-
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
lvbuckeye
Silver Surfer
hey, SC hired him to win, and Spurrior wants to win. badly. if the kids aren't pulling their weight, then he has every right to cut them loose. sorry. it sucks for the kids that got the axe, but maybe they should have been doing what was asked of them instead of just going through the motions... Steve is a pretty firey guy, and i HIGHLY doubt that he would put up with crap from a few marginal guys that would bring the rest of the team down... if he cut them loose, they probably deserved it...
Upvote
0
I just can't disagree more.
I will concedd that there may be something to the Spurrier moves that justifies it beyond what it seems on the surface. I don't know. Although I am still skeptical that a coach can make that judgement prior to coaching these kids beyond Spring practice. After all, isn't motivation part of his job?
But beyond that, are we suggesting that when a new coach comes to town who can elevate the level of talent on a team he should be able to just push the current kids out of the way? I am moving beyond the specific of Spurriers case to the argument that a coach who is hired to win should do whatever it takes to win.
Every time a kid in S&G smokes a joint or skips a class folks are all over him about his responsibilities to the team. is that a one way street? If the kid is pulling a four-oh and keeping his nose clean, but can't block do you kick him to the curb? All so the million a year coach can strut his stuff. Is that our new definition of college athletics?
Yes, it is a one year contract. But in all the time I have followed OSU football - across multiple coaches - I can not recall a single instance where a player had his schollie pulled for soemething other than some form of misconduct. There are transfers - and I don't doubt some of those are strongly encourage. But that is not the same as having your schollie pulled just before school starts.
I will concedd that there may be something to the Spurrier moves that justifies it beyond what it seems on the surface. I don't know. Although I am still skeptical that a coach can make that judgement prior to coaching these kids beyond Spring practice. After all, isn't motivation part of his job?
But beyond that, are we suggesting that when a new coach comes to town who can elevate the level of talent on a team he should be able to just push the current kids out of the way? I am moving beyond the specific of Spurriers case to the argument that a coach who is hired to win should do whatever it takes to win.
Every time a kid in S&G smokes a joint or skips a class folks are all over him about his responsibilities to the team. is that a one way street? If the kid is pulling a four-oh and keeping his nose clean, but can't block do you kick him to the curb? All so the million a year coach can strut his stuff. Is that our new definition of college athletics?
Yes, it is a one year contract. But in all the time I have followed OSU football - across multiple coaches - I can not recall a single instance where a player had his schollie pulled for soemething other than some form of misconduct. There are transfers - and I don't doubt some of those are strongly encourage. But that is not the same as having your schollie pulled just before school starts.
Upvote
0
Dennis Dodd's take on the Spurrier schollie-pull, a blurb on page 4.
sportsline.com
"Seems a bit overboard, the South Carolina state high school coaches association reaction to Steve Spurrier running off a few recruits. Spurrier sent letters to three players, two from Carolina, saying their scholarships may not be renewed. The association reacted this week by recommending that the state high school championship games be moved out of Williams-Brice Stadium. First, moving the games hurts no one but the kids who get to play in a big-time atmosphere. Second, what Spurrier is doing happens everywhere. Check out Sylvester Croom at Mississippi, whose scholarship numbers are in the 70s as he cleans house from the Jackie Sherrill era. Third, if you want to blame someone, blame Lou Holtz for bringing in sub-standard talent."
sportsline.com
"Seems a bit overboard, the South Carolina state high school coaches association reaction to Steve Spurrier running off a few recruits. Spurrier sent letters to three players, two from Carolina, saying their scholarships may not be renewed. The association reacted this week by recommending that the state high school championship games be moved out of Williams-Brice Stadium. First, moving the games hurts no one but the kids who get to play in a big-time atmosphere. Second, what Spurrier is doing happens everywhere. Check out Sylvester Croom at Mississippi, whose scholarship numbers are in the 70s as he cleans house from the Jackie Sherrill era. Third, if you want to blame someone, blame Lou Holtz for bringing in sub-standard talent."
Upvote
0
He was put under review, but according to his father, was transferring to your campus anyway. His father was leading the charge in Greenville though...coastalbuck said:
Upvote
0
ohiobuck94
Buckeye Beach Bum
He did a great job with the Washington Redskins. 
They kicked him to the curb.
He can't handle men so he picks on the kids.
They kicked him to the curb. He can't handle men so he picks on the kids.
Upvote
0
Here's an article discussing Spurrier's reaction to the flap about the schollies.
si.com
Explaining himself
Spurrier writes to coaches after revoking scholarships
Steve Spurrier wrote to six South Carolina players, telling them their scholarships would not be renewed.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier explained his reasons for revoking scholarships in a letter to state high school football head coaches after the South Carolina Football Coaches Association's Board of Directors called Spurrier's move "unethical."
Spurrier said Saturday he wrote the letter because he wanted the state's high school coaches to understand his actions.
He's gotten several calls of support from prep coaches since the board's letter came out Wednesday. As far as the 90 or so coaches who signed it, Spurrier said, "I'll tell you something I learned a long time ago, everybody doesn't like me and everybody doesn't like South Carolina. If they can find something to blast us and talk negatively about us, they'll do it. So my message to the Carolina fan is don't listen to the enemy talk about us."
