***Official National Signing Day thread*** (1 Viewer)

[madhatter]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

 

[The Commish]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up. I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

I'm fairly certain that there will be qualifications to each year based on grades as their should be. You don't see the difference between a school saying "hey, we want you to be here four years" vs "hey, we'll take you this year then reevaluate next"?ETA: And link to where anyone said a four year scholarship was a "right"

 

[GDogg]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

 

[madhatter]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

I'll pass along your good tidings to Dr. Gogue.

 

[Christo]

Don't know if this is the right place for this, but WV waits until after Signing Day to announce they're backing out of a Sept 8th date at Tallahassee.FSU says they might sue if they can't find a suitable replacement.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-florida-state-west-virginia-0204-20120204,0,1027441.story

Looks like FSU and OU (FSU has reached out to a few other schools too) are talking about playing again on 9/8.

 

[GDogg]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

I'm fairly certain that there will be qualifications to each year based on grades as their should be. You don't see the difference between a school saying "hey, we want you to be here four years" vs "hey, we'll take you this year then reevaluate next"?ETA: And link to where anyone said a four year scholarship was a "right"

I never said I don't see the difference. Of course I do.I think I misread the proposal. I thought they were going to be making four year scholarships mandatory, rather than allow them to be renewable on a yearly basis. It looks like this just gives schools the option (correct?). It's why I said that the four year scholarship would be a right (if all schools have to give four years, rather than one year, then if you are a scholarship athlete, you're getting four years as a matter of right).

 

[GDogg]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

I'll pass along your good tidings to Dr. Gogue.

I'd appreciate it.

 

[Christo]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

 

[Premier]

Don't know if this is the right place for this, but WV waits until after Signing Day to announce they're backing out of a Sept 8th date at Tallahassee.FSU says they might sue if they can't find a suitable replacement.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-florida-state-west-virginia-0204-20120204,0,1027441.story

Looks like FSU and OU (FSU has reached out to a few other schools too) are talking about playing again on 9/8.

Whoa. Where at?

 

[Christo]

Don't know if this is the right place for this, but WV waits until after Signing Day to announce they're backing out of a Sept 8th date at Tallahassee.FSU says they might sue if they can't find a suitable replacement.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-florida-state-west-virginia-0204-20120204,0,1027441.story

Looks like FSU and OU (FSU has reached out to a few other schools too) are talking about playing again on 9/8.

Whoa. Where at?

The WVa game was scheduled for Tallahassee so I assume FSU wants to host. Right now OU's only scheduled non-conference game is Notre Dame on 10/27. So if they could line up two patsies as lead-ins I don't think OU would have a problem going to Tallahassee again.

 

[The Commish]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

I'm fairly certain that there will be qualifications to each year based on grades as their should be. You don't see the difference between a school saying "hey, we want you to be here four years" vs "hey, we'll take you this year then reevaluate next"?ETA: And link to where anyone said a four year scholarship was a "right"

I never said I don't see the difference. Of course I do.I think I misread the proposal. I thought they were going to be making four year scholarships mandatory, rather than allow them to be renewable on a yearly basis. It looks like this just gives schools the option (correct?). It's why I said that the four year scholarship would be a right (if all schools have to give four years, rather than one year, then if you are a scholarship athlete, you're getting four years as a matter of right).

so the "pretty cool" question to me was rhetorical? The schools can, and have always been able to write the scholarship how they see fit. I was simply saying I think it's cool for a school to commit to a kid and the kid not have to worry about getting his scholarship taken out from under him if he gets hurt or someone better comes along. I know the "big business" perspective is thrown around a lot, but the reality is, most of these athletes are going on to something other than a career in sports and they should be afforded an opportunity to get that education if they want to work at it.

 

[GDogg]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

Yeah, the schools should have the money. I'm sure it's the same everywhere, but at UCLA, they lose 2 kids or so per year to "medical retirements." Those kids stay on scholarship through the school, but they do not count against the 85 scholarship limit. So, this should be possible.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

Or force the coaches of the factories to choose more wisely when recruiting instead of just shipping the turds off somewhere and replacing them with the next 4 or 5 star.

 

[The Commish]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

Yeah, the schools should have the money. I'm sure it's the same everywhere, but at UCLA, they lose 2 kids or so per year to "medical retirements." Those kids stay on scholarship through the school, but they do not count against the 85 scholarship limit. So, this should be possible.

