Stanford - We don't have Room For You

[cardfan]

The surprising thing to me is that this kid is a starter, not some end-of-the-bench warmer. And the school had to have asked her to redshirt as it is the school that must apply for it with the applicable conference authorities. So now, heading into her fifth year to be told, 'Sorry, our 15 scholarships are spoken for next season' is beyond the pale.

See my other post. If she wasn't excepted to Stanford graduate school (just now), she may not have stayed. It's unrealistic for Stanford to plan that far ahead - to not offer a scholie to an incoming frosh in the previous fall while waiting for Ruef to be healthy to play, do well and get into Stanford grad school in the spring. She just started this year, and not all games. We've had injuries to Kokenis and Beebe, so Ruef may not have played as much

Notably, on the men's side, they held scholies for Lopez twins even though there was a good chance they were going to leave early for pros. Since they held them, it didn't allow room for Okafor, who of course went to UConn.

.

 

[cardfan]

It's embarrassing.

most schools have 19 or 20, but they include 5 male practice players.

 

[Icebear]

Cardfan has clarified that four will be walk-ons, right?

You can not be a walk on and receive any type of scholarship other than very limited speciailized scholarships. If you get money for need while playing on a team it is designated as a scholarship and counts towards the 15.

 

[cardfan]

Cardfan has clarified that four will be walk-ons, right?

right.

 

[Icebear]

most schools have 19 or 20, but they include 5 male practice players.

Male practice players are irrelevant and are not walk-ons. They are not even allowed any type of assistance to follow the team to away games.

 

[cardfan]

Male practice players are irrelevant and are not walk-ons.

completely relevant. Many schools use 5 male practice players that add to the number of players on the court and used at practice.

 

[Wbbfan1]

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.

Where does it state in an LOI that it is agreed upon that a player will be provided a scholarship as long as they have eligibility left? I'd like to know where that is written since you are presenting that as a fact.

 

[True Colors]

By the way, who really cares if stanford has 5, or 10, or even 50 extra walkon players? I dont.

If that many girls are willing to pay their own money to be a walkon at stanford then so be it. It doesnt hurt Uconn or anybody else.

TC

 

[Sakibomb25]

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.

Wait a minute. Let's example what example was promised during the recruiting trip:
1) Four-year basketball scholarship from Stanford? Check
2) A degree from Stanford? Check

So where exactly did Vanderveer break her promise?

 

[stamfordhusky]

completely relevant. Many schools use 5 male practice players that add to the number of players on the court and used at practice.

That's irrelevant to the number of women players on a team. Schools use practice players to provide a better and more physical level of competition. Having 15 players is more than enough, in terms of numbers, for practices. Whether or not Stanford chooses to use male practice players is a different issue.

 

[Icebear]

completely relevant. Many schools use 5 male practice players that add to the number of players on the court and used at practice.

They are irrelevant because they are not potential players for the team to use on the court nor can they in any manner qualify against scholarships.

 

[pinotbear]

completely relevant. Many schools use 5 male practice players that add to the number of players on the court and used at practice.

oh, please: you know better. Male practice players cannot play in WCBB games. They are not recruited. They receive no scholarships. Next thing you know, you'll be saying that cheerleaders count towards football team numbers.

 

[Sakibomb25]

That being said - I do have a problem with 19 scholarship commitments for 15 spots. The other unnamed three players are being treated really poorly!

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?

 

[Icebear]

By the way, who really cares if stanford has 5, or 10, or even 50 extra walkon players? I dont.

If that many girls are willing to pay their own money to be a walkon at stanford then so be it. It doesnt hurt Uconn or anybody else.

TC

If they are true walk-ons and clear of all scholarship issues then there are no problems whatsoever. If they are manipulations that is not fair. I fully expect Stanford is in full compliance. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Icebear]

33-20 UConn 1:51

 

[Icebear]

Stef back in and with another block.

 

[cardfan]

That's irrelevant to the number of women players on a team. Schools use practice players to provide a better and more physical level of competition. Having 15 players is more than enough, in terms of numbers, for practices. Whether or not Stanford chooses to use male practice players is a different issue.

I know that. The issue was some posters poo-pooing (or saying it is embarrassing) for Stanford to have 19 players. Most schools use that many in practice.

 

[cardfan]

If they are true walk-ons and clear of all scholarship issues then there are no problems whatsoever. If they are manipulations that is not fair. I fully expect Stanford is in full compliance. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

Stanford is fully compliant.

