Johns Hopkins 2022

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

Compliance is on the person who is responsible for compliance. It is not the responsibility of Jen or Petro for this. It is the responsibility of her predecessor and the person who had the responsibility for it.

Exactly.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

You shouldn’t be certain about matters you basically know nothing about.

I enjoy reading people talk about what Petro knows or doesn’t know or what he does or doesn’t do. Mostly pure crap

Exactly.

[DocBarrister]

Jesus, who cares. Whoever was responsible, it was a minor paperwork infraction that was appropriately met with a minor penalty. Time to move on.

Agreed. I was making this point because folks were acting like Petro wasn't going to get his next job because of this. No future AD will care. I promise. And as it relates to the current Hopkins program, this is very low impact. I doubt Peter has given it much thought.

It wasn’t “folks” in the plural. It was only ONE person, who made a highly bloviated and highly typical case (for him) that this was on Petro and it could/would kill his job prospects and affect the minds of ADs. Utter but typical nonsense.

I take great offense at that Nifongesque behavior. People who operate within the realm of law, like Nifong, should know better and deal with facts, and not overblown, possibly career-damaging speculation.

BTW, in the off-season, I am setting up a private Hopkins board so those who wish can get away from this moronic environment.

FACT: Certain people will be absent.

W

You are all off base.

The parties agreed that the men’s lacrosse head coach worked with multiple student-athletes and/or their families to reduce their scholarships, resulting in the school not providing 12 student-athletes with a written notification of the reductions to their scholarships or information about a hearing opportunity. The school also did not have an established hearing process available to student-athletes whose scholarships were reduced or canceled, which is required under NCAA rules.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/me ... e-programs

That’s not a small deal. That’s a violation of the NCAA’s due process rules.

It does not impact the NCAA as much (as a competition violation would). It doesn’t impact the coach much either. But those due process procedures more directly impact the student-athletes and their families. It is absolutely inexcusable that Johns Hopkins and its men’s and women’s lacrosse programs had no hearing protocol in
place when students were faced with a reduction, or even cancellation, of their scholarship amounts. That makes the scholarship reduction process far more coercive ... no opportunity for hearing or appeal ... basically, take it or leave it.

If you don’t understand the problem with that, then you don’t appreciate the importance of those due process rules.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Jesus, who cares. Whoever was responsible, it was a minor paperwork infraction that was appropriately met with a minor penalty. Time to move on.

Agreed. I was making this point because folks were acting like Petro wasn't going to get his next job because of this. No future AD will care. I promise. And as it relates to the current Hopkins program, this is very low impact. I doubt Peter has given it much thought.

It wasn’t “folks” in the plural. It was only ONE person, who made a highly bloviated and highly typical case (for him) that this was on Petro and it could/would kill his job prospects and affect the minds of ADs. Utter but typical nonsense.

I take great offense at that Nifongesque behavior. People who operate within the realm of law, like Nifong, should know better and deal with facts, and not overblown, possibly career-damaging speculation.

BTW, in the off-season, I am setting up a private Hopkins board so those who wish can get away from this moronic environment.

FACT: Certain people will be absent.

W

You are all off base.

The parties agreed that the men’s lacrosse head coach worked with multiple student-athletes and/or their families to reduce their scholarships, resulting in the school not providing 12 student-athletes with a written notification of the reductions to their scholarships or information about a hearing opportunity. The school also did not have an established hearing process available to student-athletes whose scholarships were reduced or canceled, which is required under NCAA rules.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/me ... e-programs

That’s not a small deal. That’s a violation of the NCAA’s due process rules.

It does not impact the NCAA as much (as a competition violation would). It doesn’t impact the coach much either. But those due process procedures more directly impact the student-athletes and their families. It is absolutely inexcusable that Johns Hopkins and its men’s and women’s lacrosse programs had no hearing protocol in
place when students were faced with a reduction, or even cancellation, of their scholarship amounts. That makes the scholarship reduction process far more coercive ... no opportunity for hearing or appeal ... basically, take it or leave it.

If you don’t understand the problem with that, then you don’t appreciate the importance of those due process rules.

DocBarrister

If you want to know how seriously a university is supposed to take the hearing and appeal process, just review the protocol at the University of Kansas (not saying their implementation was up to snuff, but that’s another story):

2. Appeal and Hearing Process:

When a student has a student athlete grant-in-aid non-renewed or reduced, the student is eligible to appeal the decision with a hearing.

