IdaGriz01 said:Huh? Not sure what your beef is. I was commenting on the notion of making a fifth year of eligibility a non-scholarship option. While it's an interesting thought, I do not see that as a viable approach -- and it looks to me like we agree on that point.PlayerRep said:Please, if the kid is good enough to play and contribute, and deservies [sic] a scholarship, why not? Do you prefer to give the schollie to a younger player who isn't as good.[sic, ?]IdaGriz01 said:...
My statement about possible resentment was based on the assumption that five years of eligibility would go along with five years of scholarship support. Making the fifth year non-scholarship might address that issue, but
(1) student-athletes with limited financial resources of their own would not be able to use it, and
(2) the "carry-over" athletes would still take up team slots and make them unavailable for prospective new students. Good deal for the school since they could simply not use that number of scholarships. Bad deal for possible new student-athletes.
Sorry, but you need to learn about football is you are going to post about it here.
But you just cannot resist getting in an extra dig, can you? Who made you the big football sheriff around here? And, BTW, the eligibility/scholarship situation is not just about football.
You seem to relish tossing casual insults at people you know absolutely nothing about. I'd make you a "Foe," except you do indeed offer useful insights now and then. FYI, while I never "played the game" -- at the collegiate level -- I do know a good deal about football ... no matter what your totally uninformed opinion may be. So why don't you give it a rest?
Don’t waste your time, Ida. I used to get angry about some of PR’s remarks. Now I just chalk them up to his mental health problems and pity him.