My College Experience - Klara Bradshaw

[UcMiami]

Digger - like your post. But, just want to say that both coach and player sign contracts and it is the contracts that ultimately control movement. The NLI contract is not defined by the college itself, but by the NCAA with whom the college has an agreement (and is a 'member'.) The coach's contract is specific to the college and I am sure contains language relative to compliance with the NCAA rules of conduct and termination for cause for failure to comply. They could include non-compete language specific to the college league they belong to, but it would likely be unenforceable should it apply to a full division of the NCAA. And since they may be competing for the coaches services some may not include any such language.

On the responsibility and being a doe-eyed girl - fine. But every year people publish stories about recruiting and how to approach it for parents and kids and when you are looking at recruiting most kids also have former teammates and friends that have gone through the process, as well their coaches and trainers. There is information and advice available and if you do not consult it you need to take responsibility for it. In Klara's case she made a fine initial choice, and got blindsided by a coach quitting. She made a decision to transfer to a school with a coach who had gone 8-11 and then 3-15 in league play (7-23 overall) the year she chose to transfer. That is not a record that comes with a lot of job security. That SMU hired Mays seems to be unfortunate and with two separate reports from different players about different years suggests he should not be coaching.

But ... doe eyed vs. unrealistic I think is also at least somewhat in question Klara is 6'6 and was an unranked recruit by ESPN from a basketball state. Sure there are HS players that surprise as college players, but seldom do 6'6" women's players slide under the radar if they exhibit any real potential and Klara did just that. And seldom do even bad college coaches ignore 6'6" players on their bench if they can play. I get the dream, and she is playing in Europe and may develop, but I suspect she might be classified as a taller Meghan Gardler who had a career in Europe as well or maybe a less skilled Natalie Butler? She didn't deserve what Mays reported did, but maybe transferring to begin with wasn't her best option either.

Just a thought on Mittie on further reflection - I suspect he would not have left before the WNIT and without talking to the players on his own. I think the AD/Admin forced him out - WCBB just doesn't work to that tight a schedule and I doubt Kansas State demanded his presence prior to that game. TCU was probably annoyed that KS poached their coach and escorted him off the campus. This was the story as it was reported:

Mittie notified the team Tuesday morning before it departed for Colorado. Mittie said he was hoping he could coach through the NIT but that both Kansas State and TCU were afraid of the story leaking too early.

But would it have hurt to say Mittie is coaching through the last game before taking over as KS HC?

Transfers hurt the team the player leaves both in lost skill, lost investment in training, and in lost recruiting opportunities. Making it too easy likely alters the landscape. And it can penalize mid-major schools for investing in unheralded kids who then blossom and might be 'recruited' by bigger schools - something that people say is happening now in MCBB. When it is a Uconn player sitting out our fans scream as loudly as when an ND player gets a waiver to play immediately.

Sorry - I'll shut up now!

 

[UcMiami]

Your numbers are vastly inflated compared to most college kids who pay in state tuition. If college athletes had to pay for private school or out of state tuition vast majority would opt for an in state program or skip collegiate athletics altogether.

The discount for in-state is more specifically for state system schools - not sure Yale or U of Hartford offer any discounts for in-state students. And if an athlete got to play for Geno or Muffet or Kim or Dawn or Tara or ... I think many would choose to do so anyway regardless of cost. The savings 'in-state' is just tuition which represents about half of the total yearly cost so might save 35-40% of the total.

I said no more, and this time I mean it! Sorry again.

 

[diggerfoot]

On the responsibility and being a doe-eyed girl - fine. But every year people publish stories about recruiting and how to approach it for parents and kids and when you are looking at recruiting most kids also have former teammates and friends that have gone through the process, as well their coaches and trainers.

But ... doe eyed vs. unrealistic I think is also at least somewhat in question

First, I hope you know you are not the one I thought was being derisive; you are one of the most rational posters on here.

To what extent is this semantical? If you were to ask the author "Don't you really mean unrealistic?" she might say "Yes," or "That, too." She went to great lengths to decline sympathy. She did not complain that how coaches recruit had to be changed. In regards to recruiting she instead suggested: "This is the way it is. The experience was not as I expected, shame on me. If I add my narrative to whatever else is out there perhaps I'll help someone else." That there already are materials out there to enlighten recruits is besides the point, since she is accepting responsibility and since you never know which and how information works. Perhaps her narrative WILL make a difference where others failed to sink in for some.

