TSO cuts 10 players at NCCU

[Fairfield Fan]

I think you have hit upon some critical points. As @Centerstream noted, the coach was hired last May and recruiting for the 2017-18 season was 99% complete. Given the team only graduated 1 senior this year and the team was 9-21, I think a few things are occurring:
1. The coach doesn't see a lot of talent on the roster and with 6 Juniors more than half who played minimally, they are not producing.
2. The 1 senior graduating doesn't open up any money to bring in talent so clearing all the juniors (most of them anyway, does that).
3. All the athletes know the deal when they sign that scholarship. The juniors certainly apply for and probably get financial aid to complete the last year.

Usually athletic departments, even those that are poorly run and especially those at state sponsored schools, don't cut scholarships without checking their situation first to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. It also could be that the coach gave the girls this past year to complete 3 years and either prove or disprove the reason to be kept. 14 players is a lot on a team, but so is cutting 10. I suspect the coach has offers out to a bevy of transfers or incoming freshman to fill the void.

I don't care whether they are talented or not, whether the incoming coach wants them or not. This is about decency and fairness. As an increasing number of student-athletes are saying is that this one-year scholarship system is grossly unfair to the students. It is entirely slanted to the needs of whichever coach there is. And that's not fair.

This is supposedly an amateur system. Indeed, the NCAA pounds away that most of these kids won't turn pro, that it's about receiving an education, that this is about a "university", not a team. But then we're confronted with the professional nature of this entire system. The university hires a new coach who wants different players. So the kids there, the university students, suffer the loss of their scholarships, they're essentially told that they can come up with big bucks to stay in school, or else they can hit the road. Perfectly understandable if this is a pro team. But it's not.

If there is any consideration for the student-athletes at all, this system has to be changed. If this is an amateur system, then the coach needs to just suck it up, and make the most of the players she has until the scholarships open up. Otherwise, pay them.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I don't care whether they are talented or not, whether the incoming coach wants them or not. This is about decency and fairness. As an increasing number of student-athletes are saying is that this one-year scholarship system is grossly unfair to the students. It is entirely slanted to the needs of whichever coach there is. And that's not fair.

This is supposedly an amateur system. Indeed, the NCAA pounds away that most of these kids won't turn pro, that it's about receiving an education, that this is about a "university", not a team. But then we're confronted with the professional nature of this entire system. The university hires a new coach who wants different players. So the kids there, the university students, suffer the loss of their scholarships, they're essentially told that they can come up with big bucks to stay in school, or else they can hit the road. Perfectly understandable if this is a pro team. But it's not.

If there is any consideration for the student-athletes at all, this system has to be changed. If this is an amateur system, then the coach needs to just suck it up, and make the most of the players she has until the scholarships open up. Otherwise, pay them.

You are acting like this is endemic and systemic. What similar examples can you cite?

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Well, this is a national issue, which is why several of the power conferences recently changed their rules, a move approved by the NCAA, to guarantee scholarships for four years, not one.

Think of injuries. If a kid gets a bad knee injury, or a second ACL tear, for example, the sort of thing endemic to football, that kid is vulnerable to having his scholarship cancelled. Can't recover from a concussion? Not a great player to begin with? There goes the scholarship.

And this university is doing exactly the sort of thing that makes a guarantee essential. It was arbitrary (the kids didn't approve the firing or hiring of that coach), it's punitive, and it can be devastating for the academic success of the student-athlete. If a kid loses his scholarship at Duke and doesn't have much in terms of family financial means, he's out of that school.

And that is wrong.

 

[TitleTown]

This isn't HS or AAU, this is DI college basketball! This is how it works. I do think that the school should offer to pay for these students to finish their education.

 

[TitleTown]

'Coincidentally', the 4 players who were not kicked off the team were also the top 4 scorers this year.

