Attrition and Scholarship Limits

[yeti92]

That is a lot of spin and assumptions that are simply wrong.

Please specify what I said that is wrong.

 

[takethepoints]

Schools do benefit from giving academic scholarships though. High achieving students raise the academic reputation of the school, and when those students become high achieving alumni, they further raise the status of the school and give back with large donations. If the school didn't benefit from giving academic scholarships, they wouldn't give them. There's a reason Auburn was willing to give me a full ride and stipend while Tech was barely willing to let me in the door.

Additionally, most athletes at a school make the school zero money. Are you suggesting football players be treated differently than other student athletes?

1. In the long run, yes. In the short run, no. The returns from athletic competition are much more direct and immediate.

2. Yes, because they already are. That's why they call them "revenue producing sports". That includes basketball and baseball, of course.

 

[takethepoints]

That’s not really THE choice. It is one option but there are degrees between the two extremes you posit.

Agreed, but will the courts see it that way? We'll see soon enough if the present lawsuits get their day.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Synjyn played in at least 6 games every year of his career, and Darren Waller was an active contributor for 3 years. Neither of these players would have been at risk, they were actively contributing and putting forth the effort and performing, whether on the field or as second/third string backups. I'm talking about guys who are at the bottom of the depth chart, 4th, 5th, etc. at their position as upper classmen or who have shown an inability or lack of desire to put in the necessary work. Iron sharpens iron - guys taking up scholarships and serving as little more than warm bodies on a scout team need to be taken off scholarship and those scholarships used for players who are talented and willing to put forth the effort to compete and get above the line.

Wrong. It’s not high school. There’s a reason coaches don’t blatantly cut players even though it’s well within the rules of the scholarship agreement.

 

[yeti92]

Wrong. It’s not high school. There’s a reason coaches don’t blatantly cut players even though it’s well within the rules of the scholarship agreement.

Wrong about what? And what does high school have anything to do with what I said?

 

[yeti92]

1. In the long run, yes. In the short run, no. The returns from athletic competition are much more direct and immediate.

2. Yes, because they already are. That's why they call them "revenue producing sports". That includes basketball and baseball, of course.

1. No argument here. My only point was that both types of scholarships are provided to students who will benefit the school.

2. Also no argument here from me personally, more just posing the question. Though I think the NCAA and some federal laws may not like that. How do you handle the situation between schools where those are revenue producing sports and those where they are not?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Wrong about what? And what does high school have anything to do with what I said?

"guys taking up scholarships and serving as little more than warm bodies on a scout team need to be taken off scholarship and those scholarships used for players who are talented and willing to put forth the effort to compete and get above the line."

This is wrong. When you offer a college scholarship you are asking a lot of guys. You are making them relocate, choose a school, make life changing decisions and they can't leave without incurring a major penalty. High school kids don't make those kinds of commitments when the go out for the varsity squad. That is why hs coaches cut kids that don't cut the mustard while college coaches have to endure the buyer's remorse.

There are no sure things in recruiting, every guy is a gamble, I don't care how many stars are attached to a profile. Coaches reap the rewards when their gambles hit pay dirt and they darn well suffer the consequences when they don't.

 

[iceeater1969]

"guys taking up scholarships and serving as little more than warm bodies on a scout team need to be taken off scholarship and those scholarships used for players who are talented and willing to put forth the effort to compete and get above the line."

This is wrong. When you offer a college scholarship you are asking a lot of guys. You are making them relocate, choose a school, make life changing decisions and they can't leave without incurring a major penalty. High school kids don't make those kinds of commitments when the go out for the varsity squad. That is why hs coaches cut kids that don't cut the mustard while college coaches have to endure the buyer's remorse.

There are no sure things in recruiting, every guy is a gamble, I don't care how many stars are attached to a profile. Coaches reap the rewards when their gambles hit pay dirt and they darn well suffer the consequences when they don't.

The last sentence revealed the self correcting mechanism.

Hire and fire too often and no one trusts u. We seldom fired anyone.

At gt have players and families that are very glad to be at ga tech for the degree.

