[81alum]

On another thread, ferrari asked a seemingly innocent question, and I decided to start a new thread to answer it, since it will probably hopelessly hijack the WBB recruiting thread (even more than Gothic cathedrals!) but is well worth discussing:

Quote from: ferrari on Today at 09:05:35 pm

    I am naive, but it seems to me all scholarships, for all schools, ought to be for four years, as long as the athlete shows up, puts in effort, follows the rules, etc.  Harder on the coaches?  Yes.  Requires more thoughtful appraisals.  But if mandated for all schools would be, I think, more fair to the kids.

One of the reforms sought by some at the NCAA level is to require all scholarships to be 4 years.  This was not even allowed before the NCAA changed its rules in 2012:
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...be-allowed

Many coaches continue to resist.  I do see it from their point of view.  Their jobs depend upon fielding a winning team.  What if a student shows up, takes the scholarship, and just refuses to take the sport seriously post-high school?  Despite this fear, I think the commitment of the athlete is something that a coach should have to judge before giving a scholarship and I would support four year scholarships guaranteed during good behavior, as ferrari suggests. 

I was nearly sickened to learn that the school I most hate in the world has, inexplicably, beaten my alma mater to the punch on this and has decided to offer four year scholarships in the revenue sports of football and men's and women's basketball.
http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2014/06/4...ports.html
Never in my worst nightmares did I think that Stanford, with one of the cleanest and most ethical programs in the country, would be behind the place I will not name on scholarship reform. 

The Big 10 and some others are also moving away from one year renewables to four year commitments.
http://www.coachad.com/pages/Breaking-Ne...2-1-12.php
I doubt very much if Stanford very often fails to renew a scholarship during the four years, so I don't see why we don't simply make the plunge and move to the four year guarantees. 

In case you were wondering if we have done so too, the answer is an emphatic No.

A financial award given to a student-athlete based upon athletic ability or sports performance is considered an athletic grant.  An athletic grant is awarded for a maximum period of one academic year and may be renewed annually.  Annual renewal of athletic aid is at the discretion of the head coach.

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/daper/gosta...ships.html

And see this Slate editorial:
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...ason_.html

I also learned with interest that from the time athletic scholarships were first allowed (1956) until 1973 all scholarships were four year scholarships.  It was switched to the one year renewable model in 1973 after some athletes that quit their sports had to continue to be allowed to finish their education.  Coaches thought it was a violation of a contract.  There were also some hidden reasons for the change, including the desire to crack down on student protests by athletes, such as the 14 black football players at Wyoming who refused to play BYU. 

[81alum]

On another thread, ferrari asked a seemingly innocent question, and I decided to start a new thread to answer it, since it will probably hopelessly hijack the WBB recruiting thread (even more than Gothic cathedrals!) but is well worth discussing:

Quote from: ferrari on Today at 09:05:35 pm

    I am naive, but it seems to me all scholarships, for all schools, ought to be for four years, as long as the athlete shows up, puts in effort, follows the rules, etc.  Harder on the coaches?  Yes.  Requires more thoughtful appraisals.  But if mandated for all schools would be, I think, more fair to the kids.

One of the reforms sought by some at the NCAA level is to require all scholarships to be 4 years.  This was not even allowed before the NCAA changed its rules in 2012:
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...be-allowed

Many coaches continue to resist.  I do see it from their point of view.  Their jobs depend upon fielding a winning team.  What if a student shows up, takes the scholarship, and just refuses to take the sport seriously post-high school?  Despite this fear, I think the commitment of the athlete is something that a coach should have to judge before giving a scholarship and I would support four year scholarships guaranteed during good behavior, as ferrari suggests. 

I was nearly sickened to learn that the school I most hate in the world has, inexplicably, beaten my alma mater to the punch on this and has decided to offer four year scholarships in the revenue sports of football and men's and women's basketball.
http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2014/06/4...ports.html
Never in my worst nightmares did I think that Stanford, with one of the cleanest and most ethical programs in the country, would be behind the place I will not name on scholarship reform. 

