Online Now 1348

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

On this Board 190
Record: 4078 (1/25/2013)

Online now 1340
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

just curious about how you guys feel about this

  • I’m just curious as to why some people are so bent out of shape about fans wanting to get rid of dead weight or kids that won’t play. A poster on the FR listed some players that he thought should “get rid of” or have schollies rescinded ( McVey, Berry, TY, Fellows, Graham, Durham, Griffin, etc..). Why not? Arguably, for a coach and his staff to be successful, the coach needs to run his team like a CEO runs a company. If you put the best people for the job in the job then you have the best chance at succeeding. A HR manager won’t hire someone just so that they can sit around and do nothing when they could hire someone who actually has a positive effect on the team/company. I’m sure that we all love Archie but let’s be honest; his son doesn’t deserve a scholarship to TOSU based on merit/talent. The others listed above won’t play at all (that’s not even including some of the lower ranked recruits that Meyer told them that they didn’t “fit” his system.

    I understand the argument about fairness and honoring scholarships, I do. If you were given a scholarship to play football but aren’t and won’t which side isn’t honoring their part of the deal? If you were given a scholarship to OSU that was for academics but continued to get a 2.1 gpa, I doubt that you’d remain on scholarship. I just wondered what other posters thought about this.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SLVRBULLIT82

  • Think about how many kids are on any D1 football roster. Many of them regardless of the program will never see real action. They could be great players but someone on the team might simply be better. That doesn't mean you pull their scholly. If we did that we are no different than the corrupt teams in the SEC that over-sign every year. If we expect the players to be loyal to the university we need to show loyalty to them.

    Turdtastic

  • Personally I don't have an issue with it if they aren't contributing to the team and have no real shot of doing so. You should get a scholly because you can play and are willing to work hard enough to make a contribution to the team, not because you got one frosh year and then ride the bench for 3 more years feeling entitled to one. I'm not saying that any players are that way, but if one is then I've got no issue pulling it. It's a privilege to play at OSU, not a right.

    Urban_Meyer

  • SLVRBULLIT82 said...

    I’m just curious as to why some people are so bent out of shape about fans wanting to get rid of dead weight or kids that won’t play. A poster on the FR listed some players that he thought should “get rid of” or have schollies rescinded ( McVey, Berry, TY, Fellows, Graham, Durham, Griffin, etc..). Why not? Arguably, for a coach and his staff to be successful, the coach needs to run his team like a CEO runs a company. If you put the best people for the job in the job then you have the best chance at succeeding. A HR manager won’t hire someone just so that they can sit around and do nothing when they could hire someone who actually has a positive effect on the team/company. I’m sure that we all love Archie but let’s be honest; his son doesn’t deserve a scholarship to TOSU based on merit/talent. The others listed above won’t play at all (that’s not even including some of the lower ranked recruits that Meyer told them that they didn’t “fit” his system.

    I understand the argument about fairness and honoring scholarships, I do. If you were given a scholarship to play football but aren’t and won’t which side isn’t honoring their part of the deal? If you were given a scholarship to OSU that was for academics but continued to get a 2.1 gpa, I doubt that you’d remain on scholarship. I just wondered what other posters thought about this.

    Two things are wrong with your reasoning. First, these recruits committed to tOSU while a dark cloud of uncertainty was hanging over the program. Dump them now in fair weather and the karma spirit will exact its revenge. If you're wondering from a CEO's perspective: coming from a business background, you never want to upset your suppliers. If Urban Meyer revokes the scholarship offers of so-called "deadweight" verbal commits, high school coaches will remember and Meyer's recruiting will become exponentially more difficult.

    In sports, like in business, relationships are EVERYTHING. Meyer is a smart man so I'm sure he realizes this as well.

    TimBucktoo

  • These "kids" made a commitment to OSU (or any school) to be on the football team in exchange for 4 (or 5 or even 6) years of free education. They had a choice of schools to attend - the better the program the greater chance any particular player will never see the field. If you want to put a clause in the offer that says "we may rescind your scholarship if we are not satisfied with your football performance" then that would be fine. If so, a lot of players would never come to the university, but would go to school somewhere that didn't have that clause in their offer.

    You may not be aware, but several schools have been sued in recent years (I know at least one SEC and one PAC) by players who have had their scholarships revoked, and I believe in every case the student won and was granted his scholarship.

