Who's Leaving?

[The Dude]

At this point I think we'd be better off without QBs.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Why do we want to pull Fyfe's schollie but let Stanton keep his?

Good question.

 

Because Stanton was a scholarship recruit whereas Fyfe arrived as a walk-on. Leftover scholarships go to walk-ons as a reward every year depending on availability. If such scholarships are available this year, Fyfe could be a candidate again. But there may be others in line in front of him, such as seniors who have played a lot of snaps (I don't know if there are any).

 

Stanton may have been encouraged to transfer (or say, focus on medical school). It wasn't long ago that most thought this was a foregone conclusion and I think many people still want this. We are a few scholarships over the limit after all, and it wouldn't be surprising to see two QBs leave so that they can turn over the QB position more quickly. We know they plan to sign two QBs in this next recruiting cycle.

 

That said, while Stanton has a real case of nerves, he also still has a high ceiling. He throws a strong ball. Maybe a year really behind the scenes, in a new system, will settle him down and get him back on track. As it stands now that seems unlikely and if Stanton sticks around this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave after next Spring (unless his standing improves).

 

I may be wrong but my memory is almost all of Ryker Fyfe's throws I've seen in live action have been ducks. He did have the nice swing to the flats in the spring game that resulted in a TD, and he is a strong runner with game experience. His consistency throwing the ball is probably at least as much an issue as every QB not named Darlington on the roster. Based on the Spring Game, he didn't really distinguish himself from Tyson Broekemeier -- another junior walk-on QB.

 

Your reasoning that Stanton should keep his schollie because he was recruited and Fyfe was not makes no sense. You're basically saying that high school evaluation is more important than evaluation in college where the coaches see every rep in practice.

 

Having "a high ceiling" means "he's not as good as projected in recruiting". IMO, it's a meaningless phrase.

 

If "didn't really distinguish himself from Tyson Broekemeier" is the standard for pulling a QB's scholarship, then which QB's distinguished themselves?

[knapplc]

Why

 

Did

 

You

 

Make

 

Five

 

Posts,

 

Jarvis?

Edited April 27, 2015 by knapplc
I combined my seven posts to unclutter the thread. It wasn't much of a joke, anyway.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

Tom Armstrong had better get it done this year. The kind of experience he has shouldn't guarantee him anything.

[ScottyIce]

Lol RRJR

 

Under the new rules, Stanton can't have his scholarship pulled. Fyfe has no chance at any position on this roster. He should lose his 1 YEAR SCHOLARSHIP.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

Well Knapp I haven't posted much on the board over the last few months. Just trying to get my post count up to snuff.

[Red Five]

Under the new rules, Stanton can't have his scholarship pulled. Fyfe has no chance at any position on this roster. He should lose his 1 YEAR SCHOLARSHIP.

What year did the guarantees start? If after Stanton was already here, then is everyone grandfathered to the guarantee?

[zoogs]

Your reasoning that Stanton should keep his schollie because he was recruited and Fyfe was not makes no sense. You're basically saying that high school evaluation is more important than evaluation in college where the coaches see every rep in practice.

No, no, my point is that if they want Stanton to leave, they would encourage him to transfer. He came here as a scholarship recruit so it's (probably) not as straightforward to simply pull the scholarship. See Delaney's comments about "four year offers" but I don't think I've ever seen that happen before either, at least in the B1G. Talking about effectively kicking a scholarship athlete off the team is quite different from renewing or not renewing a walk-on's scholarship from a pool that may or may not be available this year.

 

With a walk-on, they came here without a scholarship. Kind of the breaks. As a walk-on you're taking any surplus scholarships that come available as a reward. They may not be available for you every year. Certainly if you're a non-senior who is way down the list at QB I would expect you to be quite down the list of walk-on scholarship award candidates.

 

Put another way, if Broekemeier isn't regarded as a candidate to receive a scholarship, why should Fyfe be?

[ScottyIce]

 

Under the new rules, Stanton can't have his scholarship pulled. Fyfe has no chance at any position on this roster. He should lose his 1 YEAR SCHOLARSHIP.

