Dishonorable Discharges

[stickdog]

It's sad that college basketball fans can actually support this (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090416/SPORTS03/904160419/1002/SPORTS):

As many as 11 scholarship players ... could return off last season's roster. UK also has signed three players from the high school class of 2009 ... and UK still is believed to be pursuing at least three other high school seniors ...

That's led to considerable speculation about the status of some returning players. Liggins, whose return was unclear when Gillispie was still the coach, said yesterday that he's "100 percent" returning for his sophomore season. But with transfer rumors spreading, Harrellson and Williams conceded that their futures are uncertain.

"I want to stay," Harrellson said. "I've never been more happy in my life. It's a great place, and I love the people that surround me. But if I don't fit in, I'm just going to go somewhere and be happy."

Williams, who did not play as a true freshman, said he also would like to return but that his scholarship for next season is not guaranteed. "It's still an evaluation," he said. "We'll have to see what Coach Cal wants to do with that. Whatever he wants to do, I'm going to support his decision."

Calipari yesterday said his roster is "still in motion" and that he's still discussing the future with his players. "If I believe you're not going to play, I'm going to tell you," he said. "Now, if a player chooses to come back knowing that he's not playing, that's OK. But you can't be mad in January and February if you're not getting off the bench."

[BD80]

Nobody seems to mind that Tubby Smith just kicked two kids off his roster to make room for recruits.

[jjasper0729]

not that i agreed with the rule, but wasn't this one of the things the 5/8 rule was supposed to target? a coach coming in and "running off" kids?

[weezie]

Nobody seems to mind that Tubby Smith just kicked two kids off his roster to make room for recruits.

Yeah, I'm no "Cal" fan but plenty of writers go out of their way to slam the guy at every opportunity.

In another vein though, BD80, how about our Galarraga?!

[stickdog]

Nobody seems to mind that Tubby Smith just kicked two kids off his roster to make room for recruits.

Which recruited scholarship athletes did Smith kick off his team?

Travis Busch transferred to Minnesota from Cal Poly as a walk-on and later earned a scholarship. He has graduated from Minnesota already. Is this the comparison you are making?

Even if Smith did revoke the scholarships of several recruited scholarship players, does that mean that you approve of the practice?

[CDu]

It's sad that college basketball fans can actually support this (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090416/SPORTS03/904160419/1002/SPORTS):

As many as 11 scholarship players ... could return off last season's roster. UK also has signed three players from the high school class of 2009 ... and UK still is believed to be pursuing at least three other high school seniors ...

That's led to considerable speculation about the status of some returning players. Liggins, whose return was unclear when Gillispie was still the coach, said yesterday that he's "100 percent" returning for his sophomore season. But with transfer rumors spreading, Harrellson and Williams conceded that their futures are uncertain.

"I want to stay," Harrellson said. "I've never been more happy in my life. It's a great place, and I love the people that surround me. But if I don't fit in, I'm just going to go somewhere and be happy."

Williams, who did not play as a true freshman, said he also would like to return but that his scholarship for next season is not guaranteed. "It's still an evaluation," he said. "We'll have to see what Coach Cal wants to do with that. Whatever he wants to do, I'm going to support his decision."

Calipari yesterday said his roster is "still in motion" and that he's still discussing the future with his players. "If I believe you're not going to play, I'm going to tell you," he said. "Now, if a player chooses to come back knowing that he's not playing, that's OK. But you can't be mad in January and February if you're not getting off the bench."

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Calipari is being honest with the players. His job is to recruit the players that fit his system and the school, and make the basketball team the best it can be. If the players currently on scholarship do not fit his system, why shouldn't he inform them of this and let them make their own decisions?

It's not like he said "I'm kicking you off the team." He said something like "you don't fit the system I'm putting in place, so if I'd start considering other options if playing time is important to you."

