NIcole Kornet

I've never thought she was and I'm sure she said something to her in private, but a kid who does her best and has been a solid Sooner deserves at least a public "Thank You" like Sherri gives on Senior night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MsProudSooner said:
I don't recall any comments ever made about players who have chosen to leave. Why would you start now?
Click to expand...

Actually, since I started following in 2001, I can't remember a time when she hasn't said something.

EDIT: Well I do not think she said anything about Felisha (sp?) not returning last season but it seems she usually does.
 
Last edited:
Curious that UCLA would want a one-year player. But, they are young, and they don't have more than a couple of scorers. Nicole may fare quite well in that environment.
 
That UCLA article states that they signed Nicole "to a grant-in-aid." What is that? Is it different than a general scholarship?
 
Wish the best for Nicole. Really enjoyed watching her at OU.
 
TheMont said:
That UCLA article states that they signed Nicole "to a grant-in-aid." What is that? Is it different than a general scholarship?
Click to expand...

Yes...it is a "scholarship". She does not have to pay it back such as a student loan.
 
Soonerbay said:
Yes...it is a "scholarship". She does not have to pay it back such as a student loan.
Click to expand...

So why do they not call it a scholarship? Does it count as a scholarship against their quota? Grants do not have to be paid back either.

Kind of OT: But it seems Felisha, the young woman from Arkansas who was on the team in 2013-2014, was reported as receiving such a grant. I wondered what it was but did not research.
 
womenssports said:
So why do they not call it a scholarship? Does it count as a scholarship against their quota? Grants do not have to be paid back either.

Kind of OT: But it seems Felisha, the young woman from Arkansas who was on the team in 2013-2014, was reported as receiving such a grant. I wondered what it was but did not research.
Click to expand...

I Grant-In-Aid (GID) is the document executed between the school and the student athlete providing financial aid to the student. However the student is not committed exclusively to the university in any manner. A NCAA document the National Letter of Intent (NLI) is a commitment to the university that prohibits a student from playing for any other school without first receiving a release from the committed school or spending a one year waiting period when transferring to another school. Those students that sign a NLI also sign a GID which is their protection that the school is going to provide a scholarship.

Practically speaking student athletes should only orally commit to a school and not sign the NLI signing only the GID. They have then committed to their school and have a guaranteed scholarship but have kept all their options open should they change their mind and decide to go to a different school at a later date.

It seem obvious that all schools would pressure student athletes to sign both the NLI and the GID as they then lock the student athlete to the school. However there is no legal requirement forcing the student athlete to comply.
 
womenssports said:
So why do they not call it a scholarship? Does it count as a scholarship against their quota? Grants do not have to be paid back either.

Kind of OT: But it seems Felisha, the young woman from Arkansas who was on the team in 2013-2014, was reported as receiving such a grant. I wondered what it was but did not research.
Click to expand...

A Grant-In-Aid (GID) is the document executed between the school and the student athlete providing financial aid to the student. It is the formal name for a scholarship from the school. However the student is not committed exclusively to the university in any manner when signing a GID. The National Letter of Intent (NLI) is a NCAA document commits the student athlete to the university and prohibits a student athlete from playing for any other school without first receiving a release from the committed school or spending a one year waiting period after transferring to another school. Generally speaking students sign both a NLI and a GID which is their protection that the school is going to provide a scholarship. There is no requirement that they sign both.

Practically speaking student athletes should only orally commit to a school and not sign the NLI signing only the GID. They have then committed to their school and have a guaranteed scholarship but have kept all their options open should they change their mind and decide to go to a different school at a later date.

It seem obvious that all schools would pressure student athletes to sign both the NLI and the GID as they then lock the student athlete to the school. However there is no legal requirement forcing the student athlete to comply.
 
Okay, thanks. Just a couple of more question? 1st) To qualify as a scholarship would there be both a NLI and Grant-in-Aid? 2nd) Do you think a school in most cases would offer grant-in-aid without a NLI?
 
womenandssports said:
Okay, thanks. Just a couple of more question? 1st) To qualify as a scholarship would there be both a NLI and Grant-in-Aid? 2nd) Do you think a school in most cases would offer grant-in-aid without a NLI?
Click to expand...

No a Grant-in-Aid is a scholarship. However each school has its own practices with what their requirements are with regard to the NLI. Personally I cannot imagine if the #1 player in the country wanted to go to OU but refused to sign the NLI so she could keep her options open until she started classes in the fall in case she wanted to change her mind that OU would turn her down.

However any school could say don't sign the NLI and we will not sign the GIA giving you the scholarship. I am certain that is the general standard at all schools but any school could make an exception at any time if the student athlete was worth the unilateral risk to acquire the talent. The NCAA does not require a NLI be signed. The problem is the school is taking all the risk without the NLI as they are subject to losing the talent from the recruiting class until the student athlete attends his/her first class.

Conversely the student athlete could lose their scholarship offer until they start attending class. That is a risk that only a very top talent can really afford to take.
 
SoonerSpock said:
No a Grant-in-Aid is a scholarship. However each school has its own practices with what their requirements are with regard to the NLI. Personally I cannot imagine if the #1 player in the country wanted to go to OU but refused to sign the NLI so she could keep her options open until she started classes in the fall in case she wanted to change her mind that OU would turn her down.

However any school could say don't sign the NLI and we will not sign the GIA giving you the scholarship. I am certain that is the general standard at all schools but any school could make an exception at any time if the student athlete was worth the unilateral risk to acquire the talent. The NCAA does not require a NLI be signed. The problem is the school is taking all the risk without the NLI as they are subject to losing the talent from the recruiting class until the student athlete attends his/her first class.

Conversely the student athlete could lose their scholarship offer until they start attending class. That is a risk that only a very top talent can really afford to take.
Click to expand...
Okay, got it. Thanks.
 
It seems like we were all right, at least most of us. She wasn't going to see the floor much here and she wanted badly to play. I don't know why she could never catch on here. Maybe she just plain wasn't good enough and got recruited over. Maybe there was a glitch between her and the coaches, even though her mom clearly indicates that wasn't the case. Who knows.

I just wish her the best and I thought she was a terrific Sooner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The raw talent of Nicole was apparent the first time she walked on the floor. Unfortunately, although Nicole appeared to be very gregarious, she seemed to have difficulty learning a team system, especially that of defense. She was at her best when the style became wide open. She never really learned how to use position to play defense, and she never really learned how to use her talent to maximize her performance. She was the same players when she left as she was when she came---a solid talent and a warm and gregarious person.

I wonder if she won't actually be able to perform better in the wide open style that UCLA tends to prefer. She may realize a part of her dream in Westwood.
 
Best wishes to Nicole. No one can blame her for seeking more playing time and playing her preferred location on the West Coast.
I will say, however, reading her mother's blog, that if the dream was to play on the West Coast, WHY entertain the idea of playing in the SEC? Unless, of course, we get back to a core issue: PLAYING TIME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Tournament of Champions in tulsa
Replies
1
Views
91
Soonercuda
S
S
Interview with Raegan Beers
Replies
5
Views
665
Soonerguy06
S
W
Georgia Tech
Replies
10
Views
415
snydrosooner
S
S
#8 OU vs #13 Duke 3:30pm 11/27
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Soonercuda
S
S
Harper Dunn 2027 Offer
Replies
1
Views
261
Reesemc
R
Back
Top