The two things for which she is not taking responsibility are the tactic of Mays to divide the squad emotionally (and his coaching in general) and the difference in transfer rules applied to coaches and athletes. Regarding the former, I hope no one would fault her for sharing that aspect of her experience. It's a head-scratching tactic that doesn't even fit into "the ends justify the means" for a coach who wants to win.

It seems at least one person would deride her for faulting the transfer rule. The fact that she made mistakes that led her to want to transfer; the fact that she made mistakes in where to transfer is besides the point. She owns up to making mistakes. So it's a matter of whether one think the rules applied differently to coaches and athletes is justified, irregardless of whether people make mistakes. From a "systems" point of view maybe it is, maybe it isn't; it's hard for me to see an absolute in the matter.

From a philosophical/moral/ethical point of view there is no fault or irresponsibility in her thinking an athlete should have the same immediate opportunity in leaving as a coach. Both are under contract and receive financial gain from that contract, but coaches are often signed to multiyear contracts precisely for the purpose of recruiting stability; in contrast, most athletes are given scholarships for one year at a time. If anything, that contractual difference suggests the athlete should have greater freedom upon leaving the contract, not the coach.

If you want instead to compare the athlete to other students (I don't think that's a basis for faulting her view, but let's run with it), then it should be to other students receiving similar financial gain. Cornell University disbanded its School of Education a few years back. What sort of freedom should be allowed students who were given free rides academically but were counting on that school when they signed? I don't think "suck it up, you have special compensation" is an appropriate response to those academic free ride students. If they wanted to leave to another University and another one wanted to accept them with a similar academic free ride, then there should be no restrictions placed upon their leaving. If no other institution would have wanted to give them a free ride as well, then fine, but that would be up to the University they are entering, not the University they are leaving, nor a governing body.

I assume you are making your case because of arguments and situations you've seen in the past; you view this as a teachable moment for airing your perspective on the transfer rule or gullible recruits in general. Maybe your perspective is spot on, but might I suggest this particular author did not make it the right teachable moment.

 

[JordyG]

JordyG -
Not sure how many people you know post college with a mountain of student debt they are paying off for the next 10-20 years, but it is no small thing and it has a huge effect on their post college life, or has had a large effect on their families who have chosen to scrimp to offer them the privileged of an education. Or the ones who choose not to go to college because they just can't afford it and head from HS straight into a job. So a college athletic scholarship is a real benefit not just to the athlete, but to their family, friends, and their future life. And it is a contract and contracts come with benefits and requirements for both sides. In effect, HS seniors are going to work when they sign an NLI, very well paying work,and work they love, and better work than they would likely find should they look for an alternative. It comes with some restrictions as most jobs do - not unlike signing a non-completion document in the business world that restricts a employee for a period of time from working for a competitor - a document I signed more than once as a condition of my employment. And an NLI doesn't prevent a player from changing teams and still being paid, it only prevents them from playing in competition while extending the contract an additional year if they choose. I am sure it is frustrating, just like being injured, but it also need not be a wasted year unless they choose to waste it.

I am not defending abusive coaches and programs, but they represent less that 0.1% of college athletic teams. So taking a horror story from one athlete and projecting it to all athletics is not sensible. And it ignores the 99.99% of college athletes who have had good experience and benefited from both their scholarship and the bonds of being a teammate. I feel sorry for Klara and she certainly had bad luck, but maybe she also had unrealistic expectations, and maybe she should also take some responsibilities for the choices she made.

We all are now aware of the dangers of football to long term mental health (and we have known for longer about boxing) but other college sports do not involve that kind of long term disability. A player like Shea destroyed her knees over her college career, but I am sure she wouldn't have chosen anything else even in hindsight and likely would have suffered similar issues in recreational sport like so many of us have if she had never played a single NCAA game.

No one knows the exact accounting regarding any aspect of a college budget but most athletic departments are not self sustaining. And while the colleges certainly gain visibility and profit from donations from fans of their athletics, their athletics teams gain immensely from their built in loyal fan bases of graduates. You may discount that, but the reality is that none of the minor league sports franchises are self sustaining largely because they cannot build enough fan support to sustain their facilities nor pay their players. And college sports are in effect minor leagues except they have built in loyal fan bases and the ability to hide/subsidize some of the facility and support, and their players are paid in somewhat flexible accounting. Minor league baseball players by the way earn between $6000 (A) to $15000 (AAA) during their season and do not get paid for training camps. I certainly would prefer college housing and food plans to living on $6000 or even $15000.

[Football players have a choice as do their parents and that choice is still filtering into our society. It is similar to the changes that happened around boxing - it will change the numbers and the people who choose to play, but there will continue to be people who choose to pursue it. The participation in boxing and the fan base in the USA has greatly altered in my lifetime based on the same issues - no one could see Ali in later life and not reconsider the 'sport'.]

