Help me understand something

[Moiraine]

So, we have these lopsided recruiting classes and have for a long time. I get why. We have a certain # leaving each year and it just kind of turns out that way. Then it continues because 4-5 years later that small class graduates. But here's what I don't get...

 

Last year we took 24, which is a big class. This year we can take... I dunno how many, I just know it's small. Wouldn't it have been wiser to save a couple of last year's scholarships for really good players this year instead of offering 6 2-star players? (Let's just assume for a minute that stars mean everything and those players aren't all diamonds in the rough... and obviously we needed Brown. Then there's Bush when we needed a QB last minute because Darlington got injured).

 

Or does every team just stack and take the max each year even if they get a lot of less-talented players to top off the years where they have a lot of scholarships?

[BigRedBuster]

It depends on the school.

 

There are some that take the maximum in every way shape or form while stretching the recruiting rules in every way possible. Then, if they get a kid in and they see he isn't going to work out, they "get rid of him". Many people (me included) find this a slime ball way of doing it.

 

There are some who take up to the max and keep the kids and do the best they can with them.

 

Then, there are some (like Nebraska the last number of years) that never quite would take the maximum amount because they must be saving a few for something in the future.

 

These three options gives you a range of having a huge number of kids flowing through the system all the way down to relatively few flowing through. Personally, I hope Nebraska works somewhere in the middle. I want them to be respectful and ethical in how they handle recruits and players. But, I want the maximum good players on the team.

 

I'm fine with saving a few for walkons that have earned them. But, come September 1st, we should have 85 scholarship athletes on the team.

[Atbone95]

The saving scholarship plan, while it seems practical, puts your team at a disadvantage. Willingly going into a season with 80 scholarship kids on your roster puts you at a severe depth disadvantage with someone who has 85.

[Hedley Lamarr]

The saving scholarship plan, while it seems practical, puts your team at a disadvantage. Willingly going into a season with 80 scholarship kids on your roster puts you at a severe depth disadvantage with someone who has 85.

Self inflicted sanctions, the previous regime mastered it

[Mavric]

The saving scholarship plan, while it seems practical, puts your team at a disadvantage. Willingly going into a season with 80 scholarship kids on your roster puts you at a severe depth disadvantage with someone who has 85.

 

Not saying I'm in favor of but it could be the difference between handicapping your team for one year vs. handicapping them for four/five years if you just grab warm bodies.

[Atbone95]

 

The saving scholarship plan, while it seems practical, puts your team at a disadvantage. Willingly going into a season with 80 scholarship kids on your roster puts you at a severe depth disadvantage with someone who has 85.

 

Not saying I'm in favor of but it could be the difference between handicapping your team for one year vs. handicapping them for four/five years if you just grab warm bodies.

 

No I agree.

[strigori]

Keep non graduation attrition in mind also. Which is also pretty common. We seem to have a handful of those every year. Now a first year coach may be best suited to not use everything in the shortened recruiting year at his new school to avoid just taking bodies (Pelini did this in his first year, and wasted a lot of spots)

 

Now, the method that the SEC is notorious for, basically not renewing the scholarship might be coming to an end. Historically scholarships were technically a one year at a time thing. But many schools, including most of the Big Ten, are going to four year scholarships that bind the school for four years.

[Hujan]

It depends on the school.

 

There are some that take the maximum in every way shape or form while stretching the recruiting rules in every way possible. Then, if they get a kid in and they see he isn't going to work out, they "get rid of him". Many people (me included) find this a slime ball way of doing it.

 

There are some who take up to the max and keep the kids and do the best they can with them.

 

Then, there are some (like Nebraska the last number of years) that never quite would take the maximum amount because they must be saving a few for something in the future.

 

These three options gives you a range of having a huge number of kids flowing through the system all the way down to relatively few flowing through. Personally, I hope Nebraska works somewhere in the middle. I want them to be respectful and ethical in how they handle recruits and players. But, I want the maximum good players on the team.

 

I'm fine with saving a few for walkons that have earned them. But, come September 1st, we should have 85 scholarship athletes on the team.

