-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BuckeyeNation27
- Start date
Found it.
"But the real tragedy was that 15 hadn't been colored yet." (telling Gator fans that a fire at Auburn's football dorm had destroyed 20 books)
"But the real tragedy was that 15 hadn't been colored yet." (telling Gator fans that a fire at Auburn's football dorm had destroyed 20 books)
Upvote
0
FritoBandito
Lover of salty snacks
Let's not pollute this good board with a duel of wits between unarmed men. They're both miserable little bags of poison -- leave them in Dixie.
Upvote
0
S. Carolina HS coaches call Spurrier unethical
21, what's your take on this? Surprised that such a letter was written and sent?
sportsline.com
Spurrier peeves prep coaches by yanking six scholarships
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier upset high school coaches in his new home state when he revoked the scholarships of six players recruited by his predecessor.
The South Carolina Football Coaches Association's Board of Directors called the move "unethical" in a letter to Spurrier on Wednesday.
"We understand athletic scholarships are a year commitment," according to the board's letter. "However, we feel that unless an athlete 'breaks rules' or embarrasses the institution, to revoke a scholarship because you feel an athlete cannot play at the level needed to compete in the Southeastern Conference is unethical."
The board's letter, signed by about 90 coaches, also recommended the South Carolina High School League find an alternate location for its five state championship games, scheduled to be played at South Carolina's Williams-Brice Stadium in December.
Earlier this summer, Spurrier sent letters to six players telling them they would lose their scholarships. Those affected included South Carolina high school products Grayson Mullins and Trent Usher, both recruited by the staffs of former coach Lou Holtz.
Scholarships are renewable each year.
"If coming out of spring practice, you make that decision that's one thing," SCFCA board member Andy Tweito, an assistant coach at Daniel High, said Thursday. "Now, these kids are stranded, they have nowhere to go. He's left the kids high and dry."
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=175 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD width=175>
</TD><TD width=15></TD></TR><TR><TD width=175>Steve Spurrier inherits a South Carolina squad that went 6-5 under Lou Holtz last season. (AP) </TD><TD width=15></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Spurrier says there are a few players signed by the old staff who new coaches did not think contributed much to the team.
"We had some walk-on players who were actually contributing more," Spurrier said at the Southeastern Conference football gathering in Birmingham, Ala. "So some of the high schoolers, they got mad about it. I don't know what to say, but to me in life you put people on scholarship who deserve it the most and that's what we tried to do."
Spurrier last week said receiver Michael Flint and long-snapper Ike Crofoot, both walk-ons, were rewarded with scholarships.
Spurrier's arrival as Holtz's replacement has been greeted with glee by most South Carolina supporters. The school said Thursday it sold a record of 62,618 season tickets. Donations to the Gamecock Club were up more than $1 million from last year to a record of $13 million.
Tweito said the high school coaches were not trying to pick a fight with Spurrier or sour future recruits on the Gamecocks; they were just making their case in one of the few ways they could.
"Some coaches are so upset about it, they won't welcome (South Carolina) recruiters into their school," he said.
"We're not trying to play political football here," Tweito said.
Tweito stressed the coaches were not out to damage South Carolina's program, despite the letter's harsh words.
Spurrier "absolutely knows how to run a program and we wish him the best," Tweito said. "We're all for Carolina football and for college football in our state. This was something we felt we had to do."
21, what's your take on this? Surprised that such a letter was written and sent?
sportsline.com
Spurrier peeves prep coaches by yanking six scholarships
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier upset high school coaches in his new home state when he revoked the scholarships of six players recruited by his predecessor.
The South Carolina Football Coaches Association's Board of Directors called the move "unethical" in a letter to Spurrier on Wednesday.
"We understand athletic scholarships are a year commitment," according to the board's letter. "However, we feel that unless an athlete 'breaks rules' or embarrasses the institution, to revoke a scholarship because you feel an athlete cannot play at the level needed to compete in the Southeastern Conference is unethical."
The board's letter, signed by about 90 coaches, also recommended the South Carolina High School League find an alternate location for its five state championship games, scheduled to be played at South Carolina's Williams-Brice Stadium in December.
