ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
WYCowboy said:
Umm, we were talking NCAA football not just WYO football and yes it happens nationally. Thus the SYSTEM needs work.
Brick wall indeed.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Sounds like...
- Thread starter PokeOLoco
- Start date
Umm, we were talking NCAA football not just WYO football and yes it happens nationally. Thus the SYSTEM needs work.
Brick wall indeed.
ragtimejoe1 said:
Kids lose academic scholarships for not performing all the time. Many times due to an illness or personal injury. Academic students really help a universities image to the tune of millions of dollars. How universities are ranked and compared are things like student ACT score, student rankings from high School, etc. USC and many top universities use these numbers to recruit companies to their job fairs and promise high quality graduates and in helping writing grants. Yes graduate students on scholarship can be limited in outside jobs they can take.
You really underestimate the role of top academic students in a University
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Hmm, I can't find any examples of a medical hardship withdrawl resulting in a loss of academic scholarship nor can I find an example of academic scholarships being rescinded because they found someone better. I would definitely appreciate a link so that I can learn more about it. Interesting that you bring up grad students because they are given employee status (in most disciplines) and are protected from being terminated as long as they perform the duties they were hired to do.
I know most of you think it is just fine to back out of an offer at the last second and leave the kid with no good options. I know you think it is just fine to pull their scholarship if someone better comes along. I realize you find it perfectly acceptable to pull a scholarship and leave a hurt player high and dry. I get that is your belief, but you won't convince me it is okay.
It would be intersting to see if your beliefs were steadfast if you were hurt on the job and fired with no compensation. Would you be steadfast in your belief if you signed a contract with someone and they backed outIin the middle of the job because they found aomeone that paid better and it costs you thousands. Would those beliefs hold steady if you were hired for a new job and you quit your old job, sold your house, and moved athousand miles only to have them say, oops our bad, we don't need you. I'm sure these are all acceptable as well.
I know most of you think it is just fine to back out of an offer at the last second and leave the kid with no good options. I know you think it is just fine to pull their scholarship if someone better comes along. I realize you find it perfectly acceptable to pull a scholarship and leave a hurt player high and dry. I get that is your belief, but you won't convince me it is okay.
It would be intersting to see if your beliefs were steadfast if you were hurt on the job and fired with no compensation. Would you be steadfast in your belief if you signed a contract with someone and they backed outIin the middle of the job because they found aomeone that paid better and it costs you thousands. Would those beliefs hold steady if you were hired for a new job and you quit your old job, sold your house, and moved athousand miles only to have them say, oops our bad, we don't need you. I'm sure these are all acceptable as well.
kdwrightuwyo
Well-known member
Didn't you read what Jarhead wrote? The school is honoring Tanner's medical treatment and scholarship even after the injuries and not being allowed to be on the team for NCAA reasons?
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
kdwrightuwyo said:
Didn't you read the thread? We are discussing CFB not WYO specifically. As I said to jarhead, I'm glad WYO didn't do what other universities have done.
laxwyo
Well-known member
The contracts are year to year for athletic scholarships, no?
I've known people that get promoted and laid off the next day. The kids learn valuable life lessons. You get fired if you're not performing as expected. The medical thing is different. Maybe some schools yank scholarships when a kid is injured but not medically disqualified, I don't know. It sounds like Wyoming does it right.
I've known people that get promoted and laid off the next day. The kids learn valuable life lessons. You get fired if you're not performing as expected. The medical thing is different. Maybe some schools yank scholarships when a kid is injured but not medically disqualified, I don't know. It sounds like Wyoming does it right.
If they were all playing by the same rules, then maybe I'd agree with you. Will received nothing from the football team, yet had to be there for everything required; practice, study hall, games, film sessions and the rest of the lot. He received no tuition assistance, room & board, books, not even a seat at the training table. But he was still valued enough to play in 11 games. This doesn't exactly sound like everyone playing by the same rules. In fact, it is fairly obvious that it is two sets of rules. I'd say Will held up his end of the "team". Now he gets cut, and to transfer will have to sit a year, which leaves him with one year of eligibility. If he wants to continue to play DI football he'd have to find a team that wants him for one year for the 2017 season. I assume this garbage NCAA rule is to prevent prima donna players from jumping from team to team each season. But generally speaking, prima donna players would have a scholarship and wouldn't get cut. Until Bohl comments on this, I'll have to take Will's accounts as accurate. While Bohl may not want to comment on this particular situation in detail, there's always the generic "broke team rules", "not in shape", etc. If Bohl is cutting guys that play and keeping guys that don't, he had better have a sure-fire plan, that works. He just lost his 4 year hall pass with me. He, more than anyone else set the bar so low this season, that I probably would have been happy to see 4 wins next year. With UC Davis and Eastern Michigan again, I assumed this would be a slam dunk. Now I'll be pretty pissed if we don't win 6 games, or at least the (apparently) new total to be bowl eligible, 5 wins!Wyovanian said:
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
laxwyo said:
Technically, they are year to year but should not be. If a kid loses his schollie, does he still have to sit a year if hetransfers within fbs. If it is a 1 year contract only, then why sit a year? Make it a true 1 year contract. Not only can they cut kids but can also influence where they transfer to. A coach? He can turn his back and run at any time. Regardless of scholarship status, they can also regulate the kids' ability to make money off their own likeness. In other words, the system has some level of control even if kids aren't on schollie or are between scholarships. The system needs some work.
