TheVolCub08

Sure, it's easier for he school than the player, but using the term "a lot" is probably overstated. 1. It's incredibly easy for players not good enough to compete at a BCS level to transfer down into a smaller school, so long as the grades are there. 2. With the APR now in place, schools are actually punished for guys leaving early, and some have scholarship numbers reduced. That adds a potential handicap to schools.

Because they are required by the leagues they aspire to be in to spend a certain amount of time "somewhere" prior to becoming eligible to be drafted into those leagues. College is the best/easiest route. Plus, the college can replace that guy with a new one and keep the money train rolling. And a guy who loses his athletic scholarship because he's not good enough to maintain it is somehow banned from continuing to attend that institution or some other to finish his degree?

And here's a serious question for those of you who are so upset by schools not keeping kids on scholarship for 4 years... Why should a school honor a grant-in-aid for 4 years if the student athlete is not required to do so? Why should guys like Greg Oden and John Wall and Beanie Wells get to leave without honoring the grant-in-aid for 4 years? Where is the indignation over these "students" who use schools just to get to a professional league and not come anywhere close to earning a degree? And why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

so you use the #1 recruit in the country that year, a guy who has probably been professional since he was like 12, to back up what you're saying? great. "barack obama became president of the united states, looks like we can put the whole inequality and race relations thing to bed now." I used him because he is a B1G athlete. Had to take away that "of course that's true of , because he's in the SEC."

They are not revoked. They are simply not renewed. Big difference.

What type of anti-logic is this? "Until the problem you complain about is solved, you're just whiners. Once they fix it, then your point is valid." And besides, in your previous post you said you had "absolutely no issues" with it. There's a huge gulf between "college football players are employees working yearly contracts" and "don't pull the rug out on the 55 doctors and lawyers on each college football team's roster". I sincerely hope this is a troll. If not, this has to go down as one of the worst posts in internet message board history. Vandy, Duke, Baylor, Northwestern, possibly Stanford. Those are the 5 BCS conference schools that come anywhere close to having 55 scholarship athletes who will go on to careers like you've suggested. Those are also schools where scholarships would not ever be pulled due to performance on the field. It's not even close to reality. Not even in the neighborhood.

Hahahahahahah... SSR stalking me. Imagine that.

Could you imagine being some 18-year-old kid who's getting ready to move into the dorm and then being told you couldn't move in, and that your scholarship wasn't being offered to you anymore? Yeah, that's some [expletive] and something has to be done about it. Sounds like Big Slick has a bigger problem with the upper classmen having their schollies taken away, which I have absolutely no issues with. They are year-to-year grants in aid that are based on athletic ability, and if you're not good enough to maintain one, I don't see why any coach should be forced to keep offering them to you. However, I do think that if a coach signs more freshmen than he can feasibly get into school, he should face some sort of penalty for it. Not exactly sure what would be fair, but I agree that coaches who sign freshmen and then make them greyshirt or something else are reprehensible. I'd love to see the NCAA step in and set firm rules on this and punish offending institutions (by taking away one scholarship per oversigning?) 'TheVolCub08', seriously ? With a name like that? You're making it too easy for me. Yes scholarships are technically year-to-year grants but they have been used as de facto 4 year scholarships for athletes since the beginning of time. The only reason they aren't 4 year deals are for letting someone go when they do something reprehensible. Cutting them off a kid's lifeblood when he's a year away from his degree so you can try some new talent that might not make the team don't seem all that right. I can't believe your so cynical as to forget that the reason why these kids go to school (ostensibly) is to earn degrees. Enough of them don't get them anyway, we need to encourage even fewer? http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5926193 I cannot believe that you're naive enough to think that what "doesn't seem right" matters at all in major college athletics in 2010, at least in terms of how that applies to "student-athletes." Be clear here... I'm not arguing that the system is anything other than totally flawed. But, if the NCAA is going to allow its athletics to be run like a minor league, then I'm not at all going to begrudge teams for doing so. Anyone who believes the notion that most of these kids are students first is simply fooling themselves... or a fan of Northwestern. And anyone who thinks that the vast majority of these blue chip athletes want to be treated as students first has virtually zero idea what these kids are actually going to school for. It's not right. But it is what it is.