The Big 10 and some others are also moving away from one year renewables to four year commitments.
http://www.coachad.com/pages/Breaking-Ne...2-1-12.php
I doubt very much if Stanford very often fails to renew a scholarship during the four years, so I don't see why we don't simply make the plunge and move to the four year guarantees. 

In case you were wondering if we have done so too, the answer is an emphatic No.

A financial award given to a student-athlete based upon athletic ability or sports performance is considered an athletic grant.  An athletic grant is awarded for a maximum period of one academic year and may be renewed annually.  Annual renewal of athletic aid is at the discretion of the head coach.

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/daper/gosta...ships.html

And see this Slate editorial:
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...ason_.html

I also learned with interest that from the time athletic scholarships were first allowed (1956) until 1973 all scholarships were four year scholarships.  It was switched to the one year renewable model in 1973 after some athletes that quit their sports had to continue to be allowed to finish their education.  Coaches thought it was a violation of a contract.  There were also some hidden reasons for the change, including the desire to crack down on student protests by athletes, such as the 14 black football players at Wyoming who refused to play BYU. 

[Jskass]

i'd say our recent track record in WBB appears to be that of giving 5 year scholarships, not 4, to some who are injured. So they get to play the 4th year of eligibility and work towards (or an eomplete) a Master's degree. Far more generous than the 1 year issue we are discussing.

[Jskass]

i'd say our recent track record in WBB appears to be that of giving 5 year scholarships, not 4, to some who are injured. So they get to play the 4th year of eligibility and work towards (or an eomplete) a Master's degree. Far more generous than the 1 year issue we are discussing.

[OutsiderFan]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

Keep in mind, when the four-year scholarship rules were done away with, scholarships were much less expensive, and in the case of football, the scholarship limit was much higher, if there even was one.  In any case, 85 is significantly fewer than the numbers permitted when the "four-year switch" was made.

Honestly, a much better idea is for the NCAA to prohibit freshman from playing in games (mandatory redshirts) and therefore have schools give out five-year scholarships.  This would be another impetus for kids not interested in school to bypass it, and to end the silliness of early entries enrolling in college in the Spring, just to get a Spring practice in before the Frosh season.

As it relates to Stanford, it seems like Stanford essentially offers 4-5 year scholarships already, and it is literally just a formality to renew the scholarships of offered recruits every year.

[OutsiderFan]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

Keep in mind, when the four-year scholarship rules were done away with, scholarships were much less expensive, and in the case of football, the scholarship limit was much higher, if there even was one.  In any case, 85 is significantly fewer than the numbers permitted when the "four-year switch" was made.

Honestly, a much better idea is for the NCAA to prohibit freshman from playing in games (mandatory redshirts) and therefore have schools give out five-year scholarships.  This would be another impetus for kids not interested in school to bypass it, and to end the silliness of early entries enrolling in college in the Spring, just to get a Spring practice in before the Frosh season.

As it relates to Stanford, it seems like Stanford essentially offers 4-5 year scholarships already, and it is literally just a formality to renew the scholarships of offered recruits every year.

[81alum]

Without lobbying for the merits of a four year scholarship, knowing that they existing through the turbulent 60s does change my perspective on history a little.  All those athletes who protested in various ways, whether Tommie Smith or John Carlos, or the previously mentioned "Black 14" who were kicked off the Wyoming football team for wearing black armbands in protest of playing BYU in 1969--or numerous others--all did so knowing that even if they lost their place on their team that they would be able to finish their education.  I had previously assumed that these activist athletes all jeopardized their scholarships by protesting, but it appears not to be so. 

Switching tacks, and appearances to the contrary, Stanford does not go by a five year rule. 

Stanford’s commitment to its student-athletes on athletic scholarship is that each student graduate in four years.  Fifth-year aid is not guaranteed for any student without prior written approval from the Athletic Director.

