GT signing day update ...

[Southpaw13]

You could have saved a lot of words by simply stating “I’m okay with players getting processed.”

That's fine, we don't have to agree. I think it's acceptable under certain conditions, as I described. If a kid isn't what you thought he'd be and isn't helping you on the field, you still have an obligation to him to help him get his degree. So no, I'm not OK with it in all circumstances. I think the 5th year thing is a somewhat unique scenario.

 

[gtg391z]

Yeah, I have no problem with pulling scholarships for guys not performing. I would never guarantee 5 years. A vast majority of kids, rich and poor, pay for their own college. These guys aren't special just because they played high school football. If I'm coach, I would have standards that each play must meet to remain on scholarship and if not they become PWO or they could transfer.

 

[GTHomer]

Yeah, I have no problem with pulling scholarships for guys not performing. I would never guarantee 5 years. A vast majority of kids, rich and poor, pay for their own college. These guys aren't special just because they played high school football. If I'm coach, I would have standards that each play must meet to remain on scholarship and if not they become PWO or they could transfer.

Wow, then you may have challenges getting football players to your school. I can somewhat see what Southpaw13 is saying but you are essentially not offering to keep them on scholarship if they don't perform as expected on the field. Why should the student athlete be penalized for the coach's poor evaluation?

 

[gtg391z]

Why should an academic scholar be penalized if they don't maintain their grades at a certain level? I mean, the board that gave them the scholarship thought they were worthy at the time. You have to have standards and incentives or people will take advantage. Its why socialism will never work. I lost my Hope scholarship at Tech my sophomore year and had too many hours to get it back. These things happen in life. I survived and graduated.

The coach just has to be honest upfront with what is expected. Hopefully, the coaches wouldn't have a lot of this and if they do they would be fired eventually anyway.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Why should an academic scholar be penalized if they don't maintain their grades at a certain level? I mean, the board that gave them the scholarship thought they were worthy at the time. You have to have standards and incentives or people will take advantage. Its why socialism will never work. I lost my Hope scholarship at Tech my sophomore year and had too many hours to get it back. These things happen in life. I survived and graduated.

The coach just has to be honest upfront with what is expected. Hopefully, the coaches wouldn't have a lot of this and if they do they would be fired eventually anyway.

“Relationships”

Your philosophy doesn’t mesh with current branding.

 

[bobongo]

Why should an academic scholar be penalized if they don't maintain their grades at a certain level? I mean, the board that gave them the scholarship thought they were worthy at the time. You have to have standards and incentives or people will take advantage. Its why socialism will never work. I lost my Hope scholarship at Tech my sophomore year and had too many hours to get it back. These things happen in life. I survived and graduated.

The coach just has to be honest upfront with what is expected. Hopefully, the coaches wouldn't have a lot of this and if they do they would be fired eventually anyway.

But it doesn't make sense. If 85 players have scholarships and there can be only 22 starters, it stands to reason that on every team there will be players who aren't going to make the two-deep or see much of the field. They shouldn't be penalized as long as they're trying. And besides, any program just jerking scholarships will find its recruit base shrinking. What if a player is injured, or has any medical condition that precludes his playing, or playing effectively? Are you going to cancel their scholarships because they got hurt trying to make the team? This has nothing to do with "socialism". You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[herb]

Its why socialism will never work.

But this aspect has never been capitalistic. There are rules depressing the fair market value of the players. The schools are reaping huge rewards and the players are limited (assuming no other rules are being broken) in what they receive.

 

[gtg391z]

First, I can't give exact details on how I would do it because I have never coached at this level or managed a roster. However, I believe the first two years would be a given unless the athlete breaks some rules. Then you would set the bar on where everyone needs to be and it would probably be somewhere around 3 deep plus special teams and even then you still don't have to pull the scholarship on the guy if he is giving everything. My whole point is you have to have incentives to work hard or some humans will just do the minimum. Just the threat of losing your scholarship is enough for most people to fight like hell. A guarantee of 5 years just seems ridiculous and counterproductive to me. No other type of scholarship, that I know of, gives that type of commitment without performance standards. I promise you that nobody here that is hiring would offer the new hire 5 years guaranteed in the real world. Why?

Sorry man, but the medical thing is silly. Of course you wouldn't penalize someone who got hurt or injured. Coaches know who is loafing and I'm sure there are a few.