Earlier this summer, Spurrier wrote to six players that their scholarships, which are awarded yearly, would not be renewed. Spurrier also added that of those six, three players remained with the Gamecocks and at least one could have his scholarship renewed by next week.
Two others -- reported to be defensive back Trent Usher and offensive lineman Josh Winchell -- are expected to transfer. Receiver Grayson Mullins is the third known player to have his scholarship pulled.
Spurrier would not reveal the three players sent letters who remained working with the Gamecocks.
The board's letter, also sent to South Carolina athletic director Eric Hyman, said it felt that "USC has shown a lack of commitment to numerous athletes by threatening to revoke and revoking scholarships to athletes who are meeting all the requirements established by your football program."
The group went on to say that taking away a "scholarship because you feel an athlete cannot play at the level needed to compete in the Southeastern Conference is unethical."
Spurrier has said several times that he wanted to reward those players most deserving with scholarships. There are walk-ons, he said, who bring more to the program than some recruited players and should be rewarded. Spurrier recently gave two walk-ons, receiver Michael Flint and long-snapper Ike Crofoot, scholarships. He said there are other walk-ons who also may fit into South Carolina's maximum limit of 85 scholarships.
He said Saturday he didn't feel he'd done anything wrong. The NCAA says players must be told of their yearly scholarship renewals by July 1.
Spurrier's letter to coaches laid out how South Carolina's number of players grew to what it did and how the coaches chose to resolve it.
Spurrier admitted this was a rare situation. "We've never been squeezed numbers-wise the way we were here," he said.
Andy Tweito, a Daniel High assistant who is a member of the SCFCA board, said earlier this week that the coaches were not trying to start a battle with Spurrier. "We felt we had to say something," he said.
Tweito had said that some coaches at the meeting said they might not let South Carolina recruiters on their schools.
The SCFCA letter also asked the South Carolina High School League to consider pulling its five state championship games from Williams-Brice Stadium in December. The league's Weekend of Champions has been held at South Carolina's stadium each fall since 1997.
Was this the first time Spurrier's ever been labeled unethical? "Oh sure," he says, "every time we score over 50, they said I'd run it up, or put the backups in the game and keep scoring."
Spurrier says he'll give the matter as much credence as it deserves. "You've got to choose who you listen to in life," he said. "The people who can make you feel bad are going to do it. You've got to choose."
si.com
Explaining himself
Spurrier writes to coaches after revoking scholarships
Steve Spurrier wrote to six South Carolina players, telling them their scholarships would not be renewed.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier explained his reasons for revoking scholarships in a letter to state high school football head coaches after the South Carolina Football Coaches Association's Board of Directors called Spurrier's move "unethical."
Spurrier said Saturday he wrote the letter because he wanted the state's high school coaches to understand his actions.
He's gotten several calls of support from prep coaches since the board's letter came out Wednesday. As far as the 90 or so coaches who signed it, Spurrier said, "I'll tell you something I learned a long time ago, everybody doesn't like me and everybody doesn't like South Carolina. If they can find something to blast us and talk negatively about us, they'll do it. So my message to the Carolina fan is don't listen to the enemy talk about us."
Earlier this summer, Spurrier wrote to six players that their scholarships, which are awarded yearly, would not be renewed. Spurrier also added that of those six, three players remained with the Gamecocks and at least one could have his scholarship renewed by next week.
Two others -- reported to be defensive back Trent Usher and offensive lineman Josh Winchell -- are expected to transfer. Receiver Grayson Mullins is the third known player to have his scholarship pulled.
Spurrier would not reveal the three players sent letters who remained working with the Gamecocks.
The board's letter, also sent to South Carolina athletic director Eric Hyman, said it felt that "USC has shown a lack of commitment to numerous athletes by threatening to revoke and revoking scholarships to athletes who are meeting all the requirements established by your football program."
The group went on to say that taking away a "scholarship because you feel an athlete cannot play at the level needed to compete in the Southeastern Conference is unethical."
Spurrier has said several times that he wanted to reward those players most deserving with scholarships. There are walk-ons, he said, who bring more to the program than some recruited players and should be rewarded. Spurrier recently gave two walk-ons, receiver Michael Flint and long-snapper Ike Crofoot, scholarships. He said there are other walk-ons who also may fit into South Carolina's maximum limit of 85 scholarships.
He said Saturday he didn't feel he'd done anything wrong. The NCAA says players must be told of their yearly scholarship renewals by July 1.
Spurrier's letter to coaches laid out how South Carolina's number of players grew to what it did and how the coaches chose to resolve it.
Spurrier admitted this was a rare situation. "We've never been squeezed numbers-wise the way we were here," he said.
Andy Tweito, a Daniel High assistant who is a member of the SCFCA board, said earlier this week that the coaches were not trying to start a battle with Spurrier. "We felt we had to say something," he said.
Tweito had said that some coaches at the meeting said they might not let South Carolina recruiters on their schools.
