• 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 eGriz.com experience today!

Scholarships -- Don't Be Stupid

The insistence that coaches are perpetually threatening to cut scholarships is getting ridiculous. In response to a quote by Grizzle, Adam Hoge did not get a lawyer, nor were his or Dane Oliver's scholarship ever in danger. Brent Meyers' scholarship was increased by Coach Hauck.

Coaches can pull a players scholarship when he falls below their academic standard, flunks a drug test, or when the player ceases to do what is asked of him. Coaches may encourage players to move on to smaller schools where they can play, but Coach Hauck refuses to cut a player's scholarship simply because he is a lackluster football player. As one coach told me, it is not the player's fault he isn't good enough. The blame falls on the coach that recruited him.
 
Using an athlete's scholarship as tool to bludgeon the athlete would be counterproductive. It would be damaging to a school's reputation and hurt recruiting. Apparently, the institution has an option not to renew an athlete's aid package but it I would hope it would only happen in the most extreme circumstances.

I can't think of an instance of a scholarship being taken.
 
What about Pete Hamill? He was a running back on the team for four years ... a redshirt year, and then three years. However, in 2003, his senior year, he did not "make the team", and was no longer on the roster. I presume that means he lost his scholarship as well. I'm not certain this is true, I'm just presuming it is the case. If someone knows otherwise, please chime in.
 
That is disturbing.

I would hope the program would honor its commitment to the student-athletes. A recruiter pitches his five year vision to a 17 or 18 year old kid. He paints a picture of a good education and chance to participate in his sport. The institution has an obligation to the kid academically if the kid is doing his best.

I understand that the aid is awarded on a yearly basis but there is an implied four to five year commitment. It would be interesting to see how an institution would defend taking a scholarship from a kid who does all he can but doesn't quite make the grade.

I don't know about the Pete Hamill situation. If anyone has more info, please post it.
 
The difference there is that there was a coaching change. A new coach should be able to say who stays and who goes. Decisions made by former coaches should not "tie the hands" of the new coach.
 
Perhaps I'm old and sentimental, but I think that, unless he is in academic jeopardy or has committed some terrible crime, any kid who has devoted four years to a program deserves to finish out his career with that program. JMHO.
 
I don't know...........but perhaps he had an opportunity to be a part of the program in some fashion, but chose not to? Just a thought.
 
Loyal
Why should it matter if there was a coaching change? The kids commit to the program not the coach. Does that mean that when these coaches leave, all of the kids they recruited should be let out of their commitment and be able to follow the coach to the new school? Of course not! I agree that the university and football program need to follow through on their word. I understand that if the kid may not be good enough and isnt going to play you have the conversation with him and let him choose to stay on the team. If he chooses not to, ok but he gets to keep his scholorship money and finsh school. I mean after all isnt that what this is all about, a good education? Oh I forgot its about winning and nothing else matters.
 
I may welcome the thought that he be able to stay on the team. That is why I asked if he was offered the opportunity in a diminished capacity somehow. But I do not agree that a coach should have to give him a scholarship if he decides he doesn't warrant one. I realize it's cutthroat, but that is how it is. The coach's job and livelihood are up for grabs yearly based on how his team does. He should be able to choose who he wants to represent him, the University, alums and boosters on the field of play. To expect something different, IMHO, is not legitimate. If that is the case, coaches should have a contract for a minimum of five years. And here we give them yearly contracts which is just plain stupid.
 
yep. He was not invited to fall camp because there is a cap on the number of players that you can even have in camp, regardless of scholarship.
 
If I'm not mistaken Pete Hamil was asked to help coach, and I think did for a while, I'm not sure in what regard though.
 
Okay, scholarship or not, I still think it is a travesty that a kid will give his heart and soul for four years and then be told to hit the road....
 
It is sad when a kid isn't invited back, but isn't also a travesty when a coach pours his heart and soul into a program and gets fired? It's a competitive environment.
 
Yes, but the coach almost always gets to move on and coach somewhere else ... and the kid is SOL....
 
I don't know how scholarships should work. But if you can't make the cut, they you have no business being on the team. That works for coaches and players. If coaches don't cut it they get fired, if kid aren't good enough or are not going to be able to contribute then they need to either drop down a level or hang it up.
If a kid is given a scholarship for academics and falls below a certain GPA, they get their scholarship taken away. Why is it different in sports.
Would I feel sorry for the kid, yes, but that's how life goes.
 
JahGriz said:
If I'm not mistaken Pete Hamil was asked to help coach, and I think did for a while, I'm not sure in what regard though.

perhaps you're thinking about Kendell Selle. He went the route you mention. Word is the coach's weren't going to renew his scholarship, but had to because of the circumstances with his injury, so he helped out by coaching. Expect to see him help Carroll win another NC next year.

from the players i've spoken with, coaches "take away scholarships". usually what will happen is that they just won't renew[my term] the scholarship for the next season. Or, they can reduce the amount to a partial and in some cases players can't afford it so they have to quit.
Coaches might phrase things differently, chosing to say the player opted to move on....leaving out the part about the fact that they might let the player stay only if he was willing to walk on or take a reduction to a partial. Still, its not like its too common at UM, but more-so than it seems some would like to admit. Keep in mind i'm not saying its a bad thing, necessarily.
 
Back
Top