Attrition and Scholarship Limits

[Southpawmac]

My point is, and has always been, that there is nothing so damaging about having three unused scholarships at the beginning of a season that overrides the potential of having to cut three players. The consequences of a loss of 3-5 scholarships in any given year are negligible at best.

No one is going to change their position on this topic. To you playing with unused scholarships isn’t a big deal. To me, it’s a waste of potential. Every year durning the draft we hear about how a potential first round pick wasn’t highly rated coming out of high school. There’s always the chance that a two or low three star recruit turns into a stud, and those unused spots could be one of those kids. In my eyes, If we want to challenge Clemson for ACC titles, we need 85 kids on scholarship and a handful of PWOs like Wesley Wells that could’ve played somewhere else but wanted to be at Tech.

 

[smokey_wasp]

No one is going to change their position on this topic. To you playing with unused scholarships isn’t a big deal. To me, it’s a waste of potential. Every year durning the draft we hear about how a potential first round pick wasn’t highly rated coming out of high school. There’s always the chance that a two or low three star recruit turns into a stud, and those unused spots could be one of those kids. In my eyes, If we want to challenge Clemson for ACC titles, we need 85 kids on scholarship and a handful of PWOs like Wesley Wells that could’ve played somewhere else but wanted to be at Tech.

Also, 3-5 more guys get a chance at a GT education, which is his main concern.

 

[Animal02]

No one is going to change their position on this topic. To you playing with unused scholarships isn’t a big deal. To me, it’s a waste of potential. Every year durning the draft we hear about how a potential first round pick wasn’t highly rated coming out of high school. There’s always the chance that a two or low three star recruit turns into a stud, and those unused spots could be one of those kids. In my eyes, If we want to challenge Clemson for ACC titles, we need 85 kids on scholarship and a handful of PWOs like Wesley Wells that could’ve played somewhere else but wanted to be at Tech.

1,2, or three is not going to make or break Tech. besides ..if there were extras...they could be offered to PWOs for a one year basis. IIRC

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Here we go round in circles

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I feel like this will veer back into the discussion of what "processing" is. I am already on record saying no one gets involuntarily "cut" and have stated I generally agree with Milwaukee's take on that. Maybe I haven't answered your hypothetical, but you haven't addressed the real world issues that undersigning and not planning for attrition creates. Nor is your scenario realistic in terms of a player who has gotten his degree and is not going to play just being adamant about taking up space on the team for an extra year. It simply doesn't happen, and once they've got the degree, GT has held up its end. Now, you are going to say "What if you don't have enough players who fit that description?" and my answer is you don't oversign to that degree.

I am afraid we will go around in circles on this for all eternity on this and I'm just not into it.

Tech hasn’t undersigned that I recall. Maybe there have been some years where a full class wasn’t signed with the plan of awarding a deserving walkon but I’m not certain.

Sign the number you know on signing day you have room for. If someone gets a medical, kicked off the team, transfers, etc....you might have 84 instead of 85. That’s the downside here.

The downside of over signing? Very real potential to screw a SA because.....maybe....attrition will happen. It’s an unpalatable risk for some. For others winning matters more than screwing a SA over due to talent.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Here we go round in circles

No one is making you jump on.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Tech hasn’t undersigned that I recall. Maybe there have been some years where a full class wasn’t signed with the plan of awarding a deserving walkon but I’m not certain.

Sign the number you know on signing day you have room for. If someone gets a medical, kicked off the team, transfers, etc....you might have 84 instead of 85. That’s the downside here.

The downside of over signing? Very real potential to screw a SA because.....maybe....attrition will happen. It’s an unpalatable risk for some. For others winning matters more than screwing a SA over due to talent.

If I recall correctly, CPJ often was short one or two after signing day, but once they instituted the 2 signing periods, he started signing to the 85 limit because we had extra time to replace guys who flipped late. My argument is that not signing with attrition as a given is de-facto undersigning because attrition will, not may happen. Not addressing the other points again.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

If I recall correctly, CPJ often was short one or two after signing day, but once they instituted the 2 signing periods, he started signing to the 85 limit because we had extra time to replace guys who flipped late. My argument is that not signing with attrition as a given is de-facto undersigning because attrition will, not may happen. Not addressing the other points again.

It’s not a given and isn’t definite even if some attrition happens most years. I extra oversigned is risk. 3 is more risk. Some of us are adverse to that risk because there is potential to screw over a SA that a commitment was made to.

