ESPN: Grayshirting and pulling schollies!

[adoniijahsooner]

Watched this espn story from another site, and was blown away by the outright mistreating of these kids.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5935634&categoryid=3286128/

[adoniijahsooner]

Man, has anyone heard of Stoops doing this to anyone? I know we have some kickers that would have been toast in the SEC.

[royalfan5]

I think it's good for the kids. Teaches'em early that life will **** with you on a regular basis, and they should start learning to cope with it.

[adoniijahsooner]

I think it's good for the kids. Teaches'em early that life will **** with you on a regular basis, and they should start learning to cope with it.

So guys like Cam Newton, is smart for getting his money, because he know the game right?

[royalfan5]

So guys like Cam Newton, is smart for getting his money, because he know the game right?
Should be a Academic All-American.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think it's good for the kids. Teaches'em early that life will **** with you on a regular basis, and they should start learning to cope with it.

I have no problem with it as long as players (whether they have had their scholarship yanked or not) are free to move to another university with no penalty.

Which is not the case, so this is unfair. We are asking players to make a four-year commitment in return for a one-year scholarship.

[royalfan5]

I have no problem with it as long as players are free to move to another university with no penalty. If not, this is unfair. We are asking players to make a four-year commitment in return for a one-year scholarship.

I agree with you there. And you can do that in non-revenue sports already unless the coach refuses a release.

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree with you there. And you can do that in non-revenue sports already unless the coach refuses a release.

Sorry for the edit. Hopefully it didn't catch you off guard.

Coaches shouldn't be allowed to disallow or allow a penalty. If a coach doesn't have to honor a four-year commitment, neither should the player.

[royalfan5]

Sorry for the edit. Hopefully it didn't catch you off guard.

Coaches shouldn't be allowed to disallow or allow a penalty. If a coach doesn't have to honor a four-year commitment, neither should the player.

I agree. I was just pointing out that they are part way there already.

[adoniijahsooner]

Sorry for the edit. Hopefully it didn't catch you off guard.

Coaches shouldn't be allowed to disallow or allow a penalty. If a coach doesn't have to honor a four-year commitment, neither should the player.

I agree 100%.

[Leroy Lizard]

How about a rule change: A school cannot sign more than 20 per year, no exceptions. The total number of scholarships on a team is unlimited.

BTW, way to throw your player under the bus, Les.

[Leroy Lizard]

All this reminds me of DKR's Busch League treatment of players to get them to quit the team. Back then players had four-year scholarships, so mangling them in practice was often the only way for an unscrupulous coach to trim his rosters.

I want to see OU win, but not that badly.

[Jacie]

Seems like it is something schools offering scholarships should be required to inform all signees of prior to their making a commitment to play/attend.

"We want you to play ball for us in exchange for a full ride to this school . . . except we can legally change our mind at anytime over the time of your eligibility."

[Leroy Lizard]

Seems like it is something schools offering scholarships should be required to inform all signees of prior to their making a commitment to play/attend.

"We want you to play ball for us in exchange for a full ride to this school . . . except we can legally change our mind at anytime over the time of your eligibility."

Their scholarship contract will state something like this in the fine print.

Take the DE at Miami who is now playing for a Div II school. Randy Shannon just cut him loose. Okay, why can't he go to FSU and play for them? If Miami doesn't want him, why can't FSU step in and take him? WTF did the player do to deserve this? It's not his fault Randy Shannon is a scumbag.

A deal is a deal. If you don't have space on your roster because you oversigned, that's too ****ing bad.

[IndySooner]

Their scholarship contract will state something like this in the fine print.

Take the DE at Miami who is now playing for a Div II school. Randy Shannon just cut him loose. Okay, why can't he go to FSU and play for them? If Miami doesn't want him, why can't FSU step in and take him? WTF did the player do to deserve this? It's not his fault Randy Shannon is a scumbag.

A deal is a deal. If you don't have space on your roster because you oversigned, that's too ****ing bad.

Something I agree with you on Leroy. I also, though, think this is part of the hypocrisy of the "amateur" athlete. College athletes are treated like professionals, until it doesn't benefit the institution. It's crap.

This is the major reason I don't buy the "16 games is too much for the kids" argument against a playoff. The schools don't really care about the players. If they see the benefit for them, they'll jump on it. Most just haven't been shown enough of a benefit.

[BoulderSooner79]

It ain't the pros. As long as the players makes their grades and do as the coaches ask year round, they should keep their schollies. Stoops let an O-line player go last spring for not working hard enough in off-season training and I have no problem with that. And they should be held accountable for personal conduct outside of sports.

[Leroy Lizard]

Something I agree with you on Leroy. I also, though, think this is part of the hypocrisy of the "amateur" athlete. College athletes are treated like professionals, until it doesn't benefit the institution. It's crap.

This is the major reason I don't buy the "16 games is too much for the kids" argument against a playoff. The schools don't really care about the players. If they see the benefit for them, they'll jump on it. Most just haven't been shown enough of a benefit.

The world isn't perfect, and the NCAA certain isn't. This is an issue the NCAA needs to rectify.

It just goes to show how difficult the NCAA's job is. They put in what appear to be at first sight reasonable rules, and coaches like Nutt, Shannon, and Miles spend up all night figuring out ways to break them. And if players get hurt in the process, too bad.

This is one reason why I think the NCAA's membership should be exclusively college presidents and faculty deans. Sure, they're interests are not always in the best place, but I think the abuses would diminish some.

Again, I think the rules should be simplified:

20 scholarships allowed per year, no exceptions.*
A player can transfer to any school with no penalty as long as the existing coach is no longer willing to provide a scholarship.


* It is tempting to put a rule in place that would allow a school to replace scholarships due to player deaths, but that would probably just get a bunch of kids in the SEC killed.

[Leroy Lizard]

It ain't the pros. As long as the players makes their grades and do as the coaches ask year round, they should keep their schollies. Stoops let an O-line player go last spring for not working hard enough in off-season training and I have no problem with that. And they should be held accountable for personal conduct outside of sports.

In the old days, all a player had to do was put forth a reasonable effort toward his sport. He shows up at the practices and does not refuse to participate in drills that other players participate in. I think that is the way it should be. Once you allow coaches to judge how hard they work, they use it as an excuse to trim their rosters of players that simply didn't work out. No good.

[BoulderSooner79]

In the old days, all a player had to do was put forth a reasonable effort toward his sport. He shows up at the practices and does not refuse to participate in drills that other players participate in. I think that is the way it should be. Once you allow coaches to judge how hard they work, they use it as an excuse to trim their rosters of players that simply didn't work out. No good.

You've got a point there - coaches must be trusted to be honest in their assessment of "effort". With the pressure on coaches to win, it would be easy to abuse that system.

[jkjsooner]

I think it's good for the kids. Teaches'em early that life will **** with you on a regular basis, and they should start learning to cope with it.