Parent of a starter even have told me that "if it doesn't work out w the position coach at least they get a gt degree. " u know who im talking about.

Per twitter stuff the same player and others are very happy w the cgc family atmosphere.

Hope cgc can generate enough schemes and sets to let lots of guys get playing time.

As ae 87 pointed out hopefully we keep the family spirit as we attract better and better players. Those new truely way better players will crowd the atl. I trust cgc.

 

[croberts]

30 to 40 guys each year?

30-40 guys not seeing the field on a regular basis. Easy to see 10-15 moving on each year as a result of being on the roster for 2-3 years and not meeting their own original expectations. . We have had kids to drop football and stay at Tech , others that wanted to follow their dream somewhere else and some that struggled with the academic rigor. If you combine the latter two you have probably find the answer for many that have moved on over the past 10 years.

 

[takethepoints]

2. Also no argument here from me personally, more just posing the question. Though I think the NCAA and some federal laws may not like that. How do you handle the situation between schools where those are revenue producing sports and those where they are not?

Get rid of Divs 1 & 2. All colleges and universities go to no athletic scholarships. And deciding who is Div 3 champ becomes a major problem.

And, of course, there will still be athletic scholarships, but they won't be called that. I went to a Div 3 college undergrad and almost all our starters came from SEC and ACC programs where they had failed. And had academic scholarships. But that does get rid of the problem and also the obscene excesses of major college sports as presently constituted.

Will that happen? Probably not; major college sports are too firmly in place. Instead we'll see the players become semi-pro employees. Too bad, that, for both the players and the taxpayers.

 

[yeti92]

"guys taking up scholarships and serving as little more than warm bodies on a scout team need to be taken off scholarship and those scholarships used for players who are talented and willing to put forth the effort to compete and get above the line."

This is wrong. When you offer a college scholarship you are asking a lot of guys. You are making them relocate, choose a school, make life changing decisions and they can't leave without incurring a major penalty. High school kids don't make those kinds of commitments when the go out for the varsity squad. That is why hs coaches cut kids that don't cut the mustard while college coaches have to endure the buyer's remorse.

There are no sure things in recruiting, every guy is a gamble, I don't care how many stars are attached to a profile. Coaches reap the rewards when their gambles hit pay dirt and they darn well suffer the consequences when they don't.

Ah okay, you meant you feel this is morally wrong, not that the facts of what I stated are wrong. To this point we will probably just have to agree to disagree. You (the school/coach/etc) aren't making them do anything. This is not being hidden from them, and you aren't kicking them off the team or out of school. All that's happening is that they are losing their scholarship for one year, with the opportunity to re-earn it with improved performance. I'm not sure why you think a kid deserves a 4 year scholarship if they are incapable or lack the desire of maintaining the standard required for said scholarship. Should my employer keep me employed because I moved across the country to take a job with them, but have not put in the effort and performance they were looking for and expect from their employees? I think not. At some point they must bear responsibility for their decisions and thinking through the possible outcomes both good and bad.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Ah okay, you meant you feel this is morally wrong, not that the facts of what I stated are wrong. To this point we will probably just have to agree to disagree. You (the school/coach/etc) aren't making them do anything. This is not being hidden from them, and you aren't kicking them off the team or out of school. All that's happening is that they are losing their scholarship for one year, with the opportunity to re-earn it with improved performance. I'm not sure why you think a kid deserves a 4 year scholarship if they are incapable or lack the desire of maintaining the standard required for said scholarship. Should my employer keep me employed because I moved across the country to take a job with them, but have not put in the effort and performance they were looking for and expect from their employees? I think not. At some point they must bear responsibility for their decisions and thinking through the possible outcomes both good and bad.