This is the reality of coaching changes - when you switch systems, some players aren't going to fit. That's why universities frequently let recruits out of their letters of intent in these situations, and that's why they are okay with transfers in these situations. The coach shouldn't be penalized for the recruiting differences of a previous coach (or previous coaches).

Basketball scholarships are an honor. They aren't an entitlement. Calipari is offering these players the chance to seek out scholarship (and playing time) opportunities elsewhere.

[stickdog]

I couldn't disagree more.

UK recruited these students into its program by offering them scholarships. These students were assured by a UK representative that as long as they studied hard, practiced hard, played hard, stayed out of trouble and did what they were supposed to, they would have their scholarships renewed each year. That's the implicit deal that was made.

So now a new coach comes in and these kids have their scholarships pulled so their spots can be filled by a crew of one and done players, and you think that's A-OK?

Calipari's quote is fine as it stands. But consider what the student athletes whose scholarship situations are "not guaranteed" and "being evaluated" said about the situation and read between the lines. These kids have obviously been put on high alert that they may be getting pushed out to make room for an incoming stud, like it or not. That is just plain wrong, and if it happened to a Duke player I would be ashamed of my university.

[killerleft]

I couldn't disagree more.

UK recruited these students into its program by offering them scholarships. These students were assured by a UK representative that as long as they studied hard, practiced hard, played hard, stayed out of trouble and did what they were supposed to, they would have their scholarships renewed each year. That's the implicit deal that was made.

So now a new coach comes in and these kids have their scholarships pulled so their spots can be filled by a crew of one and done players, and you think that's A-OK?

Calipari's quote is fine as it stands. But consider what the student athletes whose scholarship situations are "not guaranteed" and "being evaluated" said about the situation and read between the lines. These kids have obviously been put on high alert that they may be getting pushed out to make room for an incoming stud, like it or not. That is just plain wrong, and if it happened to a Duke player I would be ashamed of my university.

I don't think scholarships are being pulled. The players are being told that they will most likely not play much.

[crimsonandblue]

Well, I don't know how you know what the implicit deal was with these kids. Scholarships are one-year commitments. I know everyone involved encourages kids to pick a school, not pick the school you're going to for the next year, but that's true for anyone and everyone in life (jobs, relationships, and yeah, scholarships).

I think Calipari is being beyond disingenous here. I think these kids are out if he needs their scholarships. There's no evalutation necessary. If he lands Wall, Henry, and/or Dennis, these kids are gonzo. But I think Calipari will get something of a pass here, as he's walking into a new program with kids that Gillispie/Tubby recruited that aren't his guys at all.

But I also think this is something of the norm now among many D-1 programs that are forced to deal with managing a roster, potential early NBA entrants, transfers, and a 13 scholarship roster.

It makes very clear that college basketball is a business. It's not a happy situation. But it's reality.

[Channing]

Well, I don't know how you know what the implicit deal was with these kids. Scholarships are one-year commitments. I know everyone involved encourages kids to pick a school, not pick the school you're going to for the next year, but that's true for anyone and everyone in life (jobs, relationships, and yeah, scholarships).

I think Calipari is being beyond disingenous here. I think these kids are out if he needs their scholarships. There's no evalutation necessary. If he lands Wall, Henry, and/or Dennis, these kids are gonzo. But I think Calipari will get something of a pass here, as he's walking into a new program with kids that Gillispie/Tubby recruited that aren't his guys at all.

But I also think this is something of the norm now among many D-1 programs that are forced to deal with managing a roster, potential early NBA entrants, transfers, and a 13 scholarship roster.

It makes very clear that college basketball is a business. It's not a happy situation. But it's reality.

if they are forced out and transfer i presume they will still have to sit out a year - that doesnt seem fair does it?

[stickdog]

I don't think scholarships are being pulled. The players are being told that they will most likely not play much.

Then how do you interpret the following quote?

Williams, who did not play as a true freshman, said he also would like to return but that his scholarship for next season is not guaranteed. "It's still an evaluation," he said. "We'll have to see what Coach Cal wants to do with that."