Stating that you're teaching them a lesson is no excuse for treating someone poorly. We could use this excuse to justify just about any behavior.

[royalfan5]

Stating that you're teaching them a lesson is no excuse for treating someone poorly. We could use this excuse to justify just about any behavior.

But how are they going to get over later in life if they are coddled now? If someone else can do your job better than you, you're going to get shoved down the line later in life as well. Expecting it to be different is pure bolshivesim.

[Leroy Lizard]

Stating that you're teaching them a lesson is no excuse for treating someone poorly. We could use this excuse to justify just about any behavior.

The only lesson they learn is that they can't trust anyone. :D

[oudavid1]

If the school is paying the bills, they can dam sure take schollies away. I dont care if your a kid, you get to be a part of something bigger than being a normal student. You get to go to Arizona and get a FREE XBOX 360, you get private plane rides, recognition, adjusted schedules and a FREE EDUCATION.

If you commit to play football, your committing to give the school and the coaching staff your all. And the buck stops at the coach. Life is not fair, and guys like Ryan Broyles make it, Adam James dosnt.

If you cant handle it, go play inter-murals brother.

[Leroy Lizard]

But how are they going to get over later in life if they are coddled now? If someone else can do your job better than you, you're going to get shoved down the line later in life as well. Expecting it to be different is pure bolshivesim.

It does no good to learn these lessons when you have your opportunities pulled out from under you.

The job of the university is to position its students for success once you've accepted the responsibility for teaching them. These schools are failing their mission.

[Leroy Lizard]

If the school is paying the bills, they can dam sure take schollies away. I dont care if your a kid, you get to be a part of something bigger than being a normal student. You get to go to Arizona and get a FREE XBOX 360, you get private plane rides, recognition, adjusted schedules and a FREE EDUCATION.

One small problem: If they take your schollie, you don't get these things.

And you say "life isn't fair." Let's examine that for a moment. Suppose you work for me as an engineer. I decide to fire you.

Fair, right? No problems, right?

But another company on the other side of town wants to hire you. But the law (the NCAA) says you can't take the job. You must go to a much smaller company with far fewer opportunities.

Even worse, you could have decided to work for that larger company a year ago, but I told you that you could become a bigger player if you came to work for me. I just decided to change my mind. Now you're stuck.

Tell me, David. How fair is that?

[oudavid1]

One small problem: If they take your schollie, you don't get these things.

And you say "life isn't fair." Let's examine that for a moment. Suppose you work for me as an engineer. I decide to fire you.

Fair, right? No problems, right?

But another company on the other side of town wants to hire you. But the law (the NCAA) says you can't take the job. You must go to a much smaller company with far fewer opportunities.

Even worse, you could have decided to work for that larger company a year ago, but I told you that you could become a bigger player if you came to work for me. I just decided to change my mind. Now you're stuck.

Tell me, David. How fair is that?

i understand your argument LeRoy, but...

Fewer opportunity to do what? Fewer opportunities than who?

And why did you fire me? Because i wasnt what you thought? That is justified. But in football, if you are good at what you do, you get a shot.

[Leroy Lizard]

i understand your argument LeRoy, but...

Fewer opportunity to do what? Fewer opportunities than who?

If the opportunities were similar at East Central University as at OU, then ECU would have just as many good players. Obviously there is a difference between playing at the two schools. Let's not pretend otherwise.


And why did you fire me? Because i wasnt what you thought? That is justified. But in football, if you are good at what you do, you get a shot.

If I don't think you are all that great, what right do I have to say that the other company can't hire you?

Besides, have you considered the possibility that the player finds the coaching staff not all that hot? Yet, we certainly don't let him change his mind without penalty. Why should we allow the coaches to do it?

Again, if a coach finds out that a player isn't to his liking, then cut him loose. Fine. But don't tell that player he can't play for a competitor. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[oudavid1]

If the opportunities were similar at East Central University as at OU, then ECU would have just as many good players. Obviously there is a difference between playing at the two schools. Let's not pretend otherwise.



If I don't think you are all that great, what right do I have to say that the other company can't hire you?

Besides, have you considered the possibility that the player finds the coaching staff not all that hot? Yet, we certainly don't let him change his mind without penalty. Why should we allow the coaches to do it?

Again, if a coach finds out that a player isn't to his liking, then cut him loose. Fine. But don't tell that player he can't play for a competitor. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I agree that the players should be able to transfer without penalty.

But if a player is good enough, they make it. NFL players dont come just from OU, Ohio State, and Texas. Look at Deji Karim, he made it. Danny Woodhead is another example. But we will most likely never know why players get cut, or how bad they are playing. But if a player on scholarship cant beat out a walk on....who deserves the free education.

If you want to get a free education, you have to be great at football. its just that simple. And thats not fair. But its the only way college football can exist.

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree that the players should be able to transfer without penalty.

But if a player is good enough, they make it.

That simply isn't true. There are tons of players who are quite good that never make it because they don't have the necessary exposure.

If what you say is true, then these big-time recruits would be signing on to Texas State as often as Texas.

Schools like LSU sign hordes more good players than South Central Louisiana A&M. There must be something tangible about playing for LSU that they can't get at the other school.

To be honest, David, your argument is inane. The whole recruiting process is centered on prospects choosing the best opportunities for themselves. We can't then turn around and say that the opportunities are equal and that it makes no difference which school the player attends. Does Les Miles say that when he recruits for LSU? Not in your life.

So this is the real hypocrisy in the recruiting process. Coaches tell players "Your opportunities for success are better here than anywhere else." But when they cut the player's scholarship, they shrug it off by suggesting that the player can be just as successful elsewhere.


If you want to get a free education, you have to be great at football. its just that simple. And thats not fair. But its the only way college football can exist.

What if a player has a career-ending injury. Wanna' cut his scholarship?

[sooner518]

I cant believe I agree with Leroy. I feel dirty

[adoniijahsooner]

I cant believe I agree with Leroy. I feel dirty

Yeah, Leroy is pretty much owning this argument.

[BoulderSooner79]

I'm agreeing with Leroy and I'm okay with it. Back to the shrink, I guess...

[oudavid1]

That simply isn't true. There are tons of players who are quite good that never make it because they don't have the necessary exposure.

that is your opinion. Terrell Owens, Tony Romo, and Ben Rothisberger of the top of my head give me more of an argument.


If what you say is true, then these big-time recruits would be signing on to Texas State as often as Texas.

Schools like LSU sign hordes more good players than South Central Louisiana A&M. There must be something tangible about playing for LSU that they can't get at the other school.

How old is Texas State compared to Texas, which program was better first? Kids go to Texas because the stadium is big and the attention is greater. But no one knew who Terrell Owens was before the NFL. He got noticed.


To be honest, David, your argument is inane. The whole recruiting process is centered on prospects choosing the best opportunities for themselves. We can't then turn around and say that the opportunities are equal and that it makes no difference which school the player attends. Does Les Miles say that when he recruits for LSU? Not in your life.

