Alabama's recruiting strategy

#52
#52
Vols520 said:
No the fact that it's a crap policy makes it unsound. Meaning, why can't the players reassess?
Click to expand...


Tate Forcier, Ryan Mallett, Bryce Brown, BJ Scott, Star Jackson, Aaron Douglas, Colin Peek, Eric Locke, Mitch Mustain, et al.
 
#54
#54
bamawriter said:
Tate Forcier, Ryan Mallett, Bryce Brown, BJ Scott, Star Jackson, Aaron Douglas, Colin Peek, Eric Locke, Mitch Mustain, et al.
Click to expand...

All had to sit out a year. Coaches can cut and not have to suffer any real consequences. I'm ok with the system, but I can understand the point of the players and others that are against it. I think the reasoning behind the current system is that most coaches are more mature to just say, "Hey, I'm gonna cut you to open up scholly's" rather than giving a player not liking something and being immature and basically leaving each year like a free agent.
 
#56
#56
tvols75 said:
All had to sit out a year. Coaches can cut and not have to suffer any real consequences. I'm ok with the system, but I can understand the point of the players and others that are against it. I think the reasoning behind the current system is that most coaches are more mature to just say, "Hey, I'm gonna cut you to open up scholly's" rather than giving a player not liking something and being immature and basically leaving each year like a free agent.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
#59
#59
I'm not arguing Saban is doing anything wrong with how the rules are set up. Not at all...it is probably needed in fact to stay competitive.

What I am saying is the rule is effed up right now and needs to change. Comparing academic and athletic shcolarships is not apples to apples, no matter how many time it is brought up. Cutting these players is treating them like professional athletes, minus the...you know...pay.
 
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
I'm not arguing Saban is doing anything wrong with how the rules are set up. Not at all...it is probably needed in fact to stay competitive.

What I am saying is the rule is effed up right now and needs to change. Comparing academic and athletic shcolarships is not apples to apples, no matter how many time it is brought up. Cutting these players is treating them like professional athletes, minus the...you know...pay.
Click to expand...

While there is an academic component to an athletic scholarship, the primary requirement of the recipient is to perform on the field. If he or she fails to do so, then it is exactly the same as someone who fails to peform in the classroom.

If the athlete wants to get paid for playing football without going to college, he can go to Canada or make a run at the UFL.
 
#61
#61
bamawriter said:
While there is an academic component to an athletic scholarship, the primary requirement of the recipient is to perform on the field. If he or she fails to do so, then it is exactly the same as someone who fails to peform in the classroom.

If the athlete wants to get paid for playing football without going to college, he can go to Canada or make a run at the UFL.
Click to expand...

People understand the rule, we just don't necessarily agree with the rule. Is that so hard to understand?

Most coaches don't cut players for not panning out, unless there are other serious issues.
 
#62
#62
Now how does this policy go glove in hand with the 25 only rule? Say Saban cuts 4-5 kids from last years squad,,, he can only sign 25 kids right? After all, the 4-5 he cuts did qualify lfor school, so cannot be back counted, correct?

It seems this new rule helps enforce the kids keeping their scholarship for the full term.
 
#63
#63
bamawriter said:
While there is an academic component to an athletic scholarship, the primary requirement of the recipient is to perform on the field. If he or she fails to do so, then it is exactly the same as someone who fails to peform in the classroom.

If the athlete wants to get paid for playing football without going to college, he can go to Canada or make a run at the UFL.
Click to expand...

Define please.

Academic is clear cut. Maintain a defined GPA and you are fine.
 
#64
#64
Vols520 said:
People understand the rule, we just don't necessarily agree with the rule. Is that so hard to understand?

Most coaches don't cut players for not panning out, unless there are other serious issues.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am saying the rule is effed up and needs to be changed. I'm not saying what Saban/Miles/etc are doing is against the rules. I would expect Dooley to do the same thing if it is what is needed to become competitive.

I am saying it is completely unethical in the realm of amateur athletics...especially when the athletes don't really see any of the real money they are generating. If Saban/Miles/etc is getting $4 million a year, it should be on them to evaluate correctly.
 
#66
#66
bamawriter said:
How is "don't fall off the 3 deep" not clear cut?
Click to expand...

Is that the standard? Pray tell, what goes through Saban's mind? Would love to know. Would also like to know where this is stated as a prerequisite in order to be eligible for scholarship renewal.
 
#68
#68
rjd970 said:
Is that the standard? Pray tell, what goes through Saban's mind? Would love to know. Would also like to know where this is stated as a prerequisite in order to be eligible for scholarship renewal.
Click to expand...

Did you ever get a grade on a paper, project, or report that you simply didn't agree with? And the professor really didn't explain it? It was simply an arbitrary and capricious grade?

Well, if you're on an academic scholarship, that professor's judgement can affect your ability to maintain your schollie.

How is that any different than your coach making an arbitrary judgment about your performance on the field?
 
#70
#70
It's a two-way street. On one hand, cutting a player (and completely putting the screws to him as far as playing D-1) for no reason other than the coach didn't properly evaluate talent is incredibly unethical, laws and bylaws be damned. On the other hand, a coach needs to have leverage to protect against useless jackholes like the offspring of Craig James.

Personally, I like the Big Ten rule, which limits to a three-scholarship oversign per year (with accounting to the conference for any more than that). The odds of having players who are detrimental to the program is unlikely to exceed that number, and it forces the coaches to either evaluate talent better or else be stuck with someone who won't see the field.
 