Earlier this summer, Spurrier sent letters to six players telling them they would lose their scholarships. Those affected included South Carolina high school products Grayson Mullins and Trent Usher, both recruited by the staffs of former coach Lou Holtz.
Scholarships are renewable each year.
"If coming out of spring practice, you make that decision that's one thing," SCFCA board member Andy Tweito, an assistant coach at Daniel High, said Thursday. "Now, these kids are stranded, they have nowhere to go. He's left the kids high and dry."
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=175 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD width=175>
"We had some walk-on players who were actually contributing more," Spurrier said at the Southeastern Conference football gathering in Birmingham, Ala. "So some of the high schoolers, they got mad about it. I don't know what to say, but to me in life you put people on scholarship who deserve it the most and that's what we tried to do."
Spurrier last week said receiver Michael Flint and long-snapper Ike Crofoot, both walk-ons, were rewarded with scholarships.
Spurrier's arrival as Holtz's replacement has been greeted with glee by most South Carolina supporters. The school said Thursday it sold a record of 62,618 season tickets. Donations to the Gamecock Club were up more than $1 million from last year to a record of $13 million.
Tweito said the high school coaches were not trying to pick a fight with Spurrier or sour future recruits on the Gamecocks; they were just making their case in one of the few ways they could.
"Some coaches are so upset about it, they won't welcome (South Carolina) recruiters into their school," he said.
"We're not trying to play political football here," Tweito said.
Tweito stressed the coaches were not out to damage South Carolina's program, despite the letter's harsh words.
Spurrier "absolutely knows how to run a program and we wish him the best," Tweito said. "We're all for Carolina football and for college football in our state. This was something we felt we had to do."
Upvote
0
This is overblown...majorly. It is a handful of coaches...one of whom's kids was told he may lose his schollie..who are raising hell and signing the Association name to the cause.
The guys who are being removed from schollie positions were "favors" from Holtz....
Spurrier doesn't play that stuff. I've met him on 3 separate occasions since he has taken the job and he is a VERY confident man. His charisma is obvious and he controls an entire room with ease.
<script language=\"Javascript\" src="http://scvarsity.rivals.com/insert.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">July 28, 2005
To Renew Or Not To Renew; That Is The Question <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"> </td></tr><tr><td>Jim Baxter
SCVarsity.com Publisher </td> <td align="right" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr></tbody> </table>
For what it is worth, the South Carolina Coaches Association "sent a message" in the form of a letter to the University of South Carolina this week expressing their disappointment in the decision of Coach Spurrier regarding the failure to renew scholarships to several players - namely Grayson Mullins from Irmo and Trent Usher from Central-Pageland.
<!-- ---------- 300x250 Banner Code -------------- --> <!-- ---------- Copyright 2000 ---------- -->
The letter stated, "We, the S.C. Football Coaches Association board of directors, are all about commitment, and USC's lack of commitment to its recruited players has prompted our action." I've been a guest on two radio shows since this has happened and I've talked to more coaches than you can shake a stick at to get their feelings on this.
First of all, let me just say that it is very unfortunate that these young men failed to have their scholarships renewed for the upcoming season. The reality, however, is that college football is a business. The University of South Carolina is not exclusive in what has happened with the revoking of scholarships. Trimming the roster is a normal thing and always happens at schools when a major coaching change takes place.
Coach Spurrier was hired by the University of South Carolina to perform a job and one of those jobs is to make sure that he puts the best team possible on the field. He felt, after evaluating the team that he inherited, that these were changes that needed to be made.
As far as the university having a lack of commitment to athletes, that is simply not true in this situation. In reality, Coach Spurrier and the University of South Carolina has no obligation or commitment to these athletes beyond the terms of the scholarships - and those terms are for one year at a time.
Don't get me wrong here. I see both sides of the argument. I'm sure if I had been the high school coach or parent of any one of these kids, I'd be upset too. I think that it is a legitimate concern if this is something that becomes "routine", though I doubt that will be the case. I just don't know that I would have composed a letter demonstrative of wielding the power of a boycott or similar actions.
