'14 LA DT Courtney Garnett (Oklahoma Signee)

[Luckylucci]

I think we take both DT's if they want in, but what if JuJu pulls a Manti? Who gets left out?

I've always felt that Utopo would be the odd man out, not a prospect.

 

[md_bennett]

I think we take both DT's if they want in, but what if JuJu pulls a Manti? Who gets left out?

a 5th year i would think. you make room for a guy like juju no matter what.

 

[Emcee77]

I don't think anyone will get pushed out, now that McKenzie is out of the running. There are 5 guys left on the board, we have 22 commits and Kelly has been saying since before Christmas that the staff will take up to 27 this cycle. It will put us two over the 85 limit for now, but there will be two guys who transfer or get hurt or whatever. I think the staff is willing to roll with as many as 87 through spring practice.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I don't think anyone will get pushed out, now that McKenzie is out of the running. There are 5 guys left on the board, we have 22 commits and Kelly has been saying since before Christmas that the staff will take up to 27 this cycle. It will put us two over the 85 limit for now, but there will be two guys who transfer or get hurt or whatever. I think the staff is willing to roll with as many as 87 through spring practice.

Also Schmidt got a scholarship last year. But, aren't those scholarships only for one year, so he could be off scholi in 2014 and free one up?

 

[Emcee77]

Also Schmidt got a scholarship last year. But, aren't those scholarships only for one year, so he could be off scholi in 2014 and free one up?

I honestly have no idea what they would do if they got into June, it was time for the 25 non-EE frosh to report and we still had more than 60 on schollie. No idea.

But I'm not worried about it. If the last few years have taught me anything, it's that the likelihood of us losing fewer than two guys in the course of the spring is damn near zero.

 

[Irish#1]

I honestly have no idea what they would do if they got into June, it was time for the 25 non-EE frosh to report and we still had more than 60 on schollie. No idea.

But I'm not worried about it. If the last few years have taught me anything, it's that the likelihood of that happening is damn near zero.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Also Schmidt got a scholarship last year. But, aren't those scholarships only for one year, so he could be off scholi in 2014 and free one up?

I sincerely doubt we'd pull Schmidt's scholarship. He earned it, and should get to enjoy it through graduation.

 

[Emcee77]

I sincerely doubt we'd pull Schmidt's scholarship. He earned it, and should get to enjoy it through graduation.

I agree. I don't think that would be the answer.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I sincerely doubt we'd pull Schmidt's scholarship. He earned it, and should get to enjoy it through graduation.

Word. I just thought that the scholi he got was a one year one, not that ND would pull it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Word. I just thought that the scholi he got was a one year one, not that ND would pull it.

I think you're technically right-- all D-I scholarships are good for a single year, and schools have the right not to renew them for a wide range of reasons. But ND's practice is to voluntarily offer 4-year scholarships, and I assume that also applies to walk-ons who earn a scholarship sometime during their career.

 

[SaltyND24]

a 5th year i would think. you make room for a guy like juju no matter what.

Collinsworth or Moore? I have to believe those are the only two you'd decide between if it came to a 5th year guy

 

[gkIrish]

I sincerely doubt we'd pull Schmidt's scholarship. He earned it, and should get to enjoy it through graduation.

I don't agree with that. I'm sure he was told and understood that he was given the scholarship on a year to year basis.

He didn't come to Notre Dame with a scholarship. If he did, that would entitle him to keep it until graduation because he forewent other opportunities under the assumption that ND was giving him a scholarship.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I think you're technically right-- all D-I scholarships are good for a single year, and schools have the right not to renew them for a wide range of reasons. But ND's practice is to voluntarily offer 4-year scholarships, and I assume that also applies to walk-ons who earn a scholarship sometime during their career.

I don't agree with that. I'm sure he was told and understood that he was given the scholarship on a year to year basis.

He didn't come to Notre Dame with a scholarship. If he did, that would entitle him to keep it until graduation because he forewent other opportunities under the assumption that ND was giving him a scholarship.

I thought the same thing gkirish. But, Whiskey could be correct also. Where is BGIF when you need him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't agree with that. I'm sure he was told and understood that he was given the scholarship on a year to year basis.

What have you read that gave you that impression? I don't know of a single ND athlete who has lost his scholarship; once you're on scholarship at ND, you stay that way until you either flunk out or get kicked out for discipline.

He didn't come to Notre Dame with a scholarship. If he did, that would entitle him to keep it until graduation because he forewent other opportunities under the assumption that ND was giving him a scholarship.

That's not why ND gives 4-year scholarships. As mentioned above, I believe the LOI only binds ND (just like all other D-I schools) to provide a 1-year scholarship. ND's practice is to offer 4-year scholarships, because it genuinely cares about educating and graduating its athletes, not out of some legalistic sense of opportunity costs. I assume that walk-ons who earn scholarships enjoy the same benefits.

