Is a scholarship a four year commitment

[Goon]

Some have been hacking on Deno, in many instances claim that if a kid come to UND to play on a scholarship that coach should have to stick with that player no matter what. What do others think.

[ScottM]

No. A scholarship, athletic or otherwise, is an annual deal, and can be renewed if you meet certain conditions. You don't meet the expectations, you don't get the ride again. Much like "real life" where if you don't do the job, you are out of a job. It's not a f'ing welfare system, although certain "welfare state" fans would argue otherwise, or spin it as a "mutual decision" or whatever bilge they develop.

FWIW: Most players who are cut from UND or any school generally deserve it. They don't pull their weight, they won't pick up their grades or work to at least improve their game. I don't think any coach cuts a ride out of caprice or anger. A player isn't showing improvement or won't accept the coach's system and he's gone. Sandelin did it at UMD when he arrived, and will probably do it in the future. Lucia's let people go, regardless of how they spin it. I generally don't have a problem with Blais cutting unproductive or disruptive players. He's here to do a job, and any player is given a fair shake at playing, sitting or getting bounced. Welcome to adulthood.

[Hammy]

I know I tease people on this topic but all my point has ever been is that if a kid is going to class and gets decent grades, follows team/school rules and does his work in practice, then a coach should not cut his scholly. I don't have a problem with a coach if he boots a player for breaking team rules (academics or poor behavior). But when a coach cuts based on mostly game performance, that reeks too much of pro sports rather than college.

I have a problem with any coach that cuts a scholarship simply because of game performance. I realize the ultimate judge of athletic performance is how you play in games but I just feel there is more to college sports than just the games. After all, that is why they call them "student-athletes". If a coach wants to be able to cut based strictly on game performance, maybe that coach ought to consider going to the pro ranks where it is a common practice.

As for Lucia, he has not pulled one scholarship because of a player's game performance. There have been a few academic casualties (Roed & Welch), a behavioral issue (Meyer) and a few kids decided to leave to find more playing time (and these kids were quoted as saying as such and Lucia maintained that they could stay with the team with their scholarship intact if they wanted). There is no spin involved (unless you want to call the players and Lucia a liar).

[siouxvivor]

A player can stay on, even if his play is down....but his scholarship may also go down. Not all players come in on a full ride. As a matter of fact very few get one.

If he ain't cuttin' it, move him on and bring in one that will!!! Welcome to reality.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Academic scholarships can be pulled if a student doesn't perform up to academic standards, why should athletic scholarships be any different? If a student athlete doesn't get it done on the field, ice, or court, why should they continue to receive money to go to school?

[Greyeagle]

If a player is cut does he have to sit out a year if he goes to another program? If he needs to sit out I think it should be construed as a four year commitment - as long as grades are kept up.

[mksioux]

If a player is cut does he have to sit out a year if he goes to another program?  If he needs to sit out I think it should be construed as a four year commitment  - as long as grades are kept up.

As everyone knows, if a player leaves on his own (without a release), he has to sit out a year. I'm far from an expert in this area, but I believe if a player is cut from the team, he can transfer and does not have to sit out for a year.

I'm not sure what happens if a player's scholarship is reduced/eliminated but he is not cut from the team. In such situations, I'm sure most coaches would grant a release to a player who decided to transfer because his scholarship was eliminated/reduced. Granting a release would allow the player to transfer without sitting out a year.

[Hammy]

Academic scholarships can be pulled if a student doesn't perform up to academic standards, why should athletic scholarships be any different?

[Hammy]

[ScottM]

As for Lucia, he has not pulled one scholarship because of a player's game performance. There have been a few academic casualties (Roed & Welch), a behavioral issue (Meyer) and a few kids decided to leave to find more playing time (and these kids were quoted as saying as such and Lucia maintained that they could stay with the team with their scholarship intact if they wanted). There is no spin involved (unless you want to call the players and Lucia a liar).