For injury, that's a fine situation. The problem is the situation where kid is on scholarship and in school for 2 years and all of a sudden 5* Joe comes in as a freshman and they don't renew the kid that's been there for 2 years busting his butt on and off the field.

 

[The Commish]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

Auburn's 4 year athletic scholarships require players to stay academically eligible and stay out of trouble off the field. It's not a guaranteed 4 year ride, it's saying they can't lose a scholarship based on athletic performance.

Why can't they? That's how they got their scholarship and their athletic performance is, most likely, the only reason the school is allowing them to attend classes there.

Not sure what you're asking here. Because the school decided to enact this policy?? It can be used as a tool in recruiting?

I'm not trying to come off as snarky here, but some schools have decided to go this route. The large majority of schools still offer one year renewable deals.

I thought you were trying to engage in a discussion regarding the four year scholarship issue. I didn't realize you were simply saying Auburn does this and that's that.Good for Auburn, I guess.

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

If you add that once they are taken off the team, they can't come back under any circumstance, I'd entertain it.

 

[GDogg]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

I'm fairly certain that there will be qualifications to each year based on grades as their should be. You don't see the difference between a school saying "hey, we want you to be here four years" vs "hey, we'll take you this year then reevaluate next"?ETA: And link to where anyone said a four year scholarship was a "right"

I never said I don't see the difference. Of course I do.I think I misread the proposal. I thought they were going to be making four year scholarships mandatory, rather than allow them to be renewable on a yearly basis. It looks like this just gives schools the option (correct?). It's why I said that the four year scholarship would be a right (if all schools have to give four years, rather than one year, then if you are a scholarship athlete, you're getting four years as a matter of right).

so the "pretty cool" question to me was rhetorical? The schools can, and have always been able to write the scholarship how they see fit. I was simply saying I think it's cool for a school to commit to a kid and the kid not have to worry about getting his scholarship taken out from under him if he gets hurt or someone better comes along. I know the "big business" perspective is thrown around a lot, but the reality is, most of these athletes are going on to something other than a career in sports and they should be afforded an opportunity to get that education if they want to work at it.

Nope. I already said I misread (didn't read closely, to be honest) the issue. I thought the NCAA was going to switch from one year renewable scholarships to mandating four year scholarships. I was asking why that would be "pretty cool." Since that is not a correct reading of the issue, my question was pretty stupid.Back to the actual issue, I think it's noble of a school to do it. However, I think it's bad for the program. It's no secret (or maybe it is because they are pretty irrelevant at the moment) that UCLA has struggled in football for the past decade. The current UCLA team has, strictly based off recruiting rankings, a great deal of physical talent on it. But, they've sucked. Several unnamed football players in the program have, apparently, taken their free ride for granted and simply aren't putting in the work necessary to be great football players (and to have a good team).

UCLA, pre-Mora, has not done anything about this. They are not a school that "cuts" players who aren't cutting it. It sounds like this may be changing. In any case, if UCLA were to implement the four year scholarship policy, then there's nothing the school can do about players who fall in love with the college atmosphere and would rather be normal college students than student-athletes.

I think the four year scholarship is a great idea for those players that put in the work on and off the football field. They stay eligible off the field and work hard physically for the football team. For those guys, their scholarships should be there, regardless of whether they simply don't pan out. I'm speaking strictly about the guys that aren't putting in the work. Now, the problem is obviously that this is pretty subjective and would be up to the discretion of the coaching staff. If the staff sours on a player for one reason or another, they could simply state that the player isn't doing the work necessary to receive a scholarship.

So, while I think it's great in theory, like Christo pointed out above, you've only got 85 scholarships and you could end up hurting your program if you end up with enough players that aren't putting in the work (or simply bust).

 

[The Commish]

What's the general consensus on the four year scholarship that seems to be picking up steam? I think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing and I say bravo to the schools doing it.

Why do you think it's a pretty cool thing to be doing? If the student-athlete isn't upholding his end of the bargain, why should he continue to receive a free ride?I had an academic scholarship in college. That scholarship was automatically renewable on a yearly basis, provided I maintained a high enough GPA. If I didn't, then the scholarship was revoked, but could be earned back after my GPA went back up.