First off, your calling my argument insane yet Nick Saban does it. He's a winner, which is all his fans and employers care about. I want to be in the same profession so i would be insane not to defend him.

And no, Les Miles says, big stadium, bright lights, pretty girls, and CBS on Saturday Night. None of which make you a better football player. Which is the only reason Scholarships are given.


So this is the real hypocrisy in the recruiting process. Coaches tell players "Your opportunities for success are better here than anywhere else." But when they cut the player's scholarship, they shrug it off by suggesting that the player can be just as successful elsewhere.

Les for example would say: Yeah, your opportunity to be on TV and go to a bowl game are greater here.

But dont act like scouts dont go to watch Texas State play if a player sticks out. Dont act like pro teams dont have try outs or free agents.


What if a player has a career-ending injury. Wanna' cut his scholarship?

No. Corey Wilson still had a scholarship, but it was for something other than football. It didnt effect the football numbers.

Insane is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result.

Defending something for the sake of defending it, is devil advocate.

[adoniijahsooner]

Alright Leroy, oudavid threw a couple of body blows, and came with a hook to the chin.

[Leroy Lizard]

C'mon David. There are tons of posts in SF about how having players like Sam Bradford doing well in the NFL helps recruiting. According to your argument, it shouldn't matter one iota. Are we to seriously believe that winning a BCS national title at Florida didn't help Tim Tebow? That if he won a title for Florida Panhandle that he would have been drafted in the first round?

It is naive to think that a coach doesn't do his best to project his school as a great place to be noticed by the pros. Sure, coaches might say otherwise in public, but what they say in the recruit's home is another matter. Coaches know fully well that prospective players have NFL careers in mind.

Sure, the weaker programs don't do that, because they can't.



As an aside, if you want to see true hypocrisy at work, watch a coach like Randy Shannon get all misty-eyed when he talks about "missing the players" when leaving the school and how his players were like sons to him. Yeah, well you sure aren't missing that DE you cut last year because you found a better prospect. And is that how you treat your own sons? "I love him like a son! Except that player for USC could be really good... so bye, son!"

Hypocrites!

[Leroy Lizard]

No. Corey Wilson still had a scholarship, but it was for something other than football. It didnt effect the football numbers.

A convenient example on your part. What about those that didn't have such scholarships?

Go to any game and you will see a number of seniors on the team that have not played and will not play. Some are injured. Some were simply beaten out by younger players. Should we just throw them off campus to make room for more scholarships?

How badly do you want to win?

Here is a way too look at it. That player who was in your program for three years made a commitment. He's lost three years of his life if you just cut him. It's not like business, where the player was paid for three years. He likely cannot transfer all of the credits he earned to a new school and he didn't get any money out of the deal. That's horse-****.

[oudavid1]

C'mon David. There are tons of posts in SF about how having players like Sam Bradford doing well in the NFL helps recruiting. According to your argument, it shouldn't matter one iota. Are we to seriously believe that winning a BCS national title at Florida didn't help Tim Tebow? That if he won a title for Florida Panhandle that he would have been drafted in the first round?

You find another person like Tebow and ill agree. And there is not a lot of people in the NFL who thought that was a good move. But the Broncos had a lot of picks to take Tebow 23rd.


It is naive to think that a coach doesn't do his best to project his school as a great place to be noticed by the pros. Sure, coaches might say otherwise in public, but what they say in the recruit's home is another matter. Coaches know fully well that prospective players have NFL careers in mind.

Sure, the weaker programs don't do that, because they can't.

The weaker programs cant provide TV coverage and big stadiums either, and it has nothing to do with the fact that big schools are cutting bad players. And what the public dosnt know is what makes them the public.




As an aside, if you want to see true hypocrisy at work, watch a coach like Randy Shannon get all misty-eyed when he talks about "missing the players" when leaving the school and how his players were like sons to him. Yeah, well you sure aren't missing that DE you cut last year because you found a better prospect. And is that how you treat your own sons? "I love him like a son! Except that player for USC could be really good... so bye, son!"

Hypocrites!

Is Miami better at football with this kid there? I wouldnt think so. Shannon got fired anyway. Why, because he couldnt WIN. Which is what its about. And as a coach, you have a right and ability by rule to cut a scholarship athlete if he is not what you expected. A scholarship commitment should be a two way street.

And "i Love him like a son" dosnt mean the kid is a good kid.

whats the difference between a bad football player and a under preforming football player?

Because if the timing is right, neither gets a scholly.

A football commit has no concrete investment in a program that would limit his ability to succeed in the pros. besides, i dont think Nick Saban has cut any current professionals anyway. We can both agree that the young men who get cut are more likely to become like the over-whelming majority of NCAA athletes who have a non-athletic preforming job.

If you dont want to pay for school, if you want it free, you have to work for it.

i didnt get to go to college for free and i still have to work. And i dont get the Opportunity to even step on a practice field. But if i did, i would give it my all. These players obviously didnt.

[oudavid1]

A convenient example on your part. What about those that didn't have such scholarships?

who?


Go to any game and you will see a number of seniors on the team that have not played and will not play. Some are injured. Some were simply beaten out by younger players. Should we just throw them off campus to make room for more scholarships?

There is nothing that says they cant go to school at that university.

And like you said, they were "beaten", they didnt preform when it mattered.


How badly do you want to win?

As badly as it takes to be comfortable.


Here is a way too look at it. That player who was in your program for three years made a commitment. He's lost three years of his life if you just cut him. It's not like business, where the player was paid for three years. He likely cannot transfer all of the credits he earned to a new school and he didn't get any money out of the deal. That's horse-****.

The player has to make a choice before he commits. He is more than likely an adult, he could go to prison as well. Thats another choice. Thats another way to lose 3 years of your life.

As a player you have to live up to your end. It may be hard. But this is "big time" football. If you worried about not making it, go to Texas State. Cause if Oklahoma offered him, Texas State would gladly take him.

[oudavid1]

What if a player has a career-ending injury. Wanna' cut his scholarship?


No. Corey Wilson still had a scholarship, but it was for something other than football. It didnt effect the football numbers.


A convenient example on your part. What about those that didn't have such scholarships?

A convenient example or a good example?

[Leroy Lizard]

You find another person like Tebow and ill agree.

If Sam Bradford had played for Sam Houston State, he would have been drafted, but there is no way he would have been the first pick with a $50 quadrillion contract. Sam directly benefited from his play at a high-profile school.


And there is not a lot of people in the NFL who thought that was a good move.

Exactly. Tim's draft status was artificially raised because of who he played for. You just admitted it.


Is Miami better at football with this kid there? I wouldnt think so. Shannon got fired anyway. Why, because he couldnt WIN. Which is what its about. And as a coach, you have a right and ability by rule to cut a scholarship athlete if he is not what you expected. A scholarship commitment should be a two way street.

Should the player be allowed to leave without penalty? He can't, you know.