Several times now posters have referenced players not putting in the effort as if student athletes are somehow more prone to being slackers than the average college student. I'm just having trouble with that particular slant on things. Perhaps others on here can correct me but my impression is that athletes who want to compete at the college level are usually highly motivated individuals. Plus choosing a school like Tech tends to mean they are not prone to taking it easy or choosing the path of least resistance. I am not getting this whole line of argument that suggests we can thin the ranks of bloated rosters every year just by getting rid of all the players who really didn't want to play football anyway.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Ah okay, you meant you feel this is morally wrong, not that the facts of what I stated are wrong. To this point we will probably just have to agree to disagree. You (the school/coach/etc) aren't making them do anything. This is not being hidden from them, and you aren't kicking them off the team or out of school. All that's happening is that they are losing their scholarship for one year, with the opportunity to re-earn it with improved performance. I'm not sure why you think a kid deserves a 4 year scholarship if they are incapable or lack the desire of maintaining the standard required for said scholarship. Should my employer keep me employed because I moved across the country to take a job with them, but have not put in the effort and performance they were looking for and expect from their employees? I think not. At some point they must bear responsibility for their decisions and thinking through the possible outcomes both good and bad.

1. I don't know of any coach who suspends a scholly for 1 year giving the kid a chance to earn it back.

2. Kids are led to believe they have a scholarship til graduation if they work hard, make grades and keep their noses clean. They are not told in order to stay on scholly they must see the field and be a significant contributor by year x. (They are also told they are now part of a family.)

3. I love it when guys make analogies they think are apple to apples when they're not at all. Taking a professional job is only equivalent to accepting a football scholarship in terms of uprooting yourself and making a life changing decision. The stated/implied terms of keeping the "job/scholly" are quite different, indeed. (see point 2)

 

[iceeater1969]

1. I don't know of any coach who suspends a scholly for 1 year giving the kid a chance to earn it back.

2. Kids are led to believe they have a scholarship til graduation if they work hard, make grades and keep their noses clean. They are not told in order to stay on scholly they must see the field and be a significant contributor by year x. (They are also told they are now part of a family.)

3. I love it when guys make analogies they think are apple to apples when they're not at all. Taking a professional job is only equivalent to accepting a football scholarship in terms of uprooting yourself and making a life changing decision. The stated/implied terms of keeping the "job/scholly" are quite different, indeed. (see point 2)

All this absolutes- either or stuff is not how the private sector. It is used in union settings 798 welders union, UA labors union. They have very detailed interation requiements that are enforced by union stewards.

Maybe u should start a player unionization effort at gt to be sure we are perfect?

Mean while Uga can process ( not graduate) 48% of its players and u are silent.

 

[yeti92]

1. I don't know of any coach who suspends a scholly for 1 year giving the kid a chance to earn it back.

2. Kids are led to believe they have a scholarship til graduation if they work hard, make grades and keep their noses clean. They are not told in order to stay on scholly they must see the field and be a significant contributor by year x. (They are also told they are now part of a family.)

3. I love it when guys make analogies they think are apple to apples when they're not at all. Taking a professional job is only equivalent to accepting a football scholarship in terms of uprooting yourself and making a life changing decision. The stated/implied terms of keeping the "job/scholly" are quite different, indeed. (see point 2)

My original post was how I think this should work, not necessarily how it does currently. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of how you believe things are done currently. I don't believe the kids should be led to believe anything that isn't true, but I don't think they should get a 4 year free pass based on perceived talent out of high school. And quit trying to move the goalposts- if you are going to say we can't do something to this guy because he is having to move and make this huge life altering decision, you can't just dismiss it when I directly compare it to another life altering decision that requires you to move and just go "oh well that's different".

I've said how I believe the system should work, and you don't agree due to personal beliefs, lack of understanding of my argument/reasoning, or some other factor or combination thereof. There's nothing more to say here.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

All this absolutes- either or stuff is not how the private sector. It is used in union settings 798 welders union, UA labors union. They have very detailed interation requiements that are enforced by union stewards.

Maybe u should start a player unionization effort at gt to be sure we are perfect?

Mean while Uga can process ( not graduate) 48% of its players and u are silent.

???

 

[dressedcheeseside]

My original post was how I think this should work, not necessarily how it does currently. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of how you believe things are done currently. I don't believe the kids should be led to believe anything that isn't true, but I don't think they should get a 4 year free pass based on perceived talent out of high school. And quit trying to move the goalposts- if you are going to say we can't do something to this guy because he is having to move and make this huge life altering decision, you can't just dismiss it when I directly compare it to another life altering decision that requires you to move and just go "oh well that's different".

