We voted against multi-year scholarships?

To the first point, some schools cut kids for being injured one year because they speculate they won't come back as strong.


To the second point, is this really that big of an issue? There are other ways of addressing that problem. The coaches can punish the kid for bad behavior (extra running, sitting out isolated during practice, no traveling with the team, etc.). The bigger issues are trying to protect the kids who are doing nothing wrong rather than worrying about the few bad apples who may abuse the system.

QUOTE=GTman;1016019]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.[/QUOTE]
 
If a kid is screwing up, and the school can't yank the scholarship, they can refuse to play him.

However, I see something being put in to make it such that scholarships can be lost just like how some academic scholarships can also be lost.
 
Three issues:

1) Kids not doing what they are supposed to in the classroom. They sometimes need to go.

2) Kids not doing what they are supposed to as a teammate. Not working hard in the weight room, being an irritant in the locker room, etc. They sometimes need to go

3) Medical - Blown knee, end of career. We give they another tip of schools and they do not count toward the 85. Others do not always approach this situation the same way.


You can't tie the coaches hands and leave him without means to run someone off. We DO NOT run people off for a lack of ability, others do, and that's on them.
 
1) they can fail out, or be put on probation... i think this just makes it so they stay on scholarship. however, i dont see the ncaa removing academic penalties.

2) you can bury them in depth or move them to the scout team.

3) anyone with a medical issue ending their career can get a permanent scholarship, but they can't play again. saban is famous for abusing it.
 
It's tough for us to try to rationalize something as being acceptable (this vote) when we know we'd all be going nuts with criticism if a major rival voted this way and we didn't.
 
Do we know exactly how the vote went down? It seems strange that many of the no votes were really good academic schools (GT, USC, UVA, UC-Berkeley).

You see cases in Congress all the time where Senator 1 calls for tax cuts for all Americans, Senator 2 proposes a bill involving tax cuts only for the poor, Senator 1 then votes against the bill because he wants tax cuts for all, not just a few. A year later there's a political ad run stating "Senator 1 does not support tax cuts".
 
gtphd said:
Do we know exactly how the vote went down? It seems strange that many of the no votes were really good academic schools (GT, USC, UVA, UC-Berkeley).

You see cases in Congress all the time where Senator 1 calls for tax cuts for all Americans, Senator 2 proposes a bill involving tax cuts only for the poor, Senator 1 then votes against the bill because he wants tax cuts for all, not just a few. A year later there's a political ad run stating "Senator 1 does not support tax cuts".
Click to expand...

I think this gets back to what I was saying in the approval thread: good academic schools will burn players out more quickly, and they'll just go all-in on school and blow off the team when they get disenchanted with the program, etc.

I think also they probably feel the stipulations wrt grades are not clear enough for players who are struggling in school, that maybe good schools took a chance on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top