Maybe we have 3 SAs from last year that aren’t participating anymore. If so we have no risk which would be great imo. I would think that would have been reported though.

 

[ncjacket79]

It’s not a given and isn’t definite even if some attrition happens most years. I extra oversigned is risk. 3 is more risk. Some of us are adverse to that risk because there is potential to screw over a SA that a commitment was made to.

Maybe we have 3 SAs from last year that aren’t participating anymore. If so we have no risk which would be great imo. I would think that would have been reported though.

Attrition happens every year, the only question is how many

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Attrition happens every year, the only question is how many

If less than 3 this year we have a pickle.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It’s not a given and isn’t definite even if some attrition happens most years. I extra oversigned is risk. 3 is more risk. Some of us are adverse to that risk because there is potential to screw over a SA that a commitment was made to.

Maybe we have 3 SAs from last year that aren’t participating anymore. If so we have no risk which would be great imo. I would think that would have been reported though.

Interestingly, it doesn't matter that you're adverse to that risk. You don't get to make that call or even have input into that call. Why all of this hand-wringing? The coaches are going to do what they think is appropriate and ethical. Once they do something you think is unethical, then you can jump up and down and scream and holler. Until then, this is just hypothetical arm wrestling.

 

[91Wreck]

It’s not a given and isn’t definite even if some attrition happens most years. I extra oversigned is risk. 3 is more risk. Some of us are adverse to that risk because there is potential to screw over a SA that a commitment was made to.

Maybe we have 3 SAs from last year that aren’t participating anymore. If so we have no risk which would be great imo. I would think that would have been reported though.

When SA's start making 4 year commitments to us, then I will be much more concerned about making 4 year commitments to them. As it is, many of the SA's that have left early have had a deleterious effect on our program (especially Braun). Losing a multi-year starter that would have been the bedrock of our O-line next year and getting a scholarship back are not equal outcomes.

I am also not buying the excuse that because Braun graduated, he fulfilled his commitment to GT. Nonsense. We were counting on him to be here next year and he could have stayed and honored his 4 year commitment. He didn't. He isn't the first, and he won't be the last. If you are not willing to condemn players that leave for greener pastures, then neither should you condemn a new coaching staff that MAY convince three players that don't fit the new system and that GT is not the place for them.

By the way, I agree with what Braun did and I hold no ill will. He did what was best for him and I support him and his family's decision. I just don't see why our football program can't employ the same tactics.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Interestingly, it doesn't matter that you're adverse to that risk. You don't get to make that call or even have input into that call. Why all of this hand-wringing? The coaches are going to do what they think is appropriate and ethical. Once they do something you think is unethical, then you can jump up and down and scream and holler. Until then, this is just hypothetical arm wrestling.

So to sum up. You have an opinion about my opinion...you don’t have any say in my opinion, why all your hand wringing? I’m going to say what I want to say and will continue to do so particularly if I perceive something unethical is occurring. So you can jump up and down and scream and holler a differing opinion....or not.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

When SA's start making 4 year commitments to us, then I will be much more concerned about making 4 year commitments to them. As it is, many of the SA's that have left early have had a deleterious effect on our program (especially Braun). Losing a multi-year starter that would have been the bedrock of our O-line next year and getting a scholarship back are not equal outcomes.

I am also not buying the excuse that because Braun graduated, he fulfilled his commitment to GT. Nonsense. We were counting on him to be here next year and he could have stayed and honored his 4 year commitment. He didn't. He isn't the first, and he won't be the last. If you are not willing to condemn players that leave for greener pastures, then neither should you condemn a new coaching staff that MAY convince three players that don't fit the new system and that GT is not the place for them.

By the way, I agree with what Braun did and I hold no ill will. He did what was best for him and I support him and his family's decision. I just don't see why our football program can't employ the same tactics.

If the school isn’t making a 4 year commitment, actually five year in the case of redshirts, why can’t players transfer without sitting?

It still boils down to what is being promised to recruits. Do you really think the staff at any school is selling one year deals in P5 football?

Tech has recently denied graduate seniors entry into Tech grad programs. Despite player and coaches desires to keep those SAs in school and in the program. So graduate seniors should be allowed free transfer anywhere. It’s an even give and take there.