 

 

I don't have a huge problem with pulling a kid's scholly if he's just a turd. If the guy is just taking up space and buried on the roster, I'm cool with cutting him loose. That's the real world. Better to learn that lesson sooner rather than later. (Though I would allow kids whose scholarships are pulled to transfer to another school and play immediately without having to sit out a year.)

 

Now, intentionally over-signing kids with the knowledge that you won't be able to honor all of the scholarships when those kids show up at campus is a dick move. That said, given the inevitable roster fluctuations in which people transfer or quit the team or recruits don't qualify, I think teams could be excused for recruiting one more player than they have scholarships for.

[Hedley Lamarr]

So schools are guaranteeing your scholly if you can run fast or catch a ball etc but crap out at the college level but have no problem yanking a scholarship from a kid who can't keep above a certain gpa for his academic scholarship?

[MinnwiscowaSker]

So schools are guaranteeing your scholly if you can run fast or catch a ball etc but crap out at the college level but have no problem yanking a scholarship from a kid who can't keep above a certain gpa for his academic scholarship?

Pretty basic metrics in place for an academic scholarship and they know that going in. What metrics define "crap out at the college level?" Not starting by junior year? Less than 50 tackles made? If that's spelled out and kids know it, fine. Consider me doubtful.

[NoLongerN]

A growing issue as well is the "blue-shirting" issue. The $EC is the worst at taking advantage of loopholes.

 

Blue-shirting: This scheme was originated by New Mexico State but has not been practiced widely around the nation. Here’s how it works: Officially, a player arrives in the summer as a walk-on. Once football practice begins, he’s awarded a scholarship. The school is allowed to count the scholarship forward — against the 2015 class — but the player can play immediately.

There’s a big catch: The student-athlete may not have been recruited, as defined by NCAA bylaws. That means no official visit to campus, no in-home visits from coaches, no signed National Letter of Intent or athletic aid. Only a handful of players, if any, would meet that criteria.

[Hedley Lamarr]

 

So schools are guaranteeing your scholly if you can run fast or catch a ball etc but crap out at the college level but have no problem yanking a scholarship from a kid who can't keep above a certain gpa for his academic scholarship?

Pretty basic metrics in place for an academic scholarship and they know that going in. What metrics define "crap out at the college level?" Not starting by junior year? Less than 50 tackles made? If that's spelled out and kids know it, fine. Consider me doubtful.

Just seems foolish to me that a kid that runs fast in HS can now get 100% guaranteed scholarship for 4-5 years but a kid that was really smart in HS can't

[ScottyIce]

A growing issue as well is the "blue-shirting" issue. The $EC is the worst at taking advantage of loopholes.

 

Blue-shirting: This scheme was originated by New Mexico State but has not been practiced widely around the nation. Here’s how it works: Officially, a player arrives in the summer as a walk-on. Once football practice begins, he’s awarded a scholarship. The school is allowed to count the scholarship forward — against the 2015 class — but the player can play immediately.

There’s a big catch: The student-athlete may not have been recruited, as defined by NCAA bylaws. That means no official visit to campus, no in-home visits from coaches, no signed National Letter of Intent or athletic aid. Only a handful of players, if any, would meet that criteria.

 

I got "blue-shirted" in college for Underwater Basket Weaving. Now that's one heckuva sport fellas.

[strigori]

So schools are guaranteeing your scholly if you can run fast or catch a ball etc but crap out at the college level but have no problem yanking a scholarship from a kid who can't keep above a certain gpa for his academic scholarship?

I'm pretty sure the guarantee has stipulations about adhering to university policy, and remaining academically eligible. The guarantee is more of an assurance that the football equivalent of a "c" student does not lose the scholarship.

[Red Five]

I think the 4 yr guaranteed schollys is a little bit of a misnomer. Sure it sounds great, but you can still get around it. Sit a kid down after 2-3 years and basically tell him "it doesn't look like you are going to see the field here. We'll keep you around, but if you ever want to play, you should consider transferring." I'm guessing a lot of kids will get that message and either transfer or quit.