Oversigning Recruits

[ALLGATOR]

I thought scholarships were for one year (elsewhere, not ND). If so, they don't get pulled or taken away; they are just not renewed.
Am I wrong?

most schools give 4 year scholarships now even in the SEC

 

[ALLGATOR]

Bama also talked Luke Del Rio to walk on when he had scholarships to d1 programs

 

[ThePiombino]

Bama also talked Luke Del Rio to walk on when he had scholarships to d1 programs

The enemy of my enemy is still an @$$hole.

 

[Rocky2820]

most schools give 4 year scholarships now even in the SEC

I really want to better understand this topic, and this is news to me. Technically per NCAA regs, all scholarships are one-year renewables, correct? Which SEC schools are now offering them as four-year deals, and has anything been written on this that you can link? Thank you in advance.

 

[ALLGATOR]

I really want to better understand this topic, and this is news to me. Technically per NCAA regs, all scholarships are one-year renewables, correct? Which SEC schools are now offering them as four-year deals, and has anything been written on this that you can link? Thank you in advance.

Pretty much everybody I cant think of a school that doesn't. The NCAA changed the rule so you can sign a 4 year scholarship instead of just the 1 year renewal. The truth of the matter is it changed nothing because you could not cut a kid for bad performance on the field anyways.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I thought scholarships were for one year (elsewhere, not ND). If so, they don't get pulled or taken away; they are just not renewed.
Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong. Scholarships are for 1 year. In practice, most schools treat them as 4 year scholarships, but they're only for 1 year and subject to be renewed or not each year. In general, if a kid makes his grades, follows the rules, and puts forth a reasonable effort, then his scholarship is renewed, but the program is under no contractual or legal obligation to do so and can choose to not renew it for various reasons.

 

[ThePiombino]

No, you're not wrong. Scholarships are for 1 year. In practice, most schools treat them as 4 year scholarships, but they're only for 1 year and subject to be renewed or not each year. In general, if a kid makes his grades, follows the rules, and puts forth a reasonable effort, then his scholarship is renewed, but the program is under no contractual or legal obligation to do so and can choose to not renew it for various reasons.

How about ethical?

BTW, "puts forth a reasonable effort" = grey area/escape clause

 

[Ndaccountant]

No, you're not wrong. Scholarships are for 1 year. In practice, most schools treat them as 4 year scholarships, but they're only for 1 year and subject to be renewed or not each year. In general, if a kid makes his grades, follows the rules, and puts forth a reasonable effort, then his scholarship is renewed, but the program is under no contractual or legal obligation to do so and can choose to not renew it for various reasons.

except that schools are now offering 4 year scholarships. They can get out of those too, but they are being offered.

 

[PraetorianND]

There is no way in hell you can possibly defend over signing from an ethics standpoint. From a legal perspective you can defend it if you are unethical.

 

[Bishop2b5]

How about ethical?

BTW, "puts forth a reasonable effort" = grey area/escape clause

I'm as big on ethics as anyone, and I never want to see a kid get mistreated or used, but I don't see anything unethical about not renewing a scholarship if the player isn't doing what it takes to earn it. You don't keep awarding an academic scholarship to a kid who is only making C's. That doesn't happen at Bama, ND, or any other school. Why should it happen just because it's an athletic scholarship?

In both cases, the school invests a lot of time and money in a student and expects something in return, whether it's outstanding performance as a qb or as a math whiz. If the student fails to do his part, then the school has every right to award that scholarship to someone who will (and an obligation to be a good steward of the school's resources and invest them in a way that produces the best results for that investment of time and money). You can argue that it harms the kid who has his scholarship taken away, but not doing so is equally harmful to the student who is worthy of that scholarship but doesn't get it because it's tied up in a kid who isn't doing what it takes to earn it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

except that schools are now offering 4 year scholarships. They can get out of those too, but they are being offered.

Nothing's really changed. Most schools have always treated the 1 year renewable scholarships as a 4 year scholarship in practice. The 4 year scholarships still have escape clauses. There's really no significant difference. It's just calling the same thing by a different name.