[rthomas]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Calipari is being honest with the players. His job is to recruit the players that fit his system and the school, and make the basketball team the best it can be. If the players currently on scholarship do not fit his system, why shouldn't he inform them of this and let them make their own decisions?

It's not like he said "I'm kicking you off the team." He said something like "you don't fit the system I'm putting in place, so if I'd start considering other options if playing time is important to you."

This is the reality of coaching changes - when you switch systems, some players aren't going to fit. That's why universities frequently let recruits out of their letters of intent in these situations, and that's why they are okay with transfers in these situations. The coach shouldn't be penalized for the recruiting differences of a previous coach (or previous coaches).

Basketball scholarships are an honor. They aren't an entitlement. Calipari is offering these players the chance to seek out scholarship (and playing time) opportunities elsewhere.

That's complete BS. When a college commits to a kid, its for 4 years. It's not an honor, its a commitment by the frickin university.

[roywhite]

Sleazy, slimey, and dishonorable. Yet I doubt if the UK fans are bothered at all; Cal and UK...a good match with a win-at-all costs mentality.

Not only the treatment of the current scholarship players, but also disturbing is the apparent legality of Cal being able to piece his team together from a full existing roster, plus the best of two (UK and Memphis) recruiting classes.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

All this stuff makes me sick at my stomach. How do you teach kids to trust and be worthy of trust in the midst of such perfidy?

I hope the sense of honor and the importance of integrity we've tried to instill in our grandsons haven't rendered them men to gentle to live among the wolves.

Love, Ima

[killerleft]

Then how do you interpret the following quote?

Williams, who did not play as a true freshman, said he also would like to return but that his scholarship for next season is not guaranteed. "It's still an evaluation," he said. "We'll have to see what Coach Cal wants to do with that."

Calipari said this: "If I believe you're not going to play, I'm going to tell you," he said. "Now, if a player chooses to come back knowing that he's not playing, that's OK. But you can't be mad in January and February if you're not getting off the bench."

So I stand by my statement, but can't account for what Williams said. Certainly I would feel very uncomfortable being somewhere I wasn't wanted.

[turnandburn55]

That's complete BS. When a college commits to a kid, its for 4 years. It's not an honor, its a commitment by the frickin university.

I'm with you. The whole point of the "scholarship" concept is to give a guy a chance to get an education for free. Nothing more or less, and to anyone who says it's a business, I ask why we require the athletes to attend classes...?

[jma4life]

Obviously I have no information to back this up, other than my admittedly biased view of Calipari, but I get the feeling he won't be all that welcoming to the kids who do stay. He definitely does not sound like he's making them sound welcome by their quotes. I doubt he would truly force them out directly. That could come back to hurt him. But I fully expect the guy to do as much as he can to get these kids to leave, without looking too bad, or at the very least, without hurting his stock to future recruits. Not saying Calipari is worse than other coaches in this regard. I wouldn't be shocked if some of K's disciples have done this. But as stick said, I'm ashamed of all those I support that have taken part in this practice. (Not informing students of low pt but making life difficult on them and thus, intentionally, indirectly causing their transfer)


Calipari didn't exactly sound welcoming when he said that they can't complain when they're not getting pt. Doesn't exactly sound like a coach that wants them around. I know if a coach of mine said that about me, I would feel pretty awkward to stay on the team. Definitely would not feel welcome at all. So Cal has clearly put these kids in a tough situation.

I suppose there's a chance he thinks he's doing this for those guys interests and will support them whatever their decision. But given my bias, I'm not giving this scenario a high probability. I'm certainly glad Cal isn't coaching a team I root for. Don't care how successful he's been.

[CDu]

That's complete BS. When a college commits to a kid, its for 4 years. It's not an honor, its a commitment by the frickin university.

That is not accurate. Scholarships are an annual honor that can be renewed or not. Typically, they are renewed. But the university is under no obligation to provide a scholarship for four years.