If a student-athlete appeals a cancellation or reduction in aid, the University of Kansas Student-Athlete Appeals board (SAAB) is charged with determining whether the reduction or cancellation of aid was fair under the attending circumstances and determining whether procedural rules were followed. The SAAB does not determine whether the student-athlete will be reinstated as a member of the team.

The SAAB is comprised of three individuals appointed by the Provost's Office (or Designee, currently the Vice Provost for Student Affairs). Typically, membership is for three-year terms, with the option for reappointment. One of the three must be a faculty member.

The Athletics Senior Associate AD/SWA, the Senior Associate AD for Compliance and the Assistant Vice Provost, FAS (or designees) will attend the appeal hearing as non-voting members to provide resource / regulatory guidance.

A student-athlete who wishes to appeal the reduction or cancellation of his/her GIA must provide written notice of his/her appeal within 10 business days of the documented receipt of the cancellation or aid reduction letter to the Assistant Vice Provost, FAS (or designees). In the written notice of appeal, the student-athlete will provide a brief statement as to the reasons why the student-athlete believes the reduction or cancelation of his/her GIA is unfair. Upon receipt of the student-athlete's notice of appeal, the Assistant Vice Provost, FAS (or designee), will forward the copy of the notice of appeal to the Senior Associate AD/SWA. The SAAB Hearing must occur within 30 calendar days of the letter of appeal (unless an extension time is requested by the student-athlete and/or coach, and the extension request is approved by both parties).

The Senior Associate AD/SWA will contact all SAAB members to determine a minimum of two date/time options for the Student-Athlete Appeals Board hearing that are mutually convenient to all parties involved in the appeal. The Senior Associate AD/SWA will provide a minimum of two available dates/times to the student-athlete to determine which date/time is most convenient. The Senior Associate AD/SWA will then communicate the final date/time/location to the SAAB representatives as well as the Athletics and FAS staff members involved. At least three business days prior to the hearing, the Senior Associate AD/SWA will also sent the student-athlete a letter detailing the date and time of the hearing. The Senior Associate AD/SWA will copy all parties involved.

Those present for the hearing shall include the following: student-athlete, head coach, Senior associate AD/SWA, the Student-Athlete Appeal Board members, The Senior Associate AD for Compliance and Assistant Vice Provost, FAS (and/or designees) will be available for NCAA, Big 12 and KU rules clarification. If the head coach is unable to appear at the hearing, he/ she may send a representative to present on behalf of the coach. Other participants may include, but are not limited to, the sort supervisor, and/ or faculty athletics representative.

The student-athlete may have one advisor in attendance at the hearing. Such advisor may only advise the student-athlete and will not be permitted to otherwise participate in the appeal hearing. The student-athlete must notify the Senior Associate AD/SWA at least 24 hours prior to the hearing of the name of the advisor and whether the advisor is an attorney. If the student-athlete fails to appear for the hearing, the SAAB will determine whether s/he received timely notification of the hearing date/time and if so, the SAAB hearing may proceed in the absence of the student-athlete.

The SAAB members and those listed in the policy as participants shall be the only individuals in attendance during the hearing. The hearing is otherwise closed unless both the SAAB and the student-athlete agree otherwise.
The SAAB Chair will conduct the hearing. The process shall not be adversarial and will not be recorded by the University. A student-athlete may record the proceedings at his or her expense. At the beginning of the hearing, the Chair shall introduce all parties present.

The student-athlete will present his/her information and arguments first, followed by the information and arguments presented by the coach.

The student-athlete and/or the coach may ask third-party witnesses to explain/ describe their first-hand experience with a given situation and respond to SAAB questions. Third-party witnesses will only be allowed in the hearing for their individual testimony. Names of any proposed witnesses must be provided to the Senior Associate AD/SWA at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. One witness at a time may be called into the hearing by either party. If necessary provision will be made for witnesses to wait in a nearby location until called.

During the hearing the student-athlete and the athletics department will present their arguments concerning the fairness of the decision to reduce of cancel the student-athlete's GIA. The issue of fairness includes but is not limited to, determining whether the notice reduction or cancellation of GIA was sent by the July 1 deadline, if applicable, and if it was at the end of the period of award.

