ADVERTISEMENT

Is Taking a Player's Scholarship Ethical?

BlueRattie

Sophomore
Feb 6, 2014
1,052
1,910
113
So, I'm reading another thread that morphed from it's original topic into the topic of cutting players after they have arrived on campus. The general tone of the conversation was that the practice is unsavory, but a reality in the cutthroat world of SEC football. Generally speaking, Saban and Jones (UT) "let kids go" at an alarming rate and our own Coach Stoops "weeded out" a great deal of Joker's recruits and may do the same with his own recruits if he doesn't see the quality he wants.

In your opinion, is it ethical for a coach to revoke a player's scholarship for performance issues? Why or why not?
 
What I have a real problem with is When coaches accept a player's commitment and then they show up at camp to realize it's just a try-out.
 
So, I'm reading another thread that morphed from it's original topic into the topic of cutting players after they have arrived on campus. The general tone of the conversation was that the practice is unsavory, but a reality in the cutthroat world of SEC football. Generally speaking, Saban and Jones (UT) "let kids go" at an alarming rate and our own Coach Stoops "weeded out" a great deal of Joker's recruits and may do the same with his own recruits if he doesn't see the quality he wants.

In your opinion, is it ethical for a coach to revoke a player's scholarship for performance issues? Why or why not?

Everyone think's they need to get payed! If that is the case,then you will see a lot more of this!
 
So, I'm reading another thread that morphed from it's original topic into the topic of cutting players after they have arrived on campus. The general tone of the conversation was that the practice is unsavory, but a reality in the cutthroat world of SEC football. Generally speaking, Saban and Jones (UT) "let kids go" at an alarming rate and our own Coach Stoops "weeded out" a great deal of Joker's recruits and may do the same with his own recruits if he doesn't see the quality he wants.

In your opinion, is it ethical for a coach to revoke a player's scholarship for performance issues? Why or why not?
I don't see anything wrong with a coach revoking a scholarship for performance issues and I believe most of the time it is due to performance. Once a kid arrives on campus, he has been thoroughly scouted by a coaching staff that thinks they 'could' be the right player for the schemes they want to run. As Coach Saban described it to me, performance on the field is just a byproduct of the dedication and hard work put into the weightroom, studying the playbook and most importantly being coachable. The games should be fun/recess for these athletes if they are doing what they are supposed to do.

Another question to ponder is how many of the claims of being let go due to performance or weeded out due to performance are valid. As a SA, you have made a commitment to the university to perform in order to maintain your subsidized education, if you do not, the scholly should not have to be renewed and someone else should have a chance (The same holds true for academic schollys as well, if your gpa drops you will lose it). In the case of CMS, did he walk into a culture that was used to losing and thereby workouts, studying etc...became perfunctory tasks that did not translate into the expected performance for some of those athletes? If so, that SA made that decision and another SA that has been scouted by CMS and staff that is dedicated to help changing the culture of the program and putting in what it takes and then some should have a chance. Schools like UA & UT do get to pick the cream of the crop, they give you an offer, u attend a camp unless you are high on their board, then you get the full treatment (Saban's house, car etc...) and if you are good enough, you make it on campus (basically you are an undrafted free agent until they have to make cuts lol). With that said, I think way too many SA commit to those schools without doing some due diligence and as a result put themselves in a susceptible situation to begin with.
 
Scholarships are 1-year renewable contracts (in most cases. Recently 4 year guarantee have become legal, few use it that I have heard of). If a coach or athletic department feel a player is not performing up to standards on the field, off the field, or in the classroom then it is in their right and power to not renew that player's contract. As long as there is justifiable reason for doing so I don't have much of a problem.

There is a price that a coach should pay for doing this, though. A kid being recruited should know the coaches past history of cutting players from his team at an alarming rate. Stoops had to weed out a bunch of Joker players who quite simply could not play SEC football, I don't think he will do that anymore now that he owns the roster.

But guys like Saban & Jones, a kids parents or HS coaches ought to make sure hard difficult questions are asked and satisfactory believable answers are obtained about those coaches philosophy of roster management.
 