[dukie8]

That's complete BS. When a college commits to a kid, its for 4 years. It's not an honor, its a commitment by the frickin university.

You clearly were not a scholarship athlete as this is 100% false. Duke generally honors its scholarships for 4 years but it doesn't have to. My roommate completely lost it in baseball, quit the team after his sophomore year but kept his partial scholarship for his last 2 years.

A lot of college coaches use the threat of pulling a scholarship as a stick for all 4 years of an athlete's career and he would be fully able to do so after each season. With that being said, word usually travels fast if a school/coach has pulled a scholarship for no (or a bad) reason and it will seriously impact recruiting in the future in a negative way (which explains why it doesn't happen very often).

[dukie8]

UK recruited these students into its program by offering them scholarships. These students were assured by a UK representative that as long as they studied hard, practiced hard, played hard, stayed out of trouble and did what they were supposed to, they would have their scholarships renewed each year. That's the implicit deal that was made.

This paragraph is contradictory. If a UK representative did what you stated above, then there wouldn't be anything implict -- it would be EXPLICIT. What is your source that UK made these very unusual assurances?

[Tappan Zee Devil]

That is not accurate. Scholarships are an annual honor that can be renewed or not. Typically, they are renewed. But the university is under no obligation to provide a scholarship for four years.

Yeh, they are under no legal obligation, but in my mind, moral obligations set a higher standard. However, I guess that kinda depends on whether you are looking at the b'ball players as students or hired help.

I would certainly stop rooting for or supporting my alma mater if Duke did this. It is despicable

Jim
T '70

[jma4life]

Yea, frankly, if someone is actually pulled of their scholarship for on the court/on the field issues, I don't know that I'd be able to continue supporting that program or at least, the coach who did it. Not saying that's what went down, just saying that in general, taking a player's scholarship for performance related issues is something I can't support.

[stickdog]

This paragraph is contradictory. If a UK representative did what you stated above, then there wouldn't be anything implict -- it would be EXPLICIT. What is your source that UK made these very unusual assurances?

Is this now the legal forum or something?

Is it now "very unusual" for a college to honor a scholarship for four years if a scholarship player works his hardest to do everything expected of him?

If so, we live in a truly sick world. Wouldn't you agree?

[KenTankerous]

Sleazy, slimey, and dishonorable. Yet I doubt if the UK fans are bothered at all; Cal and UK...a good match with a win-at-all costs mentality.

Wrong! There are some of us UK fans that are very bothered by this type of thing. I dread what he may do to my cats. Like I said before, he may be the second coming... of Eddie Suttonesque sanctions.

As a UK fan, I am often grilled as to how I could ever become a Duke fan. The most powerful defense is Coach K's "Leading with the Heart". If I can get them to read even the dust jacket, they start to understand.

Maybe I should send Cal a copy...

[jv001]

All this stuff makes me sick at my stomach. How do you teach kids to trust and be worthy of trust in the midst of such perfidy?

I hope the sense of honor and the importance of integrity we've tried to instill in our grandsons haven't rendered them men to gentle to live among the wolves.

Love, Ima

Great post. Sometimes it just comes down to what is right and what's wrong. In this dog eat dog world, what have you done for me lately and the "me" concept doing what's right does not matter anymore. What a great lesson for our children. Go Duke!

[roywhite]

Sleazy, slimey, and dishonorable. Yet I doubt if the UK fans are bothered at all; Cal and UK...a good match with a win-at-all costs mentality.

Wrong! There are some of us UK fans that are very bothered by this type of thing. I dread what he may do to my cats. Like I said before, he may be the second coming... of Eddie Suttonesque sanctions.
As a UK fan, I am often grilled as to how I could ever become a Duke fan. The most powerful defense is Coach K's "Leading with the Heart". If I can get them to read even the dust jacket, they start to understand.

Maybe I should send Cal a copy...

Good for you, Ken; glad to hear it.