Note: I'm not talking about discipline problem, academic problems, etc. If a coach swings and just overestimates a kid's potential, it is bs that kid loses a schollie. We need a system that offers those kids the opportunity to finish school but not count against football scholarship totals. Same goes for injury (like WYO did). The verbals need to be more binding as well.
It can cut both ways. In return a player's commitment can be more binding in some capacity.
laxwyo
Well-known member
In the article, Will says "give me a chance in the spring. I know I can change". And the something else about letting his emotions. There's more to it. You don't cut a contributing walk-on. Sounds like a trouble maker or has a bad attitude. Bohl and his staff decided they didn't need him. I'm ok with that
kdwrightuwyo
Well-known member
Reading the interview and a few of his comments, I think Will was plum worn out from working and school and football. To me it sounds as if he didn't have the energy for all three, so the coach made the hard decision to make the young man concentrate on two of his big priorities instead of struggle with all three.
If you're too tired to pull your weight at practice, you're a hinderance to the program. Unfortunately, that's life.
I wish the young man many successes in life. He's a hard worker and will land on his feet. Things happen for a reason, though it may not be apparent at the time.
If you're too tired to pull your weight at practice, you're a hinderance to the program. Unfortunately, that's life.
I wish the young man many successes in life. He's a hard worker and will land on his feet. Things happen for a reason, though it may not be apparent at the time.
Tutein was a walk-on, and last I checked, no one pulled out a gun and threatened to kill puppies if he didn't play football. He knew that he wasn't guaranteed anything but a CHANCE for a scholarship, and he didn't get it.cowboyz said:
We can't treat walk-ons differently simply because of what they've CHOSEN to do.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Wyovanian said:
I think we need to get rid of the "if you were recruited" clause and also the 1 time transfer for walk-ons. Mainly, get rid of the "if you were recruited" rule or make sure the University policy is to have the staff only e-mail potential walk-ons; no phone calls or visits.
If a walk-on is cut or not offered a scholarship, they should be able to transfer and play immediately without regard to how or if they were recruited.
But walk-ons are treated differently (see my examples above), so I feel they should be treated differently in given opportunities elsewhere (ie-not have to sit a year), especially if they are cut. If they just want to walk, that could be argued. But if the skills that Will or any other walk-on has that can assist them in a more affordable/appropriate education are restrained, or eliminated if they have one year of eligibilty remaining, how can anyone argue that this is fair? It's not a Wyo thing, it's an NCAA thing, that Bohl has abused in this case (my opinion). The NCAA goes out of their way to create a have and have nots situation with student athletes whose potential are not seen at an earlier age, or who end up at a situation not conducive to their full potential growth.Wyovanian said:
If a student at a university goes to an open athletic try-out and they get cut in 5 minutes, and they want to pursue this sport at a different university, they still would have to sit out a year and have already lost a year of eligibility. These type NCAA rules are bullshit and if the big conferences take the NCAA out at the knees, I'm all for it. At least it will start to define college student-athletes vs. semi-pro-athletes that play for a college. Let's draw the line and have the NFL/NBA, semi-pro college athletics and true college athletics.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
cowboyz said:
This already happens (I think). My understanding is that walk-ons have a 1 time transfer where they do not have to sit a year. The exception is if they were recruited (which is the reason for my post above). There are a few criteria that define "recruited": 2 that I remember are 2 phone calls and/or an official visit would be considered "recruited".
If a walk-on is not recruited, they are free to go anywhere at anytime and play immediately. I would agree that the "recruited" part needs to be abandoned.
Yes, eliminate the "recruited" part, as that makes it worse. A couple of "we can see you on our team, but can't offer a scholarship right now" phone calls can certainly sway a teenager to attend your university. And then the coach gets to zing them. No hair off the coaches ass, but the students suddenly find themselves without a team.ragtimejoe1 said: