Stanford - We don't have Room For You | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Stanford - We don't have Room For You

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wbbfan1 said:
My post didn't say its written anywhere. However, you can bet all coaches make that promise otherwise why would a recruit go to a school if the coach said, I'll only give you a scholarship on a yearly basis and I might pull it, if I can sign a better recruit.
Expand ...

You can?
 
Sakibomb25 said:
Again, what about those players? They are walk-on players. They were not recruited as scholarship players. So again, what promise was broken by the coaching staff?

As for Ruef, whether she anticipated getting a fifth year or not is irrelevant. She HAD to redshirt because she was injured. It's not relevant what she anticipated.

Ruef completed her four-year degree at Stanford under the promise Vanderveer gave Ruef and her family. No one knew if Ruef was going to come back for a fifth year until recently, because she hadn't gotten accepted into her masters program.

Again, it's not like Ruef had another year of her undergrad left and Vanderveer pulled the rug from beneath her. She has her degree. If she would like to come back for a fifth year, she'll have to pay her way through the masters program.
Expand ...

X___________________
 
cardfan said:
when are all players ever healthy?
Expand ...

Never, nearly every other team gets by with some combination of 12-15 players though and Stanford has more talent than 99% of D1 teams. If any team needed 19 players it isn't a top 25 one.
 
HuskyMJ said:
Never, nearly every other team gets by with some combination of 12-15 players though and Stanford has more talent than 99% of D1 teams. If any team needed 19 players it isn't a top 25 one.
Expand ...

Disagree! MD needed 19 today...all on the court at the same time.
 
.-.
Sakibomb25 said:
How are those four players being treated unfairly? Vanderveer did not recruit them as scholarship players. She recruited them as walk-ons.

For a good, but not great basketball player, it is still an advantage to be considered a walk-on for the basketball team because it helps you get into Stanford since there isn't so much competition (you are applying super early, as opposed to when the rest of the United States is applying). They knew they weren't going on scholarship. So tell me again how they are being treated poorly?
Expand ...
Woops - thanks for the clarification - from reading the earlier posts I had thought Stanford was pulling scholarships from players that had received them. If the other three players are and were walk-ons to start with, I have no problems. (I did use 19 scholarship commitments at the beginning of that sentence because I thought that was the situation.) And as I said in the rest of the post - I think a player, their family, and a coach feel a scholarship offer is a 4 year commitment, not 5+ years, so I have no issue with 'pulling' a scholarship for a player who has already (or will have) graduated.
There was at least one situation at Uconn where a walk-on was given a scholarship, but expressly with the understanding that if the team needed the scholarship in a following year, it would not be renewed - a clear benefit for the player with clearly defined conditions.
 
Sakibomb25 said:
How are those four players being treated unfairly? Vanderveer did not recruit them as scholarship players. She recruited them as walk-ons.

For a good, but not great basketball player, it is still an advantage to be considered a walk-on for the basketball team because it helps you get into Stanford since there isn't so much competition (you are applying super early, as opposed to when the rest of the United States is applying). They knew they weren't going on scholarship. So tell me again how they are being treated poorly?
Expand ...
So walk-ons get preferential treatment by Admissions? Sounds like a violation of some NCAA rule to me. Who do they think they are? UNC?
 
uconnfan68 said:
So walk-ons get preferential treatment by Admissions? Sounds like a violation of some NCAA rule to me. Who do they think they are? UNC?
Expand ...

Using your logic, a majority of NCAA student athletes get preferential treatment because they don't apply to the school. They just tell the coach they want to go there and boom, it's done.

So again, what is your point?
 
There are a few peripheral issues that have caught my attention:

  1. I thought that all Stanford athletes had to be accepted first by the Academic inquisitors prior to being considered for a sports scholly. Is the reality actually the other way around?
  2. It's my impression that the roster for travel and games is 15. Can Tara move people in and out of the current (playing) roster from within the 19-20, (whatever number it is) from within her larger group of scholarship athletes and walk-ons?
 
.-.
msf22b said:
There are a few peripheral issues that have caught my attention:

  1. I thought that all Stanford athletes had to be accepted first by the Academic inquisitors prior to being considered for a sports scholly. Is the reality actually the other way around?
  2. It's my impression that the roster for travel and games is 15. Can Tara move people in and out of the current (playing) roster from within the 19-20, (whatever number it is) from within her larger group of scholarship athletes and walk-ons?
Expand ...


To your first point, all Stanford athletes have to be apply and be accepted before they can accept a scholarship. Any athlete can be considered for a sports scholarship, but only those who pass admissions will be allowed to accept them. A lot of coaches tell a recruit, "I am offering you a scholarship on the condition that you pass admissions."

As to your second point, I have no clue. I would assume the answer is yes. For example, Toni Kokenis isn't traveling with the team due to an illness, so Stanford could probably put another player on the travel roster.
 
easttexastrash said:
She got her four year degree. Stanford has met it's commitment to her. Nothing to see here.
Expand ...

Wonder if Uconn fans would agree if it was Heather who had to pay her own way "since Uconn met it's commitment to her". The commitment is for one year by the way. Also, if the O sister got sick next year and wanted to play the following year, think Stanford would somehow think they had a commitment to her?
 
Husky68 said:
Wonder if Uconn fans would agree if it was Heather who had to pay her own way "since Uconn met it's commitment to her". The commitment is for one year by the way. Also, if the O sister got sick next year and wanted to play the following year, think Stanford would somehow think they had a commitment to her?
Expand ...