 

[PraetorianND]

I'm as big on ethics as anyone, and I never want to see a kid get mistreated or used, but I don't see anything unethical about not renewing a scholarship if the player isn't doing what it takes to earn it. You don't keep awarding an academic scholarship to a kid who is only making C's. That doesn't happen at Bama, ND, or any other school. Why should it happen just because it's an athletic scholarship?

In both cases, the school invests a lot of time and money in a student and expects something in return, whether it's outstanding performance as a qb or as a math whiz. If the student fails to do his part, then the school has every right to award that scholarship to someone who will (and an obligation to be a good steward of the school's resources and invest them in a way that produces the best results for that investment of time and money). You can argue that it harms the kid who has his scholarship taken away, but not doing so is equally harmful to the student who is worthy of that scholarship but doesn't get it because it's tied up in a kid who isn't doing what it takes to earn it.

Law schools offer academic scholarships with grade contingencies to get kids to come to their school. Then they put all the kids with those scholarships into one section that is then curved more harshly than the other. Those kids basically get the shaft because not only do they have to compete with the smarter students (those that earned scholarships) but their chances of landing jobs is reduced because their grades are lower, thus having to compete against dumber students for jobs who have the same grades. I'm looking at you Seton Hall.

Unethical behavior exists even for academic scholarships. I wouldn't use them as your measuring stick.

 

[phgreek]

I don't know of a single kid that's been grayshirted at Bama and then never got their scholarship. In fact, I don't know of a kid at ANY school that didn't. Doesn't mean it's never happened, but I've never heard of it. You do that one time and you've burned yourself forever with recruits. No staff could afford to do that. OTOH, I do know of several we've asked to grayshirt who went on to spend four years on scholarship. All grayshirting is, is delaying a recruit's enrollment by a semester. It lets him recover from an injury or mature before starting the clock on his 5 years to play 4. He's not going to play this upcoming season. Why have that count as a redshirt year when he can delay enrollment a few months and still have five years left to play 4?

This kid's known for months he was probably going to grayshirt. He had ample opportunity to explore other options with other programs. He received offers from several other large programs. He and his parents decided it was in his best interest to sit out a season and recover from his injury, and still have all his eligibility remaining.

...so what I got from this response is what grey shirting is..."trust me"...., and then why one kid is doing it, and its good.

My point is, this is a practice that could certainly be abused, and because it is a practice the NCAA does not recognize, it does not measure/regulate it. In the absence of data, oversite, and in the presence of a clear competitive advantage...I'm sorry but anectdotal support doesn't do it for me.

The NCAA, as is always the case, is quick to squeeze someone's nuts for trading a game jersey for a tatoo, but goes ostrich on an issue that may be a broad abuse producing an on field advantage...ya know, their charter and everything...

 

[PraetorianND]

We can agree to disagree and I'll respect your opinion. Mine is that it's a tough world. Nobody owes you anything. This isn't T-Ball where everybody gets a chance to bat, a trophy no matter where they finished, and ice cream for all after the game.

All resources are limited, whether we're talking about athletic scholarships, academic scholarships, jobs, or anything else. If you give those things to someone who isn't fully earning them, then you're denying them to someone who is, and I think that's even more unethical than taking them away from the person who isn't earning them. Remember the Biblical story of the wealthy man who gave money to three of his servants. Two of them did well with what they were given and were rewarded further. The third didn't and had his taken away and given to the first two who had proven themselves worthy of their master's investment. That's the real world.

We're not even talking about the same thing actually. You're talking about at will employment and I'm talking about contractual obligation. There is a reason why we are still paying Weis, because we gave him a contract. Same thing is true of these kids.

 

[Bishop2b5]

...so what I got from this response is what grey shirting is..."trust me"...., and then why one kid is doing it, and its good.