After all, there is no rule that prevents Stoops from leaving OU to go coach for Florida. We don't make him sit for a year. So why shouldn't a player from OU be able to leave and play for Florida without penalty?

We are all up in arms over how Leach was treated. To be honest, he wasn't treated much differently than that player for Les Miles. Tech doesn't want him, so they got rid of him. Yet so many in here think Leach got a raw deal. Well, what about the player?

After all, Leach can go coach for another school. If he's good enough, it shouldn't matter, right?


A football commit has no concrete investment in a program that would limit his ability to succeed in the pros. besides, i dont think Nick Saban has cut any current professionals anyway. We can both agree that the young men who get cut are more likely to become like the over-whelming majority of NCAA athletes who have a non-athletic preforming job.

If you dont want to pay for school, if you want it free, you have to work for it.

i didnt get to go to college for free and i still have to work. And i dont get the Opportunity to even step on a practice field. But if i did, i would give it my all. These players obviously didnt.

You don't know that. They may well have worked hard, but simply weren't as good as the other players on the team. And the player for Miami was cut to make room for a PROSPECT. We don't even know if the prospect is a hard worker.

Coaches will always say "well, he didn't give it his all." It's the oldest excuse in the book. In truth, these SEC coaches are simply weeding out non-starters in favor of bringing in prospects. If the player has three years of practice and school work invested, too bad for him.

FTR, I don't believe in athletic scholarships. But since we've decided to provide them, HONOR THEM. Don't hand out a scholarship to a player, then yank it from him three years later under the bull**** excuse that the player wasn't trying hard enough.

Here is what I would tell a coach:

"You spoke to the player. You spoke to his parents and his coach. You made the decision to bring in that player. If the player doesn't work out, that's just too freakin' bad. Maybe you should be more discerning in your recruiting process. Maybe the weakness in your program is YOU and your ability to judge talent, and not the players. The player is like a stray dog. You fed him. You brought him into your home. You accepted the responsibility for caring for him. Now do it! It's called COMMITMENT and RESPONSIBILITY. Otherwise your word isn't worth a ****."

[Leroy Lizard]

A convenient example or a good example?

Again, what about those that didn't have such alternative scholarships? Why did your example fail to take those into account?

[oudavid1]

If Sam Bradford had played for Sam Houston State, he would have been drafted, but there is no way he would have been the first pick with a $50 quadrillion contract. Sam directly benefited from his play at a high-profile school.



Exactly. Tim's draft status was artificially raised because of who he played for. You just admitted it.



Should the player be allowed to leave without penalty? He can't, you know.

After all, there is no rule that prevents Stoops from leaving OU to go coach for Florida. We don't make him sit for a year. So why shouldn't a player from OU be able to leave and play for Florida without penalty?

We are all up in arms over how Leach was treated. To be honest, he wasn't treated much differently than that player for Les Miles. Tech doesn't want him, so they got rid of him. Yet so many in here think Leach got a raw deal. Well, what about the player?

After all, Leach can go coach for another school. If he's good enough, it shouldn't matter, right?



You don't know that. They may well have worked hard, but simply weren't as good as the other players on the team. And the player for Miami was cut to make room for a PROSPECT. We don't even know if the prospect is a hard worker.

Coaches will always say "well, he didn't give it his all." It's the oldest excuse in the book. In truth, these SEC coaches are simply weeding out non-starters in favor of bringing in prospects. If the player has three years of practice and school work invested, too bad for him.

FTR, I don't believe in athletic scholarships. But since we've decided to provide them, HONOR THEM. Don't hand out a scholarship to a player, then yank it from him three years later under the bull**** excuse that the player wasn't trying hard enough.

Here is what I would tell a coach:

"You spoke to the player. You spoke to his parents and his coach. You made the decision to bring in that player. If the player doesn't work out, that's just too freakin' bad. Maybe you should be more discerning in your recruiting process. Maybe the weakness in your program is YOU and your ability to judge talent, and not the players. The player is like a stray dog. You fed him. You brought him into your home. You accepted the responsibility for caring for him. Now do it! It's called COMMITMENT and RESPONSIBILITY. Otherwise your word isn't worth a ****."

Obviously we cant agree in this. But i do agree with you that a player should be eligible immediately if cut. But i dont compare it to a coach at all.

Coaches are there to work.
PLAYers are there to PLAY.

One provides for a family, the other is a PRIVILEGE.

And Sam Bradford benefited from hard work and great natural talent just as much the vessel he used to display it.

And to compare a player to a stray dog, if you get a dog to hunt, and it wont. Get rid of the dog.

Mike Leach wasnt fired for being a bad coach. He was fired because of money.

Dont tell me you trust a 18 year old kid to hold up his end to preform more than a coach feeding his family holds up his to WIN.

If a prospect is better than a player, its the same as a player being better than a player. Age shouldnt matter. Its Nick Saban's job to put the best team of football players out there. Not everyone he has signed.

And Stoops leaving for Florida isnt because he wasnt good enough, its the opposite. Your argument is that of if a player is good enough to get a scholarship, he deserves 4 years no matter how much he lives up to his end.

Then maybe you are right, we should just get rid of football scholarships. But as long as they school is paying the bills, its there call. But i do think the NCAA should let them play immediately.

[oudavid1]

Again, what about those that didn't have such alternative scholarships? Why did your example fail to take those into account?

Well who are you talking about?

[oudavid1]

You don't know that. They may well have worked hard, but simply weren't as good as the other players on the team. And the player for Miami was cut to make room for a PROSPECT. We don't even know if the prospect is a hard worker.

Whats the difference between not being good enough and failing?

[BoulderSooner79]

Me thinks the coach of the future wants to keep all the power on the coaches side and none on the players side, once they commit. ;)

[oudavid1]

Me thinks the coach of the future wants to keep all the power on the coaches side and none on the players side, once they commit. ;)

that would be my bias.

[oudavid1]

FTR, I don't believe in athletic scholarships. But since we've decided to provide them, HONOR THEM. Don't hand out a scholarship to a player, then yank it from him three years later under the bull**** excuse that the player wasn't trying hard enough.

Here is what I would tell a coach:

"You spoke to the player. You spoke to his parents and his coach. You made the decision to bring in that player. If the player doesn't work out, that's just too freakin' bad. Maybe you should be more discerning in your recruiting process. Maybe the weakness in your program is YOU and your ability to judge talent, and not the players. The player is like a stray dog. You fed him. You brought him into your home. You accepted the responsibility for caring for him. Now do it! It's called COMMITMENT and RESPONSIBILITY. Otherwise your word isn't worth a ****."

So players shouldnt be aloud to go pro either? It is a COMMITMENT.

isnt this a country of opportunity?

If you want everyone to get the same shot, send the prospect to Korea.

[freshchris05]

http://www.freedomreeves.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/uncle_rico.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

Obviously we cant agree in this. But i do agree with you that a player should be eligible immediately if cut. But i dont compare it to a coach at all.

