|
Post by trollhunter on Dec 2, 2020 12:55:40 GMT -5
web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008 I hope this attachment comes through. I apologize if it doesn't. NCAA Bylaw 15.3.5.3 explains it pretty well. You are correct that the power 5 implemented the ability to give 4 years scholarships. While not requiring them. You are correct. That wasn't really my intent to talk about what various conference's have adopted. Any institution can give a 4 year scholarship if that's what they want to do, not just in the power 5. I can't speak to all the various power 5 conference rules they put in place regarding how they give them out, 4 year or 1 at a time. My point was that it really doesn't matter. If my kid goes in on a 1 year they will be treated the same as if they were on a 4 year. That is to say they cannot lose their scholarship based on athletic performance. There are ways to lose or have a reduction in your scholarship and it's the same whether you're on a 1,2,3,4,or 5 year scholarship. You deem yourself ineligible, you quit, break team rules (of which you signed at the beginning of the year), or misrepresent yourself on your application. None of these infractions mean you will automatically lose your scholarship but you can without much recourse. But to be clear, you cannot lose your scholarship because you did not perform up to the coaching staff's hopes. There can be discussion prior to signing, that the scholarship is only available for the upcoming year and is not available the subsequent year, therefore you sign it knowing it is only for one academic year. But again, this is known on the front end and is not related to athletic ability. If a coach tries to tell a freshman that signed a scholarship that they didn't earn as much playing time as we were hoping for and therefore I need part or all of it back, it's not going to end well for the coach. The player will proceed to the AD and explain the situation, if the AD doesn't help then the player and the parents will proceed to the Chancellor of the University, if that doesn't work they will lawyer up and head to the media and at that point they will get to keep their scholarship while being a regular student. The kicker will be that the scholarship will also count against the team's scholarship limit. This is only if the coach tries to use athletic ability as the reason. If a coach has a player that they feel they missed on when it comes to talent they have some avenues to try and get the scholarship back. They will start with having the "playing time" conversation and encourage them to find another place to play if that concerns them. The kid will ask "what will happen to my scholarship if I stay, I really like it here and I think I can crack the line up and help us win"? The coach will respond with "well I am not going to take your scholarship but I really don't see a path for you to play". Or maybe the coach likes the determination in the kid and decides to keep working with them to help them get there and contribute. But if the player doesn't decide to transfer then the coach could decide to make it a little difficult for that athlete in the hope that they decide to leave on their own. All Coaches miss on athletes from time to time and face this possibility. If you coach volleyball at say Nebraska or Texas for example, the kid will likely see the writing on the wall and absolutely want to play the remainder of their career, so they have a discussion with the Head Coach and the Coach will decide whether they want to talk them out of it or green light their decision to transfer. There will be some programs that the player might see the writing on the wall and still not want to transfer. It's possible that some mistreatment comes into play at this point to get the player to transfer or quit. I don't know what it says on anyone's web site, I only know the NCAA rules. The institutions discuss and vote on these rules and they have to follow them. Again, I am not saying at all what happened at Oregon State, I don't have any insight. But if you could just take a kid's scholarship based on athletic ability then it would have been pretty easy to do it and the media might not have too much to write about. My objective was to shed light on how the scholarship process works. I am not taking the Coach's or Athlete's side in the story. I can only speak from my personal experience. In this case, I feel for both the athlete's and the coach(s). Thanks for including the reference. You are quite correct for this case at Oregon State. Since they are in a Power 5 conference. Just a note what you wrote is applicable for Power 5 ONLY. See the note prefacing the rule 15.3.5 that you referenced. For the other 250+ DI non-P5 (and all DII) schools it is not correct. 15.3.4.3 is their rule. They can still non-renew 1 year deals for no reason or any reason, after (not during) the period of the award. Pretty common for new coaches at non-P5 to let a bunch of kids go and bring in their own to restart a struggling program. Such as the Shepardson formula used bringing in 9 new at South Florida last year. *** 15.3.5 Reduction, Cancellation or Nonrenewal of Institutional Financial Aid. [Note: Bylaws 15.3.5 and 15.3.6 apply to autonomy conferences. They also apply to nonautonomy conferences and institutions that have elected to apply the more restrictive autonomy provisions related to reduction and nonrenewal of institutional financial aid.]
