02-13-2013, 01:44 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but if a scholarship player redshirts, is the student still allowed his/her scholarship and that scholarship counts against the limit? I presume so (esp. in the case of a medical redshirt that happens after the competition starts). Or can a school strong-arm an athlete into dropping their scholarship at least for a year? ("I'm sorry, Hal, but I'm afraid you're not big/quick/talented enough. [ie, we've got a high school senior that looks better than you.] You can stay at the school, but we're not paying for you. If you work really hard on your own next year, we'll reconsider you in a year.")
I have concerns that if Mikaela came back and was given some other kind of aid (academic scholarship), I would imagine the NCAA would look at it quite closely. It may well be legit, just as with many first year grad students.
An interesting opportunity would be if one of the other players took the year off to, say, study in Europe, and was not on an athletic scholarship, freeing up the scholarship for Mikaela. If an athlete would benefit from a redshirt year, I could see it being to both the individual's and team's benefit for that girl to pursue other interests for a year. Naturally, the student couldn't be given anything that was not offered to other students, and would need to compete for, say, scholarships to pursue a year abroad on even with other candidates.  Possibly the student might want to do a year abroad, or go work for the Peace Corps, or do a LDS mission, or be with an ailing relative, etc., in any case & might chose to pursue it even in the absence of a (non-athletic) scholarship (you might say a "walk off"). The school would still give 4 years of scholarship to the athlete so she could get her 4 years of college education, while on the team for 4 years.
While this might be fine as a rare occurrence, I could see such an approach being abused. But, in other cases, it seems very credible. The Stanford Women's Water Polo team has 2 or 3 players that took last year off (for the Olympics). I presume that counted as a redshirt year for the NCAA.
Another approach, much more likely to be against NCAA rules, would be if an athlete continued to attend the school, did not play basketball, but did play another sport and received a scholarship for that other sport.  That just doesn't sound appropriate to me. If that were legal, I'd expect you'd see some BCS schools with powerful rugby teams.
Sometimes "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. I have never seen a Stanford student in that category.
I have concerns that if Mikaela came back and was given some other kind of aid (academic scholarship), I would imagine the NCAA would look at it quite closely. It may well be legit, just as with many first year grad students.
An interesting opportunity would be if one of the other players took the year off to, say, study in Europe, and was not on an athletic scholarship, freeing up the scholarship for Mikaela. If an athlete would benefit from a redshirt year, I could see it being to both the individual's and team's benefit for that girl to pursue other interests for a year. Naturally, the student couldn't be given anything that was not offered to other students, and would need to compete for, say, scholarships to pursue a year abroad on even with other candidates.  Possibly the student might want to do a year abroad, or go work for the Peace Corps, or do a LDS mission, or be with an ailing relative, etc., in any case & might chose to pursue it even in the absence of a (non-athletic) scholarship (you might say a "walk off"). The school would still give 4 years of scholarship to the athlete so she could get her 4 years of college education, while on the team for 4 years.
While this might be fine as a rare occurrence, I could see such an approach being abused. But, in other cases, it seems very credible. The Stanford Women's Water Polo team has 2 or 3 players that took last year off (for the Olympics). I presume that counted as a redshirt year for the NCAA.
Another approach, much more likely to be against NCAA rules, would be if an athlete continued to attend the school, did not play basketball, but did play another sport and received a scholarship for that other sport.  That just doesn't sound appropriate to me. If that were legal, I'd expect you'd see some BCS schools with powerful rugby teams.
Sometimes "athletic scholarship" is an oxymoron. I have never seen a Stanford student in that category.