Unlucky No. 13
Posted: Thursday November 12, 1998 04:45 PM
There's been some recent discussion about reforming some aspects of the recruiting process, which some critics say has gotten out of hand, or fallen into the wrong hands. One of the issues under evaluation is the limit of 13 scholarships -- something I'd like to see changed, especially when I look at a kid like Chad Kerkhof, who is a junior on our team and a straight-A student in engineering.
Kerkhof is a walk-on who has been on and off scholarship because of the 13-scholarship limitation. I think that Division I basketball deserves 14 to 15 scholarships like the women because it gives you that opportunity for players like a Chad Kerkhof, who is an excellent student and still wants to give his time to play basketball.
Jim Rowinski was a walk-on here in the early '80s and ended up being MVP of the Big Ten his senior year in 1984 when we won the league after being picked to finish 10th. Rowinski was a walk-on with coach Lee Rose and then walked-on with me in 1980 and '81. I put Rowinski on scholarship in '82 and he broke his leg in '83. He returned in '84 and was named MVP in the Big Ten.
Rowinski's achievements didn't get much notoriety because it was the Olympic year with probably the greatest Olympic team in the history of basketball for college players. But he is one of those stories that would not have been heard if we'd only had 13 scholarships in those days. So, I think it really is unfair to people who want to be walk-ons or who are late-bloomers that we are limiting our Division I basketball programs to only 13 scholarships.
The cutback to 13, which came with the gender equity law back in the '80s, has perhaps prevented some walk-ons, late-bloomers or guys who came along and just wanted to play college basketball from developing, from putting hard work in and from becoming good student-athletes, which is what we're all about here. If we could have 14, 15 or even 16 scholarships, then I think the freshman ineligible rule would be a very effective way to get athletes to adjust their social life, their academic life and their athletic life during their first year.
With a freshman ineligible rule that retained four years of eligibility for the student-athlete, the freshman's experience wouldn't be so ego-bound -- thinking "Why am I not starting?" and "Why am I not playing a lot of minutes?" First-year players are too young, the competition is better and they didn't plan on this when they came into whatever school they chose to attend from high school. It's a basic problem we all have as coaches. The freshman ineligible rule probably doesn't have a chance, however, because of the lower Division I schools. But it certainly would benefit the student-athlete, which is what we're in this game for -- to help young people become better-adjusted to college life and not so apt to transfer because of unhappiness about playing time, and not so apt to flunk out because of a lack of study skills when they get to whatever university they go to.
The freshman ineligible rule also would make our graduation rates a lot better if they had five years to do it. So, what we're saying is: You'd be ineligible your freshman year and then have four years of eligibility, which would be a great way to increase our graduation rates, make the student-athlete better-adjusted and give coaches time to develop players fundamentally, which I think is something they really need to work on. We also could maybe put in the rule a clause that, if agreed to, would keep the student-athlete in college for two to three years. Essentially, they couldn't go pro, which would make them more mature for the pros when they got there and better able to stay at that level.
Those are my thoughts about the scholarship situation, and I'd like to hear from the readers to see what they think.
To the e-mailbag
I think this column is a terrific idea; thanks for doing it. How do you recruit against schools that can offer benefits that Purdue might not have available -- like great weather (UCLA, Stanford), respected black head coaches (Houston, Kentucky, Minnesota), or a long list of national championships (North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, UCLA)?
--Josh Libresco, San Rafael, California
I think the thing we really try to sell here at Purdue is the fact that you're going to get a degree, because 92 percent of our kids get their degrees, and there's going to be a chance to win a Big Ten championship, because we've done that six times. You're also going to enjoy an experience where if you don't win a national championship here they're probably not going to fire the head coach, and you're going to be able to enjoy your time here where you will have a great following, and where the only venue in the several-state area that is sold out every game -- except for the Bulls.
We have a great crowd here every game, we have great TV coverage and we're in a great league. But those factors sometimes aren't good enough to sell a kid. Weather could be a factor. We can't change that so we don't worry about things we can't change. Certain head coaches they want to play for, we can't change that. We are very demanding here, we're honest with our kids, we respect our players and tell them what life is about, try to get them to develop their life skills and that sort of thing. We think that those things are more important maybe than winning a national championship if your administration or your fans don't demand it.
There has been a lot of talk about changing college basketball recruiting rules lately. It seems that things are just not working as they should. Despite that, would you say that you -- and other coaches in general -- enjoy recruiting, or is it more of "a dirty job, but someone's got to do it" situation?
--TimF, San Francisco
I don't think that recruiting is a dirty job, I think it's a great job. College basketball recruiting has changed over the years because everybody recruits now. When I was in junior college in Hutchinson in the '60s and '70s, I probably got players as good as a lot of Division I schools because we recruited harder. Then in about '74, athletics directors decided they could build big venues or big arenas and sell out basketball arenas so they could make a lot of money for their budgets, so basketball became very popular throughout the country because of budget problems, and everybody started to recruit harder. Because of times changing, I really don't think recruiting is dirty, I think it's challenging. I think it's a great salesmanship situation and I enjoy it. It can be dirty if you let it be dirty, but if you sell the right things and have the right philosophy, it's fun and can be a very important part of your job.
What are the strengths of Purdue that you sell to visiting recruits?
--Chris Rabenold, Cincinnati
I think the strengths of Purdue for visiting recruits would be a chance to graduate. We offer a great opportunity for players to get better every year -- probably the biggest thing here is our players get better every year because we work very hard with them one-on-one -- and we're honest with them and positive with them and we're very demanding. There is follow-up discipline here, and discipline to me is what you're going to do, how you're going to do it and we're going to do it right with goals in mind. So, the strengths of Purdue are tradition, a great audience, great league, great TV coverage, great recruiting area because we're in an area with Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio which has a lot of people and a lot of great players. I basically tell my coaches that if they cross the Ohio River I'll fire them because there's no chance that they're going to get a player out of Kentucky because of Louisville and the University of Kentucky if they really want them, so it would be a waste of time and money. That is, unless you had an uncle that graduated from Purdue or maybe some close connection, but other than that we don't really cross the Ohio River in our recruiting travels.
From the season's first tip-off to its final buzzer, Purdue coach Gene Keady files a weekly column with CNNSI.com. In his 19th year as head coach of the Boilermakers, Keady provides an exclusive peek into the highlights, lowlights and sidelights of a full college basketball season. Follow one of the nation's top coaches within one of the nation's top conferences this season "From Midnight to March."
Get the inside skinny from Purdue coach Gene Keady! Click here.
|