My point is, this is a practice that could certainly be abused, and because it is a practice the NCAA does not recognize, it does not measure/regulate it. In the absence of data, oversite, and in the presence of a clear competitive advantage...I'm sorry but anectdotal support doesn't do it for me.

The NCAA, as is always the case, is quick to squeeze someone's nuts for trading a game jersey for a tatoo, but goes ostrich on an issue that may be a broad abuse producing an on field advantage...ya know, their charter and everything...

What comptetitive advantage is there? What's unethical about it? How is anyone being abused or mistreated? You're claiming potential for abuse and condemning it because of that potential, yet there don't appear to be many actual cases of such, if any. Grayshirting doesn't give you extra players or any extra eligibility or anything else like that. It isn't used to get a recruit to sign with you and then pull his scholarship after he's given up the option of signing with another school. It just delays a recruit's enrollment until the following year's recruiting class (and yes, he has to count against that class' 25, so no extra players are being brought in), giving him an extra year to recover from an injury or mature without starting the clock on his eligibility. It lets a staff say, "We want you, but you need a few extra months to get ready. We'll bring you into the program and have a scholly for you next January instead of this August."

It seems that no matter how clearly what actually happens or how it works is explained, and the fact that the NCAA and its member schools have approved of it, you've made up your mind regardless of reality and will bash it no matter the facts. I've repeatedly seen people on here with an axe to grind use completely erroneous facts and a very poor grasp of EE's, grayshirting, oversigning, and other related subjects to form an opinion about them... and cling to those erroneous facts and conclusions no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. If you use bad info to reach a conclusion, guess what the conclusion will be. GIGO.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Seems like too many words to encapsulate an unethical practice that yields a huge competitive advantage.

 

[Rack Em]

We can agree to disagree and I'll respect your opinion. Mine is that it's a tough world. Nobody owes you anything. This isn't T-Ball where everybody gets a chance to bat, a trophy no matter where they finished, and ice cream for all after the game.

All resources are limited, whether we're talking about athletic scholarships, academic scholarships, jobs, or anything else. If you give those things to someone who isn't fully earning them, then you're denying them to someone who is, and I think that's even more unethical than taking them away from the person who isn't earning them. Remember the Biblical story of the wealthy man who gave money to three of his servants. Two of them did well with what they were given and were rewarded further. The third didn't and had his taken away and given to the first two who had proven themselves worthy of their master's investment. That's the real world.

Yeah I remember the biblical story and you're twisting it to fit your agenda. It's about taking the talents you have and doing the most good you can. It's not about screwing over 18-22 year olds when they don't perform well enough for Universities to profit on their performance.

We're not talking about circus elephants! These are kids who expect to play football, and in most cases to get an education while on a scholarship. Reneging on a promise to PROVIDE AN EDUCATION FOR A PERSON is one of the lowest, dirtiest, slimiest things you can ever do.

It's disgusting that you don't think of these student-athletes as anything more than entertainment for you and your SEC apologists.

You'll never win this battle here because oversigning, cutting, grayshirting, etc. are so unethical it's incomprehensible. And if you continue to feel that exploiting 18-22 year olds for entertainment is acceptable, you should find a different message board.

And about the bolded. God doesn't like it when you break promises. Specifically check the Ten Commandments. See I can pull scripture too.

 

[DillonHall]

To be honest, I blame the high school players (and their advisors) for letting them go to schools that over sign. Remember when LaRue commented on the high number of A&M commits just to commit to them a couple weeks later? It's completely his fault if he ends up without a scholarship. If the player values football over an education, then he needs to understand that he might get screwed by football decisions.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

The more lottery tickets you buy, the better your chances are of winning. You have an advantage over people who bought less tickets.

It's that simple, really.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Yeah I remember the biblical story and you're twisting it to fit your agenda. It's about taking the talents you have and doing the most good you can. It's not about screwing over 18-22 year olds when they don't perform well enough for Universities to profit on their performance.

We're not talking about circus elephants! These are kids who expect to play football, and in most cases to get an education while on a scholarship. Reneging on a promise to PROVIDE AN EDUCATION FOR A PERSON is one of the lowest, dirtiest, slimiest things you can ever do.