Perhaps @Big Mick should read and re-read your post to see what a cogent, well thought out response looks like.


The beginning thrust of you argument here is the cost of education and the burden imposed upon those not given scholarships. That instead of the value of the education itself. Fair enough. I understand, as I too spent 25 years paying back the cost of my education. But first, lets not pretend that institutions don't offset some of that scholarship cost with increasing costs of tuition, books and housing for those not given scholarships. Long term however, those shifted costs, which fall on non-athletes become part of this country's national debt, which we all see and pay for in the rising cost of products, medicine, food, clothing etc.

As I've said as well, I believe that the outlay that colleges give to those under scholarship is actually defrayed by alumni, boosters, endorsements, state and federal reimbursements, media rights, and many under the table contributions. I believe that these colleges show a loss, but actually most in the end profit monetarily, and the prestige of a D1 football/basketball program keeps those monies coming in. Yes, colleges are the "minor leagues" of professional sports. Again, fair enough. I also believe that those in college should be paid a wage and benefit from the sale of their likeness, just as if they were in the "minor leagues".

Yes these athletes, their families and friends do benefit in the short term. But the cost in the long term in medical costs, even for those who never turn pro, can be substantial, and often crippling. As is the cost of counseling, rehab, and the long term effects many feel of displacement. Only 2% of these college athletes ever turn pro. You don't think this has a long term effect on the majority of the 98% that don't? As an athlete whose life revolved around their particular sport from adolescence, no matter the degree, most are woefully unprepared for life after sports. For most academics as an undergrad was an afterthought. I think it's terribly naive to think most of these student athletes actually have time for academics. In fact, the average graduation rate of student athletes is around 88% . Many if not most of these athletes come from poor families that could never afford to give their sons/daughters a higher education. But what quality of education do they get? Yes, you speak of the cost. I speak of the value.

If you think 99.99 of college athletes leave starry eyed and glowing about their experience, guess again. Yes, the relationships they've built are cherished and indelible in their minds, but for many the games themselves were a relief from the rest of it. Let's not forget the day Jerry Tarkanian was reprimanded for buying one of his charges a ham sandwich because he was starving...and if you think her story or that athletes story are small isolated events, they're not.

2% of these athletes turn pro. The average career of these players is 5 years. So here, the cream of the college crop, 27 years old, ill prepared and soon to be penniless, thrown to the job market. What of those who do continue on with their careers? Players don't retire because of age, the overwhelming majority retire because of injury. Medical costs that will skyrocket well past the cost for their marginal educations. Other college sports don't have the injury lists of football and basketball? What about the increasing number of concussions in soccer, and knee injuries as well? Yes, perhaps not so much in lacrosse, swimming/diving, and baseball. But those are not the money makers that the other three sports are.

 

[Big Mick]

Then, this little nugget:

I think being a parachute jump instructor or a Jai-Alai competitor can be great lives, and I recommend both. That doesn't mean they are without their pitfalls.

A totally frivolous comment.


And this:

Tell me, how exactly does sitting out for a year as Azura did benefit either the institution or Azura? As if always sitting out is for medical reasons. Here again, a pile of specious, poorly thought out arguments.

You want to use Azura to bolster your argument, really?

Azura transferred here from Duke because she wanted better coaching. Simple as.

She actually gamed the system as she got two free years of coaching and college. Soooo - it certainly was of great benefit to her. Drafted sixth overall and doing quite nicely as a pro. It is likely that she simply wanted the UCONN mantle and only ever intended to play that one year.


And this:

Yes, UcMiami's takes I always respect and am generally in agreement with. You on the other hand seem only to revel in being a pitbull with little of substance to contribute.

Pitbull; really? I do tend to give a straight forward opinion and have some creds as it were

 

[JordyG]

Then, this little nugget:

A totally frivolous comment.


And this:

You want to use Azura to bolster your argument, really?

Azura transferred here from Duke because she wanted better coaching. Simple as.

She actually gamed the system as she got two free years of coaching and college. Soooo - it certainly was of great benefit to her. Drafted sixth overall and doing quite nicely as a pro. It is likely that she simply wanted the UCONN mantle and only ever intended to play that one year.


And this:

Pitbull; really? I do tend to give a straight forward opinion and have some creds as it were

There are plenty of examples of transfers who were not injured who have had to wait out a year for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Pick one. There are plenty of occupations that I would recommend that have their own levels of danger of which one should be wary. Maybe even you in your smallness can find a few. Snarling straightforward opinions that have little to no merit makes you and your blueness irrelevant. I apologize to all Pitbulls. Perhaps invisible ink suits you better?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Perhaps @Big Mick should read and re-read your post to see what a cogent, well thought out response looks like.


