So much for the IU "Athletes Bill of Rights"

[HoosierfanJM]

I'm still trying to figure out why the family said things got ugly after he informed the staff he was staying at IU and then why the AAU coach would care and pressure him to transfer. If those things could be explained then I would believe this nothing-to-see-hear act.

If things were as they are being explained here, Archie Miller shouldn't care one way or the other that he wanted to stay on scholarship at IU and neither should the AAU coach.

Because apparently the Gelons were and maybe still are of the impression that he should have received more playing time last season (!), not a one way ticket to 4H Community U. Crean's sales job fooled them, but Gelon wasn't even the best player on his high school team and routinely was shut out in AAU ball.

IU offered him the chance to stay at IU on scholarship as per policy, just not as a member of the basketball team.

 

[Statey]

No kidding? If that isn't the Captain Obvious statement of the day. New coach at major state university contacts a nobody AAU coach to ask him to help a problem go away. You really think the AAU coach is going to burn that bridge when he knows the new coach is going to be in that position another 4-5 years at minimum. It appears as if he was more than happy to stab a former player in the back to get in good with Archie. After all, how many players would not consider that program if he had a conflict with the IU coach?

I'm not following this... why would the AAU coach be doing underhanded things to stay in the good graces of Archie? By that I mean, what benefit does the AAU coach get from the Archie relationship? One would think it would be the other way around... a D1 coach has a lot more to lose by alienating an entire AAU program than an AAU coach has to gain (unless he's looking for a job, of course, but I don't think that is the case here since Archie's staff is all brand new).

 

[Da_Bull]

Sounds like to me he went there because Archie bullied him out of IU.

But he had D1 programs interested...instead of going there or to a D2 school, or D3 school, he went to a juco a low low juco at that.

 

[TC4THREE]

I'm not following this... why would the AAU coach be doing underhanded things to stay in the good graces of Archie? By that I mean, what benefit does the AAU coach get from the Archie relationship? One would think it would be the other way around... a D1 coach has a lot more to lose by alienating an entire AAU program than an AAU coach has to gain (unless he's looking for a job, of course, but I don't think that is the case here since Archie's staff is all brand new).

AAU programs/coaches build their reputations by sending their players to big programs. That's how they remain viable and attract the best talent going forward. You don't really see how having helped out the head coach at the high profile state school could benefit the AAU coach in getting the talent to his program down the road?

 

[TC4THREE]

But he had D1 programs interested...instead of going there or to a D2 school, or D3 school, he went to a juco a low low juco at that.

He'd have had to sit out a year if he left directly for another D1 program right?

 

[TC4THREE]

IU offered him the chance to stay at IU on scholarship as per policy, just not as a member of the basketball team.

That's IU's public position. And if that's true it seems odd that an AAU coach would be meddling in this at all.

 

[TC4THREE]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...transfer-grant-gelon-i-wanted-stay/587950001/

IU’s student-athlete bill of rights, Glass’ brainchild, protects athletes from losing scholarship aid for performance-related reasons. Campbell confirmed to IndyStar that Gelon had the option to stay at Indiana as a regular student, and would have kept his scholarship in that case.

“The staff told him we would assist him in any way possible in finding a program that would allow him to make the type of on-court contribution he was hoping for and expecting, at another institution,” the statement continues. “He also was advised that his full four-year athletic scholarship would be honored if he chose to remain as a student at IU.”

 

[Statey]

AAU programs/coaches build their reputations by sending their players to big programs. That's how they remain viable and attract the best talent going forward. You don't really see how having helped out the head coach at the high profile state school could benefit the AAU coach in getting the talent to his program down the road?

I suppose if we're talking about a more long-term and/or indirect kind of benefit, such as making the AAU team more attractive or marketable locally, I guess there's something.

Aside from that though, I really don't see near the benefit/risk in the direction you're talking about. I mean, do you think Painter has influence/power over Eric Hunter's AAU program because the IE coach is afraid of damaging his relationship with Painter? Probably not; if the IE coach and Painter don't see eye to eye, that coach would probably just stop referring Purdue as a good option for his players and that would be the end of it. It just seems to me the D1 coach has far more at stake if the AAU coach closes off his program to the D1 coach than the other way around. And I don't think it's even close really.

Take this example... let's say Painter HATES Romeo's AAU coach... would he not accept Romeo at Purdue? Not liking an AAU coach - in and of itself - is not going to cause Painter to turn down an accepted offer from Romeo. So you could make the argument that if the AAU coach regularly has high quality players, he might not really suffer at all because the D1 coach is going to continue to accept his team's kids... because the D1 coach is the one with the multi-million dollar salary at stake, he's clearly got more to lose.

 

[TC4THREE]

I guess you see the AAU coaches as way more powerful than I do. If I'm a player looking for a AAU program and I know my dream school is Duke then I'm probably more likely to pick a program that has sent players to Duke and has a good relationship with them. My objectives would determine which AAU program I choose, not vice versa.

 

[Statey]

I guess you see the AAU coaches as way more powerful than I do. If I'm a player looking for a AAU program and I know my dream school is Duke then I'm probably more likely to pick a program that has sent players to Duke and has a good relationship with them. My objectives would determine which AAU program I choose, not vice versa.

I see the AAU coach as far more powerful in the sense of what he can do (or not do) for a D1 coach, and thus the reason I see the D1/AAU coach relationship pretty one-sided.