Coaches are there to work.
PLAYers are there to PLAY.

One provides for a family, the other is a PRIVILEGE.

Actually, coaching is just as much a privilege. The university is not obligated to provide a coach a job no more than they are obligated to provide a player a scholarship. In other words, a coach doesn't have a right to a job.

And players are there to work as well. They have to take courses and they have to demonstrate a reasonable progress in their coursework.

If these players were not required to go to class, then that would suit your argument a bit better.


And Sam Bradford benefited from hard work and great natural talent just as much the vessel he used to display it.

Yes, but he also benefited from OU's facilities and coaching. He can't get those at NEO to the same level. It does make a difference.


And to compare a player to a stray dog, if you get a dog to hunt, and it wont. Get rid of the dog.

Just don't drop him off in the countryside and convince yourself that you did the right thing. "Well... he'll... he'll get a new home. I'm sure a rich family will find him and adopt him. He'll go on to be just as happy as if we had kept him. You see, we did a good thing here."

Yeah, right.


Mike Leach wasnt fired for being a bad coach. He was fired because of money.

Whatever. The school decided it no longer wanted his services, just like these schools are cutting players for various reasons.

Actually, these schools are just saying that the kids weren't trying hard enough. If Tech made such a statement, would it be okay? After all, if they are the ones entrusted to make such judgments and that is what they decide...

"We fired Mike because we feel that he wasn't trying very hard. Sure, he says otherwise, but what do you expect him to say? Don't question us; we're the bosses here. If we say that Mike wasn't trying hard, that's all that matters."


And Stoops leaving for Florida isnt because he wasnt good enough, its the opposite. Your argument is that of if a player is good enough to get a scholarship, he deserves 4 years no matter how much he lives up to his end.

Go back and read what I said: A player has to put forth a reasonable effort toward his sport. He has to attend practice and he has to take part in all the drills the other players participate in.

Exceptions exist for those that cannot participate because they are no longer physically able. They still have to attend practice and go through team activities, however. They just can't participate in physical drills.

As soon as you allow it to be a judgment call by the coach, abuses set in. Don't let it. Did the player show up? Did he willingly participate? Did the player engage in appropriate behavior at all times? Did the player abide by team rules?

If the answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes, he keeps his schollie. If the player isn't all that great or a little lazy, dem's the breaks. Improve your selection process during the recruiting season.


Then maybe you are right, we should just get rid of football scholarships. But as long as they school is paying the bills, its there call.

Their call.

But that isn't true. Paying the bills doesn't give a school carte blanche powers. The player is making a commitment as well, and the school has to honor it. After all, the player is working toward a degree and is trusting that the school will allow him to finish.

It's like working voluntarily for an employer who promises you a job (diploma) when you are finished. At the end of your third year, he fires you. Three years pissed away. And even worse, you can't work for the company's competitor.

As long as the student is working on his academics and is participating in the program, he is paying the school back for its scholarship commitment. Scholarships are two-way streets, with both parties benefiting. Any school that considers scholarships gifts has no business giving out scholarships.

Remember one important point: Even though these are called athletic scholarships, they are in fact academic scholarships. The purpose of the scholarship is to provide students opportunities to attain an education, not to simply play sports. From the official NCAA site:


The NCAA’s ultimate goal is for student-athletes to graduate. (my emphasis)

If they wrote it, they have to abide by it.


But i do think the NCAA should let them play immediately.

That would solve a lot of problems, as would eliminating the cap on the total number of scholarships allowed on a team.

I understand why the rule is in place. We don't want players jumping ship too easily because they have a commitment to uphold as well. But if a school cancels the player's scholarship, their obligations to that school ends. At that point, they should be freely allowed to play for whomever they wish.

Coaches, however, will oppose the rule because they want control. They want to be able to push players around knowing that the player is stuck if he refuses to go along. It's a form of involuntary servitude and a power play on part of the athletic departments.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well who are you talking about?

A player that got injured but was only on a football scholarship. In other words, at what point are you willing to discard a player because you don't find him useful in winning football games? Does it matter if the player has participated in your program for three years?


Whats the difference between not being good enough and failing?

You made the statement that these players were cut because they didn't try hard enough. Not necessarily so.


So players shouldnt be aloud to go pro either? It is a COMMITMENT.

isnt this a country of opportunity?

If you want everyone to get the same shot, send the prospect to Korea.

The ability for a player to turn pro was decided by the courts. Before then, players were required to stay in the program for four years before turning pro.

That's right. At one time the athletic departments decided that, in exchange for mere one-year commitments, they could prevent a player from joining the NFL until he had finished his four-year commitment. If it wasn't for the courts, they would still be doing this. And they would still be cutting the players' schollies too.

Not so nice, is it?

[OUthunder]

It's morally wrong, and Les Miles and Randy Shannon are POS human beings for doing that to a kid.

[oudavid1]

LeRoy, the only solution is to do away with football scholarships. But it is not going to happen. Like i said, player football is a privilege, and so is coaching. I agree. But coaches get fired, players get cut. There is a huge difference. I can go at it with you all night, but the way it is, is the way it is. And your example is always the same, a kid will be a kid. Some kids dont try as hard as they need to and coaches are paid to evaluate those kinds of things. No coach really wants to take away the scholly(my opinion) but in the end, isnt it whats best for the team? Wouldnt they team only want the guys that are playing the best. I will concede this argument for the sake of time. But i still think as long as NCAA rules allow it to happen, it is not as bad as people think.

[gaylordfan1]

Damn, what did I walk into?

[Leroy Lizard]

LeRoy, the only solution is to do away with football scholarships.

Malarkey. The solution is for coaches to honor their commitments and not cut players who are still trying to fulfill their athletic responsibilities and are passing their courses. The NCAA can legislate this in; it just needs the will and support.

And it isn't like the problem is epidemic. For the most part, college coaches avoid taking on such DKR-esque attitudes toward scholar athletes. I have never heard of Stoops or Mack doing anything like this. (Not saying they haven't; I just haven't heard about it.) This mostly appears to be an SEC thing, which could explain the conferences dominance over the last ten years.

Another solution is to remove the cap on total scholarships but place a hard cap on yearly scholarships. That would be simple enough and easy to implement.

Think about what Houston Nutt did with his 35 athletes. By trimming his upperclassmen of weaker performers, he can effectively increase his scholarship limits to 35 per class instead of the 25 currently allowed. Yes, he loses upperclassmen each year, but those are not losses because they weren't going to play anyway. After all, each signed recruit represents an opportunity. Since he is weeding out players that have been shown to be less than adequate, his opportunities each year have increased from 25 to 35. What program couldn't compete at the highest levels with such an advantage?


