Attrition and Scholarship Limits

[Milwaukee]

Lol. We've "processed" for the last 30 years fellas. Every D1 football program does. Yes, even us.

 

[lv20gt]

Have you ever read a Financial Aid Agreement? It's an actual contract that is signed. Helping the team win is not a prerequisite for keeping your financial aid. Here's the common verbiage included in most D1 AAGs. (Service Academies use different agreements) Please see bolded verbiage below.

Congratulations. You successfully defeated the stawman of anyone who is arguing you should be able to pull a scholarship mid year. Too bad nobody actually holds that position.

Notice how what you posted specifically details how the term is one year and makes no mention of terms for automatic renewal? The deals being made are one year deals. Choosing not to renew is not the same as breaking a deal.

I guess Jaylend Ratliffe is out of luck now huh?

No, he is on a scholarship that doesn't count towards the 85 limit so his situation is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[iceeater1969]

The portal is also a vehicle that can take players away from GT
.
I had thought it would help us but seeing Rice U have 4 players leave for greener pastures makes me wonder. I fear our admin will not be as friendly to grad transfers as BYU, Iowa state, etc.

We already had our best player attrition via the grad portal.
Are we a one way portal?
Guess if we look like a way to the NFL we should be fine.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Congratulations. You successfully defeated the stawman of anyone who is arguing you should be able to pull a scholarship mid year. Too bad nobody actually holds that position.

Notice how what you posted specifically details how the term is one year and makes no mention of terms for automatic renewal? The deals being made are one year deals. Choosing not to renew is not the same as breaking a deal.



No, he is on a scholarship that doesn't count towards the 85 limit so his situation is irrelevant to the conversation.

Some things that are not explicit are implied. And those implications are universal in college football.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Lol. We've "processed" for the last 30 years fellas. Every D1 football program does. Yes, even us.

Actually, I think this is the right take, so I'm gonna just cosign it and forget anything else I said in this thread. It's not like anyone ever says "we processed" this player or that. It's so and so decided to forgo his last year of eligibility or this guy transferred or this player simplyleft the team. A lot of times, I bet none of us are even aware of it. The big difference going forward, as I see it, is that we are going to sign big classes proactively, rather than signing under the limit and reacting to inevitable attrition. Bottom line is I trust the staff to handle these situations the right way and I'm going to abandon this thread now because I'm not even sure we know exactly what we are arguing about.

 

[bobongo]

Lol. We've "processed" for the last 30 years fellas. Every D1 football program does. Yes, even us.

Don't know exactly what "processed" means in this context, but just to be clear, telling a player he would be better off to transfer and pulling his scholarship are two completely different kettles of fish. There's nothing wrong with being upfront with a player about his playing time, and everything wrong with yanking his scholarship out from under him.

 

[GTpdm]

Don't know exactly what "processed" means in this context, but just to be clear, telling a player he would be better off to transfer and pulling his scholarship are two completely different kettles of fish. There's nothing wrong with being upfront with a player about his playing time, and everything wrong with yanking his scholarship out from under him.

Exactly. There is a HUGE difference between a program “processing” a player for the student’s and program’s mutual benefit, and “processing” the player solely for the program’s benefit.

The very use of the word processing says that the program has an established system for discarding players they don’t want. The day I find out we are doing that is the day I redirect my AA contributions to some other sport.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Don't know exactly what "processed" means in this context, but just to be clear, telling a player he would be better off to transfer and pulling his scholarship are two completely different kettles of fish. There's nothing wrong with being upfront with a player about his playing time, and everything wrong with yanking his scholarship out from under him.

I agree for a factory school with a worthless degree. But we aggressively sell academics and the “40 yr plan.” It’s hard to honestly tell a kid he’s better off transferring out of Tech, especially if the NFL isn’t in his future.

 

[tsrich]

I agree for a factory school with a worthless degree. But we aggressively sell academics and the “40 yr plan.” It’s hard to honestly tell a kid he’s better off transferring out of Tech, especially if the NFL isn’t in his future.

I think it's entirely fair for a coach to tell a player that he's not a big part of the program's future, and if wants playing time he should look into transferring. If he's focused on the Tech degree and is willing to take a smaller role, I would be disappointed if we tried to force him into a transfer.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think it's entirely fair for a coach to tell a player that he's not a big part of the program's future, and if wants playing time he should look into transferring. If he's focused on the Tech degree and is willing to take a smaller role, I would be disappointed if we tried to force him into a transfer.

That’s fine, but not “better off.”

 

[bobongo]

I agree for a factory school with a worthless degree. But we aggressively sell academics and the “40 yr plan.” It’s hard to honestly tell a kid he’s better off transferring out of Tech, especially if the NFL isn’t in his future.