This is amazing. we thought you were good. so you suffered a career ending knee injury on the first day of practice? tough break. there's a nice JC you can attend just down the street. Good thing I didn't make that point, since a person in that condition would almost 100% of the time earn a medical hardship scholarship. At least you tried, though. #-o

I'm not at all surprised at the responses some of you have given. But I live in 2010, without the delusion that many blue chip athletes use college as anything more than a training ground for a professional league. And I'm also not naive enough to think that most colleges use these kids as anything more than a tool to bolster their own bottom-lines. Ohio State does not care if Pryor graduates [expletive] Laude, or if he graduates at all. They care if he wins games and puts butts in the seats and dollars in the bank. And Terrelle Pryor did not choose Ohio State because of a single class, major, or professor on that campus. He chose OSU for Saturdays and for a potential career in the NFL. To believe otherwise is incredibly naive. I'm not saying that I agree with the system, but it is what it is. The teams who win and will continue to win are the ones who understand the system and play to it. You may not like it, but it's 100% true. If you think it's a corrupt system, so be it. Once the NCAA agrees and does something to stop it, you will have a valid complaint. Until then, it's really just a bunch of sanctimonious whining. "But these are student-athletes..." Puh-lease. It's not 1963 in the NCAA anymore, folks. Right or wrong, that is the 100% truth, and you know it. You may not like it, but you know it's the truth. And if you don't, you likely cheer for a team that has a winning season once every 8 or 9 years.

Could you imagine being some 18-year-old kid who's getting ready to move into the dorm and then being told you couldn't move in, and that your scholarship wasn't being offered to you anymore? Yeah, that's some [expletive] and something has to be done about it. Sounds like Big Slick has a bigger problem with the upper classmen having their schollies taken away, which I have absolutely no issues with. They are year-to-year grants in aid that are based on athletic ability, and if you're not good enough to maintain one, I don't see why any coach should be forced to keep offering them to you. However, I do think that if a coach signs more freshmen than he can feasibly get into school, he should face some sort of penalty for it. Not exactly sure what would be fair, but I agree that coaches who sign freshmen and then make them greyshirt or something else are reprehensible. I'd love to see the NCAA step in and set firm rules on this and punish offending institutions (by taking away one scholarship per oversigning?)

Would Trooper be considered "very, very high profile"? That kind of emphasis makes me think it'd be somebody very well known, even by casual fans. Charlie Weis, for instance (though it being him would be rather strange). For an assistant, Trooper is very high profile. And the article talks about boosters at previous schoolS, which makes me think it has to be someone who's been at multiple schools in the NCAA.

More SEC smoke... There is no one very high profile at most SEC programs, leading me to believe this is Trooper Taylor. I doubt it's any of Saban's coaches, and have heard nothing about Tennessee. SoCar, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arky, UK, and Vandy don't really have any high profile assistants, and Florida's are too new for this to be their staff. That leaves Auburn, Georgia, and LSU. Unless it's a coordinator, none of those teams have an assistant with a higher profile than Taylor, who is being accused of a violation (contacting a recruit and a player from another school on National Signing Day.)

Why are some folks so sure that the 9ers made the worse pick? Who's the say that if you switch the two QB's, that Smith isn't the Super Bowl winner, and Rodgers is the bust? Having to play right away for an awful franchise is a huge disadvantage, compared to getting to spend 3 years learning an offense under one of the Top 5-8 QB's in NFL history.

(Thanks to the Music City Bowl?) the NCAA is considering several new rule changes, including a 10-second runoff at the end of the half on an offensive penalty: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/10-second-runoff-one-of-several-recommended-rule-changes/