 

[91Wreck]

After giving this idea of four year scholarships a thought, I would like to offer the following compromise:

Each school can only recruit 22 players each year and can have a total of 88 kids on scholarship at any time. Scholarships are for four years. Once signed, they are binding for both the school and the athlete. If a player gets hurt and can't play anymore; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. You kick him off the team for misconduct; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. He quits his freshman year; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years.

Just to clarify, if he quits or the school kicks him off for misconduct, the school would not have to honor the scholarship, but he would still count against your scholarship limit for the four years after he signs.

Once a player signs, HE CAN NEVER PLAY ANY SPORT FOR ANY OTHER D-1 SCHOOL. There would be no transfers granted for any reason. Mom gets sick back home - too bad. You miss your girlfriend who is 500 miles away - tough. He can transfer to whatever school he wants, but it will only be to pursue academic opportunities. And he will still count against his previous school's scholarship limit.

 

[stech81]

After giving this idea of four year scholarships a thought, I would like to offer the following compromise:

Each school can only recruit 22 players each year and can have a total of 88 kids on scholarship at any time. Scholarships are for four years. Once signed, they are binding for both the school and the athlete. If a player gets hurt and can't play anymore; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. You kick him off the team for misconduct; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. He quits his freshman year; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years.

Just to clarify, if he quits or the school kicks him off for misconduct, the school would not have to honor the scholarship, but he would still count against your scholarship limit for the four years after he signs.

Once a player signs, HE CAN NEVER PLAY ANY SPORT FOR ANY OTHER D-1 SCHOOL. There would be no transfers granted for any reason. Mom gets sick back home - too bad. You miss your girlfriend who is 500 miles away - tough. He can transfer to whatever school he wants, but it will only be to pursue academic opportunities. And he will still count against his previous school's scholarship limit.

The SEC would not vote to do this really don't think half the other teams would vote for it.

 

[91Wreck]

If the school isn’t making a 4 year commitment, actually five year in the case of redshirts, why can’t players transfer without sitting?

It still boils down to what is being promised to recruits. Do you really think the staff at any school is selling one year deals in P5 football?

Tech has recently denied graduate seniors entry into Tech grad programs. Despite player and coaches desires to keep those SAs in school and in the program. So graduate seniors should be allowed free transfer anywhere. It’s an even give and take there.

No, I do not believe schools should be selling one year deals and I am not for that either. But why shouldn't a coaching staff evaluate where a player is after three years? In this day and age with so many kids getting college credit in high school, many of these players can and do get a degree in three years.

You can't have it both ways. Either schools and kids honor 4 year scholarships or neither one does. But graduate players leaving early is not an even give and take. More often than not, they are a benefit to the player, and a detriment to GT. No one is promising players graduate degrees. We promise players a four year education. If they graduate early, I am fairly certain they can pursue a second bachelor's degree or get a minor and still honor their four year commitment. Again, if GT should be held to certain standard, then why shouldn't the players?

 

[91Wreck]

The SEC would not vote to do this really don't think half the other teams would vote for it.

No they wouldn't, but it would radically change college football for both schools and players. And I believe it would be for the better of both.

 

[Animal02]

After giving this idea of four year scholarships a thought, I would like to offer the following compromise:

Each school can only recruit 22 players each year and can have a total of 88 kids on scholarship at any time. Scholarships are for four years. Once signed, they are binding for both the school and the athlete. If a player gets hurt and can't play anymore; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. You kick him off the team for misconduct; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years. He quits his freshman year; he counts against your scholarship limit for four years.

Just to clarify, if he quits or the school kicks him off for misconduct, the school would not have to honor the scholarship, but he would still count against your scholarship limit for the four years after he signs.

Once a player signs, HE CAN NEVER PLAY ANY SPORT FOR ANY OTHER D-1 SCHOOL. There would be no transfers granted for any reason. Mom gets sick back home - too bad. You miss your girlfriend who is 500 miles away - tough. He can transfer to whatever school he wants, but it will only be to pursue academic opportunities. And he will still count against his previous school's scholarship limit.

Would never survice a court challenge

 

[91Wreck]

Would never survice a court challenge

It would if you got the right lawyers to write the contracts. As long as no one is forcing either party into the contract, there should be no legal reason as to why they wouldn't be legal.

No one says these players have to go to school and play football. No one says GT has to give scholarships to football players. These are privileges, not rights.