But it is not going to happen. Like i said, player football is a privilege, and so is coaching. I agree. But coaches get fired, players get cut. There is a huge difference. I can go at it with you all night, but the way it is, is the way it is. And your example is always the same, a kid will be a kid. Some kids dont try as hard as they need to and coaches are paid to evaluate those kinds of things. No coach really wants to take away the scholly(my opinion) but in the end, isnt it whats best for the team? Wouldnt they team only want the guys that are playing the best. I will concede this argument for the sake of time. But i still think as long as NCAA rules allow it to happen, it is not as bad as people think.

David, no one is disputing the way it is. We already know how it is. We are arguing about the way it should be.

There is one big difference between a coach getting fired and a player getting cut: During the time a coach is coaching, he is being paid. Even in the worst conditions, he comes away with a net gain of personal wealth. The player can come away with nothing. Even worse, during the time he devoted to the team he could have been working at a job or attending another university. He sacrificed for the opportunity to get an education; the coach didn't.

Again, the primary purpose of an athletic scholarship is to attain an education, not to play football. This isn't the NFL or a farm league. When you cut an athletic scholarship, you are doing more than simply throwing a player off the team -- you are potentially cutting off his chances of getting an education.

As for your question about whether it is all about what is best for the team, the answer is no. That kind of philosophy sounds great on a bumper sticker, but it's morally bankrupt. The zest to win (which is all that your statement "what is best for the team" really says) should never come at the expense of our responsibilities to individuals. Whether the rest of the team wants the player booted is irrelevant. It isn't about what they want; it's about what is right.

[Leroy Lizard]

Damn, what did I walk into?

I'm involved. What do you think?

[gaylordfan1]

In recent years both Mack Brown and Bob Stoops have honored the scholarship of players that have been seriously injured off the field that were not able to return to sports. I know it was for 1 yr, but still says something about those guys.

[Leroy Lizard]

In recent years both Mack Brown and Bob Stoops have honored the scholarship of players that have been seriously injured off the field that were not able to return to sports. I know it was for 1 yr, but still says something about those guys.

It just goes to show you: You don't have to be an inconsiderate jerk to win.

And I should know.

[gaylordfan1]

I'm still curious what Stoops is going to do about Ratteree..... Do u think he gets one this year? He certainly deserves it.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm still curious what Stoops is going to do about Ratteree..... Do u think he gets one this year? He certainly deserves it.

He has certainly contributed. If he doesn't get one there will be a good reason for it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Again, what about those that didn't have such alternative scholarships? Why did your example fail to take those into account?

Any player who is injured as a result of participation in a sport may be kept on scholarship by the school and does not count against total scholarship numbers. The sole requirement is that they may not participate in that sport at the NCAA level again.

Granting a person with a career-ending injury a medical scholarship is the norm, not the exception.

[SOFSooner]

Why do coaches that get fired still get paid? If you get fired in the real world you don't get to receive a buy out, you get shown to the door and then you can file for unemployment. If you get fired for not being good enough, you should not get any compensation from the university.

[Frozen Sooner]

Why do coaches that get fired still get paid? If you get fired in the real world you don't get to receive a buy out, you get shown to the door and then you can file for unemployment. If you get fired for not being good enough, you should not get any compensation from the university.

Because they aren't an at-will employee. If they were, your analogy would work.

[Leroy Lizard]

Any player who is injured as a result of participation in a sport may be kept on scholarship by the school and does not count against total scholarship numbers. The sole requirement is that they may not participate in that sport at the NCAA level again.

Granting a person with a career-ending injury a medical scholarship is the norm, not the exception.

True, but I was also referring to players that were not injured but were clearly not going to be meaningful contributors. I didn't mean to restrict the discussion to injured players.

[agoo758]

I have no problem with it as long as players (whether they have had their scholarship yanked or not) are free to move to another university with no penalty.

Which is not the case, so this is unfair. We are asking players to make a four-year commitment in return for a one-year scholarship.

Even if there is no penalty, how is it far to deny a scholarship for someone who went through an entire summer workout??

[Leroy Lizard]

Even if there is no penalty, how is it far to deny a scholarship for someone who went through an entire summer workout??

Good point.

[texaspokieokie]

i think if they take your scholarship, you can go anywhere.

if you get cut after 3 yrs, you've still got 3 yrs education.

[TUSooner]

So Les Miles is BS artist? No way!

In my book, that just another reason to hate LSU and Les Miles and the SEC. (And yes, I know they aren't the only ones; but Les screwed that kid by cutting his scollie and then did one worse by bashing him in the press.)

[SoonerAtKU]

i think if they take your scholarship, you can go anywhere.

You can't.

The only problem with allowing free transfers if someone is cut is that a player would never stop being recruited. All it takes is a Saban or Miles to call a player at Auburn or Arkansas and tell them that if they lollygag and show up late in the spring or summer and get their ride pulled, that they'll welcome them with open arms in Tuscaloosa or BR.

"We are happy to give Joseph here a second chance. I know he had an amazing year as a freshman and seemed to struggle in the off-season, but we're confident we can turn that attitude around here in the great state of bzzzz."

It's bad enough how recruiting works BEFORE the kids are in school and playing. The tricks can only get dirtier if the incentive is better.

[texaspokieokie]

You can't.

The only problem with allowing free transfers if someone is cut is that a player would never stop being recruited. All it takes is a Saban or Miles to call a player at Auburn or Arkansas and tell them that if they lollygag and show up late in the spring or summer and get their ride pulled, that they'll welcome them with open arms in Tuscaloosa or BR.

"We are happy to give Joseph here a second chance. I know he had an amazing year as a freshman and seemed to struggle in the off-season, but we're confident we can turn that attitude around here in the great state of bzzzz."

It's bad enough how recruiting works BEFORE the kids are in school and playing. The tricks can only get dirtier if the incentive is better.

what prevents them from going anywhere they want ?? of course assuming
that someone else wants them.

[badger]

I don't think attorneys have a case for an unrenewed scholarship, because NCAA scholarships are a one-year thing that can be renewed. Players expect renewal, but it's not mandatory.

What I think the legal case that can be made is that when you sign with a school, all contact with other schools stops and you are committed to going to that particular school for one year. To say "grayshirt" to them after they enroll and commit, that shouldn't be legal.

[SoonerAtKU]

what prevents them from going anywhere they want ?? of course assuming
that someone else wants them.

Well, currently, the thing that prevents this type of cross-recruiting is that a player has to sit for a year or two before signing with your school. There's not much benefit to doing it unless you're a school like Miss. St. trying to land a Cam Newton type program changing athlete.

[texaspokieokie]

Well, currently, the thing that prevents this type of cross-recruiting is that a player has to sit for a year or two before signing with your school. There's not much benefit to doing it unless you're a school like Miss. St. trying to land a Cam Newton type program changing athlete.

that's when you leave the school on yoiur own, not when the school yanks your schollie.

[Landthief 1972]

Why do coaches that get fired still get paid? If you get fired in the real world you don't get to receive a buy out, you get shown to the door and then you can file for unemployment. If you get fired for not being good enough, you should not get any compensation from the university.

