Ethical or unethical oversigning by Johnson?

gtzulu said:
False
Click to expand...

note the third & fourth instances below

TT_for_if_then.jpg
 
Is that table a joke I'm not getting? "True" does not mean "not shown to be false". "True" is the opposite of "false". "Not shown to be false" means something could actually be false or actually be true--it is uncertain.

That is just a truth table for "R implies D"
 
gtzulu said:
Is that table a joke I'm not getting? "True" does not mean "not shown to be false". "True" is the opposite of "false". "Not shown to be false" means something could actually be false or actually be true--it is uncertain.

That is just a truth table for "R implies D"
Click to expand...

false
 
gtzulu said:
source?
Click to expand...

source???! you're the one making öööö up, making accusations about the program, and then you say i'm just asking questions. you're either a ööööing idiot or dwag troll. Considering everything you post is just to get attention (like having Gregory as your avatar and then claiming it was to support him like some douche posting his picture as his avatar on a message board is gonna save his job) you're obviously being your normal douchey self. But it's time to let it go or get banned.
 
gtzulu said:
source?
Click to expand...

You claim we oversigned and then cut players afterwards. That is simply not true.

My source is Paul Johnson. I specifically asked him about numbers and he knew before NSD that these two players were not coming back. That is why Brad Stewart got a late offer. He got one of these two players' scholarships... whichever one the staff was unsure about the latest.

Once the decision was made to not return, we gave the offer.
 
No matter how good our inside sources are we really don't know all of the situation. It would take hearing both sides - Paul Johnson's version and the student athlete who supposedly was not in agreement with the decision that he not be a part of next year's team.

Both of these young men have been given ample time and opportunity to compete for playing time. And, if what I hear is accurate, both are on track to earn a degree from Georgia Tech this spring, having been on athletic scholarship the entire time they have been at Tech. To label their treatment as being unethical on CPJ's part is a reach.

We don't know every aspect of the situation. Let's say one of these guys is not happy with CPJ's decision and would like to be enrolled and playing next fall. My hunch is that if the player had a super attitude and work ethic and would contribute to overall team chemistry CPJ would likely keep him on. But, I know coaches are leery of seniors on the bench if their attitude and work ethic may be detrimental to the team. We just don't know all that went into this decision.
 
zulu, I share your concern on this, and it's not surprising that you are getting this kind of response.

With that said, it is too early to discuss this. There is very little public information. Let's see how it plays out. If the players graduate, transfer, play the fifth year elsewhere, etc.
 
cyptomcat said:
zulu, I share your concern on this, and it's not surprising that you are getting this kind of response.

With that said, it is too early to discuss this. There is very little public information. Let's see how it plays out. If the players graduate, transfer, play the fifth year elsewhere, etc.
Click to expand...

If you want to be concerned about things you don't know about then that's your problem.

Threads like this are one of the really bad things about social media. Rumors are spawned and unwarranted concerns arise. A bunch of hog wash.

So basically we are a bunch of fish, frogs, and pigs. :wink:
 
Thread was boring; stopped reading, but...

would anyone be opposed to a change in NCAA rules that stated simply that scholarships are good until graduation across the board as long as academic standing is maintained?

That seems like the way things should have always been for all teams. Most fans probably never realized scholarships are year to year as it is.
 
lonestarjacket said:
would anyone be opposed to a change in NCAA rules that stated simply that scholarships are good until graduation across the board as long as academic standing is maintained?
Click to expand...

I like the idea that you can offer a a guaranteed 1, 2, ... 5 year scholarship offer. When your scholarship expires, you can be re-upped by the school or transfer with immediate eligibility.

Creates an interesting game theory problem. Alabama offers a 1 year guaranteed contract, Clemson offers 3 years, and UVA offers 5 years. What do you do?
 
gtphd said:
I like the idea that you can offer a a guaranteed 1, 2, ... 5 year scholarship offer. When your scholarship expires, you can be re-upped by the school or transfer with immediate eligibility.

Creates an interesting game theory problem. Alabama offers a 1 year guaranteed contract, Clemson offers 3 years, and UVA offers 5 years. What do you do?
Click to expand...

That will öööö over more kids than help them. They're already kicking kids out before 4 year is up, they will able to do it after 1 or 3 years legitimately. Graduation rates for incoming freshman will drop drastically.
 
gtzulu said:
False, neither has graduated
Click to expand...

If they will not have their degrees by this spring...then they need to be dismissed....Most 5th year players at Tech are enrolled in Master programs (Tevin Washington, Matt Conners...etc)....So if you are saying that they are not even close and have a few years left going into their 5th year... they probably need to quit football and ONLY focus on their education!!!!!!!

If they will walk and get their degrees this spring, you should be banned for this horrible post!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
gtphd said:
I like the idea that you can offer a a guaranteed 1, 2, ... 5 year scholarship offer. When your scholarship expires, you can be re-upped by the school or transfer with immediate eligibility.

Creates an interesting game theory problem. Alabama offers a 1 year guaranteed contract, Clemson offers 3 years, and UVA offers 5 years. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Creating Game Theory scenarios where 1 side is a 100+ year old institution employing an army of lawyers and spending millions on its employees who are trying to optimize their situation against a high school kid who often comes from no money, immature and is about to make the biggest decision of his life without even good amateur advice (never mind millionaire lawyers) may be the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

Except for the fact that is exactly what happens in college sports today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top