Which brings me to the "moving" of the Weekend of Champions. I personally think that moving that event anywhere else would be a mistake for no other reason that geography. The city of Columbia is central to the entire state. It gives all teams the opportunity to drive up the day of the game if that is what they have to do. Imagine Conway, who has been in the last three title games, having to drive to the upper left corner of the state for the game. Imagine a Lakelands area team having to drive to the coast for the game. Imagine an upperstate team having to drive to Charleston for the game. It simply makes more sense to have the event in a central location. Not to mention that the city is also attractive to crowds that come in for the weekend because there is so much offered commercially in the way of dining, hotels, and after-hour activities for those who spend the weekend there.
As for the "petition" that was signed at the Association meeting, it was said that 70-75 coaches signed it. That's less than 20% of the coaches in South Carolina. On Thursday, I spoke to some coaches that signed the petition and some that did not. The ones who didn't sign it said that they hated to see "it" happen to the kids, but they wouldn't want anyone strong-arming them into running their program a certain way. The ones that did sign it said they just wanted to let the University know how strongly they felt about the loyalty they expect given to their athletes. Very understandable.
Was the letter a "knee-jerk" reaction? From what I understand from coaches who were there, they were told there would be a 3:00 PM meeting. They showed up, the talk began, and the letter that had already been sent was read. The members of the Association didn't vote on whether or not to send the letter. According to the coaches I spoke with, it was voted on by the board. In other words, it does not accurately reflect the feelings of the entire South Carolina Coaches Association membership. As far as we know, it may only reflect a small percentage of the coaches' feelings.
Byrnes Head Coach Coach Bobby Bentley told WSPA Channel 7, "The board of directors is there to represent us as an organization but that doesn't mean the entire football coaches association agrees with the letter. Especially moving the games from Columbia, I don't know if that seems fit."
Irmo Head Coach Bob Hanna, who was close to the situation as Grayson Mullins played for Hanna's Yellow Jackets, had a different opinion. "I do not agree with what he did taking away scholarships." told SCVarsity.com "The kids did everything that was asked of them. Had they of done something bad like get caught for drugs, steal from the university or something like that, I would not have a problem with it. The timing is terrible. What are these kids to do? I know a few that are financially okay where they can pay for school for a year, but what about the others in this state that can't? It is too late to do anything now. This is serious what he (Spurrier) is doing and we have to send a message. We have to trust USC's commitment to the kids." When asked if he would advise kids against going to USC, he laughed and said, "I don't know about that, but I do know they have to come into my school to recruit."
Mid-Carolina Head Coach Louie Alexander was one of those guys who saw both sides. "I understand both sides of the argument," said Alexander. "Steve Spurrier has a job to do and that is win football games. In order to do that, you have to have good players. However, if it were one of my kids, I would be upset. I know scholarships are renewed yearly, but these are kids who did everything that was asked of them. They never missed a workout, never missed a practice, never missed a meeting. I could see if they had broken some rule, but these were good kids. It's unfortunate. But a coach has to do what he feels is best for his program"
My personal thoughts? I think its a non-story to be honest with you. It's something that happens at every University when coaching changes are made. I have a good friend of mine who played defensive end for The Citadel and he said they(Citadel staff) reviewed every year and there were often guys who failed to get their scholarships renewed. I understand the frustration and disappointment that those close to the situation feel. But the bottom line is this: if you are a legit DI prospect, play to your abilities, reach your potential, don't miss workouts, don't miss class, keep your grades up, and follow the team rules, you're going to get your "ride" renewed. If you don't do all of those things, there is a chance that you won't get renewed. That's real world. And real world is what we're talking about here.
The guys who are being removed from schollie positions were "favors" from Holtz....
Spurrier doesn't play that stuff. I've met him on 3 separate occasions since he has taken the job and he is a VERY confident man. His charisma is obvious and he controls an entire room with ease.
<script language=\"Javascript\" src="http://scvarsity.rivals.com/insert.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">July 28, 2005
To Renew Or Not To Renew; That Is The Question <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"> </td></tr><tr><td>Jim Baxter
SCVarsity.com Publisher </td> <td align="right" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr></tbody> </table> For what it is worth, the South Carolina Coaches Association "sent a message" in the form of a letter to the University of South Carolina this week expressing their disappointment in the decision of Coach Spurrier regarding the failure to renew scholarships to several players - namely Grayson Mullins from Irmo and Trent Usher from Central-Pageland.