The Senior Associate AD/SWA will provide a copy of documentation for distribution to the SAAB and to the student-athlete at the hearing. If in the course of the hearing, an issue arises for which either party requests a recess in order to provide information or witnesses, the SAAB, may, at its discretion, adjourn the hearing to a later date (not more than 7-10 days) at which time the additional information or witnesses can be presented.
Once each party has presented his/her information and arguments, the committee may ask questions of either party, or ask for clarification of any rules or other information referenced in the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of the presentation of the parties' arguments, everyone will be excused and the SAAB will deliberate.
The SAAB Chair will call the student-athlete informing him/her of the SAAB's decision and advise the student-athlete that a written decision letter will be mailed shortly to him/her.

The SAAB Chair will send the SAAB Hearing response letter to the student-athlete. All SAAB representatives and staff members involved with the SAAB Hearing as well as the Athletics Director will be copied on this letter.
The SAAB decision is final and is non-appealable within the University.

https://policy.ku.edu/financial-aid-sch ... lete-grant

In contrast, as per the violation letter, here was (at least in practice) the Hopkins hearing and appeals protocol:






Understand now?

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Georgetown has some fairly strict rules about reduction of athletic scholarships (again, implementation is a separate issue ... but at least Georgetown has an established protocol):

Reduction or Cancellation Not Permitted
Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability may not be increased decreased or canceled during the period of its award:
(a) On the basis of a student-athlete’s athletics ability, performance or contribution to a team’s success;
(b) Because of an injury, illness, or physical or mental medical condition; or
(c) For any other athletics reason.

... POLICY FOR ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID APPEALS
If a student-athlete’s athletic grant-in-aid is reduced or canceled during the period of the award or is reduced or not renewed for the following academic year, the student-athlete has the opportunity for a hearing to appeal the decision. Student-athletes will have 10 business days from of the date of the letter notifying them of the reduction or non-renewal decision to request an appeal of that decision. Requests for appeal must be made in writing to the Dean of Student Financial Services.
Upon receipt of the written request for appeal, the Dean of Student Financial Services will promptly convene the Athletic Grant-In-Aid Appeals Committee to hear the appeal. The Dean of Student Financial Services will notify the student-athlete of the date of the hearing.
The Athletic Grant-In-Aid Appeals Committee will be comprised of the following individuals from the following offices:
Office of Student Financial Services (2 people – one of which will be the Chairperson)
Registrar’s Office (1 person)
Student Affairs (1 person)
Faculty (1 person)
The student-athlete will be given the opportunity to present the basis for his/her appeal after which the Head Coach (or his/her designee) will present the basis for the reduction/non-renewal decision. It is preferable that all parties are present in person for the appeals hearing; however, if that is not possible, a party may participate in the hearing via teleconference. During both presentations, only committee members shall be allowed to address or question the presenters. In addition to hearing from the student-athlete and the Head Coach (or his/her designee), the committee may interview any other witness or review any other documents or materials it deems relevant.
Each party will be able to bring one individual to the hearing to serve as a support person. That individual will be permitted only to observe the hearing; he/she shall not participate in the hearing in any way.
The Sr. Associate Athletic Director for Internal Operations will be present for the hearing but will not be present during deliberations. The role of the Sr. Associate Athletic Director for Internal Operations is to provide the committee information about applicable NCAA rules and regulations. The Dean of Student Financial Services may also elect to ask a representative from the Office of University Counsel to be present during the appeal process.
Once both sides have presented their position and the committee has collected and considered any other evidence it deems necessary, the committee will meet in private to make a decision on the appeal. The committee shall use good faith efforts to make a final decision within 48 hours of the hearing. The committee shall evaluate whether the reduction/non-renewal decision was reasonable and consistent with the NCAA rules. If it finds that the decision was either unreasonable and/or inconsistent with NCAA rules, the committee shall grant the student-athlete’s appeal.
The committee shall use good faith efforts to make a final decision within 48 hours of the hearing. The committee’s decision will be determined by majority vote. Once a decision is made, the Dean of Student Financial Services will notify both parties in writing of the final decision. Pursuant to NCAA rules, all decisions of the committee are final.

https://guhoyas.com/sports/2019/9/4/nca ... letes.aspx

Again, according to the NCAA’s violation letter, Hopkins didn’t have an established hearing protocol and didn’t even provide notice to student-athletes of a hearing opportunity.

Absolutely inexcusable, and there is no way Coach Pietramala didn’t understand this was a violation of NCAA due process rules.