I'm not sure I see why athletes should have four year scholarships as a matter of right.

I'm fairly certain that there will be qualifications to each year based on grades as their should be. You don't see the difference between a school saying "hey, we want you to be here four years" vs "hey, we'll take you this year then reevaluate next"?ETA: And link to where anyone said a four year scholarship was a "right"

I never said I don't see the difference. Of course I do.I think I misread the proposal. I thought they were going to be making four year scholarships mandatory, rather than allow them to be renewable on a yearly basis. It looks like this just gives schools the option (correct?). It's why I said that the four year scholarship would be a right (if all schools have to give four years, rather than one year, then if you are a scholarship athlete, you're getting four years as a matter of right).

so the "pretty cool" question to me was rhetorical? The schools can, and have always been able to write the scholarship how they see fit. I was simply saying I think it's cool for a school to commit to a kid and the kid not have to worry about getting his scholarship taken out from under him if he gets hurt or someone better comes along. I know the "big business" perspective is thrown around a lot, but the reality is, most of these athletes are going on to something other than a career in sports and they should be afforded an opportunity to get that education if they want to work at it.

Nope. I already said I misread (didn't read closely, to be honest) the issue. I thought the NCAA was going to switch from one year renewable scholarships to mandating four year scholarships. I was asking why that would be "pretty cool." Since that is not a correct reading of the issue, my question was pretty stupid.Back to the actual issue, I think it's noble of a school to do it. However, I think it's bad for the program. It's no secret (or maybe it is because they are pretty irrelevant at the moment) that UCLA has struggled in football for the past decade. The current UCLA team has, strictly based off recruiting rankings, a great deal of physical talent on it. But, they've sucked. Several unnamed football players in the program have, apparently, taken their free ride for granted and simply aren't putting in the work necessary to be great football players (and to have a good team).

UCLA, pre-Mora, has not done anything about this. They are not a school that "cuts" players who aren't cutting it. It sounds like this may be changing. In any case, if UCLA were to implement the four year scholarship policy, then there's nothing the school can do about players who fall in love with the college atmosphere and would rather be normal college students than student-athletes.

I think the four year scholarship is a great idea for those players that put in the work on and off the football field. They stay eligible off the field and work hard physically for the football team. For those guys, their scholarships should be there, regardless of whether they simply don't pan out. I'm speaking strictly about the guys that aren't putting in the work. Now, the problem is obviously that this is pretty subjective and would be up to the discretion of the coaching staff. If the staff sours on a player for one reason or another, they could simply state that the player isn't doing the work necessary to receive a scholarship.

So, while I think it's great in theory, like Christo pointed out above, you've only got 85 scholarships and you could end up hurting your program if you end up with enough players that aren't putting in the work (or simply bust).

We live in a day and age where there are a lot of kids who feel "entitled" to these kinds of things. Seems like UCLA has gotten more than their fair share. That sucks, but they are doing the work to stay in school right? If they are, then you are complaining about character and work ethic. That's something the coaches have to consider as well. I'd be pissed at my coaches for not weeding that kind of kid out. With all the outlets we have to be exposed to those kids, it's pretty tough for them to outright hide that from everyone. All you are doing is creating an out for the coaches who don't do their due diligence IMO. With that said, as I said before, I'm ok with something like Christo proposed as long as it includes the fact that the kid let go for "performance" reasons can never, under any circumstance, come back on that football team.

 

[Christo]

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

If you add that once they are taken off the team, they can't come back under any circumstance, I'd entertain it.

Definitely. It's a one-and-done procedure.

 

[The Commish]

What I'd like to see is 4 year scholarships (5 if the school redshirts the player) with the "out" for the school being that if it believes the player is not living up to his side of the bargain athletically the school can place the player on some sort of "non-active" list where the academic side of the scholarship remains in place but the scholarship doesn't count against the school for athletic purposes. Players placed on the "non-active" list have the choice of remaining at the school and going to class on the scholarship or transferring to a school that is willing to let them play. Obviously, there still needs to be a "for cause" way to strip the scholarship entirely for criminal activity or not being academically eligible. But if academics really are important as people hold them out to be, there's no reason this shouldn't be possible--it's not like the schools don't have the money to let a few kids stay and get their education.