It's disgusting that you don't think of these student-athletes as anything more than entertainment for you and your SEC apologists.

You'll never win this battle here because oversigning, cutting, grayshirting, etc. are so unethical it's incomprehensible. And if you continue to feel that exploiting 18-22 year olds for entertainment is acceptable, you should find a different message board.

And about the bolded. God doesn't like it when you break promises. Specifically check the Ten Commandments. See I can pull scripture too.

What promise is broken? You promise a kid a 1 year renewable scholarship. He earns it, it gets renewed. He doesn't earn it, it gets given to someone who will work hard enough to deserve it. How is letting the first player keep something he isn't earning fair to the 2nd kid who does deserve it? Do you care about him? "Sorry son, you don't get a scholarship because even though you work hard and deserve it, I have to let somebody who won't do so keep a scholarship." OK, you kept 10 kids on scholarship who aren't willing to work hard enough to deserve it. Pat yourself on the back about how noble you are. Now go explain that to the 10 kids you just denied a chance for an education and the opportunity to play at your school. See, you're all up in arms about the first group of kids, but never even thought about the second group. In the end, you can only give 85 players a chance to attend your school, get an education, and play on your team. Which ones do you give that opportunity to? Which ones do you invest your school's money and resources on? The ones who want it enough to give everything they have, or the ones who may not?

 

[Bishop2b5]

The more lottery tickets you buy, the better your chances are of winning. You have an advantage over people who bought less tickets.

It's that simple, really.

There aren't any extra lottery tickets in this case. Schools still can only bring in 25 per year (unless they brought in fewer the previous year and are just using those extra leftover schollies this year). They can still only have 85 total. EE and grayshirting don't bring in extra players. It's just a way to bring them in early or later. Either way it doesn't increase your numbers or give you extra lottery tickets. To oversign a class, you have to have undersigned the previous year. You aren't getting extra players.

I know what you mean though. You're criticizing the practice of cutting veterans that aren't contributing much to make room under the 85 cap so you can keep bringing in 25 new players each year. First, it's not nearly as common in the SEC as most of you seem to believe. In fact, it's rather rare, if it even happens at all. Some here have simply made up their minds to hate all things SEC and are going to cling to their erroneous facts and misinformed opinions no matter how much evidence you give them to the contrary. I'll tip my hat to WhiskeyJack on this one. He recently posted something to the effect that he'd changed his opinion about a lot of this stuff after reading more about it and hearing from the SEC fans. A man who bases his opinions on the facts instead of choosing the facts to fit his opinion is to be commended.

I truly don't know of a single case at Bama where a player was cut due to underperforming. You can argue that Saban's had more than his share of medical hardships, but every single one of them were declared medically unfit to play or advised to stop playing for health reasons by independent physicians and none were ever cleared to play elsewhere except one, who went to more than a dozen different docs until he finally found one who said OK (and ignored all the others who told him no way). As for the transfers, when you bring in as many elite recruits as we do, there are always going to be some players who just can't get on the field because no matter how good they are, somebody else is even better. They aren't pushed out the door. They choose to transfer so they can play.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

There aren't any extra lottery tickets in this case. Schools still can only bring in 25 per year (unless they brought in fewer the previous year and are just using those extra leftover schollies this year). They can still only have 85 total. EE and grayshirting don't bring in extra players. It's just a way to bring them in early or later. Either way it doesn't increase your numbers or give you extra lottery tickets. To oversign a class, you have to have undersigned the previous year. You aren't getting extra players.

I know what you mean though. You're criticizing the practice of cutting veterans that aren't contributing much to make room under the 85 cap so you can keep bringing in 25 new players each year. First, it's not nearly as common in the SEC as most of you seem to believe. In fact, it's rather rare, if it even happens at all. Some here have simply made up their minds to hate all things SEC and are going to cling to their erroneous facts and misinformed opinions no matter how much evidence you give them to the contrary. I'll tip my hat to WhiskeyJack on this one. He recently posted something to the effect that he'd changed his opinion about a lot of this stuff after reading more about it and hearing from the SEC fans. A man who bases his opinions on the facts instead of choosing the facts to fit his opinion is to be commended.

