PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Interesting new NCAA rule that I missed


#1

New as of a year ago that is:

[i]15.5.1.7 Aid After Departure of Head Coach—Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, a student-athlete who receives athletically related institutional financial aid in later academic years after the departure of a head coach from the institution is not a counter, provided: (Adopted: 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(a) The student-athlete participated in basketball and received athletically related institutional financial aid
during the coach’s tenure at the institution; and

(b) The student-athlete does not participate in basketball during the later academic years at the institution.[/i]

Basically, that says that Chamber could conceivably tell anyone on the squad that their services will no longer be needed but keep them in school on scholarship until graduation without them counting (as long as they don’t play). I’m assuming that “participate” means play in a game. I could be wrong and it might mean practice with the team also.

I did some more digging and discovered that “participating” happens at the first practice. So, in theory, anytime between now and practice on Friday, Chambers could conceivably tell one or more of the guys that we will honor their scholarships but that they aren’t going to be part of the team. I’m not suggesting that he’s going to do that but this could be one of the possible reasons that we appeared to still be recruiting some people even though we were out of scholarships.


#2

I remember reading about the rule back in the spring. I guess we’ll find out Friday.

Of course, with the typical NCAA vagueness, what is “later years?”


#3

Well that could make things interesting later this week.

Thanks for posting, Lar.


#4

Thanks for posting it… Interesting, indeed!


#5

That is an interesting rule. I wonder how many players will be told this. I think the rule is a win for the coaches, and for the players who don’t have an NBA future. Someone like Billy Oliver who could’ve gone to an Ivy League school can still get a free education. Granted, it’s a huge negative for anyone who still wants to play basketball.


#6

Not really. If anything it’s a positive. The employee still might get fired, but this time he has a pretty nice severance package.


#7

I doubt that any will be told. I see it as just an out that Chambers had when he was still doing some heavy recruiting this summer. If we had gotten too many guys saying yes, then PC had an out. From now on, I see him just doing business as usual.

As far as it being a negative, I sure don’t see it that way. If a kid still wants to play basketball, he can still transfer. This just gives him another option that he never had before. It’s win-win as far as I can see.


#8
[quote="rwd5035, post:5, topic:2727"]That is an interesting rule. I wonder how many players will be told this. I think the rule is a win for the coaches, and for the players who don't have an NBA future. Someone like Billy Oliver who could've gone to an Ivy League school can still get a free education. Granted, it's a huge negative for anyone who still wants to play basketball.[/quote]

I doubt that any will be told. I see it as just an out that Chambers had when he was still doing some heavy recruiting this summer. If we had gotten too many guys saying yes, then PC had an out. From now on, I see him just doing business as usual.

As far as it being a negative, I sure don’t see it that way. If a kid still wants to play basketball, he can still transfer. This just gives him another option that he never had before. It’s win-win as far as I can see.

I think this has been discussed before on this forum…

Nick Saban (I believe it was him) has been doing this for years at Alabama. The only difference is that the player would have some type of mysterious ‘injury’. That player would be off the roster, would not count toward scholarship limits, but would retain a scholarship while he was at the school.

Maybe this should be known as the ‘Saban Rule’.


#9
[quote="rwd5035, post:5, topic:2727"]That is an interesting rule. I wonder how many players will be told this. I think the rule is a win for the coaches, and for the players who don't have an NBA future. Someone like Billy Oliver who could've gone to an Ivy League school can still get a free education. Granted, it's a huge negative for anyone who still wants to play basketball.[/quote]

I doubt that any will be told. I see it as just an out that Chambers had when he was still doing some heavy recruiting this summer. If we had gotten too many guys saying yes, then PC had an out. From now on, I see him just doing business as usual.

As far as it being a negative, I sure don’t see it that way. If a kid still wants to play basketball, he can still transfer. This just gives him another option that he never had before. It’s win-win as far as I can see.

I think this has been discussed before on this forum…

Nick Saban (I believe it was him) has been doing this for years at Alabama. The only difference is that the player would have some type of mysterious ‘injury’. That player would be off the roster, would not count toward scholarship limits, but would retain a scholarship while he was at the school.

