familiar with, not the one(s) that recruited them to the school they signed with. The sales pitch is too perfect about playing time and happiness, but once they get to campus, most of the phone calls the athlete makes home involve unhappiness with the coach who promised playing time and being the main focus of the program in coming years, but the player isn't ready, so instead of talking with the coaches who recruited them, they call their AAU or high school coach about the unhappiness and what their next move should be.

jack, in terms of the academics, if the student athlete flunks out, the program should lose the scholarship the player would have had for either the next season or the remainder of time the athlete would have been in college with that program. If the coach opts out of the scholarship because the player doesn't fit the plans, maybe that should be punishable by a lost scholarship for the upcoming season, but who knows what loopholes or anti-trust issues would be involved there?

[IndyValpo]

This is a real nice discussion, but................is there any word on adding players for next year?  We still sit at nine.

[jack]

If nothing changes after today, I think we will be sitting at 10, if all goes as planned. We sit at 7 now, and I'm hoping we sign 3. We shall see. Wishful thinking probably on my part, but none the less, You may be right, we settle in at 9. Can't even get a scrimmage in at that. It goes back to the earlier comments about how we could have so many un-used scholarships. I'm shocked really. Time to invest in some help with recruiting probably.

I'm not sure I agree with the loss of scholarship for the program if a player flunks out. You'd like to think coaches could have more influence with getting these players to commit academically, but the reality is, if you put this in play, you open the door for some academic "hanky panky". Especially on the men's side. If a player flunks out, they should probably lose all NCAA elgeability at that point. That, more than anything would be your incentive. It's still about the edjucation. Priority one. 

[covufan]

This is a real nice discussion, but................is there any word on adding players for next year?  We still sit at nine.

Nine plus one red-shirt (transfer from Utah State), so at least they can scrimage until an injury.  Five open slots in June should not be acceptable.

[bbtds]

It's still about the edjucation. Priority one.

Matthew 7:5

http://www.jspell.com/public-spell-checker.html

[valpo4life]

Per PO's twitter feed, we have picked up Annemarie Hamlet, a transfer from Oakland who will sit out this year and have 3 years after that. Averaged 7 ppg as a freshman and led the team in 3's. Her sister may also use the "Brandon Wood" rule to play her final season at Valpo next year. And also just would like to point out the girl's rarely scrimmage each other in practice, there's a scout team for that. Carry on.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Is her sister named MarieAnne Wanatah?

Seriously, let's take both, because we need anyone with internal gonads at this point.

Walkons...never really see walkons with girls, do we?

I'm tempted to say because there are 15 scholarships, there's no need...but are there gender etc. reasons?

[valporun]

Valpo had some walk-ons on the women's team when I was a student from 1999-2004. They didn't get many minutes, but Coach Freeman had them. I know there was Heather Furr and Megan Bess, and I want to say that Julie Bigler started out as a walk-on before getting a scholarship late in her time with the team. Recently, I don't know how many walk-ons the team had, but there were a few scholarship players that should have been walk-ons first.

[jack]

I don't recall any walk ons in the past several years actually.

[covufan]

Is her sister named MarieAnne Wanatah?

OK, I'll admit I laughed at this!

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Megan Bess

BLAST FROM THE PAST well done.

OK, I'll admit I laughed at this!

thank you.  you made my day.

Matthew 7:5

i thought jack was spelling it that way on purpose.

Working on updating the Women's Scholarship chart...

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Is her sister named MarieAnne Wanatah?

Let's hope it's not Marie Anne Hamleton, because then we'd have one of those to go with Annemarie Hamlet and Anne Hamilton.

Kind of the women's version of Buggs-Boggs-Bogan-n-Broekhoff.

But seriously, folks, two things:  women's scholarship chart is updated
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlQ2tPhus3WCdDZ2VW1nNkYzdmVzbVJGYk1OZTYwTkE#gid=0
AND
the women beat the men in getting the first class of 2018 player!  (Last year's roster is still there, just hidden--click to unhide if you like)

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Turns out her sister is Elizabeth Hamlet, and she's a 5'11" blonde, something VU can always use more of.

She played in 86 games in 3 years at Oakland, starting 39 and scoring 422 points with 117 assists. 
FT% freshman: 60%ish.  Sophomore: 65%.  Last year:  78%.
So...let's get her too.

[valpotx]

Valpo had some walk-ons on the women's team when I was a student from 1999-2004. They didn't get many minutes, but Coach Freeman had them. I know there was Heather Furr and Megan Bess, and I want to say that Julie Bigler started out as a walk-on before getting a scholarship late in her time with the team. Recently, I don't know how many walk-ons the team had, but there were a few scholarship players that should have been walk-ons first.

Ah yes, Heather Furr.  Transferred to a smaller program after 2 years, I believe, and then starred in the Lingerie Football League