What year did the guarantees start? If after Stanton was already here, then is everyone grandfathered to the guarantee?

 

I believe the guaranteed 4 years just went underway recently. You are not considered a recruited athlete if you are a walk-on therefore the 4 year guarantee doesn't pertain to Fyfe or any walk-on for that matter. If you walk-on and earn a scholarship a couple years down the line, the University is at liberty to continue to honor that scholarship or take it away.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[RedDenver]

 

Your reasoning that Stanton should keep his schollie because he was recruited and Fyfe was not makes no sense. You're basically saying that high school evaluation is more important than evaluation in college where the coaches see every rep in practice.

No, no, my point is that if they want Stanton to leave, they would encourage him to transfer. He came here as a scholarship recruit so it's (probably) not as straightforward to simply pull the scholarship. See Delaney's comments about "four year offers" but I don't think I've ever seen that happen before either, at least in the B1G. Talking about effectively kicking a scholarship athlete off the team is quite different from renewing or not renewing a walk-on's scholarship from a pool that may or may not be available this year.

 

With a walk-on, they came here without a scholarship. Kind of the breaks. As a walk-on you're taking any surplus scholarships that come available as a reward. They may not be available for you every year. Certainly if you're a non-senior who is way down the list at QB I would expect you to be quite down the list of walk-on scholarship award candidates.

 

Put another way, if Broekemeier isn't regarded as a candidate to receive a scholarship, why should Fyfe be?

 

I misunderstood your point. What you're saying makes sense in a "by the rules" sort of way.

 

But the university pulling a scholarship from one player while most of the other scholarships are guaranteed, seems like a PR nightmare and possible lawsuit.

 

One analogy that comes to mind is academic scholarships. Imagine that two students had the exact same full-ride academic scholarship, but student A got his coming out of high school while student B got his during his time in college. Now imagine that the university pulled student B's scholarship because he got a 2.9 GPA one semester, but student A didn't get his scholarship pulled even though he got a 2.8 GPA. How do you think things would go when the university tells the press that student A had better grades in high school so he got to keep his scholarship? Would saying student A had "a higher ceiling" make any difference?

 

Obviously it's not a perfect analogy since GPA is a number, whereas football performance is primarily subjective, but I think you get the gist I'm trying to describe.

[zoogs]

Academic scholarships are a good example. They *are* annually (or quarterly) renewed contingent on performance.

 

And you hit at the disparity in scholarship recruits vs walk-ons who receive leftover scholarships. Not all scholarships are equal, and it's not totally unfair, either. The recruited scholarship athlete has a much better deal, but spaces are limited and so is the competition for those spots. That offer may have been the only reason they got pulled on campus, and they may not be able to afford the out-of-state tuition if they were forcibly converted to walk-on status.

 

The walk-on has a much less cushy path to earning and keeping a scholarship, which is certainly different, but I don't know about not fair. They signed up for it, and if they had received better offers coming out of high school they were free to pursue them.

 

FWIW, Stanton's ceiling doesn't figure too much in this discussion anyway -- many either think, expect, or even want him to transfer. If things don't change after another year in the system it's hard to imagine him not leaving eventually, but I guess as a recruited scholarship athlete he has the privilege of staying as long as he wants to. Certainly many other non-contributors have.

[Redux]

I'm sorry but after the spring game I just think Bush will give us the same headaches that Armstrong has.

 

Stanton has more playing time left than Fyfe, that probably factors in to any decisions. Also if Stanton has a higher ceiling than Fyfe does, that probably plays a big role too.

[Red Five]

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone given an example of a walkon being given a scholly one year and then taken away the next?

[StPaulHusker]

Are any of you not okay with the SEC over signing and cutting of players and okay with arbitrarily giving and stripping walk on's of scholarships?

 

If so, please explain the difference in your mind

[Mavric]

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone given an example of a walkon being given a scholly one year and then taken away the next?

 

I haven't always followed as closely as I have the last 3-4 years but I don't remember it happening. Of course, they were most often given to seniors or those who were set to be major contributors. Fyfe is somewhat of an outlier - he was the backup last year so that was in line with things but things have changed.