Maybe this should be known as the ‘Saban Rule’.

Different rule entirely. This new rule can only happen during a narrow window of time, specifically after a new coach takes over and before practice starts.


#10
[quote="rwd5035, post:5, topic:2727"]That is an interesting rule. I wonder how many players will be told this. I think the rule is a win for the coaches, and for the players who don't have an NBA future. Someone like Billy Oliver who could've gone to an Ivy League school can still get a free education. Granted, it's a huge negative for anyone who still wants to play basketball.[/quote]

I doubt that any will be told. I see it as just an out that Chambers had when he was still doing some heavy recruiting this summer. If we had gotten too many guys saying yes, then PC had an out. From now on, I see him just doing business as usual.

As far as it being a negative, I sure don’t see it that way. If a kid still wants to play basketball, he can still transfer. This just gives him another option that he never had before. It’s win-win as far as I can see.

I think this has been discussed before on this forum…

Nick Saban (I believe it was him) has been doing this for years at Alabama. The only difference is that the player would have some type of mysterious ‘injury’. That player would be off the roster, would not count toward scholarship limits, but would retain a scholarship while he was at the school.

Maybe this should be known as the ‘Saban Rule’.

Different rule entirely. This new rule can only happen during a narrow window of time, specifically after a new coach takes over and before practice starts.

I know it’s a different rule, Lar. ::slight_smile:

What I’m saying is that it has the SAME EFFECT. Saban is already doing (without the ‘new coach’ limitation) what this rule is designed to do.


#11

Gosh…it’s ALWAYS very hard to understand the NCAA’s goals.

At first glance… the rule seems like it’s directed to safeguard the kids…BUT, I see it as a much BIGGER WIN for the coaches. They can “thin the herd” at will with fewer questions asked or eyebrows raised. Soon most schools will become “SEC football.”

Lennie Briscoe - " Follow the money."


#12

[quote=“tundra, post:11, topic:2727”]Gosh…it’s ALWAYS very hard to understand the NCAA’s goals.

At first glance… the rule seems like it’s directed to safeguard the kids…BUT, I see it as a much BIGGER WIN for the coaches. They can “thin the herd” at will with fewer questions asked or eyebrows raised.

Lennie Briscoe - " Follow the money." [/quote]

But as mentioned, there’s only a small window for when this rule can be acted on. It’s not like it’s a seasonal thing.


#13
Gosh...............it's ALWAYS very hard to understand the NCAA's goals.

At first glance… the rule seems like it’s directed to safeguard the kids…BUT, I see it as a much BIGGER WIN for the coaches. They can “thin the herd” at will with fewer questions asked or eyebrows raised.

Lennie Briscoe - " Follow the money."

But as mentioned, there’s only a small window for when this rule can be acted on. It’s not like it’s a seasonal thing.

Yes, you only get one chance to crush someone’s dreams through no fault of their own, so you better make the most of it!


#14
[quote="tundra, post:11, topic:2727"]Gosh...............it's ALWAYS very hard to understand the NCAA's goals.

At first glance… the rule seems like it’s directed to safeguard the kids…BUT, I see it as a much BIGGER WIN for the coaches. They can “thin the herd” at will with fewer questions asked or eyebrows raised.

Lennie Briscoe - " Follow the money."[/quote]

But as mentioned, there’s only a small window for when this rule can be acted on. It’s not like it’s a seasonal thing.

Yes, you only get one chance to crush someone’s dreams through no fault of their own, so you better make the most of it!

You post that as if new coaches wouldn’t run off current players if this rule didn’t exist.


#15

I’m with you Tim. I fail to see the win from the player’s perspective. It softens the blow, but it still sucks.


#16
[quote="tundra, post:11, topic:2727"]Gosh...............it's ALWAYS very hard to understand the NCAA's goals.