First of all, we are fairly unique in that we graduate pretty much all of our athletes after four years, and so any student using a fifth year is going to need to be in an MA program.  But admissions to MA programs is not guaranteed, nor is there even any special handling for early decisions etc. as there is for undergraduate athletes.  Also keep in mind that Stanford's choice of MA programs is somewhat limited--many departments do not admit MA candidates but only PhD candidates.  Let's say that Sara James had been eligible for a fifth year and wanted to study to be a nurse practitioner here rather than at Columbia.  Stanford does not have a School of Nursing.  So the choices for an MA may simply not be there for some students--and a typical MA program could take 2 years anyway.  So not an ideal solution for every student.

Finally, coaches sometimes just decide to use the scholarship on a new recruit, and they are perfectly entitled to do so under the rules.  Amy has said this very openly and to public audiences about WBB--a fifth year is awarded strictly on the basis of the best interest of the team.  There is no entitlement, and sometimes a fifth year has not been forthcoming, as with Michelle Harrison.  Sara Boothe would have been eligible for a fifth year but does not seem to have sought one--but we cannot (and should not) know the circumstances of that decision.  Also remember that Ruef had to take a job and earn her own tuition money until a scholarship unexpectedly became available for her (she kept the job--to her credit.)  The general rule--and I agree with it--is that Stanford will help you earn a 4 year degree at the world's most selective university--but the team does not owe you more than that, even if injury robs you of a playing season.  If you want more than a degree, then you will have to prove that you can really help the team. 

The last time that unequivocally  happened in WBB, by the way, was with Melanie Murphy who was a redshirt senior in 10-11--back in the days when we had a dearth of ball handling guards.  Jeanette Pohlen played out of position quite a bit as point guard that year, Lindy LaRocque was no ball handler, Grace Mashore got almost no playing time, Hannah Donaghe had been hobbled by injuries, Toni Kokenis and Sara James were incoming freshmen and Tara had no idea what they would be able to do, and so Mel was given the fifth year.  I remember quite a bit of suspense among the fans as to whether Mel was going to get that year.  Frankly, I do not remember what academic program she studied in her fifth year.

[81alum]

Without lobbying for the merits of a four year scholarship, knowing that they existing through the turbulent 60s does change my perspective on history a little.  All those athletes who protested in various ways, whether Tommie Smith or John Carlos, or the previously mentioned "Black 14" who were kicked off the Wyoming football team for wearing black armbands in protest of playing BYU in 1969--or numerous others--all did so knowing that even if they lost their place on their team that they would be able to finish their education.  I had previously assumed that these activist athletes all jeopardized their scholarships by protesting, but it appears not to be so. 

Switching tacks, and appearances to the contrary, Stanford does not go by a five year rule. 

Stanford’s commitment to its student-athletes on athletic scholarship is that each student graduate in four years.  Fifth-year aid is not guaranteed for any student without prior written approval from the Athletic Director.

First of all, we are fairly unique in that we graduate pretty much all of our athletes after four years, and so any student using a fifth year is going to need to be in an MA program.  But admissions to MA programs is not guaranteed, nor is there even any special handling for early decisions etc. as there is for undergraduate athletes.  Also keep in mind that Stanford's choice of MA programs is somewhat limited--many departments do not admit MA candidates but only PhD candidates.  Let's say that Sara James had been eligible for a fifth year and wanted to study to be a nurse practitioner here rather than at Columbia.  Stanford does not have a School of Nursing.  So the choices for an MA may simply not be there for some students--and a typical MA program could take 2 years anyway.  So not an ideal solution for every student.

Finally, coaches sometimes just decide to use the scholarship on a new recruit, and they are perfectly entitled to do so under the rules.  Amy has said this very openly and to public audiences about WBB--a fifth year is awarded strictly on the basis of the best interest of the team.  There is no entitlement, and sometimes a fifth year has not been forthcoming, as with Michelle Harrison.  Sara Boothe would have been eligible for a fifth year but does not seem to have sought one--but we cannot (and should not) know the circumstances of that decision.  Also remember that Ruef had to take a job and earn her own tuition money until a scholarship unexpectedly became available for her (she kept the job--to her credit.)  The general rule--and I agree with it--is that Stanford will help you earn a 4 year degree at the world's most selective university--but the team does not owe you more than that, even if injury robs you of a playing season.  If you want more than a degree, then you will have to prove that you can really help the team. 