 

[gkIrish]

I thought the same thing gkirish. But, Whiskey could be correct also. Where is BGIF when you need him.

Whiskey is definitely correct that all D-1 scholarships are technically on a year-to-year basis. And he is also correct that ND's policy is to give 4 year scholarships in practice. And I'm sure those promises are made to the students and their parents.

Where I disagree is that I don't think there is any precedent or even an ethical reason to guarantee a walk-on who earns a scholarship that same privilege through graduation.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

If Cage is in is Garnett still a take?

If he is still a take, will signing Cage effect Garnett's decision?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Would <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotreDame&src=hash">#NotreDame</a> take both DT Daniel Cage & DT Courtney Garnett? Definitive answer here. (Premium) <a href="http://t.co/JDGDbRM9kn">http://t.co/JDGDbRM9kn</a></p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/statuses/430809483787243520">February 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Cpnd1]

@petemokwuah: @ONLYFORAKING tomorrows the big day man, think carefully aND make the right decision

What up Pete!

 

[PANDFAN]

I think you're technically right-- all D-I scholarships are good for a single year, and schools have the right not to renew them for a wide range of reasons. But ND's practice is to voluntarily offer 4-year scholarships, and I assume that also applies to walk-ons who earn a scholarship sometime during their career.

I don't agree with that. I'm sure he was told and understood that he was given the scholarship on a year to year basis.

He didn't come to Notre Dame with a scholarship. If he did, that would entitle him to keep it until graduation because he forewent other opportunities under the assumption that ND was giving him a scholarship.

What have you read that gave you that impression? I don't know of a single ND athlete who has lost his scholarship; once you're on scholarship at ND, you stay that way until you either flunk out or get kicked out for discipline.



That's not why ND gives 4-year scholarships. As mentioned above, I believe the LOI only binds ND (just like all other D-I schools) to provide a 1-year scholarship. ND's practice is to offer 4-year scholarships, because it genuinely cares about educating and graduating its athletes, not out of some legalistic sense of opportunity costs. I assume that walk-ons who earn scholarships enjoy the same benefits.

from lou somogyi 8months ago when schmidt was placed on scholarship:
"Once a walk-on is put on scholarship, I think there is an unwritten rule that he remains on it, unless there is some major off-the-field transgression. I can't say that's an absolute certainty, but it just looks bad PR-wise when you take someone off scholarship once you put him on it."

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

I think there is a good argument that if you earn a schollie as a walk-on, you earned it just like a senior in high school did, and thus ND's tradition of maintaining that scholarship throughout the player's collegiate career should apply.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Would <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotreDame&src=hash">#NotreDame</a> take both DT Daniel Cage & DT Courtney Garnett? Definitive answer here. (Premium) <a href="http://t.co/JDGDbRM9kn">http://t.co/JDGDbRM9kn</a></p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/statuses/430809483787243520">February 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Said he spoke with someone who said they definitely would take both.

 

[Huntr]

Where I disagree is that I don't think there is any precedent or even an ethical reason to guarantee a walk-on who earns a scholarship that same privilege through graduation.

That would be fabulously insulting. ND doesn't roll that way. Holy sh-.

 

[gkIrish]

What have you read that gave you that impression? I don't know of a single ND athlete who has lost his scholarship; once you're on scholarship at ND, you stay that way until you either flunk out or get kicked out for discipline.

I haven't read anything one way or the other. Can you give me examples of walk-ons that kept their scholarships for more than one year? If so that would establish some sort of precedent.

That's not why ND gives 4-year scholarships. As mentioned above, I believe the LOI only binds ND (just like all other D-I schools) to provide a 1-year scholarship. ND's practice is to offer 4-year scholarships, because it genuinely cares about educating and graduating its athletes, not out of some legalistic sense of opportunity costs. I assume that walk-ons who earn scholarships enjoy the same benefits.

Under your logic, if we undersigned our class this year by 8 spots we would have to choose between offering 8 walk-ons scholarships until they graduate, thereby handcuffing future classes or not offering them at all and preserving those spots until next year.

Under my logic, you could give all 8 of those kids scholarships for one year with the understanding that they weren't guaranteed past that year while still recruiting normally for future classes.

 

[Ironman8]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GoldenArmy14&src=hash">#GoldenArmy14</a> better show <a href="https://twitter.com/ONLYFORAKING">@ONLYFORAKING</a> some love when he commits and signs his LOI to notre dame</p>— Irish Club C.E.O. (@petemokwuah) <a href="https://twitter.com/petemokwuah/statuses/430810938036334592">February 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Ironman8]

Get him Pete!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Where I disagree is that I don't think there is any precedent or even an ethical reason to guarantee a walk-on who earns a scholarship that same privilege through graduation.