So, are we to infer that Lucia has never pulled a player aside, at Minnesota or CC, and told him that he's not working out under his system, he isn't delivering the goods, that his future is destined to wear a suit or hold a clipboard and he might be better off seeking other opportunities, e.g. Augsburg, MJ or tap dancing school, etc.? Spin it anyway you want, but every program that's worth a damn gets rid of players who don't work out for any number of reasons, academics, work ethic, changing of the guard, etc. That may smack of "professionalism" but coaches pulling in six figures for themselves and 7-8 figures for their schools are pros, and we expect results. SCCC on the other hand is just happy to get there, and then leave.

I view a scholarship, academic or athletic, as a two-way street. You work hard, contribute and show improvement throughout your time and both sides are happy. Like I said before, I doubt any coach worth his/her salt is going to get rid of somebody who shows promise, contributes or otherwise returns the school's investment in him/her. Blais may have/get a reputation as a hard-ass, but but I've never heard of him being cast as unfair to any player who is willing to work hard.

Maybe we should hire Sid for our PR department.

[Hammy]

So, are we to infer that Lucia has never pulled a player aside, at Minnesota or CC, and told him that he's not working out under his system, he isn't delivering the goods, that his future is destined to wear a suit or hold a clipboard and he might be better off seeking other opportunities, e.g. Augsburg, MJ or tap dancing school, etc.?

I am not saying Lucia isn't honest with a player and doesn't tell him his opportunities may be limited if his play doesn't improve.

What I am saying is he doesn't pull scholarships based on that nor forces a kid to leave because of that reason.

Even Lucia says he doesn't pull scholarships based on that because he doesn't feel comfortable doing it. Like I said, unless you want to call Lucia a liar (and I don't think many people would connect that label with him), he doesn't do it. Unless it was an academic situation (and I believe he had one instance at both CC and MN in which there was a behavioral casualty), he doesn't show a kid the door based on stats.

I do think it is unfortunate that college hockey seems to have taken on a more professional "tone" than it was in the past. The player movement these days seems to be much greater than it was 10+ years ago and I find that unfortunate.

[Goon]

Actually if you want to be technical I don't think Blaiser has cut many player either. IF you look at the paper it said that Siembieda wasn't coming back. You can read it any way you want but he probably was told his playing was going to be diminished, or he saw the writing on the wall and decided not to come back...

So now, lets fast forward to the season. Ranny and Sofie are walk on players and I would bet a dollar to a donut both players are not going to survive the pre-season, I mean why should they hang around... I wonder if we are going to hear how Blais is kicking off non-scholly players... Hum

Here is the bottom line, there is a lot of pressure to be the hockey coach at UND (as well as other high profile schools) it is unreasonable to expect Blaiser to ride out bad goal tending/less than stellar play for the sole purpose hey, its not nice to cut a scholarship player... I think that kind of logic is flawed.

[sagard]

I tend to think Lucia and Blais are a lot more similar than many of us Gophers fans would like to think. The primary difference is that Lucia is a lot more camera/press friendly than Blais appears to be.

Lucia has cut players in the past (Cugnet at CC, check USCHO). I think there may be some Big Ten rules that will prevent many/any departures from the Gophers that aren't agreed upon by both parties, but I'm just guessing there.

If I am a parent negotiating with a college coach over a sholarship for my son, you can bet that I will be expecting the coach to commit to a certain % over four years. If it is a 75% commitment, then three of the four years will be paid by the school. That could mean the second year is on my dime, but the remaining years would be on the school.

[mksioux]

[OETKB]

IMO, this is not an all-or-nothing issue. There is the idea of a commitment implied to a kid, but there is also the expectation of what that kid will bring to the program.

In some cases, it is justifiable to pull a scholarship. Take the extreme case of a kid who plays for the team for a few years, scores just a couple of points, and generally is a disappointment at the college level. If this kid is not learning from the coaching staff, it can be argued that they are failing the "class" they were given a free ride to take.