I hope there are some UK fans that try to hold Calipari accountable for operating the program in an ethical manner.

My experience with UK fans (which is somewhat limited, living in NC) is that many of them simply don't care about how things are done, just results. You're a good representative to the contrary.

[johnb]

At least Calipari didn't throw 5 academically-eligible, hard-working, less-talented guys off the team in September.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports/ncaabasketball/28harvard.html

[RPS]

What we're seeing at UK is simply one more example of the way college athletes in the revenue sports are exploited. I know that many have a hard time feeling sorry for kids who get a free education with a chance to be major stars to boot. But the schools and the coaches essentially hold all the cards and all the money. Let's say the coach stretches the truth a bit in recruiting, surprisingly lands a major star at another player's position at the last minute, or treats a player very unfairly. The player's only recourse is to transfer and sit out a year as an extra added bonus. I love college sports, but the whole enterprise stinks.

[BD80]

At least Calipari didn't throw 5 academically-eligible, hard-working, less-talented guys off the team in September.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports/ncaabasketball/28harvard.html

Tommy did not do that to clear scholarships for other players. That is more like getting cut from your high school team. Those kids were welcome to stay in school and keep the finacial aid package they were on, they just weren't allowed to practice with the basketball team. They were cut from the team for not being good enough. Or should we allow every person in the school who wants to play have a spot in the locker room, and get in the lay-up lines, and have time with the coaches?

There is a similarity to Cal's cuts in that these kids could have gone somewhere else to play, but I believe the element of taking a kid's scholarship away makes it much worse.

[Olympic Fan]

Let's be very clear what we are talking about.

The official NCAA scholarship is a one-year commitment by the school. A coach or a school can verbally promise to renew for four years -- and most coaches do -- but that's not legally binding.

On the whole, coaches do honor the four-year deal. The exceptions are memorable -- just off the top of my head, I can think of:

-- Rick Majerus kicked out Jordie McTavish, the backup point guard on his 1998 playoff team to make room for convicted sex offender LeTravis Spivey.

-- Former Maryland coach Bob Wade tried to pull Phil Nevin's scholarship after the 1987 season. The resulting uproar forced Wade to reverse his decision -- although he got what he wanted when a disgusted Nevin left anyway.

-- Tommy Tuberville pulled at least five scholarship when he took over the Auburn football job -- running off guys to make room for better recruits.

But those cases are very rare -- and arealmost always considered ethical lapses by the coaches involved. If Calipari does indeed pull the scholarships of kids who have done nothing wrong and want to return, then he'll have the legal right to do so, but will deserve our disgust.

The whole situation illustrated the unfairness of the NCAA scholarship. The school is committed for one year ... the player for at least two (if he tranfers, he has to sit out a season. Even if his scholarship is pulled and he goes to another school at the same level, he has to sit out a year). Please think about that situation when you hear some talking head idiot suggest that players who go pro early should have to compensate their school.

I'm not a lawyer (most of my legal experience comes from auditing Professor Housman's class on Contract Law at Harvard during three seasons of Paper Chase), but I can't believe that's a legal contract -- the unfair terms are imposed by a monopolistic organization.

It's funny. Back in the early 1970s when the one-year scholarship was proposed, the one guy who spoke loudest and longest against it was Alabama football coach Bear Bryant. He was just about the only guy in the NCAA at the time who stood up for the student/athlete.

That's a big reason I've always admired the Bear ... as much as I have contempt for Majerus, Tuberville and Wade.

[crimsonandblue]

What we're seeing at UK is simply one more example of the way college athletes in the revenue sports are exploited. I know that many have a hard time feeling sorry for kids who get a free education with a chance to be major stars to boot. But the schools and the coaches essentially hold all the cards and all the money. Let's say the coach stretches the truth a bit in recruiting, surprisingly lands a major star at another player's position at the last minute, or treats a player very unfairly. The player's only recourse is to transfer and sit out a year as an extra added bonus. I love college sports, but the whole enterprise stinks.