    If the option is that the school will find a non-athletic scholarship to cover the student's ride until graduation, then OK. But if not, then you cannot pull scholarships because you are not satisfied with performance. I understand that many fans of college football, and many OSU fans, are becoming very mercenary with their win at any cost attitude, but there is still a right way and a wrong way to do things. I don't want to see OSU get the reputation that some schools have of pulling scholarships if things don't "work out." It would be a shame if Meyer brings this policy to OSU.

    Edit: While college football itself is certainly a "business," just as the operation of a university as a whole is a business, the relationship of the players to the university is still one of student-athletes. And as far as a student losing an academic scholarship because they don't maintain their GPA - I'm sure the scholarship states that a certain GPA must be maintained otherwise there may be consequnces. I don't think such a declaration of required on-field performance is included in athletic scholarships, nor should it be IMO.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by grccoins on 12/13/2011 at 12:08 PM

    signature image

    At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

    grccoins

  • I agree with the OP. Don't confuse this with oversigning. Oversigning is signing more players on signing day than you know you have available. As long as you inform the player at the end of the season or by January that he has not met expectations then that gives that player the winter break and/or the spring to look for other schools to go to. It's when you yank out his feet in June and July and tell him to get outta here is when you have the oversigning issue.

    And the OP was not referring to the current verbal commitment on the team. I agree that this is a special circumstance in which you can't turn them down now. Now if this was any normal coaching change, then Meyer would have full discretion to mix it up as he pleases. This happens ALL THE TIME when a new coach comes to town. It's not the school's recruits, it's his recruits. He's got a job to keep and excel at. No point using the old boss equipment and machinery if you can get your own, more functional equipment and resources.

    The academic scholarship analogy fits perfectly here. If you don't perform, then your spot gets taken away from you.
    .

    LvilleBuckeye

  • SLVRBULLIT82 said...

    I’m just curious as to why some people are so bent out of shape about fans wanting to get rid of dead weight or kids that won’t play. A poster on the FR listed some players that he thought should “get rid of” or have schollies rescinded ( McVey, Berry, TY, Fellows, Graham, Durham, Griffin, etc..). Why not? Arguably, for a coach and his staff to be successful, the coach needs to run his team like a CEO runs a company. If you put the best people for the job in the job then you have the best chance at succeeding. A HR manager won’t hire someone just so that they can sit around and do nothing when they could hire someone who actually has a positive effect on the team/company. I’m sure that we all love Archie but let’s be honest; his son doesn’t deserve a scholarship to TOSU based on merit/talent. The others listed above won’t play at all (that’s not even including some of the lower ranked recruits that Meyer told them that they didn’t “fit” his system.

    I understand the argument about fairness and honoring scholarships, I do. If you were given a scholarship to play football but aren’t and won’t which side isn’t honoring their part of the deal? If you were given a scholarship to OSU that was for academics but continued to get a 2.1 gpa, I doubt that you’d remain on scholarship. I just wondered what other posters thought about this.

    Each of the young men had a choice during the recruiting process the same as the coaching staff having a choice on who to offer the scholarships to. As long as a kid keeps a clean slate student wise I could never back a coach that cleans house of players that can't make the grade on the field. The most important trait a coach or any person can have is his word. The coaching staff has to do a good job of choosing who gets offered to avoid this situation. Let Alabama and LSU play that game. We can win the right way.

    This post was edited by UpperBuck on 12/13/2011 at 12:21 PM

    UpperBuck

  • TimBucktoo said...

    Two things are wrong with your reasoning. First, these recruits committed to tOSU while a dark cloud of uncertainty was hanging over the program. Dump them now in fair weather and the karma spirit will exact its revenge. If you're wondering from a CEO's perspective: coming from a business background, you never want to upset your suppliers. If Urban Meyer revokes the scholarship offers of so-called "deadweight" verbal commits, high school coaches will remember and Meyer's recruiting will become exponentially more difficult.

    In sports, like in business, relationships are EVERYTHING. Meyer is a smart man so I'm sure he realizes this as well.

    the guys that i listed were not brought in during a "dark" moment. even if they did, that was up to them coming in. either way, thanks for your input. I see where you're coming from with regards to the relationships with high school coaches.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SLVRBULLIT82

  • I actually have not stopped looking at the pic you have.......so I guess I will just agree and keep looking!!!!! JFC!

