We voted against multi-year scholarships?

BlackJacket said:
Saban-like shenanigans is a tactic we use to convince guys to come here. We promise they will have their scholarship as long as they do the right things and we get a lot of praise for how honest we are as a program. This takes away that advantage (to a degree) if other schools are forced to be more honest.

Also, I'm not sure how this would affect CPJ's policy about giving scholarships out to walk-ons on an annual basis, which he is known to do plenty of.
Click to expand...

Please identify one walk-on who was given a scholarship one year but had it revoked another. If there has been one, I can't recall it. I very well could be wrong though.
 
maybe we voted against it because we don't believe there is an adequate mechanism to enforce it, and therefore will cause us even more issues because the perception will be 4 year schollies are the same everywhere when Bama and the like will still have loopholes to exploit

Also, didn't this vote include the stipends? Maybe we voted against it because we want 4 year schollies less than we don't want college players receiving a stipend?
 
gtsmckdwn222 said:
Also, didn't this vote include the stipends? Maybe we voted against it because we want 4 year schollies less than we don't want college players receiving a stipend?
Click to expand...
If this vote included stipends, then it makes perfect sense, and the author is a complete moron for not pointing it out.
 
I bet students wish the HOPE Scholarship was guaranteed for 4 years as well and not based on classroom performance.
 
GTWannaBee said:
Please identify one walk-on who was given a scholarship one year but had it revoked another. If there has been one, I can't recall it. I very well could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

I don't think we "revoke" scholarships for walk-ons but rather if we aren't planning on granting you one every year for the remainder of your eligibility then we tell you up front that this scholarship is for this year only and we may not be able to offer you one for next year. I believe that's what may happen with Godhigh and one other this year. There was much talk about three walk-ons who were granted scholarships specifically for last year but they all had the understanding that we may not be able to grant them one for this coming year. I believe only one of them was assured a scholarship for this coming year but I can't remember which. I don't know if the numbers worked out yet for the other two to get one year scholarships again. In this situation those kids contributed significantly enough, and we had the available scholarships, to be given those one year 'ships but we didn't know if their contribution would be significant enough in the coming years given what we are recruiting to say "you are now a scholarship athlete."

This situation is different than PJ Daniels a number of years ago. PJ was a walk-on but became a starter and was granted a scholarship just like others who got them out of high school. In other words even though we all know they are ALL one-year renewable scholarships he knew he had a "scholarship" for the rest of his eligibility. That type of scholarship wouldn't be "revoked."
 
BlackJacket said:
This is just what I'm figuring would be the reason why we'd vote against it. People like Saban make people like CPJ look to have better ethics. That's all I was trying to say. Of course, I'm sure coaches like Saban will find loopholes to use to get guys out of the program.

I disagree with us voting against 4 yr schollies however. I'd think they'd help our program more than hurt it.
Click to expand...

Athlete incentive and roster flexibility are two seriously negative concequences with multi-year schloarships. An 18 year old kid will lose a ton of incentive to improve if he is promised an education regardless of athletic performance. Also, what if you offer a kid a mulit-year deal and he turns out to be a trouble maker? Now you are stuck with that scholarship.

This allows the schools the option to use, it is not mandatory if I am reading it correctly(if not correct me). Some programs will probably use this to try and sway a big time recruit. It will not change how the other 95% of scholarship atheltes are handle.


Also, money is a big factor. Most football factories can afford to eat the cost of the bad apples still on the books. This doesnt look like a postive for tech, if you think our signing period flops are bad now, this could increase the number significantly.
 
Last edited:
There are schools that honor scholarships whether the player ever plays a down, some schools just see it as a risk you take as these are student athletes. There are even extreme cases, like a Michigan State football player who had a career ending knee injury yet Michigan State honored his scholarship and found a way to put him through school.

It depends how you see athletic scholarships. Are these kids students who get the chance to play football, or are they football players who get to go to class. With HOPE scholarship there are minimum requirements. With athletic scholarships there are also minimum requirements, you have to maintain a certain GPA in addition to attending practices or any other team events. If you don't keep up these ends of your bargain you lose the scholarship.

Comparing HOPE to athletic scholarships doesn't make sense. You can't lose HOPE because a freshman comes in and has a better GPA than you. Also, solely GPA is used because nobody can monitor your study habits so they have to use performance based metrics. With athletic scholarships, you have someone watching you work every day in practice, mandatory study time, etc.

