ST Article

[NWLB]

I think expectations among athletes is that getting in the door makes four or five years a given.

In principle, make them earn their way on the field, give or take injuries. I am not saying to tell kids to go away if they are recruited in good faith, try their best in good faith, but wind-up not as good as those on other teams. Because that is one aspect to bear in mind. Some grants may have a firm GPA requirement, and that is fine. But we don't tell these kids up-front to produce "X" number of tackles for loss, or "Y" number of TDs. Nor do I think we should do so. Yet I do think that some kids write-off anything beyond college, and milk the ride for what it is worth.

The real difficulty is in figuring out a standard to hold kids too. So much of judging an athletes performance, against their potential, is truly subjective. We "think" they are able to do "X." We do not "know." And everything these kids do, is directly impacted by the play of those lined up against them, which further sujectivizes the judgment. (I may have just invented a word there)

So can and should we grade athletic performance, base grants on a standard? Sure. But figuring that standard out, within something like the NCAA? I am not sure if it can really be done well enough to do the job.

[sportydude1818]

I highly doubt clawson addressed the group as a whole. Each player is a seperate case. A 5th year is a privilage and only used when a player will have a positive impact on the team. If a player has fallen behind in school and not contributed to the team than why on earth would you waste a scholarship on this type of player.

I promise you that if any one of these players you are refering to gives bg a better chance to win they will be invited back for a 5th year. It has absolutely nothing to do with who recruited them

[FalconTurf]

So can and should we grade athletic performance, base grants on a standard? Sure. But figuring that standard out, within something like the NCAA? I am not sure if it can really be done well enough to do the job.

Upset former recruits and their families, upset university administrators, NCAA rules and fans who look for W's must all be satisfied to a reasonable degree to remain employed as a coach. I think all these factors and many more go into the process of evaluating players every year. Tough decisions when dealing with student-athletes and their parents while satisfying all the other parties involved in the academic and athletic success of the program.

It's fun to play head coach on the internet boards but this thread really has touched on how difficult of job it really is to be a successful head coach.

[Flipper]

If you have qualms re the "5th year controversy", check out the level of monkeyshines, capers and outright shenanigans going on in the SEC with respect to honoring commitments made to student athletes.

http://www.oversigning.com

[Globetrotter]

I highly doubt clawson addressed the group as a whole. Each player is a seperate case. A 5th year is a privilage and only used when a player will have a positive impact on the team. If a player has fallen behind in school and not contributed to the team than why on earth would you waste a scholarship on this type of player.

I promise you that if any one of these players you are refering to gives bg a better chance to win they will be invited back for a 5th year. It has absolutely nothing to do with who recruited them

5th years are almost always given. They were promised a chance to graduate from BG. If they are still competing they deserve that chance.

[jg4242]

I highly doubt clawson addressed the group as a whole. Each player is a seperate case. A 5th year is a privilage and only used when a player will have a positive impact on the team. If a player has fallen behind in school and not contributed to the team than why on earth would you waste a scholarship on this type of player.

I promise you that if any one of these players you are refering to gives bg a better chance to win they will be invited back for a 5th year. It has absolutely nothing to do with who recruited them

5th years are almost always given. They were promised a chance to graduate from BG. If they are still competing they deserve that chance.

No, they have to earn the 5th year of scholarship money like every other student on campus. 4 years is a chance. If they prove that they are deserving of a 5th year of scholarship money, then they should get it, but it shouldn't be automatic. Most students who receive full scholarships get 4 years worth of money. After that, they have to reapply and hope they make the cut, or pay their way through a 5th year. Why should we treat football players differently?

[BGDrew]

There's no such thing as a guaranteed 4-year scholarship. Coaches can decide to not renew a scholarship every year.

[jg4242]

There's no such thing as a guaranteed 4-year scholarship. Coaches can decide to not renew a scholarship every year.

Yes, just like the University can decide not to renew a scholarship for a non-athlete at any time for a failure to maintain a certain standard. As it should be!

[Globetrotter]

There's no such thing as a guaranteed 4-year scholarship. Coaches can decide to not renew a scholarship every year.

Try running a program by doing that. I get what you are saying about accountability but its just a horrible way to run a program. If a student comes in, works hard, obeys the rules and was redshirted for a year they should get the chance to use up their fourth year of eligibility. You kick out players before that then how do you create a sense of loyalty in the program? "We want you here until we can use you and when we decided we can't you are out?"

A coach needs the players to buy into his system for this to work especially at our level. If the players are afraid they will get the rug pulled out from under them after they thought they agreed to 4 years of elegibility that would certainly hurt that cause. It doesn't matter if the player would or would not get the 4th year yanked, once the idea that it can be yanked gets in the picture thats not going to be good for the team.

The academic scholarship is not a fair comparison. 5 years of a scholarship are the common practice in athletics. There is no such thing as a redshirt in chemistry.

[kdog27]

There's no such thing as a guaranteed 4-year scholarship. Coaches can decide to not renew a scholarship every year.

Try running a program by doing that. I get what you are saying about accountability but its just a horrible way to run a program. If a student comes in, works hard, obeys the rules and was redshirted for a year they should get the chance to use up their fourth year of eligibility. You kick out players before that then how do you create a sense of loyalty in the program? "We want you here until we can use you and when we decided we can't you are out?"

A coach needs the players to buy into his system for this to work especially at our level. If the players are afraid they will get the rug pulled out from under them after they thought they agreed to 4 years of elegibility that would certainly hurt that cause. It doesn't matter if the player would or would not get the 4th year yanked, once the idea that it can be yanked gets in the picture thats not going to be good for the team.

The academic scholarship is not a fair comparison. 5 years of a scholarship are the common practice in athletics. There is no such thing as a redshirt in chemistry.

+ 1