If you add that once they are taken off the team, they can't come back under any circumstance, I'd entertain it.

Definitely. It's a one-and-done procedure.

I wouldn't be opposed to this, though I'm sure there'd have to be more to the rule. Some of these guys hire staff just to figure out ways around the rules.

 

[Mark Davis]

Don't know if this is the right place for this, but WV waits until after Signing Day to announce they're backing out of a Sept 8th date at Tallahassee.FSU says they might sue if they can't find a suitable replacement.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-florida-state-west-virginia-0204-20120204,0,1027441.story

Looks like FSU and OU (FSU has reached out to a few other schools too) are talking about playing again on 9/8.

Whoa. Where at?

The WVa game was scheduled for Tallahassee so I assume FSU wants to host. Right now OU's only scheduled non-conference game is Notre Dame on 10/27. So if they could line up two patsies as lead-ins I don't think OU would have a problem going to Tallahassee again.

As a broker with FSU tickets I'm on board with OU coming back.

 

[The Commish]

Diggs to Maryland?

 

[BigJohn]

Diggs to Maryland?

He's set to announce in an hour, and there have been 'sources close to the situation' that have been quoted as saying he's been going to every school on his list.

 

[jonboltz]

Diggs to Maryland?

He's announcing his decision at a restaurant/pub about 100 yards from Maryland campus.

 

[GDogg]

Diggs is super late to his own announcement. He just walked into the building.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't see that one coming

 

[DCThunder]

Diggs is super late to his own announcement. He just walked into the building.

WaPo Story on Diggs from this morning.

 

[gump]

Anyone following this Nkemdiche fella?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7535392/colleges-already-line-2013-top-football-prospect

He's being compared to Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, Reggie White, and Bo Jackson....and called the Southeast's best prospect since the early 80's.

 

[SteevieG]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

 

[gump]

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

All I know is what's semi-public obviously....but there are rumors of a silent commit...but nothing announced.UGA apparently didn't recruit his older brother until it was too late, even though he wanted to attend UGA....he ended up at Ole Miss. That issue supposedly hurt UGA a lot and has Ole Miss in the picture for his commit, as his dad wants his sons to play together.UF, LSU, USC among others he's considering.

 

[Clayton Gray]

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

All I know is what's semi-public obviously....but there are rumors of a silent commit...but nothing announced.UGA apparently didn't recruit his older brother until it was too late, even though he wanted to attend UGA....he ended up at Ole Miss. That issue supposedly hurt UGA a lot and has Ole Miss in the picture for his commit, as his dad wants his sons to play together.UF, LSU, USC among others he's considering.

Hopefully he'll go to Ole Miss, so we won't have to worry about a great team being even better.

 

[Tecumseh]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

Dude is an absolute monster.

 

[GDogg]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

Dude is an absolute monster.

Not anything new since it was mentioned above, but from what I've read, he's either going to Georgia (30 minutes from his HS) or Alabama (where his head coach graduated from).

 

[gump]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

Dude is an absolute monster.

Not anything new since it was mentioned above, but from what I've read, he's either going to Georgia (30 minutes from his HS) or Alabama (where his head coach graduated from).

ESPN has an article saying Ole Miss now leads....but then again thats from ESPN.

 

[GDogg]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

Dude is an absolute monster.

Not anything new since it was mentioned above, but from what I've read, he's either going to Georgia (30 minutes from his HS) or Alabama (where his head coach graduated from).

ESPN has an article saying Ole Miss now leads....but then again thats from ESPN.

I know UCLA is trying to get involved (Mora's Georgia ties seem to be coming in handy), but they have no chance. A guy who is dialed into recruiting in the South has said that it's going to either be Georgia or Alabama.We're a year away from Signing Day, though, obviously, so anything can happen.

 

[wadegarrett]

J.T. Barrett commits to Ohio State

Ohio State picked up its 10th commit on Wednesday and its first quarterback of the 2013 recruiting class. Urban Meyer’s first quarterback commit is from the Lone Star State.

Four-star quarterback J.T. Barrett (Wichita Falls, Texas/Rider) confirmed via text message that he has verbally committed to the Buckeyes. A 6-foot-1, 210-pound dual-threat option, Barrett chose Ohio State over offers from LSU, Nebraska, Arizona, Baylor and a host of other schools.