I don't really see the AAU coach as all that powerful at all from the standpoint of the athlete. Using your example, if I'm good enough to possibly play for Duke, MSU, or Purdue, I probably can just pick the AAU team I want. The AAU coach is going to court me more than I'm courting him. Short of going to play for some egregiously small that participates in events out in Montana that D1 coaches don't even know about, I'm going to get noticed by college coaches for my play. If I'm a good player - all else equal - Coach K or Coach Painter aren't going to not recruit me just because I play for an AAU team they don't have an preexisting relationship with.

 

[TC4THREE]

I see the AAU coach as far more powerful in the sense of what he can do (or not do) for a D1 coach, and thus the reason I see the D1/AAU coach relationship pretty one-sided.

I don't really see the AAU coach as all that powerful at all from the standpoint of the athlete. Using your example, if I'm good enough to possibly play for Duke, MSU, or Purdue, I probably can just pick the AAU team I want. The AAU coach is going to court me more than I'm courting him. Short of going to play for some egregiously small that participates in events out in Montana that D1 coaches don't even know about, I'm going to get noticed by college coaches for my play. If I'm a good player - all else equal - Coach K or Coach Painter aren't going to not recruit me just because I play for an AAU team they don't have an preexisting relationship with.

Correct. Top 25 type players usually don't have to worry about getting an offer they want. If I'm ranked 87th in the country though, that scholarship to Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, or any specific program may not be a given.

 

[Grandpa Hoosier]

So hiring a creepy, clapping moron invalidates the IU Athletes Bill of Rights?

No but unless it becomes Archie's MO, I'm willing to let this one get categorized as him cleaning up Crean's mess.

 

[Statey]

After reading this thread, I'm clearly in the minority... I see this bill of right thing working out more/less as it was intended. The focus should always be on the student, his well-being, and the family. Without something like this in place (i.e. where the standard is just 1 year renewable scholarships), if a kid is told he's not going to get minutes and should consider how valuable playing time is to him, he and his family must consider the financial implications. A family getting hit with a surprise $15k/year expense when a scholarship isn't renewed is a big deal. In most cases, families would immediately consider transferring to another school hunting a replacement scholarship.

In this case, IU would still have paid his education costs. Now, kids might not like that idea, and they might transfer anyway, but if he's getting cut from the team, it seems clearly better to me that he had an option to stay at the university and maintain his scholarship, as opposed to getting cut and having to pay $15k/yr to stay there if he wanted to. This policy was geared to the student and appears would have safeguarded his scholarship had he not transferred. Kids get cut, are encouraged to transfer, etc. from college teams all the time... how is a policy where the school offers to continue covering a kid's education costs not better than a school that doesn't have such a policy in place? Am I missing something?

 

[tynd10]

After reading this thread, I'm clearly in the minority... I see this bill of right thing working out more/less as it was intended. The focus should always be on the student, his well-being, and the family. Without something like this in place (i.e. where the standard is just 1 year renewable scholarships), if a kid is told he's not going to get minutes and should consider how valuable playing time is to him, he and his family must consider the financial implications. A family getting hit with a surprise $15k/year expense when a scholarship isn't renewed is a big deal. In most cases, families would immediately consider transferring to another school hunting a replacement scholarship.

In this case, IU would still have paid his education costs. Now, kids might not like that idea, and they might transfer anyway, but if he's getting cut from the team, it seems clearly better to me that he had an option to stay at the university and maintain his scholarship, as opposed to getting cut and having to pay $15k/yr to stay there if he wanted to. This policy was geared to the student and appears would have safeguarded his scholarship had he not transferred. Kids get cut, are encouraged to transfer, etc. from college teams all the time... how is a policy where the school offers to continue covering their education cost not better than a school that doesn't have such a policy in place? Am I missing something?

I agree with every word you said. I believe every school should adopt this policy.

 

[TC4THREE]

After reading this thread, I'm clearly in the minority... I see this bill of right thing working out more/less as it was intended. The focus should always be on the student, his well-being, and the family. Without something like this in place (i.e. where the standard is just 1 year renewable scholarships), if a kid is told he's not going to get minutes and should consider how valuable playing time is to him, he and his family must consider the financial implications. A family getting hit with a surprise $15k/year expense when a scholarship isn't renewed is a big deal. In most cases, families would immediately consider transferring to another school hunting a replacement scholarship.

In this case, IU would still have paid his education costs. Now, kids might not like that idea, and they might transfer anyway, but if he's getting cut from the team, it seems clearly better to me that he had an option to stay at the university and maintain his scholarship, as opposed to getting cut and having to pay $15k/yr to stay there if he wanted to. This policy was geared to the student and appears would have safeguarded his scholarship had he not transferred. Kids get cut, are encouraged to transfer, etc. from college teams all the time... how is a policy where the school offers to continue covering a kid's education costs not better than a school that doesn't have such a policy in place? Am I missing something?

I don't disagree with the policy but I have questions about how it works and if IU actually adhered to the spirit of it here if "things got ugly" after he decided he wanted to stay at IU and out of nowhere AAU coaches were contacting his family and telling him to transfer.

 

[Statey]

I don't disagree with the policy but I have questions about how it works and if IU actually adhered to the spirit of it here if "things got ugly" after he decided he wanted to stay at IU and out of nowhere AAU coaches were contacting his family and telling him to transfer.

Touche. Yeah, no idea what that was about.