The last time that unequivocally  happened in WBB, by the way, was with Melanie Murphy who was a redshirt senior in 10-11--back in the days when we had a dearth of ball handling guards.  Jeanette Pohlen played out of position quite a bit as point guard that year, Lindy LaRocque was no ball handler, Grace Mashore got almost no playing time, Hannah Donaghe had been hobbled by injuries, Toni Kokenis and Sara James were incoming freshmen and Tara had no idea what they would be able to do, and so Mel was given the fifth year.  I remember quite a bit of suspense among the fans as to whether Mel was going to get that year.  Frankly, I do not remember what academic program she studied in her fifth year.

[81alum]

A friend insists that D1 womens scholarships are required to be for four years, either by Title 9 or NCAA.  Is that correct?  From this discussion it doesn't sound so.

No, but there are considerations. 
1) An increasing number of institutions, particularly at D1, are converting to 4 year scholarships in some or all sports.  So it could be true at whatever institution your friend follows.
2) The title IX rules I would have to speculate on.  For example, I would imagine that a university would be set up for a Title IX lawsuit if it guaranteed football scholarships only--without similarly guaranteeing an equal number of scholarships for women.  Women on one year renewables and men on 4 year guarantees would be problematic.
3) Stanford's policy is posted for all to see, and it is clear:

A financial award given to a student-athlete based upon athletic ability or sports performance is considered an athletic grant.  An athletic grant is awarded for a maximum period of one academic year and may be renewed annually.  Annual renewal of athletic aid is at the discretion of the head coach.

[81alum]

A friend insists that D1 womens scholarships are required to be for four years, either by Title 9 or NCAA.  Is that correct?  From this discussion it doesn't sound so.

No, but there are considerations. 
1) An increasing number of institutions, particularly at D1, are converting to 4 year scholarships in some or all sports.  So it could be true at whatever institution your friend follows.
2) The title IX rules I would have to speculate on.  For example, I would imagine that a university would be set up for a Title IX lawsuit if it guaranteed football scholarships only--without similarly guaranteeing an equal number of scholarships for women.  Women on one year renewables and men on 4 year guarantees would be problematic.
3) Stanford's policy is posted for all to see, and it is clear:

A financial award given to a student-athlete based upon athletic ability or sports performance is considered an athletic grant.  An athletic grant is awarded for a maximum period of one academic year and may be renewed annually.  Annual renewal of athletic aid is at the discretion of the head coach.

[jayasena]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

While I'm sure there will be a small number of athletes in revenue sports* who would abuse a system that guarantees multi-year scholarships, I'm inclined to think the problem would be much less severe than what some coaches are doing today and certainly no worse than the downsides of multi-year contracts for coaches or tenure for faculty.

That said, I agree with Garvin that requiring 4-year scholarships can have unexpected side-effects. Might be interesting to see how the experiment by SC and others will play out. Essentially, using 4-year scholarships as an additional promotional tool and letting the "market" decide if that's something the recruits place sufficient value on. If that appears to give SC or others a sufficient advantage, other schools may be forced to adopt the same. Of course, the obvious downside to this is that markets work well when the participants are well-informed and rational. Does that sound like the description of a typical 17- or 18-year-old?  ???

*I can see this being more of a problem for non-revenue sports.

[jayasena]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

While I'm sure there will be a small number of athletes in revenue sports* who would abuse a system that guarantees multi-year scholarships, I'm inclined to think the problem would be much less severe than what some coaches are doing today and certainly no worse than the downsides of multi-year contracts for coaches or tenure for faculty.