This.

But I also hedge on the issue. Kids are under no obligation to stay in school. There may be nominal restrictions on transferring and a penalty of a year out of competition, but kids can quit, go pro, transfer or just stop performing. With a 13 scholarship limit, huge pressures on coaches to win or lose their livelihoods and futures, and kids committing earlier and earlier, I think schools need the one-year rule. And while a kid or two may get caught in the crossfile, it's not like other coaches won't use running kids out of the program as something to negatively recruit.

It is a business. Not sure there are really good alternatives to the current scheme.

[The Gordog]

All this stuff makes me sick at my stomach. How do you teach kids to trust and be worthy of trust in the midst of such perfidy?

I hope the sense of honor and the importance of integrity we've tried to instill in our grandsons haven't rendered them men to gentle to live among the wolves.

Love, Ima

Not to worry. Honor and integrity are still the defining characteristics of a life well lived. Are they an impediment to being the absolute #1 in your chosen pursuit? Perhaps if you define #1 only in terms of money. I believe most everyone on this board, and maybe most Americans, know better than that.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream---and not make dreams your master;
If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

[BD80]

... Honor and integrity are still the defining characteristics of a life well lived. ...

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

Citing Kipling in a discussion about Calipari's recruiting practices?

To that I would respond:

It is the mission of each true knight...
His duty... nay, his privilege!
To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go;
To right the unrightable wrong.

To love, pure and chaste, from afar,
To try, when your arms are too weary,
To reach the unreachable star!

This is my Quest to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far,
To fight for the right
Without question or pause,
To be willing to march into hell
For a heavenly cause!

And I know, if I'll only be true
To this glorious Quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach the unreachable stars!

One can still dream.

[RPS]

It is a business. Not sure there are really good alternatives to the current scheme.We could start by agreeing that the dramatic disparity between system and player is unfair and needs to be addressed.

The (very difficult) problem is compounded by the complicity of the NBA and the NFL. They get a consistent supply of reasonably well prepared prospects and convenient opportunities to evaluate them absolutely free of charge. Moreover, the best of these prospects come into the pros with a huge marketing and recognition base. For the system and for the pros, it's win-win. For the players, not so much -- even the few who end up rich and successful at the next level. We routinely hear obligatory speeches about student athletes blah, blah, blah, but it's really all about money (direct revenue and alumni contributions) and exposure (additional applications and thus competition for admision and a great means for rallying alumni support).

It's like D1 football. A national championship decided by some sort of play-off system obviously makes sense. But so long as the BCS schools can control the money and keep from having to share it with the non-BCS schools, it's not likely to happen. It surely is a business.

[Shammrog]

Tommy did not do that to clear scholarships for other players. That is more like getting cut from your high school team. Those kids were welcome to stay in school and keep the finacial aid package they were on, they just weren't allowed to practice with the basketball team. They were cut from the team for not being good enough. Or should we allow every person in the school who wants to play have a spot in the locker room, and get in the lay-up lines, and have time with the coaches?

There is a similarity to Cal's cuts in that these kids could have gone somewhere else to play, but I believe the element of taking a kid's scholarship away makes it much worse.

This is true. I don't much like what Tommy did and how he went about it, but Ivy Leagues don't grant athletic scholarships. Rather, they come up with grant packages/etc. that AFAIK are not year-to-year like athletic scholarships.

[calltheobvious]

Let's be very clear what we are talking about.

The official NCAA scholarship is a one-year commitment by the school. A coach or a school can verbally promise to renew for four years -- and most coaches do -- but that's not legally binding.

On the whole, coaches do honor the four-year deal. The exceptions are memorable -- just off the top of my head, I can think of:

-- Rick Majerus kicked out Jordie McTavish, the backup point guard on his 1998 playoff team to make room for convicted sex offender LeTravis Spivey.

