TheSilasSonRising
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,729
So grant in aid agreements are all one year deals, correct?
So let me preface this by stating that I’m not talking about any specific individual, but just a general SA.
It sucks for the athlete, but I honestly just don’t get the argument. If a regular student gets a scholarship to attend college they have standards they must uphold to retain their scholarship. The simplest example is the Hope. Drop below a B average and it’s stripped away. They don’t kick you out of school...they just don’t pay for it anymore.
Grad program do this sort of thing with TAs as well. If they don’t uphold their end of the bargain the school doesn’t pay for the grad degree.
The way I see it the football programs are doing the same thing. I’m certain you could remain as a walk on if they took away your scholarship, but kids probably don’t want to or can’t afford to do that. Same thing happens on the academic side all the time.
This sounds really harsh, but it’s reality and it extends well beyond college football. You think an employer is just going to keep you around because you show up every day and work hard, but produce sub-par results? It just doesn’t work that way...and the sooner kids realize this the better off they’ll be in the long run.
Grant in aid agreements are generally one year deals. So I don’t have a problem with the school deciding to go another direction.
Now if this becomes normal then I think athletes must be allowed to transfer anywhere they want free of penalty as well. It can’t be a one sided agreement. I’ve typically been on the other side of this point, but if schools are going to go the route above it needs to be fair for both sides.
Btw, there’s never much of an uproar when they take scholarships away from softball, volleyball, track, or swimming athletes because they aren’t producing. I guess it only needs to be fair for football.
Good analysis, but I don’t think a kid can remain a “walk on” just because they may want to. If I understood you correctly.