That said, I agree with Garvin that requiring 4-year scholarships can have unexpected side-effects. Might be interesting to see how the experiment by SC and others will play out. Essentially, using 4-year scholarships as an additional promotional tool and letting the "market" decide if that's something the recruits place sufficient value on. If that appears to give SC or others a sufficient advantage, other schools may be forced to adopt the same. Of course, the obvious downside to this is that markets work well when the participants are well-informed and rational. Does that sound like the description of a typical 17- or 18-year-old?  ???

*I can see this being more of a problem for non-revenue sports.

[rudruff]

A friend insists that D1 womens scholarships are required to be for four years, either by Title 9 or NCAA.  Is that correct?  From this discussion it doesn't sound so.

Chandra Benton and Melody Peterson both lost scholarships prior to their  4th year. I don't remember why.

[rudruff]

A friend insists that D1 womens scholarships are required to be for four years, either by Title 9 or NCAA.  Is that correct?  From this discussion it doesn't sound so.

Chandra Benton and Melody Peterson both lost scholarships prior to their  4th year. I don't remember why.

[Mick]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

...came from a Stanford assistant coach speaking recruiting truth to a bunch of 14 year olds.  He obliquely referred to the phenomenon you describe above which is actually worse in the non-revenue sports without many scholarships to give.  In his sport, there were. about 300 athletes a year recruited by all the NCAA teams.  Only about 50 of those athletes are actively sought after and recruited by the coaches.  They are recruited because they have the most talent, they are targeted starters and key backups.  Therefore, the coaches actively and aggressively recruit those athletes.  The other 250 athletes recruited annually don't receive scholarships[/u], but they are still a key part of the team.  They are the second and third and fourth stringers who played on the practice squads and acted like the opponents, and pushed the starters to improve, but only in rare instances did those athletes actually become starters.

Therefore, the coaches needed second-tier recruits who were essentially sturdy; who didn't mind (or at least could live with) the fact that they would work just as hard as the starters yet play infrequently at best.  So you can imagine the kind of athletes the coaches wanted for those roles; first and foremost, "team" players, also highly desireable were "very coachable kids" (level-headed and mature), and other characteristics indicative of a talented, selfless player.  So those players had to show active enthusiasm about the program and the team and the school.

In essence, then, the recruiting process turned itself on its head.  The top 50 recruits were recruited by coaches.  The next 250 recruits essentially recruit themselves.  These were the kids who actively pursue the coaches of a course of years, who praised the school, who visited more than once, who were recommended by their club owners and coaches and high school coaches as "the ultimate team guy" or "very coachable" or other euphemisms designed to indicate that no matter what, this non-scholarship player will stay on the varsity for four years, spending many hours a week at a sport that he has no hope of ever playing on a varsity level.

Coaches have mixed records on that score, particularly for very prominent schools who can recruit very high level athletes.  They get the best recruits, but if they don't play them, they tend to lose them.  Take, for example BYU.  Six freshman, seven sophomores on their MVB roster...but only three seniors and three juniors.

My son's coach is pretty good at spotting those kinds of players.  Only one player in the past four years has quit the team.  That's pretty critical for selective schools; when a selective school offers a recruit, it is with the intention that the recruit will stick with that school's team come hell or high water.

[Mick]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

...came from a Stanford assistant coach speaking recruiting truth to a bunch of 14 year olds.  He obliquely referred to the phenomenon you describe above which is actually worse in the non-revenue sports without many scholarships to give.  In his sport, there were. about 300 athletes a year recruited by all the NCAA teams.  Only about 50 of those athletes are actively sought after and recruited by the coaches.  They are recruited because they have the most talent, they are targeted starters and key backups.  Therefore, the coaches actively and aggressively recruit those athletes.  The other 250 athletes recruited annually don't receive scholarships[/u], but they are still a key part of the team.  They are the second and third and fourth stringers who played on the practice squads and acted like the opponents, and pushed the starters to improve, but only in rare instances did those athletes actually become starters.