Scholarships are given and renewed by semesters. It's a business. Once you get to college football is not a game anymore. People's jobs and livelihood are at stake. If you don't perform you're gonna go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigbluetrue
If I am the coach I am going to have trouble taking the SS of a kid thats doing his best but is just not talented enough to make it. I am going to put that on myself and my staff for making a poor projection of the kids ability to play at my level.

The only way I take a kid like this's SS is after I have a meeting with the kid, discuss the situation, and try to get him a SS at a situation where he would be better suited. Even then I might keep him on SS if he was dead set on staying. IMO that would be the ethical way to handle such situations.

I would send kids packing with a clear conscience that had the ability but just were not putting out the effort. Slackers would be an endangered species on my team
 
If the guy is working his ass off but just isn't as talented as you thought him to be when recruited - I think you have to eat that scholly...that's on you as a coach...be up front with the player and say you don't expect them to get much PT, so maybe there is a xfer opportunity, but I don't think you yank it because you were a bad evaluator.

If someone isn't putting work in, yank the scholarship all you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianpoe and cat888
There is a difference from a signed scholarship and a commitment. If Scholarship has been signed then it should be kept and should be charged against Limits. If a Player commits that is not binding on him and doesn't mean it was accepted by Coach and if it was then what they was promised by the Coach varies by all the different Coaches and maybe Players, some maybe told in advance what to expect. I think to judge we would need more info. I don't think a New Coach or the Player commitment should be expected to be automatically accepted
 
I don't have a problem with it as long as coaches are up front with the players from the very beginning and let them know that scholarships must be earned every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cat888
Players sometimes forfeit their scholarships for cause -- behavioral misconduct, academic failure. That loss is on them. Others may fall into a "failure to bloom" category -- they may be talented but not all in with the staff or their role, unwilling to accept restrictions or give more than the minimum. When those attitudes spill over and affect others negatively, as they invariably will, then discussions of a "mutual separation" are appropriate. I don't see anything unethical about such a process, so long as it is handled professionally and respectfully.

It's different, however, when a player does or attempts to do everything that is expected of him but is simply recruited over. His only sin is that he is a lesser talent. He did not misrepresent his abilities. The responsibility for separation in this case would fall solely on the university representatives who failed to properly assess his capabilities. Revoking a scholarship solely on that basis would be unethical -- like dumping your prom date because a more attractive option becomes available.

One key in this is that each situation is dealt with individually, and that there is more than simply "roster management" driving the decision. Of course, with discussions of payment for players and unionization already on the table, many of these roster decisions may one day be grieved and arbitrated rather than left in the dictatorial hands of the Head Coach -- an eventuality that will be hastened by the increased pressure these days to win at all costs.
 
If I am the coach I am going to have trouble taking the SS of a kid thats doing his best but is just not talented enough to make it. I am going to put that on myself and my staff for making a poor projection of the kids ability to play at my level.

The only way I take a kid like this's SS is after I have a meeting with the kid, discuss the situation, and try to get him a SS at a situation where he would be better suited. Even then I might keep him on SS if he was dead set on staying. IMO that would be the ethical way to handle such situations.

I would send kids packing with a clear conscience that had the ability but just were not putting out the effort. Slackers would be an endangered species on my team

I agree with this.
 
Agree with C1180 but would go a bit further. I think SS should be 4 years (and a 5th year if the school redshirts) and if the kid is holding up his end of the bargain - - passing his classes, not violating team rules, staying out of trouble and showing up for practice/team meetings and giving his best - - the SS shouldn't be yanked. If the kid was recruited and offered a SS by a coaching staff representing the university, the university (even in a change of coaching staff) should be required to honor the SS.

For those that say it is a business, it is to a large extent (coaches salaries, tv revenues, bowl money, etc.). However, when it comes to the future of 17 and 18 year old kids who are deciding on a school, the vast majority of which will never get even a sniff of making football a profession (i.e. an NFL opportunity), they should be able to rely on the fact that if they hold up their end of the bargain, the university will as well.
 
So, I'm reading another thread that morphed from it's original topic into the topic of cutting players after they have arrived on campus. The general tone of the conversation was that the practice is unsavory, but a reality in the cutthroat world of SEC football. Generally speaking, Saban and Jones (UT) "let kids go" at an alarming rate and our own Coach Stoops "weeded out" a great deal of Joker's recruits and may do the same with his own recruits if he doesn't see the quality he wants.