Now your point is, if they don't perform athletically you should be able to cut them. I don't disagree with that, and that is how some schools are getting an advantage over others. But other schools like GT promise kids an education with the opportunity to play football. Should both of these schools be on the same system, with their scholarships viewed as equivalent? If they are the playing field will never be level for schools like GT, Mich St. and the other schools that actually care about the student part of student athlete


GTman said:
Athlete incentive and roster flexibility are two seriously negative concequences with multi-year schloarships. An 18 year old kid will lose a ton of incentive to improve if he is promised an education regardless of athletic performance. Also, what if you offer a kid a mulit-year deal and he turns out to be a trouble maker? Now you are stuck with that scholarship.

This allows the schools the option to use, it is not mandatory if I am reading it correctly(if not correct me). It is my guess that we choose to vote against the rule as a general this is where we stand on the issue type thing. Some programs will probably use this to try and sway a big time recruit. It will not change how the other 95% of scholarship atheltes are handle.
Click to expand...
 
Students on HOPE who are getting 3.5 GPA's can't have their scholarship yanked because other students are brought in that are getting 3.9's


There are still minimum standards required to keep an athletic scholarship, including degree progress, GPA and attendance at all team activities (practices, games, meeting, etc.)

scatman22 said:
I bet students wish the HOPE Scholarship was guaranteed for 4 years as well and not based on classroom performance.
Click to expand...
 
gtsmckdwn222 said:
There are schools that honor scholarships whether the player ever plays a down, some schools just see it as a risk you take as these are student athletes. There are even extreme cases, like a Michigan State football player who had a career ending knee injury yet Michigan State honored his scholarship and found a way to put him through school.
Click to expand...

Georgia Tech is one of those schools as well. Denzel McCoy.
 
BlackJacket said:
Because Paul Johnson does whatever the ---- he wants?
Click to expand...

Paul Johnson doesn't have a "rational" reason for anything he does. His reasons are simple:

It is what it is
Its like anything else
Its never as good or as bad as it seems

If you don't like:

131775505175.gif
 
The only reason I can think for us voting against this is that we feel there is nothing keeping the 4 year scholarship offer from being fully abused by the football factories, making this nothing more than some PR stunt so they can say. If that were the case, kids would be duped even more when they lost their scholarship through some glaring loopholes, and GT gains nothing by this being passed.
 
gtsmckdwn222 said:
There are schools that honor scholarships whether the player ever plays a down, some schools just see it as a risk you take as these are student athletes. There are even extreme cases, like a Michigan State football player who had a career ending knee injury yet Michigan State honored his scholarship and found a way to put him through school.

It depends how you see athletic scholarships. Are these kids students who get the chance to play football, or are they football players who get to go to class. With HOPE scholarship there are minimum requirements. With athletic scholarships there are also minimum requirements, you have to maintain a certain GPA in addition to attending practices or any other team events. If you don't keep up these ends of your bargain you lose the scholarship.

Comparing HOPE to athletic scholarships doesn't make sense. You can't lose HOPE because a freshman comes in and has a better GPA than you. Also, solely GPA is used because nobody can monitor your study habits so they have to use performance based metrics. With athletic scholarships, you have someone watching you work every day in practice, mandatory study time, etc.

Now your point is, if they don't perform athletically you should be able to cut them. I don't disagree with that, and that is how some schools are getting an advantage over others. But other schools like GT promise kids an education with the opportunity to play football. Should both of these schools be on the same system, with their scholarships viewed as equivalent? If they are the playing field will never be level for schools like GT, Mich St. and the other schools that actually care about the student part of student athlete
Click to expand...


That kid had a career ending injury during a sport specific related event while on athletic schloarship. It should have been honored by michigan state.

The coaches, as the ones monitioring practice, study habits, arrival times, attitude, work ethic etc., need the flexibility to cut a guy loose if he does not respect the opportunity. Clearly a factor in our vote to support the override. Well, this and money.
 
gtsmckdwn222 said:
The only reason I can think for us voting against this is that we feel there is nothing keeping the 4 year scholarship offer from being fully abused by the football factories, making this nothing more than some PR stunt so they can say. If that were the case, kids would be duped even more when they lost their scholarship through some glaring loopholes, and GT gains nothing by this being passed.
Click to expand...

Its seems like it could be a half assed rule to make it look like schools are playing fairly. A lot like the sec 25 scholarship limit. Oh look we are limiting scholarships to 25, oh wait we can still oversign. Same deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top