I truly don't know of a single case at Bama where a player was cut due to underperforming. You can argue that Saban's had more than his share of medical hardships, but every single one of them were declared medically unfit to play or advised to stop playing for health reasons by independent physicians and none were ever cleared to play elsewhere except one, who went to more than a dozen different docs until he finally found one who said OK (and ignored all the others who told him no way). As for the transfers, when you bring in as many elite recruits as we do, there are always going to be some players who just can't get on the field because no matter how good they are, somebody else is even better. They aren't pushed out the door. They choose to transfer so they can play.

If you truly don't see the clear competitive advantage over-signing gives a program, then no amount of words will change your mind. Have a nice day.

 

[ALLGATOR]

If you truly don't see the clear competitive advantage over-signing gives a program, then no amount of words will change your mind. Have a nice day.

so you are worried about the competitive advantage from a football standpoint not the kids involved?

 

[Rocky2820]

For me, based upon what I know about the practice of "oversigning," my only real critique would be if kids are cut who are working hard at the football aspect of their student-athlete status but just aren't finding their way onto the field as a contributing player. And my problem with that is one of ethics, because now that kid has to transfer to another school if he wants to continue playing, and must deal with transfer of credit issues and the like. That said, if a kid truly hasn't fully committed himself to the athletic side of being a student-athlete from a work ethic standpoint, I'm not so sure I have a problem with it. Of course, there's a gray area here, but I would have to see factual evidence of abusing this gray area before I would be ready to condemn Saban or the SEC as a whole. I haven't seen or heard this factual evidence yet. Anyone have any? I posted earlier that I want to be better educated on this topic, so my question is a genuine one.

 

[irishroo]

What promise is broken? You promise a kid a 1 year renewable scholarship. He earns it, it gets renewed. He doesn't earn it, it gets given to someone who will work hard enough to deserve it. How is letting the first player keep something he isn't earning fair to the 2nd kid who does deserve it? Do you care about him? "Sorry son, you don't get a scholarship because even though you work hard and deserve it, I have to let somebody who won't do so keep a scholarship." OK, you kept 10 kids on scholarship who aren't willing to work hard enough to deserve it. Pat yourself on the back about how noble you are. Now go explain that to the 10 kids you just denied a chance for an education and the opportunity to play at your school. See, you're all up in arms about the first group of kids, but never even thought about the second group. In the end, you can only give 85 players a chance to attend your school, get an education, and play on your team. Which ones do you give that opportunity to? Which ones do you invest your school's money and resources on? The ones who want it enough to give everything they have, or the ones who may not?

I'm not sure whether you're choosing to ignore our main point or just legitimately missing it, but either way it is mind-boggling. Nobody is arguing that a kid who is not willing to put in the work, who skips workouts/meetings/practice etc., deserves to remain a part of the team. What we are saying is that this level of "earning it" is totally subjective and clearly can and has been used by coaches as a means of getting rid of kids who are putting the work in but simply are not that good. This system puts all the power in the hands of college football coaches who have proven themselves to be consistent, almost pathological, liars (cough...Urban Meyer...cough). When the future of an 18 year old kid is in the hands of such a person, that future rarely turns out as well as it could or should have.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I'm not sure whether you're choosing to ignore our main point or just legitimately missing it, but either way it is mind-boggling. Nobody is arguing that a kid who is not willing to put in the work, who skips workouts/meetings/practice etc., deserves to remain a part of the team. What we are saying is that this level of "earning it" is totally subjective and clearly can and has been used by coaches as a means of getting rid of kids who are putting the work in but simply are not that good. This system puts all the power in the hands of college football coaches who have proven themselves to be consistent, almost pathological, liars (cough...Urban Meyer...cough). When the future of an 18 year old kid is in the hands of such a person, that future rarely turns out as well as it could or should have.