In your opinion, is it ethical for a coach to revoke a player's scholarship for performance issues? Why or why not?

I don't agree with it, I think it's ethically wrong and the kid is the one being punished for a coach's mistake. The coaches are the ones who did the evaluating and made the offer, maybe wanting to be the first D1 offer the kid received, the only one is some cases. Of course the kid would rather play in the SEC or ACC than the MAC or some other mid level conference and jumps on the offer. When practice starts kid ends up obviously over his head, but keeps up his end of the bargain, attends classes, makes good/decent grades, attends all "voluntary" workouts, keeps his nose clean. But the coach then sees he isn't going to be able to help the team and doesn't renew his scholarship, pretty low move in my opinion. Coach missed on his evaluation and wanted to be the first D1 or P5 school to offer. Big boy football are not, there is a right and wrong, sometimes you have to absorb your mistakes and move on, not send them packing.

Now if the kid isn't attending class, not giving effort to better himself and the program or is constantly on the edge of trouble that's a different story.
 
People expect these coaches to win at a high level but they don't like it that they have to make these hard decisions. If people don't want coaches to cut underachieving players then they should also not be as quick to fire a coach whose team is underachieving.
 
I have no problems with the scholarships are year to year. However, if this is going to be the practice then there should be a designated time frame for renewal (this may already happen, but I am not aware of it) so that players who are not renewed have time to prepare for their future. Second any restrictions on transferring need to be removed. If the contract is up after a year, then the player should have the option to go somewhere else without penalty if they decide they do not want to renew.

Schools can't have it both ways. Either make a 4-5 year commitment to these young men, or allow everyone involved to make the decisions that are best for their future.
 
I see we have some posters here who would be the most ethical unemployed football coaches in the country. Because if you keep a lot of dead weight because you want to be ethical, then you will have 10-15 fewer scholarships than the rest of your breathern and you will lose, lose, lose and then get fired.
 
I see we have some posters here who would be the most ethical unemployed football coaches in the country. Because if you keep a lot of dead weight because you want to be ethical, then you will have 10-15 fewer scholarships than the rest of your breathern and you will lose, lose, lose and then get fired.

Who has been fired for not cutting players? Last time UGA was in the SEC championship game we had 67 scholarshipped players, 10 of them redshirting. I see cutting kids because me as the coach failed to evaluate them properly as a crutch. Its unethical, there is nothing you can say that will make it ok ethically to cut players because he isn't as good as you, the coach, thought he was going to be.
 
I can tell you from a fans perspective that almost all the ones that has left Tenn the last couple years we wanted them to stay and could of helped our team. One of our best tight ends left after the season was over and the word going around was he didn't like to be yeld at and didn't like the language coaches use. He was homeschooled through HS so he hadn't really been around how things are behind closed doors. My point is some leave on their own just because SEC football isn't for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cat888
So, I'm reading another thread that morphed from it's original topic into the topic of cutting players after they have arrived on campus. The general tone of the conversation was that the practice is unsavory, but a reality in the cutthroat world of SEC football. Generally speaking, Saban and Jones (UT) "let kids go" at an alarming rate and our own Coach Stoops "weeded out" a great deal of Joker's recruits and may do the same with his own recruits if he doesn't see the quality he wants.

In your opinion, is it ethical for a coach to revoke a player's scholarship for performance issues? Why or why not?

Nothing in life is free. Scholarship athletes get scholarships because they have something to offer to the team they play for. If they don't contribute in a meaningful way (that doesn't necessarily mean as a starter) then there is no purpose to keep them on the team and no purpose giving them a free ride to school. They are more than welcome to stay in the university and pay their tuition like all the other kids. Or, as is more common for a program like Alabama and Tennessee, those kids can go to a mid-major school or an FCS school and still try to play football if that is their wish. If they are never going to see the light of day at a major football program it really does them a disservice not to let them know that.
 
This is fine IMO. What should not be done is offer a kid and then pull his scholarship right before it is time to show up.