DocBarrister

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

Ignore

00EFF1D2-2548-4C44-A8C8-B622D1AEDAC4.jpeg (87.81 KiB) Viewed 2944 times

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

Ignore Again

B9EB47C9-9CAE-4AD5-AF70-B5FE8B2CA8C0.jpeg (120.17 KiB) Viewed 2943 times

Oh hell, a third one. Must be filing LP Legal Briefs on company time again.

[DocBarrister]

00EFF1D2-2548-4C44-A8C8-B622D1AEDAC4.jpeg

With all due respect, old friend, and I have known you longer than anyone else here, you are the one not dealing with the “facts” or understanding the issues involved.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

B9EB47C9-9CAE-4AD5-AF70-B5FE8B2CA8C0.jpeg

Oh hell, a third one. Must be filing LP Legal Briefs on company time again.

When you have something substantive to say, rather than hurling insults (which is not exactly in compliance with forum rules), I’ll be happy to listen.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Compliance is on the person who is responsible for compliance. It is not the responsibility of Jen or Petro for this. It is the responsibility of her predecessor and the person who had the responsibility for it.

Exactly.

So ... when the Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse head coach tells Johnnie and his family that Johnnie’s lacrosse scholarship is going to be cut, who should be the first person to tell them that they can appeal the decision?

The AD? The director of financial aid?

Who’s one of the people who should make certain Johnnie understands the appeals process?

Who’s one of the people who should make certain Johns Hopkins even has an appeals process?

Is it realistic to think a head coach of the Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse program ... after more than a quarter-century of coaching at multiple institutions ... didn’t know about the rules requiring notice of a hearing and appeal option when a student-athlete’s athletic scholarship money is being cut (or even canceled)?

Exactly.

DocBarrister

[jhu06]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ers-/58024
xanders, a passionate reader of this forum, with one of his better stories on grad transfers this year.

For the kids they brought in this year. Delaney to me was a success although he was coming over from the hoops program, I don't know enough about szulak, kirson had a rough time, and fernandez was hurt. It's hard to argue that a team that went 2-8 in the regular season and is losing my friend williams can't use more talent. They've obviously already gone into the goalie market, but there are drawbacks. We already have a stuffed lockerroom, the $ many of you donate is a bit limited this year b/c of the probation, and grad transfers are a stopgap not a longterm answer for a staff building long term.

I would imagine next week IL/LM will start their looks at next year. Pre big ten tournament solely because of the name on the jersey I would have expected back of the top 20. After the work that rutgers and maryland put in the ncaa tournament, I could see us low teens after the non cuse acc, terps, gtown, denver, loyola group. No way they can put the ivies anywhere top 20 w/out having had a season this year.

[HopFan16]

I would expect us to add 1, maybe 2 more transfers. Not more than that.

Jury is still out on last year's transfers. Fernandez, of course, we're in wait and see mode. Szuluk really looked the part to me but for whatever reason they didn't seem to want to plug him in permanently. I would expect him to either start at close D or be the #2 LSM next year. Kirson—they had to try. The goalie situation was a mess, and he had a decent track record in the Big Ten. Zero regrets there for me.

[MDlaxfan76]

Who cares what IL says?
Especially before the season is underway, much less 8 months ahead?

My hunch, based on no inside info, would be that the coaching staff will be looking to rebuild from the current pipeline of high school recruits and do relatively little in the transfer 'market' that costs anything in the way of scholarships. That doesn't mean that they won't accept a grad or other transfer who wants to compete, but that likely won't be the core strategy and it won't be where they invest athletic scholarship money.

My hunch would also be that they'll quietly reduce the size of the roster.

If I was an alum, I'd be looking for the staff to coach the players they have, build the culture they want, and attract the high school recruits who they believe will best appreciate and contribute to that culture.

I would not ask for immediate outcomes, though won't be surprised if overall performance improves. (Seemed to work even in this initial season).

I don't know this staff well, so don't know whether they'll take that path, but it'd be my hunch.

[DocBarrister]

Who cares what IL says?
Especially before the season is underway, much less 8 months ahead?

My hunch, based on no inside info, would be that the coaching staff will be looking to rebuild from the current pipeline of high school recruits and do relatively little in the transfer 'market' that costs anything in the way of scholarships. That doesn't mean that they won't accept a grad or other transfer who wants to compete, but that likely won't be the core strategy and it won't be where they invest athletic scholarship money.

My hunch would also be that they'll quietly reduce the size of the roster.