STAY
Rodneyshia Martin - JR
Caira Benton - JR
Paulina Afirye - SO
Kieche White - FR

GONE
Dominique Adams - JR
Sami Oliver-Alexander - JR
Jayla Calhoun - JR
Deja McCain - JR
Ezinne Mbumalu - JR
Darria Hewitt - SO
Jada Blow - SO
Kayla Hall - FR
Alyssa Thompson - FR

GRAD
Kierona Martin - SR

Of course they were. Why else did you think the other players were kicked off the team? They simply are not good enough for the new Coach. I have ZERO problems with putting a winning team on the court. The only gripe I have is that the school should have offered to pay for remaining classes of those who had their scholarships cut.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Here's a good synopsis of the landscape from 2015. Note the practice of "running off" athletes.

College sports: Scholarships not four-year guarantees

"But even without such formal definitions, the pressure to win creates a scenario where athletes not uncommonly are “run off,” often disappearing from rosters without much fuss unless a complaint is made. 'They’ve been doing it forever. But they can’t do it anymore at that level,' FGCU athletic director Ken Kavanagh said of the new rules preventing autonomy conference programs from dismissing players for athletic reasons, a practice he said he and many programs don’t permit. 'They now have a rule that I’ve been following for 20 years. And not just me, a lot of people have been following. At autonomy schools, there’s some who have always been playing by this same ground rule, too. But there’s a lot that haven’t. And they’re the ones (where) you see stories of kids that got run off.'..

"Because Ivy League schools do not permit athletic scholarships, and because Ivy member Columbia University states in writing that its financial aid is for four years, Cape Coral’s Rodney Hunter III feels good that his son is going to be covered for four years on the Lions basketball team. 'If he decided next week he didn’t want to play basketball, he’s still there and would still get the same money as a student,' said Hunter, whose son, Mariner High School graduate Rodney Hunter IV, is a freshman who’s receiving a package covering about 90 percent of his costs. 'Even if Coach (Kyle) Smith left, he’s going to be there.'”

That's the kind of system that takes care of students and their families. Being "run off" is something that should be outlawed. Perhaps that's why America should go to the European system of professional development teams that pay salaries while training the young athletes. Eliminates fake degrees and the pretense that this is about education.

Those 20 kids were "run off", and that shouldn't happen.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Well, this is a national issue, which is why several of the power conferences recently changed their rules, a move approved by the NCAA, to guarantee scholarships for four years, not one.

Think of injuries. If a kid gets a bad knee injury, or a second ACL tear, for example, the sort of thing endemic to football, that kid is vulnerable to having his scholarship cancelled. Can't recover from a concussion? Not a great player to begin with? There goes the scholarship.

And this university is doing exactly the sort of thing that makes a guarantee essential. It was arbitrary (the kids didn't approve the firing or hiring of that coach), it's punitive, and it can be devastating for the academic success of the student-athlete. If a kid loses his scholarship at Duke and doesn't have much in terms of family financial means, he's out of that school.

And that is wrong.

What I asked for were similar examples. Got any of those?

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Of course they were. Why else did you think the other players were kicked off the team? They simply are not good enough for the new Coach. I have ZERO problems with putting a winning team on the court. The only gripe I have is that the school should have offered to pay for remaining classes of those who had their scholarships cut.

And that is precisely the point. Paying for the remainder of the kids' degrees means guaranteeing the scholarships for four years. They should have, but they didn't. They ran them off. No more money, no more classes. A new coach came in and the kids were essentially kicked out of school.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Here's more revealing info quoting the head of the college players association:

Schools can give out 4-year athletic scholarships, but many don't

National College Players Association executive director Ramogi Huma, who has led the efforts of Northwestern football players to be legally viewed as employees, said four-year scholarships can still be non-renewed for subjective reasons. “A coach can say the player broke team rules and enforce it as he sees fit,” Huma said. “So there are loopholes.”

Marshall quarterback Rakeem Cato said that if coaches mess up in recruiting, they should have flexibility with the scholarship. "But the academic part should be guaranteed,” Cato said. That’s the approach supported by the National College Players Association. Huma favors giving coaches the opportunity to be flexible on their roster for recruiting -- if the scholarship doesn’t disappear.