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2020 13:02:13 GMT -5
It is my understanding (which could well be incorrect) that most PAC-12 schools offer mostly 4-yr scholarships now to incoming scholarship athletes. Is there anybody out here who knows for sure whether this is true or not? I'd like to learn what the real situation is in case I'm wrong, please.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2020 13:19:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 3, 2020 14:34:53 GMT -5
There might be ways around it, such as verbally promising a one-year scholarship, after enrolling (walking on). Endsley apparently had her four-year offer rescinded at Nebraska and replaced with a one-year offer, which is how she ended up at UW.
|
|
|
Post by volleyvietnam on Dec 7, 2020 2:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 7, 2020 2:22:18 GMT -5
No. The university just doesn’t publicly announce the details of their findings due to privacy laws.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Dec 7, 2020 13:59:32 GMT -5
The actual items listed as abuse in the article (without adjectives or hyperbole):
1. Had a player repeat a drill of hit overpass, then dig. 2. Barnard said he was going to force the team to perform a particularly hard drill “likely until the end of practice” because he thought the team’s energy was off. 3. Barnard promising four-year scholarships during recruiting then issuing single year deals (still basically a 4 year deal via NCAA rule as discussed, since in P5) 4. He’d call us entitled brats, a bunch of princesses, tell us how much we suck, and how we’re unworthy of being here. 5. an instance in which Barnard called a player an “(expletive) idiot” during a timeout. 6. Mark said 'There should be no communication with Marianne (SWA) about anything going on with this team unless I am physically assaulting someone.". Basically items 1-4.
Perhaps the one-time happening in #5 could be considered verbal abuse. Hardly a pattern if you ask me.
The articles author "... was careful to separate actual abuse from hard coaching, and checked with experts to learn if the behavior by volleyball coach Mark Barnard was over the line."
I call BS on this claim. Many would say sensationalism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 15:11:41 GMT -5
The actual items listed as abuse in the article (without adjectives or hyperbole): 1. Had a player repeat a drill of hit overpass, then dig. 2. Barnard said he was going to force the team to perform a particularly hard drill “likely until the end of practice” because he thought the team’s energy was off. 3. Barnard promising four-year scholarships during recruiting then issuing single year deals (still basically a 4 year deal via NCAA rule as discussed, since in P5) 4. He’d call us entitled brats, a bunch of princesses, tell us how much we suck, and how we’re unworthy of being here. 5. an instance in which Barnard called a player an “(expletive) idiot” during a timeout. Perhaps the one-time happening in #5 could be considered verbal abuse. Hardly a pattern if you ask me. The articles author "... was careful to separate actual abuse from hard coaching, and checked with experts to learn if the behavior by volleyball coach Mark Barnard was over the line." I call BS on this claim. Many would say sensationalism. Did you miss the part where Barnard told his players that they weren't to report behavior to the SWA "unless he is physically assaulting someone" or did that just not fit with your narrative?
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Dec 7, 2020 15:25:47 GMT -5
The actual items listed as abuse in the article (without adjectives or hyperbole): 1. Had a player repeat a drill of hit overpass, then dig. 2. Barnard said he was going to force the team to perform a particularly hard drill “likely until the end of practice” because he thought the team’s energy was off. 3. Barnard promising four-year scholarships during recruiting then issuing single year deals (still basically a 4 year deal via NCAA rule as discussed, since in P5) 4. He’d call us entitled brats, a bunch of princesses, tell us how much we suck, and how we’re unworthy of being here. 5. an instance in which Barnard called a player an “(expletive) idiot” during a timeout. Perhaps the one-time happening in #5 could be considered verbal abuse. Hardly a pattern if you ask me. The articles author "... was careful to separate actual abuse from hard coaching, and checked with experts to learn if the behavior by volleyball coach Mark Barnard was over the line." I call BS on this claim. Many would say sensationalism. Did you miss the part where Barnard told his players that they weren't to report behavior to the SWA "unless he is physically assaulting someone" or did that just not fit with your narrative? You are correct, I missed it toward the end. Fits narrative. I will edit. 6. Mark said 'There should be no communication with Marianne (SWA) about anything going on with this team unless I am physically assaulting someone.". Basically items 1-4. Which many may not think are abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 16:04:35 GMT -5
Did you miss the part where Barnard told his players that they weren't to report behavior to the SWA "unless he is physically assaulting someone" or did that just not fit with your narrative? You are correct, I missed it toward the end. Fits narrative. I will edit. 6. Mark said 'There should be no communication with Marianne (SWA) about anything going on with this team unless I am physically assaulting someone.". Basically items 1-4. Which many may not think are abuse. OK, so if you missed it do you understand how that single quote changes the issue? That is the opposite of what we're instructed to do as coaches. If a student athlete makes allegations of abuse about a coach, they should be ENCOURAGED to talk to someone outside the program, not discouraged from doing so.