You may be right that there's no precedent for this. Schmidt earned his scholarship after his sophomore season. Those few walk-ons who do earn a scholarship usually need until senior year to do so; so Joe is an outlier in that regard. And as a practical matter, 2014 will be his senior season, so we're only talking about one more year here.

As for the ethical reasons, how about fairness? He's providing experienced depth at a position of serious need for us; what sort of message would it send if we pulled his scholarship to sign yet another completely unproven high school senior? Most of the guys in this incoming class will fail to contribute as much as Schmidt has already, and every single one of them is more highly rated than he was out of high school.

As we're all painfully aware, maintaining a full roster at ND is very difficult. To his credit, Kelly has implemented a robust walk-on program to help off-set that difficulty. But maintaining credibility with those walk-ons is crucial to the integrity of that program. If guys like Salvi and Schmidt are getting brushed aside for a random 3 recruit, Kelly's gonna have a helluva time convincing walk-ons that they've got a legitimate chance to earn a scholarship if they work hard and contribute on the field.

 

[Emcee77]

I haven't read anything one way or the other. Can you give me examples of walk-ons that kept their scholarships for more than one year? If so that would establish some sort of precedent.



Under your logic, if we undersigned our class this year by 8 spots we would have to choose between offering 8 walk-ons scholarships until they graduate, thereby handcuffing future classes or not offering them at all and preserving those spots until next year.

Under my logic, you could give all 8 of those kids scholarships for one year with the understanding that they weren't guaranteed past that year while still recruiting normally for future classes.

Easy choice ... we don't offer them at all. That's what we did with Schmidt after his freshman year.

They knew the deal when they signed up as walk-ons. We don't have to offer them schollies just because we have them available. But I tend to agree with others that once offered they shouldn't be taken away unless there is misconduct.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GoldenArmy14&src=hash">#GoldenArmy14</a> better show <a href="https://twitter.com/ONLYFORAKING">@ONLYFORAKING</a> some love when he commits and signs his LOI to notre dame</p>— Irish Club C.E.O. (@petemokwuah) <a href="https://twitter.com/petemokwuah/statuses/430810938036334592">February 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I like Pete's attitude

 

[gkIrish]

You may be right that there's no precedent for this. Schmidt earned his scholarship after his sophomore season. Those few walk-ons who do earn a scholarship usually need until senior year to do so; so Joe is an outlier in that regard.

As for the ethical reasons, how about fairness? He's providing experienced depth at a position of serious need for us; what sort of message would it send if we pulled his scholarship to sign another completely unproven high school senior? Most of the guys in this incoming class will fail to contribute as much as Schmidt has already, and every single one of them is more highly rated than he was out of high school.

As we're all painfully aware, maintaining a full roster at ND is very difficult. To his credit, Kelly has implemented a robust walk-on program to help off-set that difficulty. But maintaining credibility with those walk-ons is crucial to the integrity of that program. If guys like Salvi and Schmidt are getting brushed aside for a random 3 recruit, Kelly's gonna have a helluva time convincing walk-ons that they've got a legitimate chance to earn a scholarship if they work hard and contribute on the field.

For the record, I'm not saying I think we SHOULD take away his scholarship. I do think he is a valuable member of the team. I'd rather turn down a fifth year than take his scholarship away. I'm just arguing that the coaches could if they thought it was worth it (say for JuJu) and I wouldn't think it was unfair considering no one promised him anything and he didn't come to ND under the assumption he would have a scholarship.

I also agree that it would probably deter good players from trying to walk on. I just don't think it's an ethical issue.

 

[gkIrish]

Easy choice ... we don't offer them at all. That's what we did with Schmidt after his freshman year.

They knew the deal when they signed up as walk-ons. We don't have to offer them schollies just because we have them available. But I tend to agree with others that once offered they shouldn't be taken away unless there is misconduct.

See but I think that's an infinitely shittier thing to do than what I suggested. Why let a scholarship just sit there unused when some poor kid is paying 40K per year to go to school. Assuming the player puts the effort in, we should always give available scholarships away. We just don't need to be guaranteeing them past one year.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

For the record, I'm not saying I think we SHOULD take away his scholarship. I do think he is a valuable member of the team. I'd rather turn down a fifth year than take his scholarship away.

I'm sure that's what would happen. If we needed to make room (would be nice to have such problems, no?), the staff would start cutting 5Ys. I assume they view Scmidt's scholarship as non-negotiable.

I'm just arguing that the coaches could if they thought it was worth it (say for JuJu) and I wouldn't think it was unfair considering no one promised him anything and he didn't come to ND under the assumption he would have a scholarship.

I agree that they could; the LOI gives D-I schools lots of flexibility in choosing not to renew a scholarship. Whether or not that would be fair in Schmidt's case depends on what he was promised (outside of the LOI). Based on my understanding of our walk-on program, I believe that once a scholarship is awarded, it's not revocable unless the player fails to meet his academic or behavioral obligations. But we don't know for sure.