Different situation between Buck and Ruef. Buck took five years to finish up her undergraduate degree, Ruef took fours to get her degree from Stanford.
 
Sakibomb25 said:
Different situation between Buck and Ruef. Buck took five years to finish up her undergraduate degree, Ruef took fours to get her degree from Stanford.
Expand ...

How about Caroline Doty, then?
 
Wbbfan1 said:
Not sure I agree with "Free Stanford Education", with the amount of work that goes into playing College Basketball at an elite WBB program.
Expand ...

No argument there...and the amount of work you put in in the classroom down on the farm isn't too shabby either...
 
After reading all the discussion in this thread my only question is ... how is Stanford going to fit all 19 players on the sideline during games? :p
 
.-.
First of all, I would literally give an arm or a leg if my daughter could get a free degree from Stanford so I am not shedding any tears for this girl. What gnaws at me about this is let's say she plays next year and contributes to a Pac 10 championship and possibly a FF berth. Stanford is selling tickets for people to see the team, they are getting TV money for the team and all the other ways they make money (They will also get her tuition money too). That is a pretty sweet deal for them. My opinion on this matter has been swayed by the comments here to think that Stanford doesn't owe her anything else. That said, the idea that a player who is a regular contributor and is helping generate revenue for the university is not only not get paid cash but also not getting tuition is a little unseemly to me.
 
bschwartz said:
First of all, I would literally give an arm or a leg if my daughter could get a free degree from Stanford so I am not shedding any tears for this girl. What gnaws at me about this is let's say she plays next year and contributes to a Pac 10 championship and possibly a FF berth. Stanford is selling tickets for people to see the team, they are getting TV money for the team and all the other ways they make money (They will also get her tuition money too). That is a pretty sweet deal for them. My opinion on this matter has been swayed by the comments here to think that Stanford doesn't owe her anything else. That said, the idea that a player who is a regular contributor and is helping generate revenue for the university is not only not get paid cash but also not getting tuition is a little unseemly to me.
Expand ...
She doesn't have to stay on the team - Tara basically said - hey I am sorry but I don't have a scholarship next year for you. If you get into grad school here and want to play I would love to have you on the team, but if you don't want grad school here or if you don't want to be on the team, I totally understand. As for her adding to the value/profit of the WBB team ... very few teams make money. Do you want her to pay a portion of the loss if the Stanford WBB team loses money next year? Seems only fair (joke.)
 
This is a question, nothing nefarious or hidden as an attack on Stanford. Is the chief advantage to using women as practice players and putting them on the roster so that it is listed(?) as 19 members including 15 scholarship players that all team members share team perks, such as, the training table or similar food service for the team and other uses of the athletic facilities. Are male practice players allowed use of such facilities on other teams under NCAA rules? Are these practice players listed on the team roster AT ALL?
 
Icebear said:
This is a question, nothing nefarious or hidden as an attack on Stanford. Is the chief advantage to using women as practice players and putting them on the roster so that it is listed(?) as 19 members including 15 scholarship players that all team members share team perks, such as, the training table or similar food service for the team and other uses of the athletic facilities. Are male practice players allowed use of such facilities on other teams under NCAA rules? Are these practice players listed on the team roster AT ALL?
Expand ...

What Tara has said in the past is that it is much more difficult to find male practice players from the Stanford general student population, certainly more difficult than at UConn. She's not the only coach I've say it is difficult to find practice players, but it probably makes her more likely to accept walk-ons as extra players.
 
I don't believe walk-ons get the same perks as scholarship athletes. They can't eat at the training table, for example. There was one case of a very highly-rated women's volleyball player who came in on scholarship to play libero (typical of that position anyway). She said it was weird being separated from her teammates as a walk-on.

However, for all the disadvantages of being a walk-on, many feel that there are more advantages to being a walk-on and it is well worth it. As I've stated before, it helps getting into Stanford because there is less competition when you are applying. And I think walk-ons get the same academic perks as scholarship players (i.e., earlier registration times).

I was told of a cross country athlete who just quit the team at Stanford and his father said that the commitment to the team was too much, especially since he wanted to be apart of the Stanford community more. But the father acknowledged being a walk-on was great because it helped his son get into Stanford, where as if he applied wit the rest of the United States, the chances may have been slimmer due to all the competition.
 
.-.
bschwartz said:
First of all, I would literally give an arm or a leg if my daughter could get a free degree from Stanford so I am not shedding any tears for this girl. What gnaws at me about this is let's say she plays next year and contributes to a Pac 10 championship and possibly a FF berth. Stanford is selling tickets for people to see the team, they are getting TV money for the team and all the other ways they make money (They will also get her tuition money too). That is a pretty sweet deal for them. My opinion on this matter has been swayed by the comments here to think that Stanford doesn't owe her anything else. That said, the idea that a player who is a regular contributor and is helping generate revenue for the university is not only not get paid cash but also not getting tuition is a little unseemly to me.
Expand ...

So can I ask a question? Since Ms. Reuf will no longer be a schlarship player is she then able to work at a part time job, someone earlier mentioned a 10 hour a week job at the University. If the answer is yes then could she find a position at a local Engineering firm owned by a Stanford grad who pays her $100 an hour for 10 hours per week and volia she can afford to pay for her Graduate degree. Would that be OK under NCAA rules given that she will now be a walk on player.
 
Most grad students get jobs as teaching assistants for undergrad courses to help with their tuition - I assume this would be available for a walk-on player as it is a 'standard perk' for the general student population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,389
Messages
4,570,240
Members
10,476
Latest member
dd356


Top Bottom