I should have phrased it differently. I just meant a player might be better off transferring if his aim is to get more playing time. Of course, there are other considerations, and they may well be more important to him than playing time. In any case, the decision should always be the player's to make. He should always be made to feel welcome here whether he's on the two-deep or not.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

What happened to jaylend was a trad

What happened to Jaylend was tragic and we did the right thing by him and his family.
But if you are going to swim in the pool, you can't just dip your toe in the water. This is big boy football coaches recruit these boys to play football, and the y are responsible for who they bring in and develop. If the coach doesn't like to recruit, or can't sell the program then he needs to think about another line of work. He is responsible for winning and not handing out excuses for why he can't. This is a storied program and deserves as much. It's expected at Alabama, and should be expected just as much here. Don't have to win NC every year but I expect to be top 25 instead of Bosie State, or Utah.

I’ll get back to you after I decide on your nickname for the day

In all seriousness. I have no idea what your position actually is on processing SAs. I think we all agree coaches have to recruit and do so at a fairly high level in order to compete at a fairly high level.

Edit: never mind...I just caught up to your clarification.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I


Would be interesting to see what schools do sign multi year contracts?
So often coaches results don't improve after multi year contract.

I think the rational about the 1 year is to avoid the abuse by either party - get fat don't really workout verses athelete leave on yearly renewal date.

Plenty of room for abuse on either side.

Your idea solves a lot of issues.

One obvious problem is allowing the SA to only transfer one time without having transfer restricted. Anytime a SA could face being cut he should also have the freedom to transfer under a proposal such as this.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Lol. We've "processed" for the last 30 years fellas. Every D1 football program does. Yes, even us.

Name one example of a SA that had a scholarship revoked that wasn’t due to rules infractions.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Delete.

 

[bobongo]

Name one example of a SA that had a scholarship revoked that wasn’t due to rules infractions.

I hear crickets.

 

[LibertyTurns]

After a night of reflection in the midst of baseball being run out of the park last night, I got to thinking. Is our lack of results on the field an institutional problem that at its very core is caused by lack of competition for our scholarship positions?

If you have no fear of losing your scholarship for 5 years (4 plus a redshirt), some say being “processed out”, what motivation do you have to fight for your spot on the team? Face it, the odds of making the NFL are slim and if you were good enough to get a scholarship offer & accepted at the beginning of your senior year in HS, you literally have no incentive to practice hard, develop your athletic skill, improve your conditioning to compete at the ighest levels. Maybe we’re soft because our system is soft? We’re entitled. Our scholarship athletes are being given an outcome, not an opportunity. Why should they be in a protected class & the rest of the world works on a merit system?

 

[DieselTeeth]

I’ll get back to you after I decide on your nickname for the day

In all seriousness. I have no idea what your position actually is on processing SAs. I think we all agree coaches have to recruit and do so at a fairly high level in order to compete at a fairly high level.

Edit: never mind...I just caught up to your clarification.

Lol, just hope it's a good one

 

[tmhunter52]

You're mixing apples and oranges here.

Yes, Tech washes people - athletes and others - out for academic reasons all the time. But what some here are talking about is washing out a student based not on his performance in the classroom, but on his performance on the football field. That's different. Tech made a deal with the players: stay in school and play football and we'll pay for most of it. If they can't cut it academically, they usually leave. But if they can't get on the field, keep trying, and they stay in school, then the rest of the bargain still stands. Tech took a chance that the player will be a contributor to the main income-earning sport sponsored by the GTAA and the reason the young man came to Tech was to play and go to school. However, the bargain doesn't end if the player can't get on the field. Taking the scholarship away is, in effect, kicking the kid out of school for reasons that have little or nothing to do with his education. That won't do. I don't care what some schools - there are less of them then we might think, imho - do, that isn't how we've done things and it is both cynical and short-sighted to start with that kind of thing now.

Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.

I am simply curious - does Tech, or any other school for that matter, really make a “deal” with athletes that they will get 4 (or even 5) year scholarships? I thought they were one year scholarships that were renewable at the option of the school. At the risk of being legalistic, I am speaking about enforceable “deals”, not simply an unspoken way of doing things. With the growing freedom of athletes to transfer, one has to wonder if such an historical “understanding” can and will survive. What would happen if an entire team, or some large number of players, transferred and the team lacked the numbers and talent to compete in an upcoming season? That’s an extreme and unlikely example, of course, but if athletes gain the unfettered ability to transfer, one might expect an increasing adherence to the existing one-year, renewable scholarship model.

 

[stech81]

Delete.

You said it great , more people need to say the same.