In my opinion this is fine too. Either abolish signing day and make commitments binding on both parties as soon as there is an offer and the player commits (I prefer this) or leave signing day and let players "commit" and schools "offer" even though commitments and offers really don't mean much until they sign on the dotted line (how it is now). The way things are set up now it's just going to happen that sometimes a player has an offer pulled late in the game or a player commits to one team then signs with another on signing day. Is it fair? Meh. It's life.
 
If the kid is doing everything right (locker room, class, off field, off season, etc.) but simply "not good enough", rescinding his scholly is, IMO, VERY UNETHICAL. Scholarships are a 1 year "contract" but an implicit 4 year "deal" as long as you do what is expected.

Peace
 
I believe something should should be changed to protect the player more. Once the player signs the school should be counted on providing 4 years of tuition assistance. There can be some situations where the school is required to pick up the bill for his educations but does not count against the 85 limit. Career ending injury would be an example. The athlete should only lose his ride if he voluntarily leaves school or is expelled. Even getting kicked off the team should not cause the player to lose the scholarship as long as he is doing well in school.
 
I don't agree with it, I think it's ethically wrong and the kid is the one being punished for a coach's mistake. The coaches are the ones who did the evaluating and made the offer, maybe wanting to be the first D1 offer the kid received, the only one is some cases. Of course the kid would rather play in the SEC or ACC than the MAC or some other mid level conference and jumps on the offer. When practice starts kid ends up obviously over his head, but keeps up his end of the bargain, attends classes, makes good/decent grades, attends all "voluntary" workouts, keeps his nose clean. But the coach then sees he isn't going to be able to help the team and doesn't renew his scholarship, pretty low move in my opinion. Coach missed on his evaluation and wanted to be the first D1 or P5 school to offer. Big boy football are not, there is a right and wrong, sometimes you have to absorb your mistakes and move on, not send them packing.

Now if the kid isn't attending class, not giving effort to better himself and the program or is constantly on the edge of trouble that's a different story.


What if the player doesn't go to class (we cut one loose last week that hadn't joined team yet but he was in school but didn't apply himself)

What if the player is lazy and won't work on practice field or in the gym?

What if the coach misses the evaluation and tells the student he likely won't play on the team and the kid leaves on his own?

All of those scenarios have played out for us lately......and i'd say that Stoops sees the same thing everyday.
 
Tenn had a WR leave on his own who was a promising freshman and caught a TD in our bowl game. He felt like he should be playing more so he left. On the surface this sounds like a problem with the coaches but the truth is this player transferred 3 different times in HS because he wasn't happy with his situation.
 
i agree with wildcard. if the kid is doing everything he should be doing but the staff just missed on the evaluation then it's not on him and it's unethical to cut him... but on the other hand, if 82 out the 85 scholarship players are staying after practice and running extra routes and doing extra film study and those other 3 guys are only doing what is considered the minimum then is it not wrong to keep guys who are not gonna help those other 82 guys succeed?

so i can see it both ways but i would add that cutting kids after their freshmen or rs freshmen year seems to be leaning more to the unethical dept and if you are sending rs jr's packing with a degree and the opportunity to play a year at another school then you have done nothing wrong to the kid.
 
Talk about a "give everybody a trophy" mentality on here. When I went to college I got academic scholarship, my scholarship wasn't contingent upon my going to class and trying my best. It was based upon making good grades: if I got good grades I got to keep it another year, if I didn't I lost it. If I just had really tough classes and couldn't get used to the transition from high school to college, tough luck. That's no different than athletic scholarships. They are given on a year by year basis. Beyond one year, the only guarantee is that if you have done a good job and contributed to the team then it will be renewed for a second year, and a third and a fourth, and sometimes a fifth (and in most cases they are renewed). Otherwise you got 1 year of subsidized education, which is still not a bad deal considering how many kids have to pay for their education. You shouldn't get to keep it simply because you came to practice and gave it all the ol' college try.
 
Talk about a "give everybody a trophy" mentality on here. When I went to college I got academic scholarship, my scholarship wasn't contingent upon my going to class and trying my best. It was based upon making good grades: if I got good grades I got to keep it another year, if I didn't I lost it. If I just had really tough classes and couldn't get used to the transition from high school to college, tough luck. That's no different than athletic scholarships. They are given on a year by year basis. Beyond one year, the only guarantee is that if you have done a good job and contributed to the team then it will be renewed for a second year, and a third and a fourth, and sometimes a fifth (and in most cases they are renewed). Otherwise you got 1 year of subsidized education, which is still not a bad deal considering how many kids have to pay for their education. You shouldn't get to keep it simply because you came to practice and gave it all the ol' college try.