Therefore, the coaches needed second-tier recruits who were essentially sturdy; who didn't mind (or at least could live with) the fact that they would work just as hard as the starters yet play infrequently at best.  So you can imagine the kind of athletes the coaches wanted for those roles; first and foremost, "team" players, also highly desireable were "very coachable kids" (level-headed and mature), and other characteristics indicative of a talented, selfless player.  So those players had to show active enthusiasm about the program and the team and the school.

In essence, then, the recruiting process turned itself on its head.  The top 50 recruits were recruited by coaches.  The next 250 recruits essentially recruit themselves.  These were the kids who actively pursue the coaches of a course of years, who praised the school, who visited more than once, who were recommended by their club owners and coaches and high school coaches as "the ultimate team guy" or "very coachable" or other euphemisms designed to indicate that no matter what, this non-scholarship player will stay on the varsity for four years, spending many hours a week at a sport that he has no hope of ever playing on a varsity level.

Coaches have mixed records on that score, particularly for very prominent schools who can recruit very high level athletes.  They get the best recruits, but if they don't play them, they tend to lose them.  Take, for example BYU.  Six freshman, seven sophomores on their MVB roster...but only three seniors and three juniors.

My son's coach is pretty good at spotting those kinds of players.  Only one player in the past four years has quit the team.  That's pretty critical for selective schools; when a selective school offers a recruit, it is with the intention that the recruit will stick with that school's team come hell or high water.

[BobK]

Melody Peterson did not lose her scholie.  She graduated in 3 years then to Nebraska which had her masters program.

Benton? Probably. She is now a HS English teacher. 

Mel Murphy is the Sacred Heart Menlo Park wbb coach and coaches a travel team in addition to her day job. 

[BobK]

Melody Peterson did not lose her scholie.  She graduated in 3 years then to Nebraska which had her masters program.

Benton? Probably. She is now a HS English teacher. 

Mel Murphy is the Sacred Heart Menlo Park wbb coach and coaches a travel team in addition to her day job. 

[rudruff]

Ahh. Thanks for the update on them. I just remember them both leaving and never heard why when I thought both still had a year of eligibility left.

[rudruff]

Ahh. Thanks for the update on them. I just remember them both leaving and never heard why when I thought both still had a year of eligibility left.

[81alum]

Interesting point, Garvin, but there is an even more recent example to ponder.  JJ Hones was removed from the team prior to her redshirt senior year, which would have been 10-11.  The official roster 10-11 lists just 14 players.  So I am not sure if JJ got the firth year scholarship even though she was not on the team, or whether she was granted it and forfeited it and it went unused, or whether it was just as simple as not extending her a redshirt season after all.  Probably the latter.  The dismissal was in May after the season was over but just slightly before her four years as an undergraduate would have been up.

The news story on JJ goes on to say this:

Hones was just the second player kicked off the team during VanDerveer's stellar 24-year tenure on The Farm. Tanda Rucker, a member of the Cardinal's second NCAA title team in 1992, was dismissed from the program in '93.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=5184667

Losing JJ was very sad.  What I remember most about her was her stellar 3/6 three point performance to help beat UConn in the national semis in 2008. 

[81alum]

Interesting point, Garvin, but there is an even more recent example to ponder.  JJ Hones was removed from the team prior to her redshirt senior year, which would have been 10-11.  The official roster 10-11 lists just 14 players.  So I am not sure if JJ got the firth year scholarship even though she was not on the team, or whether she was granted it and forfeited it and it went unused, or whether it was just as simple as not extending her a redshirt season after all.  Probably the latter.  The dismissal was in May after the season was over but just slightly before her four years as an undergraduate would have been up.

The news story on JJ goes on to say this:

Hones was just the second player kicked off the team during VanDerveer's stellar 24-year tenure on The Farm. Tanda Rucker, a member of the Cardinal's second NCAA title team in 1992, was dismissed from the program in '93.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=5184667

Losing JJ was very sad.  What I remember most about her was her stellar 3/6 three point performance to help beat UConn in the national semis in 2008.