The beginning thrust of you argument here is the cost of education and the burden imposed upon those not given scholarships. That instead of the value of the education itself. Fair enough. I understand, as I too spent 25 years paying back the cost of my education. But first, lets not pretend that institutions don't offset some of that scholarship cost with increasing costs of tuition, books and housing for those not given scholarships. Long term however, those shifted costs, which fall on non-athletes become part of this country's national debt, which we all see and pay for in the rising cost of products, medicine, food, clothing etc.

As I've said as well, I believe that the outlay that colleges give to those under scholarship is actually defrayed by alumni, boosters, endorsements, state and federal reimbursements, media rights, and many under the table contributions. I believe that these colleges show a loss, but actually most in the end profit monetarily, and the prestige of a D1 football/basketball program keeps those monies coming in. Yes, colleges are the "minor leagues" of professional sports. Again, fair enough. I also believe that those in college should be paid a wage and benefit from the sale of their likeness, just as if they were in the "minor leagues".

I am not getting involved in your "central" argument, but regarding scholarship costs, and all the rest:

- Its complicated. In general, I understand that, much as you suggest, the actual accounting of athletic departments is "foggy" at best.

- However, you are probably not correct that athletic departments are reflecting or claiming losses and not losing money. They are. But for example - and this is well documented - Rutgers gets increased support from the state monies (as well as additional student fees) to offset the shortfall - but, of course, if you count the state funds as "revenue" then you don't really have a shortfall, no?

- To some degree, this was just discussed somewhere recently, scholarship costs are really just book entry. In general, there isn't any actual money exchanging hands.

- Yes, of course, some scholarships are defrayed by alumni and what-not - for example, the Cager's Club fan club at Rutgers has an endowed scholarship (partially funded, to be honest); one of the goals of the former AD you may remember, Bob Mulcahey, was to fund all the women's scholarships by endowment. Don't think it happened at Rutgers.

- I don't think that the finances of athletic departments, although books could be (and have) been written, has much to do with the central arguments in this thread.

As a completely separate comment - folks I knew were not necessarily fond of Jeff Mittie, but I agree that he might not have had complete control of his departure once he accepted the KState job.

 

[Big Mick]

There are plenty of examples of transfers who were not injured who have had to wait out a year for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Pick one. There are plenty of occupations that I would recommend that have their own levels of danger of which one should be wary. Maybe even you in your smallness can find a few. Snarling straightforward opinions that have little to no merit makes you and your blueness irrelevant. I apologize to all Pitbulls. Perhaps invisible ink suits you better? A bit petty there, eh!

You are confused between sitting out a year due to injury and sitting out due to NCAA transfer rules.

As far as education, that extra year towards a master's is gravy. The transfer portal was flooded with requests last year and it would be interesting how many of those were "doe eyed" rather than pragmatic.

BTW - very, very few are transferring when injured.

Okay then; Schools out!

 

[JordyG]

I am not getting involved in your "central" argument, but regarding scholarship costs, and all the rest:

- Its complicated. In general, I understand that, much as you suggest, the actual accounting of athletic departments is "foggy" at best.

- However, you are probably not correct that athletic departments are reflecting or claiming losses and not losing money. They are. But for example - and this is well documented - Rutgers gets increased support from the state monies (as well as additional student fees) to offset the shortfall - but, of course, if you count the state funds as "revenue" then you don't really have a shortfall, no?

- To some degree, this was just discussed somewhere recently, scholarship costs are really just book entry. In general, there isn't any actual money exchanging hands.

- Yes, of course, some scholarships are defrayed by alumni and what-not - for example, the Cager's Club fan club at Rutgers has an endowed scholarship (partially funded, to be honest); one of the goals of the former AD you may remember, Bob Mulcahey, was to fund all the women's scholarships by endowment. Don't think it happened at Rutgers.

- I don't think that the finances of athletic departments, although books could be (and have) been written, has much to do with the central arguments in this thread.

As a completely separate comment - folks I knew were not necessarily fond of Jeff Mittie, but I agree that he might not have had complete control of his departure once he accepted the KState job.

I absolutely agree with your points. It has nothing to do with the central arguments in this thread; at all. It is however central to the arguments I've made involving the "shut up and play" attitude some fans and pundits have, and that has always rankled me. That indeed, the reality of finances and scholarships is palimpsestic and mulifaceted, and anyone that thinks any less is either uniformed or simply being naive...and yes, I'm a big, big fan of paying collegiate athletes in the major college sports; having all collegiate athletes being able to profit from their likenesses.