 

[herb]

First, I can't give exact details on how I would do it because I have never coached at this level or managed a roster. However, I believe the first two years would be a given unless the athlete breaks some rules. Then you would set the bar on where everyone needs to be and it would probably be somewhere around 3 deep plus special teams and even then you still don't have to pull the scholarship on the guy if he is giving everything. My whole point is you have to have incentives to work hard or some humans will just do the minimum. Just the threat of losing your scholarship is enough for most people to fight like hell. A guarantee of 5 years just seems ridiculous and counterproductive to me. No other type of scholarship, that I know of, gives that type of commitment without performance standards. I promise you that nobody here that is hiring would offer the new hire 5 years guaranteed in the real world. Why?

Sorry man, but the medical thing is silly. Of course you wouldn't penalize someone who got hurt or injured. Coaches know who is loafing and I'm sure there are a few.

The coach just got a 7 year deal

 

[boger2337]

I would argue that a coach would find his weakest players and suggest to them they have zero chance of playing and would be better off transferring. Before the fall.

 

[bobongo]

I would argue that a coach would find his weakest players and suggest to them they have zero chance of playing and would be better off transferring. Before the fall.

I have no problem with this. But I would have a big problem with a coach jerking somebody's scholarship out from under them just because said coach misjudged their talent.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'm not sure how the economics work for Football scholarships and the actual school but it would seem to me that the cost of scholarship is really negligible to the school. Does it really cost the school anything to have that extra kid in a class? The professor is already getting his salary, the dorm room is already built. I understand that there are some costs related to having a kid going to school for free but I don't think it cost the price of full tuition for a normal student, I would actually imagine it is a small fraction of it actually.

O

100%... with the assumption that the player has earned his degree while under scholarship. Under no circumstances should the coach leave a player 1 semester short of graduating... but I see the coach/school's responsibility to be to help that player get their degree. Once that requirement has been met, I don't think the coach is obligated to continue offering a scholarship.

km

I'm also a little unclear. If the player has graduated they no longer need a scholarship therefore they could remain on the team, right?

I recall a few years ago Alabama had a non-traveling roster of almost 140 players. Don't know if the rules have changed the numbers since then but I believe your roster is not limited to scholarship players.

So no reason to run a player off who has his degree. What am I missing?

 

[boger2337]

O

km

I'm also a little unclear. If the player has graduated they no longer need a scholarship therefore they could remain on the team, right?

I recall a few years ago Alabama had a non-traveling roster of almost 140 players. Don't know if the rules have changed the numbers since then but I believe your roster is not limited to scholarship players.

So no reason to run a player off who has his degree. What am I missing?

They still have to be a student.. which means enrolled in classes. Which means money they don't want to spend.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I have no problem with this. But I would have a big problem with a coach jerking somebody's scholarship out from under them just because said coach misjudged their talent.

Yes, I would have a big time problem with that too. Kids shouldn't have to pay for mistakes adults make.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

They still have to be a student.. which means enrolled in classes. Which means money they don't want to spend.

But they don't have to be on track for a degree or make progress right? So not a full load.

 

[boger2337]

But they don't have to be on track for a degree or make progress right? So not a full load.

I believe they have to be in a graduate program. I'm not sure.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I believe they have to be in a graduate program. I'm not sure.

Sounds to me like it would be time to take one of those easy electives people are always saying are available for football players.

 

[stech81]

I would argue that a coach would find his weakest players and suggest to them they have zero chance of playing and would be better off transferring. Before the fall.

I think the players will know if they have a chance to play after the spring game

 

[bobongo]

They still have to be a student.. which means enrolled in classes. Which means money they don't want to spend.

Do they? I didn't think so.

 

[33jacket]

O

km

I'm also a little unclear. If the player has graduated they no longer need a scholarship therefore they could remain on the team, right?

I recall a few years ago Alabama had a non-traveling roster of almost 140 players. Don't know if the rules have changed the numbers since then but I believe your roster is not limited to scholarship players.

So no reason to run a player off who has his degree. What am I missing?

A roster is 85 ships and capped at 105 as of my last memory. I doubt alabama had a roster of 140 since it would be a blatant violation of roster mandated by NCAA. We too, have a roster of around 105 any given year.

If a player has graduated, but still has eligibility, they are still on scholarship provided they enroll in graduate school. If not they have to move on. You can't graduate say in May, then play the fall semester unless you are enrolled in some minimum standard set of classes. All NCAA players have a min course load requirement. The only time you can play, is if you grad in december, and have a bowl game or playoff game.

So yes, running a player off who has a degree, but eligibility, is not a bad idea to turn over the roster, and the way you do it is make sure they don't get admitted to the graduate school