Dave Wang writes:
>even though all the current seemingly hard evidence points at bc and
>former head coach cedorchuk, i thought the globe article was a little
>too harsh and condemning.
 
I didn't think so.  It was a fact based piece and contained actual
interviews with players, current and former, who have been affected by
this situation.  There certainly seems to be a serious problem.
 
Madden did include some opinions throughout the article, but based on
the evidence, I suppose it could be expected.
 
>i find it hard to believe that similar goings
>on (although maybe not as extreme) don't go on at other sports programs
>at numerous other schools. certainly bc hockey coaches before cedorchuk
>weren't able to come through with every promised scholarship either.
 
I would certainly like to hear evidence of this before I agree, as
well as evidence for the following.
 
>i
>think the article should have included a disclaimer stating that
>cedorchuk isn't the only coach unable to fulfill promises of scholarships
>and that bc isn't the only school where these things happen.
 
Why?  The Globe's intent was not to produce an article detailing every
abuse at every school in America.  It was a specific study of the BC
situation.
 
I will say this: I do not specifically know of any other situations
where a school promised even one more scholarship than it could
deliver, let alone a situation that would rival the repeated
difficulties the Globe described.  That is, in hockey.  I seem to
recall Syracuse being placed on probation a couple of years ago
because several of their programs were (intentionally?) awarding
more scholarships than the NC$$ limit.
 
I believe Ralph asked how a school knows how many scholarships to
offer.  This is probably one of the easier things to do, I think.  You
sit down at some point and map out who will be coming back next year
and receiving scholarships, and subtract the total from the limit.
Or, if you are at the limit, the number of scholarships that are given
up by players who you know are graduating, leaving school for one
reason or another, etc. is the same as the amount you can offer.
 
For example, Merrimack had a total of four scholarships given up by
(in this case) graduating players after the past season.  Thus they
had four to offer.  In the past they have had players leave school and
that adds to the number of scholarships that can be offered - those go
back into the pool.
 
Do some schools intentionally offer more scholarships than they know
they have, figuring that some kids will say no?  I can't know for sure -
of course it is possible.  The next question is how they deal with it
when everyone they offer to accepts.  I don't know, but I would think
that if it were a widespread problem, we would have heard more about
it by now.  Someone would get angry and speak up.
 
I was explaining to someone the other day what my understanding is of
how Merrimack handles the offering of scholarships, based on one
specific case I had heard about.  My understanding is that Merrimack
extends an offer and then allows the PSA (prospective student athlete)
a standard fair period of time to make his decision (several days).
If the PSA does not accept within that period of time, the school may
offer it to someone else.
 
In the case I had heard about, second hand, the PSA had held out hoping
for an offer from another school (which he did not get).  Meanwhile the
period of time had expired and he had not accepted Merrimack's offer.
Merrimack had another player it was interested in and decided to make
an offer to that player since the first had not accepted.  When the
first got word that his other school had not come through, he tried to
accept the scholarship to Merrimack, but by then it was too late.
 
This is not unlike the situation with job offers in the real world.
The PSA gambled that his "dream school" would make him an offer, which
they did not - just like when someone receives a job offer from one
company but decides not to accept, hoping that his dream company will
also offer.  Sometimes such a gamble works, sometimes it does not.
 
Basically, I believe that it is certainly possible for a program to
carefully map and keep track of which offers it has out and which ones
it can still make.  I also believe that most programs are able to do
this.  It is absolutely one of the most important things they do, more
so than putting a team on the ice or trying to win games - because it
deals with kids' futures.
 
>it is unfortunate that kids and their families have gotten the shaft
>from an nc$$ member's sports machine, but hopefully future college
>athlete-hopefuls will now be more wary until an official scholarship
>form sits before them awaiting their signatures. it is also unfortunate
>when another human's (or a school's) word is not a bond, but broken
>verbal agreements will occur repeatedly in everyone's life.
 
I am one who is strongly in favor of a contract to confirm whatever
has been offered or promised.  However, all that means is that the
PSAs need to keep their eyes open.  It does not put the onus on them
to do things correctly.  And it does not mean that it is okay for
programs to make promises they cannot keep.  The programs are the ones
at fault.  They know that in most cases, the kids are naive while they
(programs) are shrewd.  It is up to the programs and the people who
run them to operate correctly.
 
I do believe I would be one who would not consider an offer to be on
the table unless it was in writing.  I also think it is certainly the
case that many times a coach expresses interest in a PSA and suggests
what he might be willing to offer, and the PSA takes that as gospel
and believes he has been offered a scholarship.  But we are not
talking about cases like that here, at least that is not what I got
from the article.  The article seems to detail cases where players
were either going to BC or were at BC and were told specifically that
they would receive scholarships.
 