“I feel Ohio State is the place for me,” Barrett said, “and I felt if I would have went somewhere else, I would be missing out. I wanted to be a part of the Buckeye family.”

 

[The Commish]

J.T. Barrett commits to Ohio State

Ohio State picked up its 10th commit on Wednesday and its first quarterback of the 2013 recruiting class. Urban Meyer’s first quarterback commit is from the Lone Star State.

Four-star quarterback J.T. Barrett (Wichita Falls, Texas/Rider) confirmed via text message that he has verbally committed to the Buckeyes. A 6-foot-1, 210-pound dual-threat option, Barrett chose Ohio State over offers from LSU, Nebraska, Arizona, Baylor and a host of other schools.

“I feel Ohio State is the place for me,” Barrett said, “and I felt if I would have went somewhere else, I would be missing out. I wanted to be a part of the Buckeye family.”

Full offer list. Best I can tell:Ohio State, Arizona, Baylor, Illinois, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Texas, Texas Tech

Can't put my finger on it, but seems like a "strange" list. Does this mean Meyer is forgoing Zaire and Chapman from in state or are they taking a couple QBs this year?

 

[BigJohn]

J.T. Barrett commits to Ohio State

Ohio State picked up its 10th commit on Wednesday and its first quarterback of the 2013 recruiting class. Urban Meyer’s first quarterback commit is from the Lone Star State.

Four-star quarterback J.T. Barrett (Wichita Falls, Texas/Rider) confirmed via text message that he has verbally committed to the Buckeyes. A 6-foot-1, 210-pound dual-threat option, Barrett chose Ohio State over offers from LSU, Nebraska, Arizona, Baylor and a host of other schools.

“I feel Ohio State is the place for me,” Barrett said, “and I felt if I would have went somewhere else, I would be missing out. I wanted to be a part of the Buckeye family.”

Full offer list. Best I can tell:Ohio State, Arizona, Baylor, Illinois, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Texas, Texas Tech

Can't put my finger on it, but seems like a "strange" list. Does this mean Meyer is forgoing Zaire and Chapman from in state or are they taking a couple QBs this year?

My link

 

[Glass Joe]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent.

Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

 

[BigJohn]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

 

[The Commish]

J.T. Barrett commits to Ohio State

Ohio State picked up its 10th commit on Wednesday and its first quarterback of the 2013 recruiting class. Urban Meyer’s first quarterback commit is from the Lone Star State.

Four-star quarterback J.T. Barrett (Wichita Falls, Texas/Rider) confirmed via text message that he has verbally committed to the Buckeyes. A 6-foot-1, 210-pound dual-threat option, Barrett chose Ohio State over offers from LSU, Nebraska, Arizona, Baylor and a host of other schools.

“I feel Ohio State is the place for me,” Barrett said, “and I felt if I would have went somewhere else, I would be missing out. I wanted to be a part of the Buckeye family.”

Full offer list. Best I can tell:Ohio State, Arizona, Baylor, Illinois, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Texas, Texas Tech

Can't put my finger on it, but seems like a "strange" list. Does this mean Meyer is forgoing Zaire and Chapman from in state or are they taking a couple QBs this year?

My link

Not sure of the point here. Have the stopped recruiting him?

 

[wadegarrett]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

 

[The Commish]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

I don't care where he gets the talent as long as he gets it. He's far exceeded my expectations thus far.

 

[jb1020]

I've seen every game he's played at Grayson. Grayson is the H.S. where kids in my neighborhood go.

He is, quite simply, a beast. Easily the best high school football player I've ever seen.

In the State Championship game this year he carried the ball something like 8 times in a row on the opening drive. And he's a defensive player...

He's committed to Alabama, but word is UGA is cutting into that commitment.

Dude is an absolute monster.

Not anything new since it was mentioned above, but from what I've read, he's either going to Georgia (30 minutes from his HS) or Alabama (where his head coach graduated from).

ESPN has an article saying Ole Miss now leads....but then again thats from ESPN.

I know UCLA is trying to get involved (Mora's Georgia ties seem to be coming in handy), but they have no chance. A guy who is dialed into recruiting in the South has said that it's going to either be Georgia or Alabama.We're a year away from Signing Day, though, obviously, so anything can happen.

