Blueshirting

This was also posted on TOS and some there suggested irrevocable four- or five-year scholarships as the primary solution to oversigning. I think it is naive solution that would actually make college football more corrupt, because it puts a lot of pressure on schools to make sure student-athletes are successful (as in football successful). Instead of a one-year investment, an SA becomes a long-term investment.

Imagine UGA signed Isaiah Crowell to a five-year irrevocable scholarship. Instead of sending him packing, they'd be bribing the police and having a body double go to class, while he's out driving around flicking people off like President Camacho. Meanwhile at Tech we would let students fail or get arrested and only have like 70 active scholarship players.

It is important that students be able to leave school for whatever reason (failing, transferring, family issues, etc.) Putting a huge disincentive on schools allowing players to leave school for legitimate reasons will not promote ethical behavior and will only punish the ethical.
 
gtzulu said:
This was also posted on TOS and some there suggested irrevocable four- or five-year scholarships as the primary solution to oversigning. I think it is naive solution that would actually make college football more corrupt, because it puts a lot of pressure on schools to make sure student-athletes are successful (as in football successful). Instead of a one-year investment, an SA becomes a long-term investment.

Imagine UGA signed Isaiah Crowell to a five-year irrevocable scholarship. Instead of sending him packing, they'd be bribing the police and having a body double go to class, while he's out driving around flicking people off like President Camacho. Meanwhile at Tech we would let students fail or get arrested and only have like 70 active scholarship players.

It is important that students be able to leave school for whatever reason (failing, transferring, family issues, etc.) Putting a huge disincentive on schools allowing players to leave school for legitimate reasons will not promote ethical behavior and will only punish the ethical.
Click to expand...

I don't think PSU is an indication that other schools will cover up or hinder criminal investigations in order to win football games. Making a long-term scholarship doesn't mean that there aren't clauses which allow for dismissal from a team. I'm sure multiple felony charges is sufficient.

On the other hand, retaining a system that encourages oversigning or the signing of thugs who can be weeded out doesn't seem like a great idea either.
 
gtzulu said:
This was also posted on TOS and some there suggested irrevocable four- or five-year scholarships as the primary solution to oversigning. I think it is naive solution that would actually make college football more corrupt, because it puts a lot of pressure on schools to make sure student-athletes are successful (as in football successful). Instead of a one-year investment, an SA becomes a long-term investment.

Imagine UGA signed Isaiah Crowell to a five-year irrevocable scholarship. Instead of sending him packing, they'd be bribing the police and having a body double go to class, while he's out driving around flicking people off like President Camacho. Meanwhile at Tech we would let students fail or get arrested and only have like 70 active scholarship players.

It is important that students be able to leave school for whatever reason (failing, transferring, family issues, etc.) Putting a huge disincentive on schools allowing players to leave school for legitimate reasons will not promote ethical behavior and will only punish the ethical.
Click to expand...
No. You can't write a rule around the possibility that schools will break the law for a sport. Go back to no freshmen eligibility and make the scholarships a four year commitment. Then, when dumb thing like grade-fixing and other SEC/FSU-style hijinx take place, you simply take away scholarships.

Football student-athletes are already a three-year commitment, more or less.
 
Irrevocable 4 year scholarships sound like a good idea to me. I agree that some schools would probably be more likely to cheat in that situation, but you just have to hammer them for it when you catch them.

IMO one of the big impacts it would have is that it would make schools more careful in who they recruit. Guys like Isaiah Crowell would still find a home because they are just that talented, but a somewhat less talented Crowell probably wouldn't make it because he's such an ass that schools don't want to take that risk.

I say we do it!
 
gtzulu said:
This was also posted on TOS and some there suggested irrevocable four- or five-year scholarships as the primary solution to oversigning. I think it is naive solution that would actually make college football more corrupt, because it puts a lot of pressure on schools to make sure student-athletes are successful (as in football successful). Instead of a one-year investment, an SA becomes a long-term investment.

Imagine UGA signed Isaiah Crowell to a five-year irrevocable scholarship. Instead of sending him packing, they'd be bribing the police and having a body double go to class, while he's out driving around flicking people off like President Camacho. Meanwhile at Tech we would let students fail or get arrested and only have like 70 active scholarship players.

It is important that students be able to leave school for whatever reason (failing, transferring, family issues, etc.) Putting a huge disincentive on schools allowing players to leave school for legitimate reasons will not promote ethical behavior and will only punish the ethical.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more. The current system is what is so corrupt. The kids at factories have to show immediate success or they're jettisoned like an old shoe to free up space for the next prep fenom. If that ain't corrupt, I don't know what is.
 
Academic scholarships are performance-based why shouldn't athletic scholarships be?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
knoxjacket said:
Academic scholarships are performance-based why shouldn't athletic scholarships be?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They can be - if the kid flunks out, he loses his scholarship. The suggestion here is that the school doesn't get that scholarship back.
 
johncu said:
They can be - if the kid flunks out, he loses his scholarship. The suggestion here is that the school doesn't get that scholarship back.
Click to expand...

If a school gives an academic scholarship and the student gets poor grades they yank the scholarship. They don't keep it based on the schools initial perception that they should hace it.

You should have to keep proving yourself to keep your athletic scholarship the same way you would with an academic one.

Quit coddling adults. We'd never tolerate that with other students.
 
knoxjacket said:
Academic scholarships are performance-based why shouldn't athletic scholarships be?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Baseball scholarships are increased and decreased yearly all the time and on every division 1 team. It is 100% performance based. Why should football players be treated differently?
 
knoxjacket said:
If a school gives an academic scholarship and the student gets poor grades they yank the scholarship. They don't keep it based on the schools initial perception that they should hace it.

You should have to keep proving yourself to keep your athletic scholarship the same way you would with an academic one.

Quit coddling adults. We'd never tolerate that with other students.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that as long as we allowed any student who got their scholarship yanked to transfer immediately without having to sit out a year. Otherwise we're putting them at a significant disadvantage, both in football and compared to other students.

If someone had an academic scholarship to Tech and lost it due to bad grades, we wouldn't make them sit out a year from their coursework if they wanted to transfer to Georgia State.
 
GTJackets530 said:
I'm fine with that as long as we allowed any student who got their scholarship yanked to transfer immediately without having to sit out a year. Otherwise we're putting them at a significant disadvantage, both in football and compared to other students.

If someone had an academic scholarship to Tech and lost it due to bad grades, we wouldn't make them sit out a year from their coursework if they wanted to transfer to Georgia State.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that too. The penalty fir transferring is absurd.
 
Not sure I understand it fully, but it seems blueshirting is only wrong if you're using it to oversign. The article in OP seems to suggest it is being used to circumvent the SEC 25-per-year limit. I don't think that is what we're doing. (Does the ACC even have a limit?) We're just trying to let the guys enroll for spring.
 
AE 87 said:
So, you'd be okay with Justin Thomas transferring to u[sic]ga to play corner next year after 2 years of learning our offense?
Click to expand...

Yep. Just like I'd be fine with other schools that have a super talented guy on the bench whos isn't gettin the reps transferring here.

I think you'd actually see more parity if this were allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top