This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
OR they come from areas and schools that are deeply impoverished and don’t have college-prep curricula or much in the way of scholastic guidance. There may be a ton kids who would flourish academically AND athletically in a setting of greater opportunity, but they didn’t get the right classes or focus on qualifying for the next level.
Right. This echoes of much deeper societal issue that Coach Prime clearly cares about, and CU trying to do the right thing over the years has been interestingly rewarded.
No, they should not be bound to a University for 4 years, because that wasn't the deal. No one forced the Universities to offer four-year scholarships, they did that themselves. They should be bound by what they offered. It's really quite simple.
I respect your opinion, but it's archaic and not conducive for competing at the highest level of the sport.
Right. Contract terms govern. What was bargained for at formation can become something that is a pain in the ass long term. But that’s what a contract is—a set of opposing legal obligations and benefits.
Hard disagree. College and professional coaching are totally different because of time. While QBs have a longer shelf life than other positions, there are a limited number of throws for a passer. Reducing the shelf life of players good enough to be professionals is not a positive development for the NFL. OTOH, it is GREAT for college football.
It's not an opinion, it's what they agreed to do within the last four years. Your point is they shouldn't offer four-year scholarships moving forward. If they can do that, good for them. But you don't get to offer it and then not honor it because you think it's making it hard to compete. It was offered in the first place because they felt it was necessary to compete. Too ****ing bad if things changed.
I guess I don't care if they offer 4 year scholarships, I guess my point is that I don't really care if those scholarships aren't honored to keep them on the football team as 1/85
I understand your thought process but couldn't disagree more with this. A kid signing a scholarship fresh out of school is putting alot on the line for a university. The university can afford to offer them an education in exchange for them offering their brain and body for the schools sports revenue. Thats the deal, and we shouldn't let the business side get in the way of alot of young men getting that exchange. I have now had one kid who played for me get bought away from one universityy for NIL money that was life changing. If that becomes a norm, I may change my mind. But until the money outvalues the cost of education in every case, we can't reward coaching staffs for not doing the work up front to find kids that fit with the university and the program. (I'll reply for you now. (Whatever Boomer)). And yes, my thoughts on this are old fashioned. But alot of these kids are first in family to college, and you need to provide time for it to work. The education is too big of a value proposition to be disposed of at the whim of a new member of the revolving door staffs that are college football.
I do think they should retain their scholarship to finish school whether playing for the team or not players need something to fall back on if things don't work out and it won't work out for the majority of them.
Question, because I don't know. A long, long, long time ago I had to resign my scholarship every year. Are they not on a year to year basis?
I’ll need to look it up, but the P12 declared this rule a few years back for its member schools in response to players losing their scholarships after being cut in other conferences (SEC).
By your logic, someone with a scholarship could decide to do drills at half speed and that they don’t want to run and they’d have to honor the scholarship. That’s absurd
That's the difference. T started this by saying what he'd be happy with, you're qouting current realities. Apples and oranges.
(in this example the school is the one who signed the contract to build the house, not the player)
that policy exists but only applies to 4 year scholarships, which are rare (most D1 athletes are on year to year).
This. All of it.
This is starting to look like the 90's Cowboys offensive line.
There are two concepts you are referencing: "performance" and "conduct." They are related but different, and "performance" gets used ambiguously as it is both a "term of art" and colloquialism. Just because a player does not become a Heisman candidate (or ever starts in game) does not mean that he has not "performed" under the terms of the contract. I don't know anything about the specific scholarship contract language, but I would imagine there are "personal conduct" requirements, but not "performance" requirements (this would be where "performance" would have a different meaning). In other words, if a student-athlete is failing to show up for classes or commits a crime, that will--no doubt--have contractual ramifications. That's "conduct."
Well, we do know Lichtenhan is 50/50 at best, so...