-- Former Maryland coach Bob Wade tried to pull Phil Nevin's scholarship after the 1987 season. The resulting uproar forced Wade to reverse his decision -- although he got what he wanted when a disgusted Nevin left anyway.

-- Tommy Tuberville pulled at least five scholarship when he took over the Auburn football job -- running off guys to make room for better recruits.

But those cases are very rare -- and arealmost always considered ethical lapses by the coaches involved. If Calipari does indeed pull the scholarships of kids who have done nothing wrong and want to return, then he'll have the legal right to do so, but will deserve our disgust.

The whole situation illustrated the unfairness of the NCAA scholarship. The school is committed for one year ... the player for at least two (if he tranfers, he has to sit out a season. Even if his scholarship is pulled and he goes to another school at the same level, he has to sit out a year). Please think about that situation when you hear some talking head idiot suggest that players who go pro early should have to compensate their school.

I'm not a lawyer (most of my legal experience comes from auditing Professor Housman's class on Contract Law at Harvard during three seasons of Paper Chase), but I can't believe that's a legal contract -- the unfair terms are imposed by a monopolistic organization.

It's funny. Back in the early 1970s when the one-year scholarship was proposed, the one guy who spoke loudest and longest against it was Alabama football coach Bear Bryant. He was just about the only guy in the NCAA at the time who stood up for the student/athlete.

That's a big reason I've always admired the Bear ... as much as I have contempt for Majerus, Tuberville and Wade.

That's not my recollection at all. Terry Bowden ran a much looser ship than Tuberville wanted, and when TT got to Auburn he recognized that and made a my-way-or-the-highway offer to the entire team. A few guys thought they were at Burger King, and were shown the door.

Of course one could always claim that this kind of rhetoric on the part of a coach is just a figleaf. But I'll put Tommy Tuberville's track record for off-the-field discipline up against that of virtually any other DI program over the last ten years, and give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his true motivation in cutting players in 1999.

As a p.s, with an annual cap of 25 schollies in football, and the voluntary/non-football-related attrition that occurs in every program, it's rarely the case that a school needs to drop a senior class plus five more in order to be able to bring in 25 frosh in the fall.

[jkidd31]

Cal is in a lose/lose situtation here. The best two players he inherited at UK may or may not be back next season. So what is he supposed to do, stop recruiting and hope they come back? If Meeks and Patterson opt to stay in the draft and didn't recruit anyone else people would be seconding guessing his decision. If he lands the guys he's targeting and PP & JM come back that creates the logjam. If they stay in and he lands a couple of the guys most of the guys keep their scholarships.

IMO he's at least being honest with the guys he's inherited from two different coaches. For those saying he's setting a bad example, is it really any worse then a new CEO/manager hiring in and replacing many in the dept. with their people? If you are going to be held accountable for your results you want those under you whether they are players or employees to be your people.

[stickdog]

For those saying he's setting a bad example, is it really any worse then a new CEO/manager hiring in and replacing many in the dept. with their people?

No, it is exactly equivalent, and there's the rub.

[johnb]

Tommy did not do that to clear scholarships for other players. That is more like getting cut from your high school team. Those kids were welcome to stay in school and keep the finacial aid package they were on, they just weren't allowed to practice with the basketball team. They were cut from the team for not being good enough. Or should we allow every person in the school who wants to play have a spot in the locker room, and get in the lay-up lines, and have time with the coaches?

There is a similarity to Cal's cuts in that these kids could have gone somewhere else to play, but I believe the element of taking a kid's scholarship away makes it much worse.

I don't have high expectations for Calipari.

In contrast, Amaker was one of my favorite Dukies, and so I hold him to a higher standard. I was a little upset with the early recruiting allegations at Harvard--the early contact that was technically legal but fairly egregious seemed like a real issue, whereas the apparent lowering of admissions standards didn't much bother me--but I think he made a serious mistake in overrecruiting and then neither telling the old players that they should look elsewhere or that they'd be given a chance to compete for spots. Not a huge deal, probably, but I did expect more from him.