How many concussions did you get on academic scholarship?
I doubt you was limited by not being able to work and earn some money while on scholarship.
Maybe if you academic scholarship required 20+ hours of community service.
They should be guaranteed a 4 year scholarship that's only pulled if they fail academically or misconduct according to the college handbook.
 
What if the player doesn't go to class (we cut one loose last week that hadn't joined team yet but he was in school but didn't apply himself)

What if the player is lazy and won't work on practice field or in the gym?

What if the coach misses the evaluation and tells the student he likely won't play on the team and the kid leaves on his own?

All of those scenarios have played out for us lately......and i'd say that Stoops sees the same thing everyday.

If you had bothered to read my entire post you would know the answer to the first 2 questions already. But to keep you from having to look back to find the answer, I said it was a different story, because the kid wasn't holding up his end of the deal.

As for telling a kid he isn't going to play very much in hopes he leaves, spineless, at least if he isn't renewing his scholarship he needs to man up and tell the kid just that.
 
Talk about a "give everybody a trophy" mentality on here. When I went to college I got academic scholarship, my scholarship wasn't contingent upon my going to class and trying my best. It was based upon making good grades: if I got good grades I got to keep it another year, if I didn't I lost it. If I just had really tough classes and couldn't get used to the transition from high school to college, tough luck. That's no different than athletic scholarships. They are given on a year by year basis. Beyond one year, the only guarantee is that if you have done a good job and contributed to the team then it will be renewed for a second year, and a third and a fourth, and sometimes a fifth (and in most cases they are renewed). Otherwise you got 1 year of subsidized education, which is still not a bad deal considering how many kids have to pay for their education. You shouldn't get to keep it simply because you came to practice and gave it all the ol' college try.

No that isn't correct, athletic scholarships require you to remain a student in good standing academically, and to take part in team activities, nothing there about having to contribute to wins and who is to say being on the scout team isn't contributing. Does Butch sit in Mama's and Daddy's livingrooms and tell them I will take care of your son for 4 years? Or does he tell them I will offer him a 1 year scholarship and if he doesn' meet my expectations I will send him back home? You know the answer to that as well as I do. If intergerty means nothing to you, go ahead and lie to them, its a sleazy way to run your operation.
 
If you had bothered to read my entire post you would know the answer to the first 2 questions already. But to keep you from having to look back to find the answer, I said it was a different story, because the kid wasn't holding up his end of the deal.

As for telling a kid he isn't going to play very much in hopes he leaves, spineless, at least if he isn't renewing his scholarship he needs to man up and tell the kid just that.

You are a grumpy old Dawg aren't you?

I guess you believe in government entitlements and the post office is a business model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: footballfanatic77
If the guy is working his ass off but just isn't as talented as you thought him to be when recruited - I think you have to eat that scholly...that's on you as a coach...be up front with the player and say you don't expect them to get much PT, so maybe there is a xfer opportunity, but I don't think you yank it because you were a bad evaluator.

If someone isn't putting work in, yank the scholarship all you want.

This is my take on this too. As you said, if a kid works his ass off, plays to his highest ability, but maybe just isn't that talented, it's on you as a coach. Taking away a scholarship for your mistake is unethical. Now, if the kid is lazy, doesn't work very hard and doesn't care to get better, I have no problem with it.
 
-falling short of requirements to maintain academic scholarship does not mean that you cant go to another school immediately. Again...so long as there are no transfer restrictions on the student I am fine with schollies being a one year deal.
 
No coach is ever going to hit every evaluation of a kid right but if you are going to mandate that they honor these scholarships for 4 years regardless of player performance then a coach should never be let go for performance reasons prior to their contract expiring. ADs and presidents should be held to that same standard which appears to be, "hey, we hired the wrong guy but that is our fault so screw it we will deal with 3 more years if crappy football."
 
  • Like
Reactions: footballfanatic77
ADVERTISEMENT