If I was an alum, I'd be looking for the staff to coach the players they have, build the culture they want, and attract the high school recruits who they believe will best appreciate and contribute to that culture.

I would not ask for immediate outcomes, though won't be surprised if overall performance improves. (Seemed to work even in this initial season).

I don't know this staff well, so don't know whether they'll take that path, but it'd be my hunch.

I think your hunch is right. Not sure whether Baskin or Shilling would enter the transfer portal if they could have stayed on at Hopkins. Anyway, that’s just my speculation. I suspect the roster will be substantially trimmed this summer.


Milliman, Grant Jr., and Koesterer definitely have a system they want to play. I think most of their energy is focused on getting the square pegs that they need to fill the square holes in their system, most likely through high school recruiting. Having said that, Milliman has accepted four transfers to date ... all defensive players. So, I think he is definitely willing to consider transfers if they are the square pegs he needs.

DocBarrister

[51percentcorn]

Here we go with the pegs and holes again. Makes no sense but like most of your ideas we are going to hear about them till the cows come home. Look - it's a matter of math:
Roster of 56 - Lose 1 to exhausted eligibility - 55
14 "Seniors" - Current thought is you want to retain Fernandez/Reinson/DeSimone/Keogh - Other 10 do not return? - 45
12 incoming recruits - 57
1 incoming transfer - 58

So right now - with no additional information - there is virtually no room for anybody else - you are already back to your bloated roster number of last season PLUS TWO - so unless you are gently showing more than a few underclassmen the door - 16 is correct - I would actually be surprised if there is more than 1.

It has ZERO to do with pegs and holes. Transfers in general ALWAYS pose the following issues:
- How long are they potentialy around? The longer obviously the better so they can assimilate themselves into the team.
- One year rentals in particular pose a danger to team chemistry and resentment with players that have been there for the entirety

I am very OK with Milliman as the head coach (not that he cares) - I think he actually did a pretty good job with being dealt as bad a hand as possible but he has no magic system - he wants what every coach wants - talented players that will work hard. Guess what? If Sag A's least favorite player wanted to transfer to Hopkins for the next 3 years - Milliman would drive down to Charlottesville to pick him up.

[AreaLax]

Podcast with John Grant Jr.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/b ... 0523920237

[jhu06]

-xanders seems to put in a lot of effort traveling around to see these guys in person and has done it for awhile and those are quotes from respected coaches.
-51, I would agree about the size issue, but the fact they added amherst kid before the season ended and he played freshmen more as the year went on seemed like a desire to push change w/the roster.

[Sagittarius A*]

I am very OK with Milliman as the head coach (not that he cares) - I think he actually did a pretty good job with being dealt as bad a hand as possible but he has no magic system - he wants what every coach wants - talented players that will work hard. Guess what? If Sag A's least favorite player wanted to transfer to Hopkins for the next 3 years - Milliman would drive down to Charlottesville to pick him up.

I think Shelly is a very good player, I just don't think he's unstoppable.
I would love to see the Hop/UVA series revived.
Assuming Grimes moves back to attack next year, it wouldn't hurt if PM could bring in a starting caliber offensive middie through the portal.
Easier said then done of course.

[jhu06]

xanders on IL used to have lists of schools kids were considering. I would be shocked if the guys that PM has brought in or is trying to bring in weren't ones that he/grant/JK had considered landing out of hs and if Petro lands a job if some of our current guys move there.

[DocBarrister]

I am very OK with Milliman as the head coach (not that he cares) - I think he actually did a pretty good job with being dealt as bad a hand as possible but he has no magic system - he wants what every coach wants - talented players that will work hard. Guess what? If Sag A's least favorite player wanted to transfer to Hopkins for the next 3 years - Milliman would drive down to Charlottesville to pick him up.

I think Shelly is a very good player, I just don't think he's unstoppable.
I would love to see the Hop/UVA series revived.
Assuming Grimes moves back to attack next year, it wouldn't hurt if PM could bring in a starting caliber offensive middie through the portal.
Easier said then done of course.

I have high hopes that Grimes can break out next season with a 20+ goal season. He was clearly struggling with a supporting role on offense. But with his wicked shot, I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t thrive in Grant Jr’s motion offense. Certainly think he is a better fit for the new O than Cole Williams was.

With DeSimone, Epstein, Grimes, Degnon, Angelus, Peshko, McDermott, and Keough returning, I think Hopkins could score a lot of goals next season.

DocBarrister