I don't really disagree you at all. I want to see everyone treated fairly. I surely don't want to see a kid get manipulated and used by a coach or anyone else. It's not a simple black or white issue though (few things are). You have a lot of factors here: what's best for the kid, the school's obligation to them, the school's obligation to itself to award its scholarships to the most deserving students, the success of the program a kid is involved with (whether that's football or the music department), and a dozen other things.

I see your points and those of the others, and am not totally in disagreement with any of them. I just lean more towards the other side of the issue and see it as "this is the real world and it's dog eat dog, tough & competitive sometimes," and think you have to always be upfront and honest with your players and recruits and give them all a fair opportunity, but in the end you give your scholarships to the 85 most deserving players. It may be about the kids, but you have to decide which kids. If you keep older players who aren't very talented on scholarship, you're denying an opportunity to other players. I don't see that as being a bit more ethical, decent or humane. You have limited resources/scholarships. If you give them to one group, you have to deny them to another.

 

[irishroo]

I don't really disagree you at all. I want to see everyone treated fairly. I surely don't want to see a kid get manipulated and used by a coach or anyone else. It's not a simple black or white issue though (few things are). You have a lot of factors here: what's best for the kid, the school's obligation to them, the school's obligation to itself to award its scholarships to the most deserving students, the success of the program a kid is involved with (whether that's football or the music department), and a dozen other things.

I see your points and those of the others, and am not totally in disagreement with any of them. I just lean more towards the other side of the issue and see it as "this is the real world and it's dog eat dog, tough & competitive sometimes," and think you have to always be upfront and honest with your players and recruits and give them all a fair opportunity, but in the end you give your scholarships to the 85 most deserving players. It may be about the kids, but you have to decide which kids. If you keep older players who aren't very talented on scholarship, you're denying an opportunity to other players. I don't see that as being a bit more ethical, decent or humane. You have limited resources/scholarships. If you give them to one group, you have to deny them to another.

Alright fair enough. I don't agree, but I can at least see your point. Agree to disagree

 

[Rocky2820]

I'm not sure whether you're choosing to ignore our main point or just legitimately missing it, but either way it is mind-boggling. Nobody is arguing that a kid who is not willing to put in the work, who skips workouts/meetings/practice etc., deserves to remain a part of the team. What we are saying is that this level of "earning it" is totally subjective and clearly can and has been used by coaches as a means of getting rid of kids who are putting the work in but simply are not that good. This system puts all the power in the hands of college football coaches who have proven themselves to be consistent, almost pathological, liars (cough...Urban Meyer...cough). When the future of an 18 year old kid is in the hands of such a person, that future rarely turns out as well as it could or should have.

Please educate me on just how clear this claim is, because this is the crux of the matter for me. I know how clear the opinions are, but it's actual evidence that makes it "clear." Not saying it doesn't exist - just looking to learn what it is. Who are the players and what is it that happened to them by these coaches?

I don't really disagree you at all. I want to see everyone treated fairly. I surely don't want to see a kid get manipulated and used by a coach or anyone else. It's not a simple black or white issue though (few things are). You have a lot of factors here: what's best for the kid, the school's obligation to them, the school's obligation to itself to award its scholarships to the most deserving students, the success of the program a kid is involved with (whether that's football or the music department), and a dozen other things.

I see your points and those of the others, and am not totally in disagreement with any of them. I just lean more towards the other side of the issue and see it as "this is the real world and it's dog eat dog, tough & competitive sometimes," and think you have to always be upfront and honest with your players and recruits and give them all a fair opportunity, but in the end you give your scholarships to the 85 most deserving players. It may be about the kids, but you have to decide which kids. If you keep older players who aren't very talented on scholarship, you're denying an opportunity to other players. I don't see that as being a bit more ethical, decent or humane. You have limited resources/scholarships. If you give them to one group, you have to deny them to another.