I've said how I believe the system should work, and you don't agree due to personal beliefs, lack of understanding of my argument/reasoning, or some other factor or combination thereof. There's nothing more to say here.

An employer makes different promises to recruits than does a football coach and thus expectations are, or should be, different. There are some similarities, to be sure, but not where it matters most.

“If you come play football for me we will pay for your schooling.”

There are no performance requirements stated or implied in the offer other than if you don’t perform well enough you won’t see the field. On the other hand, employment security is all about performance. If you don’t perform to expectations, you’re fired... and there’s no secret about it before, during or after the fact.

 

[AE 87]

Okay, I think what's being missed is that we still use the value of the GT degree in recruiting. So, even though the scholarship, by regulation, is only for a year, the implication (at least to some of us) is till graduation.

Now, there's no doubt that some SA's like some regular GT students are going to realize after a semester or two that GT is not for them (or vice versa). There's also no doubt that some GT football players like football players at any school will decide that the fit's not right.

The only question being raised by the discussion on "processing," as I understand it, is about GT's relationship with the SA who is maintaining his track to graduation and isn't being irresponsible with his responsibilities to the football team.

 

[iopjacket]

Okay, I think what's being missed is that we still use the value of the GT degree in recruiting. So, even though the scholarship, by regulation, is only for a year, the implication (at least to some of us) is till graduation.

Now, there's no doubt that some SA's like some regular GT students are going to realize after a semester or two that GT is not for them (or vice versa). There's also no doubt that some GT football players like football players at any school will decide that the fit's not right.

The only question being raised by the discussion on "processing," as I understand it, is about GT's relationship with the SA who is maintaining his track to graduation and isn't being irresponsible with his responsibilities to the football team.

I agree. We don't pay recruits. We try to sell the value of a Tech Degree (which has been in many cases including my own has been both satisfying career wise and financially). We evaluate a recruit who appears to be good student and good football player. Turns out to be good student and tries to be good football player but isn't. I can live with, but not like, faking a medical disqualification which allows the player to get his degree. We may have done it the past (I don’t know of any examples) but I categorically can't accept processing players that follow team rules and try hard in practice.

We are probably not going to be national champions, but let’s hold our head high and fight with honor. I have seen no reason to believe Coach Collins doesn’t hold these principals.

 

[iceeater1969]

Okay, I think what's being missed is that we still use the value of the GT degree in recruiting. So, even though the scholarship, by regulation, is only for a year, the implication (at least to some of us) is till graduation.

Now, there's no doubt that some SA's like some regular GT students are going to realize after a semester or two that GT is not for them (or vice versa). There's also no doubt that some GT football players like football players at any school will decide that the fit's not right.

The only question being raised by the discussion on "processing," as I understand it, is about GT's relationship with the SA who is maintaining his track to graduation and isn't being irresponsible with his responsibilities to the football team.

And if a starter IB s injured, sh ki uld he get a chance to
Red shirt seniors - this year there are lots of them that want to play for coach Collins and his staff.

Okay, I think what's being missed is that we still use the value of the GT degree in recruiting. So, even though the scholarship, by regulation, is only for a year, the implication (at least to some of us) is till graduation.

Now, there's no doubt that some SA's like some regular GT students are going to realize after a semester or two that GT is not for them (or vice versa). There's also no doubt that some GT football players like football players at any school will decide that the fit's not right.

The only question being raised by the discussion on "processing," as I understand it, is about GT's relationship with the SA who is maintaining his track to graduation and isn't being irresponsible with his responsibilities to the football team.

In the abstract u are spot on we cant sell 40 year plan and then churn the roster


Throw in some serious injuries, some disputes between player and coach over 3 years and will we ever know if player or coach is acting irresponsibly the entire process.

What if in a team meeting a coach chewed out a starter for errors in a previous practice , but the player was not even at the practice? Responsible?

At gt we are responsible to provide quality coaches that make players want to return for their red shirt sr year.

Lets count the past, present and future.