Because every coach has an agent that makes sure the contract for the job includes a termination clause with a buyout. I doubt anyone's going to give anyone a termination clause for the average blue-collar or white-collar job.

[SoonerAtKU]

that's when you leave the school on yoiur own, not when the school yanks your schollie.

The transfer rules apply whether it's the school's decision or the player's. Why do you think Bomar went to play at a small school rather than going to another D-1 school?

[BoulderSooner79]

Why do coaches that get fired still get paid? If you get fired in the real world you don't get to receive a buy out, you get shown to the door and then you can file for unemployment. If you get fired for not being good enough, you should not get any compensation from the university.

The same thing happens when a CEO gets sacked - they have employment contracts.

[texaspokieokie]

The transfer rules apply whether it's the school's decision or the player's. Why do you think Bomar went to play at a small school rather than going to another D-1 school?

that's the best he could. he had broken the rules, & got caught at least 3 times.

[badger]

OK, I know Lesssssmiles is a big target in this discussion because of the well-media'd case of him grayshirting a guy that ended up going to Kentucky right away (and playing right away too, mind you), but if its a problem across the S-E-C! S-E-C! then he and other SEC coaches are forced to go this route if that's what their competition is doing. So, it's all on the S-E-C! S-E-C! to crack down on this problem.

This is all on the coaches and programs, btw, NOT the players. It's not like players are accepting scholarships they know don't exist or that they somehow don't deserve the schollys promised to them.

[BigDeezy]

that's the best he could. he had broken the rules, & got caught at least 3 times.

No - he could not transfer to another D1 school without sitting out a year. Its the transfer rule that preventing him from playing the next year at a D1, not his crass behavior.

[jkjsooner]

David, I think you are wrong when you compare this to an employment. Being a student athlete is not a job. Schools should honor their commitments.

We can't talk about how student athletes are students first yet treat them as an employee when it fits our needs. If you want to pay them market values (I don't as it would ruin college football) then, fine, treat them as you would treat your employees.

This whole thing makes school presidents look like hypocrites...

[MI Sooner]

David, I think you are wrong when you compare this to an employment. Being a student athlete is not a job. Schools should honor their commitments.

We can't talk about how student athletes are students first yet treat them as an employee when it fits our needs. If you want to pay them market values (I don't as it would ruin college football) then, fine, treat them as you would treat your employees.

This whole thing makes school presidents look like hypocrites...

There are two issues, as I see it, one moral and one legal. You should keep your word, and you should honor your contracts. I'm not sure what coaches tell their players regarding non-renewal, nor do I know what the unstated expectations of players and coaches are. If everyone is on the same page going in (that non-performance may mean non-renewal), then I don't see the "not keeping your commitments" problem. As for the legal side, I highly doubt schools aren't keeping their legal commitments. Lots of contracts have provisions that aren't symetrical, allowing one side to opt out but not the other. I can back out of a home purchase pending the results of an inspection, but the seller cannot, etc., etc., etc. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. If you not willing to be grey-shirted/cut, then go somewhere else. I also don't necessarily see it as a big competitive advantage. Some schools will likely do better by following a de facto four year scholarship policy, and some won't.

[stoopified]

All this reminds me of DKR's Busch League treatment of players to get them to quit the team. Back then players had four-year scholarships, so mangling them in practice was often the only way for an unscrupulous coach to trim his rosters.

I want to see OU win, but not that badly.

Brings back memories of MEAT ON THE HOOF

[jkjsooner]

There are two issues, as I see it, one moral and one legal. You should keep your word, and you should honor your contracts.

Wow, you just wrote what I was going to add to my post. Since we have so many lawyers and law students I was about to add that I meant obligation in the moral sense and not the legal sense.

That being said, even if the coaches make it abundantly clear how the game works, I think there needs to be a change. Student athletes, especially those who do value education, sacrafice a lot when choosing a school. A lot of these kids simply don't have the means to complete their education without the scholarship. If they transfer, a lot of their course work may not transfer - especially if they are forced to do so late in their college careers. They may have chosen a specific school based on the academic reputation of a specific program. It might be difficult or impossible to transfer to a scholarship offering school that has an equivalent program. In some cases, the player may not be able to transfer with a scholarship at all which would leave the financially disadvantaged student unable to complete the course work that he worked 3 years on.

If we really believe they are student athletes then we need to treat them as such. We can't talk of student athletes yet turn around and treat them as a commodity.

[sooneron]

So Les Miles is BS artist? No way!

In my book, that just another reason to hate LSU and Les Miles and the SEC. (And yes, I know they aren't the only ones; but Les screwed that kid by cutting his scollie and then did one worse by bashing him in the press.)

You forgot the gutless part about how he met with the kid when the "cut" letter had already been drafted...

[Scott D]

Their scholarship contract will state something like this in the fine print.

Take the DE at Miami who is now playing for a Div II school. Randy Shannon just cut him loose. Okay, why can't he go to FSU and play for them? If Miami doesn't want him, why can't FSU step in and take him? WTF did the player do to deserve this? It's not his fault Randy Shannon is a scumbag.

A deal is a deal. If you don't have space on your roster because you oversigned, that's too ****ing bad.

IF that kid had been given his release to go to FSU, he would have had to sit out a year. The way the system is, it's better for a kid who wants to get a release or transfer to go to a lower division and then get 'recruited' again for another D1A school to maintain their eligibility the entire time.

[Leroy Lizard]

IF that kid had been given his release to go to FSU, he would have had to sit out a year. The way the system is, it's better for a kid who wants to get a release or transfer to go to a lower division and then get 'recruited' again for another D1A school to maintain their eligibility the entire time.

What is the rule regarding the prospective schools contacting him?

[oudavid1]

So i win?

[Leroy Lizard]

So i win?

No, you have to make your opponent so mad that he (or she) puts you on ignore to truly claim a win.

[Scott D]

What is the rule regarding the prospective schools contacting him?

That I couldn't tell you

[Frozen Sooner]

What is the rule regarding the prospective schools contacting him?

Until they have obtained their release from the initial school, they may not be contacted by any other school. This applies once they've signed a letter of intent.

[Leroy Lizard]

Until they have obtained their release from the initial school, they may not be contacted by any other school. This applies once they've signed a letter of intent.

But what happens if they transfer to an FCS school. Once they enroll, can the FBS school contact them?

I don't think so.

[Frozen Sooner]

But what happens if they transfer to an FCS school. Once they enroll, can the FBS school contact them?

I don't think so.

Once they've accepted a grant in aid from an NCAA member school, they may not be contacted by another NCAA member school. I think.

[texaspokieokie]

No, you have to make your opponent so mad that he (or she) puts you on ignore to truly claim a win.

i bet you get lotsa "wins" that way.

[Leroy Lizard]

i bet you get lotsa "wins" that way.

I'm the champion. And I don't need no stinkin' playoff to settle it on the board.