At first glance… the rule seems like it’s directed to safeguard the kids…BUT, I see it as a much BIGGER WIN for the coaches. They can “thin the herd” at will with fewer questions asked or eyebrows raised.

Lennie Briscoe - " Follow the money."[/quote]

But as mentioned, there’s only a small window for when this rule can be acted on. It’s not like it’s a seasonal thing.

Yes, you only get one chance to crush someone’s dreams through no fault of their own, so you better make the most of it!

Thank you for clearly stating what needed to be said, Tim.

With Tre Bowman it was an easy out, since the kid already put himself in the doghouse. No one questions PC’s decision there. Any of the others will be a tougher one to explain to both the kid and to the fans of the team…for I have to feel that all the players remaining want to be a part of this team going forward.

We’re dealing with something similar surrounding my son’s tournament baseball team. A few kids have been replaced, by little fault of their own, with “better” kids…and trust me, when you rip at the fabric of the “family”, it has its damaging effects.

I’ve learned from coaching these types of teams that people are very different. There are those (yours truly) who will take what has been dealt them, and usually that they dealt themselves, and try and produce a winner…then there are those who will do whatever they feel is necessary (including pissing off folks along the way) to win at any and all costs.

Granted Alabama football or even Penn State basketball is more important to many more people than a 9/10 year old tournament baseball team, but the way the coach runs it speaks volumes to their character regardless of the teams’ importance.

At least in Chambers defense, these are kids that he didn’t have any interest in to begin with. Same can’t be said about Saban or those in charge of my son’s team. (FYI, my son is still on the team.)


#17
Yes, you only get one chance to crush someone's dreams through no fault of their own, so you better make the most of it!

I’m with you Tim. I fail to see the win from the player’s perspective. It softens the blow, but it still sucks.

Without the rule: Transfer (which may not be feasible for a senior) or try to come up with the cash for one or two more years at one of the nation’s most expensive schools.
With the rule: Transfer (which may not be feasible for a senior) or have your education continued to be paid for for one or two more years at one of the nation’s most expensive schools.

How is this not a win? This rule is completely irrelevant to how a new coach conducts business. It is completely relevant to a player’s options should he end up on the wrong side of that fence.

Are you guys trying to say that players will be run off MORE often now that this rule is in place? I just don’t see it. Some coaches are going to run off guys no matter what this new rule says. And the coaches that aren’t likely to run off players in the first place probably are still going to honor that commitment, even with this new option.


#18

Tom…you’re probably not responding to my post, since it’s not quoted, but…

I’m not saying it is a bad rule…it’s a good rule to protect the student-athlete. I’m not speaking to rule per se, I’m speaking to the decision to chuck kids off the team who are being replaced by no fault of their own.

It’s a slippery slope that these new coaches face and they need to understand the atmosphere surrounding their respective programs. And while PC does sort of have a pass in that these are kids that he didn’t recruit to PSU, I think he’s savvy enough to understand that his actions might be looked upon by future recruits. If he stands by and honors both the scholarships and playing privileges of the existing players (when he does have this one-time out), instead of chucking one kid off just so he can sign the next hottest recruit, then that might be more of a long-term benefit to his recruiting.

Though if he scores Mr. Britt in the next two days, then I say, who can blame him for doing such a thing. :wink:

Bottom line…I don’t see this as a “win-win” if there are kids who love PSU and want to be a part of the hoop team, but are shown the door. Who wins there?

What is weird is if the kid still wanted to practice with the team but could not. For if he did, wouldn’t his scholarship still count toward the number? He’d have to ditch his scholarship and be a “walk-on” if he wanted to stick around to practice, correct? Again, “win-win”…I think not.


#19

Remember Devon Thomas was quoted as saying PSU told him they had someone else. So I don’t think PC was ever going to run anyone off. I could be wrong, but to turn down a kid who is going to Wake Forest probably says something about where PC stands on the issue.


#20

Originally I had a pretty long response and realized how dumb I was being. :-*

It’s not that I think it’s a bad idea or rule, but I can’t label it as anything other than being the better option of 2 bad options.