Bishop, I was somewhat with you in what you've been saying today until I came to this bolded part. This comment suggests that kids who were perceived to be talented enough coming out of HS to earn a scholarship, then conceivably worked hard at football/demonstrate 100% commitment to football while in college, but end up not being as talented as initially thought, are ok in your book to be dropped from their scholarship. Is that what you're saying? That's the situation I'm not ok with because said kid now needs to scramble to find a good academic fit elsewhere (i.e., major needs to be offered, ALL credits need to be able to transfer in) presuming he would like to keep playing ball. I consider that the coach's error in talent evaluation when the scholly was offered, and thus unethical because the kid has done nothing to deserve having to now scramble academically in spite of giving his all to the program.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Please educate me on just how clear this claim is, because this is the crux of the matter for me. I know how clear the opinions are, but it's actual evidence that makes it "clear." Not saying it doesn't exist - just looking to learn what it is. Who are the players and what is it that happened to them by these coaches?



Bishop, I was somewhat with you in what you've been saying today until I came to this bolded part. This comment suggests that kids who were perceived to be talented enough coming out of HS to earn a scholarship, then conceivably worked hard at football/demonstrate 100% commitment to football while in college, but end up not being as talented as initially thought, are ok in your book to be dropped from their scholarship. Is that what you're saying? That's the situation I'm not ok with because said kid now needs to scramble to find a good academic fit elsewhere (i.e., major needs to be offered, ALL credits need to be able to transfer in) presuming he would like to keep playing ball. I consider that the coach's error in talent evaluation when the scholly was offered, and thus unethical because the kid has done nothing to deserve having to now scramble academically in spite of giving his all to the program.

I probably wouldn't drop such a kid, Rocky. In theory, I think a school has the right to do so and it might even be the right thing in the big picture. OTOH, I would feel bad for any kid it happened to. It would be a last resort if at all. One of those things I'd consider legal, but not ethical. I've been talking more about the kid who may not totally slack off and stop working, but is more or less just going through the motions and not giving his all every day and just doing the bare minimum - the kid with A talent and C effort. I'd give that scholarship in a heartbeat to a much less talented walk-on who busted his butt 100% every day, or to an incoming freshman who was willing to give everything he had to be on my team.

As for your first part above, there aren't many actual examples of good kids who work hard but didn't live up to expecations getting run off. There's a lot of ranting about it and a lot of misconceptions about how rampant it is in the SEC, but actual cases are few and far between. It's more perception than reality. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I honestly can't think of a single case at Bama, and don't think it's common anywhere inside or outside of the SEC.

 

[Rocky2820]

I probably wouldn't drop such a kid, Rocky. In theory, I think a school has the right to do so and it might even be the right thing in the big picture. OTOH, I would feel bad for any kid it happened to. It would be a last resort if at all. One of those things I'd consider legal, but not ethical. I've been talking more about the kid who may not totally slack off and stop working, but is more or less just going through the motions and not giving his all every day and just doing the bare minimum - the kid with A talent and C effort. I'd give that scholarship in a heartbeat to a much less talented walk-on who busted his butt 100% every day, or to an incoming freshman who was willing to give everything he had to be on my team.

As for your first part above, there aren't many actual examples of good kids who work hard but didn't live up to expecations getting run off. There's a lot of ranting about it and a lot of misconceptions about how rampant it is in the SEC, but actual cases are few and far between. It's more perception than reality. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I honestly can't think of a single case at Bama, and don't think it's common anywhere inside or outside of the SEC.

Thanks, Bishop. To the bolded part, IMO this is a classic case of needing to hate the game as much as, if not more, than the player. And this is where I thought you were at with this issue, and I tend to agree with you. With limited scholarships, if a kid is truly giving C effort, I don't find the issue of ethics as clear as some others who have posted in this thread.

In fact, until someone can give me concrete examples of where high-effort kids have been run from SEC programs, I'm having a hard time buying into this whole argument against Bama and other SEC programs. As I've said in earlier posts, I'm 100% willing to be corrected. Just educate me.