Hate to break the news but he's a Miss State secret commit. Not really, we signed his HS QB out of desperation on signing day last year. It was worth it for the photo opp alone.

He's Bama bound.

 

[gump]

Hate to break the news but he's a Miss State secret commit.

Not really, we signed his HS QB out of desperation on signing day last year. It was worth it for the photo opp alone.

Whatever it takes...is that little dude in the pic the HS QB you signed?

 

[jb1020]

Hate to break the news but he's a Miss State secret commit.

Not really, we signed his HS QB out of desperation on signing day last year. It was worth it for the photo opp alone.

Whatever it takes...is that little dude in the pic the HS QB you signed?

Its the guy in the black, Nick Schuessler. He certainly doesn't look 6'4" in that picture. We've had worse looking guys as starters.

 

[The Commish]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

I don't care where he gets the talent as long as he gets it. He's far exceeded my expectations thus far.

And the "robbing" will continue if Meyer really wants to mold OSU after Oregon.

 

[BigJohn]

J.T. Barrett commits to Ohio State

Ohio State picked up its 10th commit on Wednesday and its first quarterback of the 2013 recruiting class. Urban Meyer’s first quarterback commit is from the Lone Star State.

Four-star quarterback J.T. Barrett (Wichita Falls, Texas/Rider) confirmed via text message that he has verbally committed to the Buckeyes. A 6-foot-1, 210-pound dual-threat option, Barrett chose Ohio State over offers from LSU, Nebraska, Arizona, Baylor and a host of other schools.

“I feel Ohio State is the place for me,” Barrett said, “and I felt if I would have went somewhere else, I would be missing out. I wanted to be a part of the Buckeye family.”

Full offer list. Best I can tell:Ohio State, Arizona, Baylor, Illinois, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Texas, Texas Tech

Can't put my finger on it, but seems like a "strange" list. Does this mean Meyer is forgoing Zaire and Chapman from in state or are they taking a couple QBs this year?

My link

Not sure of the point here. Have the stopped recruiting him?

Stopped? Doubt it. But they have turned their focus elsewhere. IMO, Turbisky commits soon.

 

[BigJohn]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

I don't care where he gets the talent as long as he gets it. He's far exceeded my expectations thus far.

And the "robbing" will continue if Meyer really wants to mold OSU after Oregon.

Oregon is molded after Meyer.

 

[The Commish]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

I don't care where he gets the talent as long as he gets it. He's far exceeded my expectations thus far.

And the "robbing" will continue if Meyer really wants to mold OSU after Oregon.

Oregon is molded after Meyer.

The Oregon I've watched has never looked like anything Meyer put out on the field. I'd prefer they slide to what Oregon does actually. Take all the small, fast "athletes" you want. Will be easier for the other school in the conference. The system may be very similar but the application isn't close IMO. Kelly's taken a bona fide offense and reduced it to a gimmicky shell of itself. Not sure why Meyer would want to do that especially without the personnel to do that.

 

[BigJohn]

God im sick of schools with weak instate high school programs poaching Ohio talent. Not to say OSU doesn't recruit out of state but Michigan has made this a priority this recruiting season. They've taken a lot of talent from Ohio....

This year is bad, but honestly, if you took all the Ohio players out of Michigan's history, they would be a shell of what they are now.

What can you say, Hokie likes the Ohio talent.

I don't care where he gets the talent as long as he gets it. He's far exceeded my expectations thus far.

And the "robbing" will continue if Meyer really wants to mold OSU after Oregon.

Oregon is molded after Meyer.

The Oregon I've watched has never looked like anything Meyer put out on the field. I'd prefer they slide to what Oregon does actually. Take all the small, fast "athletes" you want. Will be easier for the other school in the conference. The system may be very similar but the application isn't close IMO. Kelly's taken a bona fide offense and reduced it to a gimmicky shell of itself. Not sure why Meyer would want to do that especially without the personnel to do that.

Well, I dont get the comparisons to Oregon at all. Meyer is recruiting the guys that fit his system. Now, after the RRod disaster, I can guarantee you he will not be completely moving towards the type of 'athlete' you are referring to. That just isn't going to fly here. So far, his recruiting is fitting in perfectly with what most tOSU fans would expect. He is definitely going to some of those type of 'athletes', but he is not ignoring the prototypical 'Ohio State athlete'.