<!-- ---------- 300x250 Banner Code -------------- --> <!-- ---------- Copyright 2000 ---------- -->
The letter stated, "We, the S.C. Football Coaches Association board of directors, are all about commitment, and USC's lack of commitment to its recruited players has prompted our action." I've been a guest on two radio shows since this has happened and I've talked to more coaches than you can shake a stick at to get their feelings on this.
First of all, let me just say that it is very unfortunate that these young men failed to have their scholarships renewed for the upcoming season. The reality, however, is that college football is a business. The University of South Carolina is not exclusive in what has happened with the revoking of scholarships. Trimming the roster is a normal thing and always happens at schools when a major coaching change takes place.
Coach Spurrier was hired by the University of South Carolina to perform a job and one of those jobs is to make sure that he puts the best team possible on the field. He felt, after evaluating the team that he inherited, that these were changes that needed to be made.
As far as the university having a lack of commitment to athletes, that is simply not true in this situation. In reality, Coach Spurrier and the University of South Carolina has no obligation or commitment to these athletes beyond the terms of the scholarships - and those terms are for one year at a time.
Don't get me wrong here. I see both sides of the argument. I'm sure if I had been the high school coach or parent of any one of these kids, I'd be upset too. I think that it is a legitimate concern if this is something that becomes "routine", though I doubt that will be the case. I just don't know that I would have composed a letter demonstrative of wielding the power of a boycott or similar actions.
Which brings me to the "moving" of the Weekend of Champions. I personally think that moving that event anywhere else would be a mistake for no other reason that geography. The city of Columbia is central to the entire state. It gives all teams the opportunity to drive up the day of the game if that is what they have to do. Imagine Conway, who has been in the last three title games, having to drive to the upper left corner of the state for the game. Imagine a Lakelands area team having to drive to the coast for the game. Imagine an upperstate team having to drive to Charleston for the game. It simply makes more sense to have the event in a central location. Not to mention that the city is also attractive to crowds that come in for the weekend because there is so much offered commercially in the way of dining, hotels, and after-hour activities for those who spend the weekend there.
As for the "petition" that was signed at the Association meeting, it was said that 70-75 coaches signed it. That's less than 20% of the coaches in South Carolina. On Thursday, I spoke to some coaches that signed the petition and some that did not. The ones who didn't sign it said that they hated to see "it" happen to the kids, but they wouldn't want anyone strong-arming them into running their program a certain way. The ones that did sign it said they just wanted to let the University know how strongly they felt about the loyalty they expect given to their athletes. Very understandable.
Was the letter a "knee-jerk" reaction? From what I understand from coaches who were there, they were told there would be a 3:00 PM meeting. They showed up, the talk began, and the letter that had already been sent was read. The members of the Association didn't vote on whether or not to send the letter. According to the coaches I spoke with, it was voted on by the board. In other words, it does not accurately reflect the feelings of the entire South Carolina Coaches Association membership. As far as we know, it may only reflect a small percentage of the coaches' feelings.
Byrnes Head Coach Coach Bobby Bentley told WSPA Channel 7, "The board of directors is there to represent us as an organization but that doesn't mean the entire football coaches association agrees with the letter. Especially moving the games from Columbia, I don't know if that seems fit."
Irmo Head Coach Bob Hanna, who was close to the situation as Grayson Mullins played for Hanna's Yellow Jackets, had a different opinion. "I do not agree with what he did taking away scholarships." told SCVarsity.com "The kids did everything that was asked of them. Had they of done something bad like get caught for drugs, steal from the university or something like that, I would not have a problem with it. The timing is terrible. What are these kids to do? I know a few that are financially okay where they can pay for school for a year, but what about the others in this state that can't? It is too late to do anything now. This is serious what he (Spurrier) is doing and we have to send a message. We have to trust USC's commitment to the kids." When asked if he would advise kids against going to USC, he laughed and said, "I don't know about that, but I do know they have to come into my school to recruit."