#71
#71
bamawriter said:
Did you ever get a grade on a paper, project, or report that you simply didn't agree with? And the professor really didn't explain it? It was simply an arbitrary and capricious grade?

Well, if you're on an academic scholarship, that professor's judgement can affect your ability to maintain your schollie.

How is that any different than your coach making an arbitrary judgment about your performance on the field?
Click to expand...

Baloney. There is an agreed upon target that needs to be met with one example, the target is not there for the other. It isn't hard to understand. One professor in one class isn't going to completely derail the scholarship. A buddy of mine in school graduated with straight A's with the exception of one B in a philosophy class. So what. The head coach has the single authority to make all decisions in this regard. Your comparison is saying the single project or paper one might have bombed would be catastrophic to a scholarship. Ridiculous.

....To say nothing of a system treating amateur kids with the responsibilities of students as professional athletes without the bother of paying them what they are worth.

I understand your blind loyalty to Saban. I don't blame him for what he is doing. I am just saying the system and rules are screwed up right now and hypocritical to the stated mission of the NCAA and conferences. It is just like with anything else with loopholes...one would be stupid not to take advantage of it, but it doesn't necessarily mean the loophole is right or ethical.

How you can't see that is crazy.
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
How you can't see that is crazy.
Click to expand...

The stated mission of the NCAA is horsecrap. The NCAA is in place to maximize the money for its member institutions. Every single bylaw goes directly to that end. To think otherwise is delusional.

And what you seem to expect out of the schools is to show loyalty that none of these players are going to get in the real world. And you're jumping to "unethical" when the reality is that you simply don't like it. I don't like it when someone loses their job, even if it's warranted. That doesn't make the firing unethical.

And this stuff about the kids being treated like professionals is complete nonsense. They may not be compensated enough, but they are being compensated. I'm still paying off student loans that these players will never have to worry about. They get an education, lodging, food, books, and clothing. If they were just a little frugal, these guys could go from 18 to 23 without ever spending a dime. And they get that simply because they can play a game really well. I don't feel sorry for a kid who didn't measure up after the school spent thousands of dollars for his athletic gifts.
 
#73
#73
bamawriter said:
The stated mission of the NCAA is horsecrap. The NCAA is in place to maximize the money for its member institutions. Every single bylaw goes directly to that end. To think otherwise is delusional.

And what you seem to expect out of the schools is to show loyalty that none of these players are going to get in the real world. And you're jumping to "unethical" when the reality is that you simply don't like it. I don't like it when someone loses their job, even if it's warranted. That doesn't make the firing unethical.

And this stuff about the kids being treated like professionals is complete nonsense. They may not be compensated enough, but they are being compensated. I'm still paying off student loans that these players will never have to worry about. They get an education, lodging, food, books, and clothing. If they were just a little frugal, these guys could go from 18 to 23 without ever spending a dime. And they get that simply because they can play a game really well. I don't feel sorry for a kid who didn't measure up after the school spent thousands of dollars for his athletic gifts.
Click to expand...

Horsecrap or not, its hypocrisy at its worst. It really shouldn't be that hard to concede the NCAA allowing this to happen under the banner of amateur athletics is unethical at best. Kudos to your luvbuddy Saban for taking advantage of the loophole. Nobody is saying he is breaking any rules.

The irony here is that you seem to feel sorry for a coach making $4 million a year that can't seem to get it right when evaluating a player, so, obviously, it is the kids fault and should have to pay for the mistake.
 
#74
#74
rjd970 said:
The irony here is that you seem to feel sorry for a coach making $4 million a year that can't seem to get it right when evaluating a player, so, obviously, it is the kids fault and should have to pay for the mistake.
Click to expand...

I never said I felt sorry for anyone in the situation. I suppose I feel sorry for the player no longer getting to play where he wants. But a wise man once said "You can't always get what you want."

Personal story: I dated a girl while I was at Belmont who played post for the women's basketball team. She was physically gifted for the game, seeing as how she's 6'5", but she really didn't play with with any physicality or aggressiveness. After a redshirt year, and a freshman year where she mostly rode the pine, her coach informed her that her schollie wouldn't be renewed, and he ultimately brought in a transfer to fill the spot. Fortunately for Amanda, she's quite brilliant, and her 3.9 GPA was enough for her to go right onto an academic scholarship. And she plainly acknowledged that she simply wasn't as passionate about the game as she'd been in high school.

So don't think that I can't see it from the perspective of the athlete. I've seen the practice up close and I still don't have a problem with it.
 
#75
#75
Just leave.

bamawriter said:
I never said I felt sorry for anyone in the situation. I suppose I feel sorry for the player no longer getting to play where he wants. But a wise man once said "You can't always get what you want."

Personal story: I dated a girl while I was at Belmont who played post for the women's basketball team. She was physically gifted for the game, seeing as how she's 6'5", but she really didn't play with with any physicality or aggressiveness. After a redshirt year, and a freshman year where she mostly rode the pine, her coach informed her that her schollie wouldn't be renewed, and he ultimately brought in a transfer to fill the spot. Fortunately for Amanda, she's quite brilliant, and her 3.9 GPA was enough for her to go right onto an academic scholarship. And she plainly acknowledged that she simply wasn't as passionate about the game as she'd been in high school.

So don't think that I can't see it from the perspective of the athlete. I've seen the practice up close and I still don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top