“If a player’s not performing well in a sport, if a coach wants to pull the scholarship, that scholarship should have to be replaced by a non-athletic scholarship,” Huma said. “If schools want to buy their way out, let them buy their way out. Right now, the NCAA rules won’t allow it (because of roster-size limits). The schools want to restrain costs and have and eat their cake, too. If the NCAA rules were different, the schools could make a cost-benefit analysis.”

In the eyes of Baylor defensive end Shawn Oakman, they already do. He believes athletic departments can take away a scholarship for not meeting a performance standard on the field. That’s a heavy consequence given that Oakman grew up in an environment in which most people did not have the means to attend college. “I wouldn’t say it’s fair, but what’s not fair? It’s a job,” Oakman said. “Their job is to keep the best players on the field, and if you’re not producing and you were last year, it’s their job to put the best players on the field. It’s a cut-throat business.”

 

[triaddukefan]

Bad look for Central....

If there are bad seeds a coach should be allowed to push players out. HOWEVER, it shouldn't be 10.

And an HBCU like NCCU should really care more about educating young black women.

It's not like this team is going to challenge for a national title. This conference is terribly weak, and an epic year would mean .... a #16 seed.

There have been a few cases where MEAC teams were seeded better..... One year (2009 ?) Hampton was a 13 seed and played #4 Kentucky to the wire..... i think they actually had the lead late. I think in 2007..... A&T was a 14 seed and played #3 FSU tight for about 35-37 minutes.

 

[DefenseBB]

Well, this is a national issue, which is why several of the power conferences recently changed their rules, a move approved by the NCAA, to guarantee scholarships for four years, not one.

Think of injuries. If a kid gets a bad knee injury, or a second ACL tear, for example, the sort of thing endemic to football, that kid is vulnerable to having his scholarship cancelled. Can't recover from a concussion? Not a great player to begin with? There goes the scholarship.

And this university is doing exactly the sort of thing that makes a guarantee essential. It was arbitrary (the kids didn't approve the firing or hiring of that coach), it's punitive, and it can be devastating for the academic success of the student-athlete. If a kid loses his scholarship at Duke and doesn't have much in terms of family financial means, he's out of that school.

And that is wrong.

Fairfield, I admire your passion and logic, however let me clarify one aspect that you misrepresented-if a student athlete is injured competing or in practice, they are protected and covered by the scholarship even if the scholarship agreement was just one year. I have seen this firsthand and was given the the full specifics as to why the system does that.

I have also witnessed first hand student athletes game the system by not putting forth an honest effort on their scholarship and schools and coaches still honoring it while other more deserving athletes who pay their own way have to suffer. So it cuts both ways.

 

[j66kicker]

I don't see what's wrong with the coach being able to terminate scholarships after 1 year (or 2, or 3). I do think the athlete should then be able to transfer and play right away, so they are not penalized educationally. If they aren't good enough to transfer and get a scholarship somewhere else, then they probably weren't good enough to 'deserve' a scholarship in the first place, and they basically got a 'freebie' for a year.

 

[willtalk]

I don't know about her last position but this coach left all her previous positions under not the best of circumstances. It is interesting that she was an assistant at UNC when the fab five was brought in. I believe some players also had to be cleared out to make that happen.

 

[Centerstream]

The university states "
The decision to cancel, reduce or renew a student-athlete’s scholarship award is within the purview and discretion of a coach." But that's not fair. Kids who are offered a scholarship, indeed a full scholarship, believe that they're set for four years. They make a big commitment to the university, one that has enormous impact on their lives.

This may be legal at the moment, but it is disruptive, mean-spirited, and unfair. Universities should be required to guarantee scholarships for four years, to be cancelled only in extreme situations regarding the commission of a crime or the athletes' decision not to compete on the team any longer. And maybe even that is not right.

It's just unfair. Wonder where the other six athletes are? The TV report mentioned that ten were terminated. And let's be clear that that means that if they don't have the cash within their families, they are being thrown out of the university. Are these kids from poor communities?

Something's wrong here.

Yet these same people that are entitled to their 4 year scholarship can transfer at anytime for any reason. Doesn't seem fair to me.

And if they were good enough student athletes to get a scholarship from this school then they should be able to get a scholarship from a different school.