Should Bo Pull Scholarships of Underachievers? Yes.

[HuskerinSunDiego]

It hurts our program that too many recruits don't end up seeing the field. Micah Kreikenheimer (is that how it's spelled?) is the classic example of why we are hurting. Here's a way to fix the problem with recruits that don't pan out: In the future, tell recruits that they have to remain in the top 85, or else they can lose their scholarship. These recruits all think that they'll be #1, so they will laugh at such a disclaimer. However, when they later fall off the radar, they cannot claim they weren't warned. This gives Bo the ethical high ground to pull a scholarship from a guy. I don't have any problem with this approach.

[gratefullred]

I would have no problem with a guy like Collins Okafor getting 3 years of college education then pulling the strings. As long as you are honest with the kids you are recruiting.

[kchusker_chris]

So you advocate oversigning? (Essentially this is the same thing)

[Hingle McCringleberry]

If that is how you define ethics you need to rethink yourself....

[Pedro Guerrero]

Micah Kreikenheimer

 

The player that T.O. signed after he fired Billy C. What a complete waste of a scholarship and one that should have never been given.

[majech]

I'm fine letting them play out their scholarship. When the player commits to a university, the player cannot go to another school of the same level without sitting out a season. The players are expected to honor their commitment and I think the universities should honor theirs. Too many recruits don't see the field because they are either in the dog-house or have not been good enough to play

[HuskerinSunDiego]

So you advocate oversigning? (Essentially this is the same thing)

 

 

The problem that I have with over signing is that the players aren't told that their scholarships can be yanked. My point is that, so long as you give fair advanced warning, there's no problem with yanking the scholarship. We are trying to prepare these kids for life? What better education than to learn that underachieving does NOT result in rewards.

[Stickney]

Wow. Kreikeheimer suffered several injuries. Okafor was highly rated and didn't pan out. Nice you pointed them out.

 

 

With all the talk about Bo and staff not developing talent, who is to blame?

 

 

All scholarships are 1 year and renewable. There is a reason you don't hear to many teams (alabama) pulling schollies. It's an easy target by an opponent.

 

I can't recall if it passed, but I know there was discussion of allowing teams to offer 4 year binding scholarships in addition to 1 year renewable.

[HuskerinSunDiego]

If that is how you define ethics you need to rethink yourself....

 

What's so wrong with saying, "If you don't pull your weight, your gone"? Every single one of us faces this every single day when we go to work. Why should these kids get special treatment? I'd have an end-of-the-year review and tell the kids, "You will remain on scholarship for the spring, but by next fall you won't have a scholarship." It gives them plenty of time to transfer or make other plans. Why is that so unethical? This is sports. Sports has always been about the best receiving the rewards and the not-so-good not getting rewards.

[3rd and long]

Nope, to me that scholarship is a contract. If the player transfers, he is penalized by the NCAA by having to sit out a year. If the coach pulls the scholarship from a kid, then he should somehow be penalized also.

 

On a related recruiting note, I also think that verbal commitments should be binding. Seems like once a kid gives a verbal, other schools actually increase the pressure on them.

[HuskerinSunDiego]

When the player commits to a university, the player cannot go to another school of the same level without sitting out a season.

 

 

This isn't true for a guy who hasn't played a snap. If he didn't play for the whole year, then he redshirted and can immediately transfer.

[HeyBurke]

I think that if a player underachieves in the classroom and undermines the team, then it would be fair to pull their scholarship. But, if they're busting their balls in the classroom and on the practice field, then there is no reason to pull it. It's easy for us on the outside to say that Player X should lose their scholarship, when we have no idea what happens inside the program.

[Stickney]

This argument is silly on several levels.

 

 

In essence you are saying Bo and staff aren't good talent evaluators and need mulligans.

 

 

So, why do you think they would replace a bad choice with a better choice?

 

 

 

 

Further, from the news reports, some of the non playing schollie seniors are some of the highest character, show up to practice and work guys NU has. On a team that from a distance seems to lack leaders, those lunch pail guys are invaluable.

[MJSkers]

Sorry I completely disagree with this. How do you define the level of expectation? You have say 85 guys with scholarships, all of which can't play at the same time. How in the world do you say what their expectation is? You're going to tell a kid that he's good enough to work is butt off every single day, take classes, go to practice....then if he doesn't get on the field or play well on the field you are yanking his scholarship? That's ridiculous. We need every single player we have....no matter if they see the field or not. Some guys only get playing time because others get hurt....maybe the player above him is just that much better. I mean, what about the guys that had to sit behind Suh? Is it their fault they had a superior player in front of them? You can't gauge expectation.

 

Additionally, no player in their right mind would want to come to Nebraska if they knew they had a chance to lose their scholarship because they don't meet some undefinable level of expectation, then not be able to transfer and play for a year.

[HeyBurke]

Sorry I completely disagree with this. How do you define the level of expectation? You have say 85 guys with scholarships, all of which can't play at the same time. How in the world do you say what their expectation is? You're going to tell a kid that he's good enough to work is butt off every single day, take classes, go to practice....then if he doesn't get on the field or play well on the field you are yanking his scholarship? That's ridiculous. We need every single player we have....no matter if they see the field or not. Some guys only get playing time because others get hurt....maybe the player above him is just that much better. I mean, what about the guys that had to sit behind Suh? Is it their fault they had a superior player in front of them? You can't gauge expectation.

 

Additionally, no player in their right mind would want to come to Nebraska if they knew they had a chance to lose their scholarship because they don't meet some undefinable level of expectation, then not be able to transfer and play for a year.

 

Damn straight.