 

[JordyG]

You are confused between sitting out a year due to injury and sitting out due to NCAA transfer rules.

As far as education, that extra year towards a master's is gravy. The transfer portal was flooded with requests last year and it would be interesting how many of those were "doe eyed" rather than pragmatic.

BTW - very, very few are transferring when injured.

Okay then; Schools out!

I am not confused about sitting a year for injury and sitting due to transfer you are. That was part of my discussion with @UcMiami which you graciously found a way to inject yourself with your irrelevancies. Neither of us ever spoke of trnasferring due to injury. Once again you have proven to be master of the obvious and king of the insipid. I think a better use of you time would be becoming the best mime you could be.

 

[UcMiami]

Digger, JordyG, and others -
Sorry I seem to have derailed the discussion from the OP. If you see my first post in the discussion I think it was very 'on point', but after that I got distracted by other posts in the thread that I thought needed response and I got both long winded and distracted.

The blog in the OP is well written and chronicles a disastrous individual experience as a scholarship athlete. And I feel deep sympathy for the author. I do think it is a unique experience, and do not think it should be used as indicative, nor as proof that the system failed. With no sit-out year, Klara would still have had 4 coaches in 4 years instead of five and would have dealt with Mays for a year.

 

[Hedge]

Whenever I start thinking that the big time Division 1 football and basketball players are getting a great deal I remember that the payroll for the combined coaching staffs of Clemson and LSU football is over $24,000,000. It's like Roy Croc feeling generous because the minimum wage workers at McDonalds can get a free burger after their shift.

The same onerous transfer rules apply to "non revenue" sports in Division 1 such as lacrosse where 12.6 scholarships have to be split among 40 players.

 

[JordyG]

Digger, JordyG, and others -
Sorry I seem to have derailed the discussion from the OP. If you see my first post in the discussion I think it was very 'on point', but after that I got distracted by other posts in the thread that I thought needed response and I got both long winded and distracted.

The blog in the OP is well written and chronicles a disastrous individual experience as a scholarship athlete. And I feel deep sympathy for the author. I do think it is a unique experience, and do not think it should be used as indicative, nor as proof that the system failed. With no sit-out year, Klara would still have had 4 coaches in 4 years instead of five and would have dealt with Mays for a year.

Don't be sorry. A good discussion, with well thought out, cogent ideas, is just that: A good discussion. I really enjoy these, and everyone (with the exception of a few) who has well reasoned and disparate ideas. That's what a forum is for. There isn't a post you've made that I haven't read. Whether I agree or not I make it a point to read them. Everyone. Yeah, maybe it deserved a different thread, but so be it. We're all women's basketball fans here. Life is too short is regret the things we did. More, we perhaps should regret the things we didn't do.

 

[eebmg]

I found this interesting in her general advice paragraph towards the end of part 1


If you want to play overseas or professionally in general after college, then I would advise to go to a “favored” school. Big name schools will get you farther when it comes to agents and team contracts, even if your playing time isn’t so significant.

 

[Big Mick]

I am not confused about sitting a year for injury and sitting due to transfer you are. That was part of my discussion with @UcMiami which you graciously found a way to inject yourself with your irrelevancies. Neither of us ever spoke of trnasferring due to injury. Once again you have proven to be master of the obvious and king of the insipid. I think a better use of you time would be becoming the best mime you could be.

Why so childish?

Why so bitter?

 

[UcMiami]

I found this interesting in her general advice paragraph towards the end of part 1


If you want to play overseas or professionally in general after college, then I would advise to go to a “favored” school. Big name schools will get you farther when it comes to agents and team contracts, even if your playing time isn’t so significant.

It is not a 'choice' for most recruits - the 'elite basketball' schools are very selective in who they recruit with a large overlap. And while the big name coaches certainly have better connections and the big time schools have better exposure, if you have talent you can find work regardless of the school you attend and you will stand out more at a smaller school than sitting on a bench at Uconn or Baylor. Who knew that there are three WNBA players from Abilene Christian?! And some of the 'inferior college' coaches probably have better foreign connection because they spend a lot of energy recruiting in Europe and Australia and Canada.

The Official Home of the WNBA | Women's National Basketball Association

The official home of the Women's National Basketball Association. Keep up to date with news, scores, and standings for your favorite teams.

www.wnba.com

 

[HuskyNan]

This thread went downhill fast

stop with the incivility immediately. This is not a request