One problem I know of personally comes when a PSA decides to attend a
school based on the coach saying that the PSA will receive aid for
part of his stay, or another way I have heard it, if a PSA makes the
team (could mean just making the cut, could mean playing more than
half the games, etc.), he will then get a scholarship.  I wonder how
many of these are said/meant as "we'll TRY to get you one" and the kid
takes it as the coach's word that he WILL get one.
 
I have a very good friend who walked on to a DivI school several years
ago.  He says that he was told that if he made the team, he would get
a scholarship.  He played a handful of games his freshman year, and a
significant number his sophomore year as a 3rd- or 4th-liner, finishing
with about 15 points in limited ice time.  But he had opened a lot of
eyes, and he was listed in the conference media guide as one of the
team's key returning players before what would have been his junior
year.  Up until this time, he and his family had literally scraped to
keep him in school, hoping for that scholarship - which he said he had
been continually promised all along whenever he asked about it.  Finally,
when before his junior year he asked again and was told there was still
no scholarship for him yet, he decided to withdraw from school to remove
the financial strain upon his family.
 
The sad thing is that this guy is one of the better players I have
known.  He wasn't an eye-opener like a Kariya, but he did have a lot
of talent and worked hard - no one gave a better effort and he was a
superb example to the other players.  He has received many offers to
play overseas and did so for one season, as well as offers to play in
the minors and in RHI, but his heart just hasn't been in it anymore.
It's too bad because he has always succeeded when he sets his mind to
something...when walking on, he was determined that he would make the
varsity and play, and he did.  To me, that listing in the media guide
has always been vindication that he did belong.
 
Probably because of this, I believe that if a PSA is going to attend a
school based on a perceived promise of future aid if the player attains
a certain level of performance, then it should absolutely be in writing
in some way.  Otherwise, IMO, expect nothing (and if you do get
something, it is a bonus).  Someone does have to help the kids realize
that they need to look out for themselves better, I do agree.  But I
would also like to think that the majority of coaches try to help the
kids in this area too...at least, I think they should.
 
>the article made coach cedorchuk out to be one big irresponsible promiser
>of scholarships, and mr gladchuk seemed very quick to dis-associate
>himself from cedorchuk. the bc ad seemed to say 'those in the hockey
>program did what they did on their own. i don't have the time to watch
>over them 24 hrs a day. i didn't know they were doing what they were
>doing until coach milbury arrived and made me aware.'   again... the
>preceding '-------' is my interpretation. well, we all know this
>sargeant schultz stance is gladchuk's fave, and i was glad to see one
>alum come right out and say he wasn't buying it.
 
I agree that it sounded as if Gladchuk was casting the blame upon a
person who was no longer there.  However, if all this is true, is it
so hard to believe that that's why he is no longer there?  I am a
believer in the "buck stops here" and responsibility, but the article
gives Gladchuk's reasons why the blame lies with the former coach and
it makes sense to me (again, IF it is all true, and the evidence seems
strong).  He said that while the actual awarding of scholarships is
something that the AD is closely involved in, he cannot control what
happens when a coach goes out on his own and makes promises that
cannot be fulfilled.
 
Gladchuk said he became aware that there was a problem in late
February (1994), "when I realized some of these [players offered
scholarships] didn't fit into what we projected." (from the Globe)
Cedorchuk resigned in March.  Gladchuk says that it was soon after
Milbury accepted the job that he (Gladchuk) became aware of the *full*
scope of the problem.
 
I don't find that so difficult to believe, nor do I think it reflects
a problem with Gladchuk's handling of the situation.
 
>one last thought... is the number of scholarships offered the same as
>the number available? or do programs offer a certain percentage extra
>based on the fact that some players will choose to accept a scholarship
>elsewhere, or turn pro, or what-have-you?
 
If based on the expectation that some players will not accept, then
again, I have to ask, what do they do on those occasions when everyone
DOES accept?  If everyone offered more than they had, there were bound
to be many occasions where they got caught in a bind and it would be
publicized more.
 
One more thought: I certainly don't believe that BC, Cedorchuk or anyone
else was intentionally playing around with these kids.  It's entirely
possible and believable that things just got out of control after not
being monitored closely enough by the coach or whoever, and in fact I
don't think anyone is claiming that they intentionally yanked a kid
around.  But it does look like there was some negligence or ignorance
involved and that it resulted in a lot of problems that did not have to
happen.  I hope everyone learns from it, but meanwhile, what of the kids
caught in the middle who can't go back...
---                                                                    ---
Mike Machnik                                             [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                     *HMM* 11/13/93