It seems to me that Blais gives kids two years to show improvement before he makes a scholarship decision. That, to me, does not seem overly harsh. Two years should be enough to show development under the program. If not, as with any job or relationship in life, you provide that opportunity to someone else.

Of course, I've always stated my interests are first with the success of the program and its impact on Grand Forks. I believe this issue is one where it is unlikely to change others' opinions.

[Hammy]

Lucia has cut players in the past (Cugnet at CC, check USCHO).

If I recall, Lucia also eventually helped arrange for Cugnet to be able to stay at school at CC (if he wanted to) by getting him scholarship help via the academic route.

Like I said, I don't have a problem when a coach cuts a kid for not working hard in practice, class, etc. I just have a problem with it when it a player is cut because he didn't produce in games as the coach thought he would when he was recruited.

[Hammy]

Here is the bottom line, there is a lot of pressure to be the hockey coach at UND (as well as other high profile schools) it is unreasonable to expect Blaiser to ride out bad goal tending/less than stellar play for the sole purpose hey, its not nice to cut a scholarship player... I think that kind of logic is flawed.

Maybe the coach needs to do a better job assessing some players then so it doesn't come to that kind of a situation? It seems to me this aspect is sort of overlooked. As if it is all on the player's shoulders. But shouldn't the coach also be held accountable for recruiting the player?

Obviously the coach made a mistake in his own right if he has to resort to cutting a scholarship player. But I don't see much criticism towards a coach. It always seems to be a player's fault. (and I mean that in general. Not saying that for the Sioux alone).

BTW, I don't have any issues with walk on players not making it. They aren't guaranteed anything other than a chance to try out.

[Rick]

I am not saying a player is entitled. I just don't think game performance should be the sole criteria. If a kid commits to a school and works hard while he is there, shouldn't the school/coach live up to what they say in the recruiting process? (and please, don't insult anybody's intelligence by acting like a coach only talks about one year worth of scholarship when he recruits a kid. If he did that, he would get killed in recruiting).

I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence....but I have heard, first hand, what is said. I've also talked with other recruits after they commit, and they've told me what's been said. Unless you are a "Zach Parise type player"....there are no guarantee's. I have no first hand knowledge of conversations with Parise, David Hale, Matt Greene...but I suspect they were told they could have a scholarship for 4 years if they wanted it....if, they honor their classroom commitments. Other recruits are given a scholarship for their first year, and if they honor their commitments in the classroom, make agreed on progress on the ice, and stay out of trouble, then they will adjust the scholarship based on the level of improvement.

There are several examples of players who will be Juniors this coming year and we haven't seen much improvement since they first stepped onto the ice. But they are still with the team and getting a scholarship. I would be surprised if there isn't some downward adjustment in scholarships for these players. There is no reason why a player should keep a half or 3/4 scholarship if they're not contributing or improving.

Because of Humphrey, Mondale and Wellstone legacies, many of us who have lived in Minnesota most of our lives have a welfare mentality. Well, even though Blaiser grew up in Minnesota, there are no entitlements in his language. I suspect it stems from his up-bringing. If I remember right, his dad was a Marine, and his older brother was also a Marine. The only entitlement you get in the Marine's is if you don't work your butt off, you'll get a size 12 boot planted squarely in the center. In the Marines, you also get told, in no uncertain terms, what's expected of you. Nothing is sugarcoated.

Well, there aren't many things sugarcoated in Blaisers system either. You can tell that by what you read in the papers. He is brutily honest, whether it has to do with a player, ref, league, contract negotiation, etc, etc. You know exactely where you stand (or sit) with Blaiser.

If you want entitlements, or you want things sugarcoated, maybe you should be in a little girls dance class.

[Hammy]

Obviously not every player is approached the same way. But I don't know many parents who have a son recruited that think it is only for one year.

Recruiting battles can be lost on relatively minor factors. If a recruit feels a coach isn't as committed to him as other coaches are..... well, you figure out what the results are likely to be.