    Anyway..really, the recruits have a right to change their mind just as the coaching staff has a right to revoke a scholly or run someone off the team that they feel is now not a good fit.

    At the end of the day it is a business......i would like to think if anyone of us verbaled to a school and that school ended up in some serious trouble you would HAVE to reconsider your options and decide what is best for you.

    signature image
    signature image
    signature image

    bcroft

  • But it's ok for these kids to leave early for the NFL....this is big boy football...not UNICEF

    BIGBuckeye

  • rmelroy said...

    Each of the young men had a choice during the recruiting process the same as the coaching staff having a choice on who to offer the scholarships to. As long as a kid keeps a clean slate student wise I could never back a coach that cleans house of players that can't make the grade on the field. The most important trait a coach or any person can have is his word. The coaching staff has to do a good job of choosing who gets offered to avoid this situation. Let Alabama and LSU play that game. We can win the right way.

    i agree, if we stoop to that level..just call us the SEC

    chuck75

  • SpoonBuck said...

    I agree with the OP. Don't confuse this with oversigning. Oversigning is signing more players on signing day than you know you have available. As long as you inform the player at the end of the season or by January that he has not met expectations then that gives that player the winter break and/or the spring to look for other schools to go to. It's when you yank out his feet in June and July and tell him to get outta here is when you have the oversigning issue.

    And the OP was not referring to the current verbal commitment on the team. I agree that this is a special circumstance in which you can't turn them down now. Now if this was any normal coaching change, then Meyer would have full discretion to mix it up as he pleases. This happens ALL THE TIME when a new coach comes to town. It's not the school's recruits, it's his recruits. He's got a job to keep and excel at. No point using the old boss equipment and machinery if you can get your own, more functional equipment and resources.

    The academic scholarship analogy fits perfectly here. If you don't perform, then your spot gets taken away from you. .

    thank you for actually reading all of my post. This is what i was really talking about. of course, no one else discussed the academic scholarship analogy. Speaking of relationships...if I was the CEO of a company i would like everyone to know that i employ the best, not just people who want to be here. Every year, finding 25 kids to play for OSU is the easy part. Getting the really good ones to come is the hard part.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SLVRBULLIT82

  • All I know some people talk out both sides of their mouth, cause they say these kids should be paid , look at all the money they bring into the univ. . Then the same people say we can't pull scollies just because they don't perform well . Is college football a business or not ? If its like a business then perform or you should be gone , just like any other business.

    ssalumni

  • ssalumni said...

    All I know some people talk out both sides of their mouth, cause they say these kids should be paid , look at all the money they bring into the univ. . Then the same people say we can't pull scollies just because they don't perform well . Is college football a business or not ? If its like a business then perform or you should be gone , just like any other business.

    remember this....if we would do something like that and pull a scholarship from a kid who we already offered under Tressel, the high school coaches of these kids would be pissed. No quicker way to hurt your recruting in state than to piss off the high school coaches in Ohio. With urban here there is no need to piss off the local coaches and battle for Ohio kids.

    Tornado_ZD

  • Turdtastic said...

    Think about how many kids are on any D1 football roster. Many of them regardless of the program will never see real action. They could be great players but someone on the team might simply be better. That doesn't mean you pull their scholly. If we did that we are no different than the corrupt teams in the SEC that over-sign every year. If we expect the players to be loyal to the university we need to show loyalty to them.

    Damn well said. We cannot start playing by the SEC model. If we in good faith offer a kid a scholly and he makes the grades and comes to practice and holds up his end of the bargain, than the scholly should stand. We cannot dump kids so we can have another place for a new one..........if we do......welcome to the SEC North. No thanks! Go Bucks!!

    terryt3361

  • NCAA Admin. Rule 17.11 says FBS teams are limited to 105 scholarship players. So even when you deduct for redshirts, injuries, walk-ons, and specialists (kickers, punters, long snappers and holders), you're still looking at a active roster that's almost 4-deep at every position. It's mathematically improbable to think that when you're turning your roster over every 4-5 years, all those kids are going to play. Some are going to quit/transfer/flunk out/get dismissed, some won't be able to play because of injuries, some will just not pan out. I can't find a source but I want to say you're allowed to suit 85 for home games. The B1G allows 70 for road games so assume 20 of the 105 are redshirts and another 15 of the 85 who get to dress for home games don't travel to away games. Assuming your travel squad contains your best/most indispensable players, that means you need about 65 guys, including the specialists. That's 3-deep at best at most positions, with some parts interchangeable, i.e., a back-up FLK can also play WR or a back-up OT can also play OG. 3 QBs + 15 OLs + 6 WRs + 3 TEs + 2 FBs + 3 RBs + 12 DLs + 9 LBs + 12 DBs = 65. Add your specialists and you're at 70.