|
|
|
Post by lovetennis7 on Dec 7, 2020 16:17:28 GMT -5
I get what trollhunter is saying and agree it's not abuse. Mark's coaching style would not motivate me and I would not want to play for him. I don't see a need for being disparaging and disrespectful to anyone, anywhere - in a sport or in everyday life. Did these players not see Mark's coaching style prior to committing to play for him? I have gone to a home OSU match and observed his sideline and huddle behavior. Small sample size but I could see his coaching style was not like the opposing coach (they played UCLA). With all of that said, several OSU players love playing for Mark and have backed him 100%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 16:30:59 GMT -5
I get what trollhunter is saying and agree it's not abuse. Mark's coaching style would not motivate me and I would not want to play for him. I don't see a need for being disparaging and disrespectful to anyone, anywhere - in a sport or in everyday life. Did these players not see Mark's coaching style prior to committing to play for him? I have gone to a home OSU match and observed his sideline and huddle behavior. Small sample size but I could see his coaching style was not like the opposing coach (they played UCLA). With all of that said, several OSU players love playing for Mark and have backed him 100%. But that's also not the point. It isn't up to Mark to decide if he's abusing players any more than it's up to the consensus on VT. By telling his players not to go talk to the SWA "unless he is physically assaulting" them, he is inviting this type of investigation.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 7, 2020 16:40:41 GMT -5
With all of that said, several OSU players love playing for Mark and have backed him 100%. This phrase is probably true in most scenarios and often used when allegations are made towards coaches who may or may not be abusive. Doesn't really change anything either way.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Dec 7, 2020 18:31:12 GMT -5
I get what trollhunter is saying and agree it's not abuse. Mark's coaching style would not motivate me and I would not want to play for him. I don't see a need for being disparaging and disrespectful to anyone, anywhere - in a sport or in everyday life. Did these players not see Mark's coaching style prior to committing to play for him? I have gone to a home OSU match and observed his sideline and huddle behavior. Small sample size but I could see his coaching style was not like the opposing coach (they played UCLA). With all of that said, several OSU players love playing for Mark and have backed him 100%. I think there's a difference between being able to "see coaching style" and experiencing a coaching style that sometimes includes verbal abuse. What if those players using their visits on matches that his team won? Would be be verbally abusing players loud enough for fans to hear? I would assume he would have the players that he likes interact with recruits on visit so that they would only say positive things about the program. I'm not saying whether he abused players to the point that he should be punished or not, I'm just weary of anyone blaming the kids for essentially not predicting that they would get abused by their college coach (if that happened.)
|
|
|
Post by rtael on Dec 8, 2020 0:20:36 GMT -5
I get what trollhunter is saying and agree it's not abuse. Mark's coaching style would not motivate me and I would not want to play for him. I don't see a need for being disparaging and disrespectful to anyone, anywhere - in a sport or in everyday life. Did these players not see Mark's coaching style prior to committing to play for him? I have gone to a home OSU match and observed his sideline and huddle behavior. Small sample size but I could see his coaching style was not like the opposing coach (they played UCLA). With all of that said, several OSU players love playing for Mark and have backed him 100%. You're a moron.
|
|