Columnist Dean Juipe: Athletes at mercy of coaches

Dean Juipe

Wednesday, March 29, 2000 | 11:10 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or 259-4084.

In many respects college athletes are little more than indentured servants.

While it's their coaches who are lavishly paid and reaping the benefits of shoe contracts and who can leave the school upon a whim, the athlete's perks and options are very much limited. There are severe penalties for anything from accepting an inappropriate meal to transferring to another school.

It's a one-sided deal, completely in favor of the coach and his or her school.

Given that arrangement, it's difficult to sympathize with coaches who have second thoughts about the athletes they have recruited and awarded scholarships. Even if those players were inherited from a previous coaching regime, it would seem as if the coach has a moral duty to honor the scholarship.

But, in actuality, that isn't necessarily the case.

Athletes are at the mercy of their coaches and have to stay within their good graces in order to retain their scholarships on a year-to-year basis. As a result, coaches are able to cut players they no longer like or ones they may have overrated during the recruiting process -- even though that decision puts the student-athlete out on the street.

An athlete may be loyal to the school but there's no guarantee his coach will be loyal to him.

This little item has surfaced at UNLV, where a circulating rumor has baseball coach Rod Soesbe ready to send a few of his undergraduate players packing. He has only 11.7 scholarships to work with, and word is he would like to eliminate a few guys who are scheduled to be back next season.

Based on university policy, he's allowed to do it.

"I'd say in my five years here, there have been four, five or six" athletes who have had their scholarships yanked from underneath them, UNLV athletic director Charles Cavagnaro confirmed. "But the student-athlete has a right to appeal and that's an appropriate safeguard."

But is it really?

Is it right to penalize an athlete with the loss of a scholarship simply because he or she hasn't produced as expected? What if the athlete works hard and plays to the best of his ability, but isn't of much help to the team? Is that his or her fault?

Should the coach be able to "chase off" players who otherwise would like to return and complete their eligibility?

A legal solution may be forthcoming if the situation with San Diego State and men's basketball coach Steve Fisher reaches fruition. Reportedly, Fisher is attempting to pull the scholarships of five players and a San Diego attorney has offered his services to the players to contest such a move.

If it goes to court, it would be nice to see the players prevail.

If an athlete commits to a college and remains academically eligible, it's only appropriate for the school to keep its end of the deal. Even if the athlete proves to be lousy and lacks motivation, the school has made an obligation and ought to adhere to it.

The relationship between athletes and schools is lopsided enough without the school having the right to dismiss athletes who haven't produced or who may have rubbed their coach the wrong way.

If it takes a court case to reach the same conclusion, let's bring it on. A coach who has made a recruiting mistake should have to live with it.