[oudavid1]

No, you have to make your opponent so mad that he (or she) puts you on ignore to truly claim a win.

i really dont think i could ever be that annoyed.

[Leroy Lizard]

i really dont think i could ever be that annoyed.

The rest of the board is thinking, "David, don't taunt him like that! You don't know what he is capable of!"

[PLaw]

Gray-shirting is a sucky deal. My best friends son gray-shirted at SMU when Bennett was there. End of the day, he wasted a year of his life, never played a down or even saw the practice field, and was out of football before the academic year was over.

Bummer

[oudavid1]

The rest of the board is thinking, "David, don't taunt him like that! You don't know what he is capable of!"

ill say the same thing to you as a did this sh## talking line backer from Choctaw my jr year. "Bring it b###h"

:D

(he totally almost killed me 3 plays later)

[Leroy Lizard]

ill say the same thing to you as a did this sh## talking line backer from Choctaw my jr year. "Bring it b###h"

:D

(he totally almost killed me 3 plays later)

David, you got it backwards. The kill-er is supposed to talk like that to the kill-ee.

[oudavid1]

David, you got it backwards. The kill-er is supposed to talk like that to the kill-ee.

well my team kicked the shiz outta them......but me and this loser tangled a lot during the game. It was fun dogg.

[sperry]

I also think it's bad for business. Do you think Pryce Macon would have been around to dominate last season if Stoops pulled schollies early on? You think Q. Chaney would have been able to have a great senior season on a team that played for the national championship after he fell to aboot 10th on the depth chart after a ton of drops as a freshman? Do you think Chris Chester would be around to switch to guard and become an NFL starter after wallowing as a mediocre tight end for his first few seasons? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of guys at OU who would have been cut if we signed classes of 35 every season, who have gone on to make a huge impact.

[Leroy Lizard]

I also think it's bad for business. Do you think Pryce Macon would have been around to dominate last season if Stoops pulled schollies early on? You think Q. Chaney would have been able to have a great senior season on a team that played for the national championship after he fell to aboot 10th on the depth chart after a ton of drops as a freshman? Do you think Chris Chester would be around to switch to guard and become an NFL starter after wallowing as a mediocre tight end for his first few seasons? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of guys at OU who would have been cut if we signed classes of 35 every season, who have gone on to make a huge impact.

I would gladly trade off a few extraneous examples for the ability to weed out talent on a yearly basis. This gives me more chances to find the diamond in the rough.

Suppose Stoops acted like an SEC coach and signed 35 players and one of the extras was Wes Welker.

Your argument is based on a false premise: That a player like Pryce Macon would have had a better chance of making the squad if Stoops didn't oversign. No, just the opposite. Oversigning allows a coach more opportunities to find players like Macon and discard weaker players. Again, it's like being given extra cards in a poker hand and being allowed to discard those you don't want. That is a major recruiting advantage.

[King Barry's Back]

It ain't the pros. As long as the players makes their grades and do as the coaches ask year round, they should keep their schollies. Stoops let an O-line player go last spring for not working hard enough in off-season training and I have no problem with that. And they should be held accountable for personal conduct outside of sports.

What I would like to see, and I've have had on very rare occasions heard of it, is players not good enough to get on the field being cut from the team, and thus being cut from the 85-schollie limit, but be allowed to keep their schollie and to continue their education.

I believe this is what OU does, but could be wrong.

This would also force schools who routinely over-sign to pay a financial penalty for doing so.

[King Barry's Back]

Oh, I forgot to mention, did anybody else get the Switzer commercial on that link? Honestly, I didn't really get it, but Switz was great.

[Leroy Lizard]

What I would like to see, and I've have had on very rare occasions heard of it, is players not good enough to get on the field being cut from the team, and thus being cut from the 85-schollie limit, but be allowed to keep their schollie and to continue their education.

:confused:

If they keep their schollie, it counts toward the total. Do I have that right?


I believe this is what OU does, but could be wrong.

This would also force schools who routinely over-sign to pay a financial penalty for doing so.

No financial penalty is going to stop this; schools will gladly pay it. (I don't think the NCAA has the power to fine schools anyway, but I could be wrong.)

[sperry]

I would gladly trade off a few extraneous examples for the ability to weed out talent on a yearly basis. This gives me more chances to find the diamond in the rough.

Suppose Stoops acted like an SEC coach and signed 35 players and one of the extras was Wes Welker.

Your argument is based on a false premise: That a player like Pryce Macon would have had a better chance of making the squad if Stoops didn't oversign. No, just the opposite. Oversigning allows a coach more opportunities to find players like Macon and discard weaker players. Again, it's like being given extra cards in a poker hand and being allowed to discard those you don't want. That is a major recruiting advantage.


It's not a false premise. Those guys weren't "diamonds in the rough." They were well thought of prospects that struggled early on, and were "late bloomers." We may get some diamond in the rough type prospects, but we will lose out on the late bloomers because they'll get cut. I'm saying that in addition to the moral issue of telling a guy he has a scholarship and then taking it away, you also lose out on guys who struggle at first and then come into their own later on, because they're likely gonna get cut when there's 35 guys fighting for 25 spots.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's not a false premise. Those guys weren't "diamonds in the rough." They were well thought of prospects that struggled early on, and were "late bloomers." We may get some diamond in the rough type prospects, but we will lose out on the late bloomers because they'll get cut. I'm saying that in addition to the moral issue of telling a guy he has a scholarship and then taking it away, you also lose out on guys who struggle at first and then come into their own later on, because they're likely gonna get cut when there's 35 guys fighting for 25 spots.

It's like saying that the inability to throw away a bad card is actually a good thing because once in awhile you may find it useful in a straight flush. Even though that could occur, I also know that my chances improve tremendously if I can throw away the card.

The more players you get to pick and filter, the better chance you have of amassing talent on a squad. You can even prove that mathematically.

Again, it's just like cards. Stoops was dealt 25 cards that he must keep. Saban was dealt 35 cards, to which he can look them over and decide which 25 he gets to keep. Can you not see the huge advantage in that?

If oversigning didn't possess huge recruiting advantages, they wouldn't be doing it.

[sperry]

It's like saying that the inability to throw away a bad card is actually a good thing because once in awhile you may find it useful in a straight flush. Even though that could occur, I also know that my chances improve tremendously if I can throw away the card.

The more players you get to pick and filter, the better chance you have of amassing talent on a squad. You can even prove that mathematically.

Again, it's just like cards. Stoops was dealt 25 cards that he must keep. Saban was dealt 35 cards, to which he can look them over and decide which 25 he gets to keep. Can you not see the huge advantage in that?

If oversigning didn't possess huge recruiting advantages, they wouldn't be doing it.



It's merely pointing out a consequence of cutting guys after a season or before they even get on campus. Of course there are strategic advantages to being able to cut guys as soon as they get on campus. There are plenty of guys who aren't very good the day they get to campus, and aren't very good when they leave 5 years later.