    You don't want 1st and 2nd stringers running the opposing team's offense, defense and special teams in practice. But as some point, you have to acknowledge you're recruiting for a) depth, b) development (e.g., Tyrann Mathieu, who was a 2-star prospect), but also c) the scout team. You need practice players. Here's another way of looking at it: start with a minimum of 44 1st and 2nd stringers who have to be able to compete every down, plus ideally, another 22 3rd stringers. That's 66. Add your specialists and redshirts back in and that means you have 10-15 scholarships leftover for guys you really don't need, like Adam Griffin, but for one reason or another, want (he's a legacy if there ever was one!), a long shot you want to take a chance on, or for walk-ons who have worked hard and earned a scholarship for their senior year.

    iowabuckeyes

  • terryt3361 said...

    Damn well said. We cannot start playing by the SEC model. If we in good faith offer a kid a scholly and he makes the grades and comes to practice and holds up his end of the bargain, than the scholly should stand. We cannot dump kids so we can have another place for a new one..........if we do......welcome to the SEC North. No thanks! Go Bucks!!

    If they go to class, get the grades, put forth effort on the field, and don't do anything too stupid, you keep them. We all make mistakes.

    Remember several years ago when OSU pulled the offer from a receiver in Florida? We received plenty of bad publicity over that.

    All scholarships are currently for a year at a time. The NCAA may be changing that in the near future.

    ButlerBuck

  • There's a noble way to do this, a way to look out for the best interest of a kid and the program. If a kid isn't going to get playing time here, Taylor Graham, you can sit him down and tell him this man to man. Offer your help to him, help him find a school at a lower lever or like a MAC school that would be more then willing to give him a scholly. That way you free up a scholly but the kid doesn't have it yanked from him. As a coach you can develop good relationships with other coaches and write the player like Graham something equivalant to a letter of recognition. Must do this as a poster said as early as possible in Jan. You aren't pushing him out but you are being open and honest. Tell him you appreciate all his hard work and it doesn't make him a bad person, it's just not working out here. Sit down with his family if you have to or call them, just be a man up front. Tell him that you hope he still loves the university,.. So there's a way to handle it with tact. Also, as for the OP some of those guys you mentioned are going to get medical hardship scholly's. They will have their 4 years paid for but it will free up a football scholly. There's just ways to help the individual and the school.

    duccivespucci_2

  • TimBucktoo said...

    Two things are wrong with your reasoning. First, these recruits committed to tOSU while a dark cloud of uncertainty was hanging over the program. Dump them now in fair weather and the karma spirit will exact its revenge. If you're wondering from a CEO's perspective: coming from a business background, you never want to upset your suppliers. If Urban Meyer revokes the scholarship offers of so-called "deadweight" verbal commits, high school coaches will remember and Meyer's recruiting will become exponentially more difficult.

    In sports, like in business, relationships are EVERYTHING. Meyer is a smart man so I'm sure he realizes this as well.

    +1

    Umm, yeah, it's not a business at the end of the day. It's intercollegiate athletics and a 4-year scholarship offer, once made and accepted shouldn't be rescinded.

    People are relationships are ultimately more important than winning. At least they should be.

    That doesn't mean that Meyer cannot be honest with a player on his chance of playing under the new regime.

    "Buckeye born and bred, a Buckeye 'til I'm dead"

    miguelissimo

  • If you offered a scolly , you shouldn't pull it away unless the kid fails in the classroom or on the field. Let me explain , by failing I don't mean not starting. Some of these " benchwarmers" or towel holders know they won't see the field.. Ever. So what do they do , regress. They are a worse player when they leave than when they came in. This hurts the team because interposition competition declines . But when they are replaced by someone who is hungry competition levels go up and so does the level of play . Scolly should be earned on the field the same as it must be in the classroom. If you fellow bucknuts don't think this team has some serious ass draggers on it you are fooling yourself.

    wholephoenix79

  • ButlerBuck said...