 

[cardfan]

They are irrelevant because they are not potential players for the team to use on the court nor can they in any manner qualify against scholarships.

I get that, but my pt was the walk ons ARE used vs. male practice players.

 

[Sakibomb25]

If they are true walk-ons and clear of all scholarship issues then there are no problems whatsoever. If they are manipulations that is not fair. I fully expect Stanford is in full compliance. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

Yes, they are true walk-ons. How can you tell? Walk-ons cannot sign a Letter of Intent. Check out Stanford's press release here of the incoming freshmen.

The only players signed were Aly Beebe and Tess Picknell. If you look at this year's roster here, the other freshmen who aren't on that list are Denia Ebersole and Kiran Lakhian. Thus, we know those two are the walk-ons.

So for next year, we are losing Joslyn Tinkle, but gaining four more scholarship recruits, leaving the rest as walk-ons.

No manipulation here.

 

[cardfan]

oh, please: you know better. Male practice players cannot play in WCBB games. They are not recruited. They receive no scholarships. Next thing you know, you'll be saying that cheerleaders count towards football team numbers.

Hello. doh. I know difference. My pt was that Tara uses the walk-ons vs. 5 male practice players.

 

[Icebear]

I know that. The issue was some posters poo-pooing (or saying it is embarrassing) for Stanford to have 19 players. Most schools use that many in practice.

Irrelevant unless all those teams list those kids on their rosters. I know of none who do that.

 

[Icebear]

Yes, they are true walk-ons. How can you tell? Walk-ons cannot sign a Letter of Intent. Check out Stanford's press release here of the incoming freshmen.

The only players signed were Aly Beebe and Tess Picknell. If you look at this year's roster here, the other freshmen who aren't on that list are Denia Ebersole and Kiran Lakhian. Thus, we know those two are the walk-ons.

So for next year, we are losing Joslyn Tinkle, but gaining four more scholarship recruits, leaving the rest as walk-ons.

No manipulation here.

I never thought there was. You'll note my posts were about the potential issues involved not what was happening. I fully expect Stanford is in compliance because it would be completely foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Wbbfan1]

What about the other three players that won't have a scholarship next year. I also suspect that Ruef anticipated she would get another year when she sat out for Medical reasons. Tara & Stanford didn't award her, because of the recruits they could sign.

Wait a minute. Let's example what example was promised during the recruiting trip:
1) Four-year basketball scholarship from Stanford? Check
2) A degree from Stanford? Check

So where exactly did Vanderveer break her promise?

 

[HuskyMJ]

19 seems awfully high, do all the players get to participate in practice or are some relegated to more watching? Not that all players deserve equal practice time. Just never thought 19 was necessary, even 15 seems high.

 

[cardfan]

Irrelevant unless all those teams list those kids on their rosters. I know of none who do that.

ugh. I know the difference between walk-ons and male practice players. Again, my pt was that Tara uses her walk-ons vs. putting them on the bench to watch male practice players.

 

[cardfan]

What about the other three players that won't have a scholarship next year. I also suspect that Ruef anticipated she would get another year when she sat out for Medical reasons. Tara & Stanford didn't award her, because of the recruits they could sign.

It's very comforting to know UConn fans are so concerned about Stanford scholies. We graduate 3 next yr (Chiney, James, Kokenis). See my other post on timing of getting admitted to school (undergrad and grad). So if Tara didn't offer a scholie to incoming frosh and Ruef didn't get accepted to grad school, they'd be in big trouble. Tara and Amy (Associate coach) have been at Stanford for 29 yrs. They know how it works a lot better than anyone here.

 

[cardfan]

19 seems awfully high, do all the players get to participate in practice or are some relegated to more watching? Not that all players deserve equal practice time. Just never thought 19 was necessary, even 15 seems high.

when are all players ever healthy?

 

[Sakibomb25]

What about the other three players that won't have a scholarship next year. I also suspect that Ruef anticipated she would get another year when she sat out for Medical reasons. Tara & Stanford didn't award her, because of the recruits they could sign.

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.

 

[Icebear]

ugh. I know the difference between walk-ons and male practice players. Again, my pt was that Tara uses her walk-ons vs. putting them on the bench to watch male practice players.

Nowhere in the discussion was that pertinent.