Mid-Carolina Head Coach Louie Alexander was one of those guys who saw both sides. "I understand both sides of the argument," said Alexander. "Steve Spurrier has a job to do and that is win football games. In order to do that, you have to have good players. However, if it were one of my kids, I would be upset. I know scholarships are renewed yearly, but these are kids who did everything that was asked of them. They never missed a workout, never missed a practice, never missed a meeting. I could see if they had broken some rule, but these were good kids. It's unfortunate. But a coach has to do what he feels is best for his program"
My personal thoughts? I think its a non-story to be honest with you. It's something that happens at every University when coaching changes are made. I have a good friend of mine who played defensive end for The Citadel and he said they(Citadel staff) reviewed every year and there were often guys who failed to get their scholarships renewed. I understand the frustration and disappointment that those close to the situation feel. But the bottom line is this: if you are a legit DI prospect, play to your abilities, reach your potential, don't miss workouts, don't miss class, keep your grades up, and follow the team rules, you're going to get your "ride" renewed. If you don't do all of those things, there is a chance that you won't get renewed. That's real world. And real world is what we're talking about here.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the opinion. It seemed rather over-hyped to me. I remember D'Antonio stating that the scholarships offered to the '05 class has to be reviewed after he took over.
On the other hand, I know that the letters of intent clearly state that the player is signing with the school, not the coach. Which means that coaches can change their minds after signing day, but the players really can't (without sitting out a year).
It's a tough break for certain kids if a change is made at times, but like you said, that's the real world.
On the other hand, I know that the letters of intent clearly state that the player is signing with the school, not the coach. Which means that coaches can change their minds after signing day, but the players really can't (without sitting out a year).
It's a tough break for certain kids if a change is made at times, but like you said, that's the real world.
Upvote
0
daddyphatsacs
Let the cards fall...
I didn't know that they had ethics in the SEC.......thats why they brought in Spurrier. 
Upvote
0
The articles are all saying there were 90 sigs on the letter....which is true. However, what they fail to mention is entire staffs were told to sign...count on 8-15 members on that staff and you really only have about a dozen or so guys who were behind the letter.
Upvote
0
BuckBackHome
Wolverine is largest member of weasel family
The only thing I might have a problem with is when he knew the kids should not have scholarships renewed and when he let them know. If there was a purposeful dely on his part that restricted a kid's ability to go elsewhere, if that is possible, then I would say that is wrong.
Upvote
0
There is more to that story than is being let out also....these kids were not doing what they supposed to do in "voluntary" workouts.BuckinMichigan said:
The two mentioned in the article were marginal players at best...we dominated Trent Usher when he played QB/S at Central Pageland and I was not impressed at all, but his father/coach/signee of the letter, played LB at Carolina in the 70's...neither were big D1 players.
Knowing they were marginal and then having a bad work ethic is not a smart idea with Spurrier.
Upvote
0
I can tell you all for a fact that Spurrier ran a clean program at UF. He actually put Bama and a few others on notice when they would get dirty over a recruit, baisically saying "let Johhny Jones come to Florida or I'm gonna rat you out" type thing. If you are familiar at all with SEC football its a comendable policy.
Like him or not, I personally do not, he is not a dirty coach. Honestly I don't think he gives a shit about recruiting enough to cheat, lol.
Like him or not, I personally do not, he is not a dirty coach. Honestly I don't think he gives a shit about recruiting enough to cheat, lol.
Upvote
0
He is the coach. It is his call. But people are entitled to whatever opinion they choose.
If there are extenuating circumstances for these particular players that may make a difference. But I would then ask the question What process was followed in removing their scholarships? Were they warned? Were a set of standard criteria that apply to all players applied to these players?
It is the coaches call but this sort of thing is simply not common practice. If Spurrier wants to play that way I see no problem making sure potential recruits know how he plays. I wonder if any of Spurriers recruits will be shown a copy of that letter?
I'm not a big Spurrier fan, but I was upset with Dantonio as well when he pulled some offers to kids who had committed when he took the Cincy job.
These are guys making big bucks and they shouldn't be playing games with kids in their late teens and early twenties.
Upvote
0
Only one schollie was removed, and I will not go into many of those details, but let's just leave it at the kid was not doing what he was supposed to do in many areas of the Student-Athlete life. The others were placed "under review." Some of these players chose to transfer instead of working harder...Oh8ch said:
Upvote
0