    If they go to class, get the grades, put forth effort on the field, and don't do anything too stupid, you keep them. We all make mistakes.

    Remember several years ago when OSU pulled the offer from a receiver in Florida? We received plenty of bad publicity over that.

    All scholarships are currently for a year at a time. The NCAA may be changing that in the near future.

    i remember that....i think he went on to have a great career at Fla ST.....penn...!!!

    kempdaven

  • ^^^ I am not saying be sec like. I am saying it is a job and it should be earned. It shouldnt be just a great seat in the shoe is you guys get what I am saying

    wholephoenix79

  • SLVRBULLIT82 said...

    I’m just curious as to why some people are so bent out of shape about fans wanting to get rid of dead weight or kids that won’t play. A poster on the FR listed some players that he thought should “get rid of” or have schollies rescinded ( McVey, Berry, TY, Fellows, Graham, Durham, Griffin, etc..). Why not? Arguably, for a coach and his staff to be successful, the coach needs to run his team like a CEO runs a company. If you put the best people for the job in the job then you have the best chance at succeeding. A HR manager won’t hire someone just so that they can sit around and do nothing when they could hire someone who actually has a positive effect on the team/company. I’m sure that we all love Archie but let’s be honest; his son doesn’t deserve a scholarship to TOSU based on merit/talent. The others listed above won’t play at all (that’s not even including some of the lower ranked recruits that Meyer told them that they didn’t “fit” his system.

    I understand the argument about fairness and honoring scholarships, I do. If you were given a scholarship to play football but aren’t and won’t which side isn’t honoring their part of the deal? If you were given a scholarship to OSU that was for academics but continued to get a 2.1 gpa, I doubt that you’d remain on scholarship. I just wondered what other posters thought about this.

    If it is due to lack of effort on the field / in the classroom, off the field issues of violation of team rules or breaking law, or physical problems that prevent player from playing at a high level then I have no problem with it.

    The latter can still be on scholarship after receiving medical, it just wouldn't count toward 85 limit.

    If player is working hard and wants to be at OSU then I think they should remain.

    If player isn't or doesn't want to compete in new offensive scheme then they should move on to somewhere else that is a better fit.

    BuckeyeMark

  • +1 I have to agree with you there. What is the benefit having some kid on the bench when he knows he has absolutely no chance playing in the game unless it is against Akron or some other bad MAC school. You would think these kids would want to play elsewhere at a smaller school or some other Big Ten school like an Indiana or Minnesota and get playing time in the game. This is the exact reason why it is going to take two to three years to get to the national championship game under this new coach. People get let go all the time for redundancy and having unproductive kids on the field is a weakness for the most part. Right now, Meyer is going to have to live with Fickell's recruiting mistakes. Urban is going to need to coach up these kids and make them better players. I think these kids are around just to increase Ohio State's APR and nothing else. They get their degree and OSU gets the NCAA off their back about a low APR score.
    Players can rescind offers from NCAA schools, is it easy for a coach to rescind an offer to a player since there is no scholarship just a committment.

    This post was edited by buckibball4ever on 12/13/2011 at 2:32 PM

    buckibball4ever

  • Firstly, I apologize SlvrBullit for mischaractizing your post by focusing on 2012 verbal commitments. Still, I think it's basically the same situation where you'd be kicking a kid to the curb simply because a better option came along. Usually, I am not a judgmental person, but that is wrong. It is one thing if a player is not buying into the program and refuses to give 100%. That person should be released. However, I think it would treachery to get rid of a player who is giving 100%, merely because he is taking up a scholarship that could be used for a faster, quicker, potentially more productive player.

    Even if the school releases the player and provides a good recommendation, by NCAA regulation, the player still must sit out a year, which counts against eligibility, unless he transfers to a lower division school. So once a player signs the letter of commitment, his "choices" become rather limited. That some people would still be okay with releasing a player who has not been up to par, but not for lack of effort, might be shocking -- except that it seems we've become a me-first nation where "success" trumps everything, and people are expendable for the right price.

    Regardless of the context (sports or business), karma can be a @$#*(!

    GOD help us!

    TimBucktoo