I am sure prospective players will enjoy reading that type of thinking from an "insider" of the Sioux. Food for thought for them.

[dagies]

I am sure prospective players will enjoy reading that type of thinking from an "insider" of the Sioux. Food for thought for them.

I doubt they need to read this board to hear that, Hammy. Sounds like they hear it up front.

In fact, this issue came up last year on this board. A similar scenario was presented and the parent of a player chimed in to agree that is basically how it worked.

Sagard, I agree with you. I think there are more similarities between Blais and Lucia than many Gopher fans would like to admit. Which has been why I have so actively been involved in these discussions here and on others boards. I appreciate your point of view.

[Slap Shot]

Some have been hacking on Deno, in many instances claim that if a kid come to UND to play on a scholarship that coach should have to stick with that player no matter what. What do others think.

I think it's a two way street of accountability. A coach's obligation is to instruct, teach, guide, mentor, etc., etc. A student-athlete's obligation is to go to class, listen, learn, play hard, etc. If a player doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, I don't see much of a problem with letting the player go. I agree some coaches seem to have more freedoms than the athletes, (i.e.) being able to leave and coach immediatly, while a transferring player has to sit out a year, but if the institution in charge has any credibility they won't allow a coach to get away with too much.

I've heard people ragging on Blais and I've chosen not to pay attention to it. I don't know nor care if the accusations have merit.

If the question was more, "should a player not be able to lose their scholarship if their playing ability isn't up to expectations", unless a player leaves the school the scholarship imho should be honored with respect to paying for tuition.

[siouxvivor]

Obviously not every player is approached the same way. But I don't know many parents who have a son recruited that think it is only for one year.

Recruiting battles can be lost on relatively minor factors. If a recruit feels a coach isn't as committed to him as other coaches are..... well, you figure out what the results are likely to be

.

I think you are way off base here. Speaking from experience, the player is definately told from the beginning that his scholarship is renewed each year and the % could change depending on their preformance, on and off the ice. It's no surprise to them. Each year at evaluation they discuss their goals and what is expected of them for the next year. Once again no surprised from the BIG GUY.

If a player feels he is not up to speed and will not receive the desired ice time, he is free to leave. I believe it is NCAA rules that a player has to sit out a year after a transfer. It has nothing to do with the coach. I could be wrong.

[Rick]

Obviously not every player is approached the same way. But I don't know many parents who have a son recruited that think it is only for one year.

Recruiting battles can be lost on relatively minor factors. If a recruit feels a coach isn't as committed to him as other coaches are..... well, you figure out what the results are likely to be.

I am sure prospective players will enjoy reading that type of thinking from an "insider" of the Sioux. Food for thought for them.

Either you're very disconnected, or else you work for Jesse Jackson.

I know very few recruits/parents who shy away when told that they have to be accountable, they have to work for their position, and that their scholarship is based on their performance (which is reviewed and agreed upon by the player and coaches). If they shy away when told this, I suspect Blaiser tells them that there is a better fit for them 300 miles down the road.

It actually works the opposite of what you say. Most parents want to hear that their son has to work hard, attend class, perform, keep out of trouble, and be accountable if they are going to play for the Sioux. It's a selling point. Jan Gangelhoff doesn't work at UND.

[Hammy]

If they shy away when told this, I suspect Blaiser tells them that there is a better fit for them 300 miles down the road.

Somehow I doubt they'd be complaining about heading 300 miles down the road based on the last two seasons.

It actually works the opposite of what you say.

[Rick]

If the hard work is there but the stats aren't great, I don't feel that is an adequate enough reason to let a player go. I think the coach needs to be more accountable and stand by the player rather than looking for the easy way out.

Yes, I guess I see your point now....if Erickson wouldn't have been such a screw-off, if he would have kept his grades up, if he would have been accountable, if he would have been willing to work for his position...then I'm sure a coach of Donnie's integrity would have kept him around.