The SCFCA letter also asked the South Carolina High School League to consider pulling its five state championship games from Williams-Brice Stadium in December. The league's Weekend of Champions has been held at South Carolina's stadium each fall since 1997.
Was this the first time Spurrier's ever been labeled unethical? "Oh sure," he says, "every time we score over 50, they said I'd run it up, or put the backups in the game and keep scoring."
Spurrier says he'll give the matter as much credence as it deserves. "You've got to choose who you listen to in life," he said. "The people who can make you feel bad are going to do it. You've got to choose."
Upvote
0
Again, there are two sides to every story. If the players discussed were not living up to their part of the bargain (i.e. going to class, receiving passing grades, working out regularly, attending all practices and workouts voluntary or not, etc.) they should have the scholarships revoked.
However, if the players were holding up their end and working hard but the coaching staff made a mistake in evaluating their talent level, the revocation is short sided. If that start of stuff starts to happen regularly at SC, Spurrier is going to have a hard time with the HS coaches.
It doesn't sound like this is the case, but not being involved I really don't have a clue who is right and who is wrong. The facts usually find the light of day and hopefully it will in this case.
One thing that does bother me is if the players in question were "doggin it" in practice, why didn't the leadership (other players) call them on it? When I played we policed ourselves in terms of guys taking off a practice. I'm not talking about a guy taking it easy in one practice (because of personal problems, sickness, death in the family, etc.). I am talking about the guys who continually come late to practice, not pay attention in meetings and then screw up on the field, causing all of us to wait, etc.
One thing to consider is that perhaps Spurrier is silent on the reasons for the review is because he does not want to embarrass the players.
However, if the players were holding up their end and working hard but the coaching staff made a mistake in evaluating their talent level, the revocation is short sided. If that start of stuff starts to happen regularly at SC, Spurrier is going to have a hard time with the HS coaches.
It doesn't sound like this is the case, but not being involved I really don't have a clue who is right and who is wrong. The facts usually find the light of day and hopefully it will in this case.
One thing that does bother me is if the players in question were "doggin it" in practice, why didn't the leadership (other players) call them on it? When I played we policed ourselves in terms of guys taking off a practice. I'm not talking about a guy taking it easy in one practice (because of personal problems, sickness, death in the family, etc.). I am talking about the guys who continually come late to practice, not pay attention in meetings and then screw up on the field, causing all of us to wait, etc.
One thing to consider is that perhaps Spurrier is silent on the reasons for the review is because he does not want to embarrass the players.
Upvote
0
I disagree with this. Granted, for the most part you shouldn't pull a schollie just becuse you overestimated a kid's abilities. However, there's a reason why schollies are awarded/renewed each year, and that's to make sure that players meet their part of the deal. Things beyond their control (injuries, etc.) should never be considered, but everything else (academic performance, class and practice attendance, effort, ability, etc.) should be. If I have a player who is, say, a senior-to-be and he has fallen off the three-deep at his position and hasn't contributed much during his previous three years, I'm going to tell him he'd better work his way back into the three-deep else I'm giving the schollie to a non-schollie kid ahead of ahead at his position. A scholarship senior should at least be in the three-deep.
Upvote
0
Let's play the hypothetical game... Clarett does not leave. Hall didn't blow out his knees. Ross could have possibly been #3, risking losing that to a healthy Hall (assuming Joe is #2). You have no business taking away Ross' schollie b/c the other guys were also really good.
I fully agree that if the guys effort is lackluster and that leads to the low depth chart position... then pulling the schollie is a whole different ballgame (and probalby more appropriate).
I just don't see pulling a schollie from a kid b/c he's too low on the chart. Otherwise you should tell the recruit before he signs that "We like you, but if you can't cut it against the other elite recruits that come to OSU, we'll yank your schollie."
I fully agree that if the guys effort is lackluster and that leads to the low depth chart position... then pulling the schollie is a whole different ballgame (and probalby more appropriate).
I just don't see pulling a schollie from a kid b/c he's too low on the chart. Otherwise you should tell the recruit before he signs that "We like you, but if you can't cut it against the other elite recruits that come to OSU, we'll yank your schollie."
Upvote
0
Mili's post is a good statement of one side of this argument. My point is that revoking scholarships for the 'types of reasons Spurrier is using' does not appear to be the generally accepted practice in college football.
I put 'types of reasons Spurrier is using' in quotes because in fairness I really don't know what those are in specific detail. I do know that a number of coaches in SC either went off half-gamecocked or they do know the details and don't want their kids treated this way. Ninety coaches is a lot in Ohio and it is a hell of a lot in a state with a third of the population of Ohio.
You can make the case that a coach has the right to not renew schollies based on performance - which is what this 'appears' to be (there certainly isn't any discussion of grades, drugs, or other misconduct). But if that is not the generally accepted practice Spurrier will pay the piper. I would not want to try to recruit against the puclicity he is getting over this. (Can you imagine the field day Michigan and ND would have if 90 coaches in Ohio signed such a letter?)
All that aside, I don't know any coach worth his salt who can't get a player to voluntary quit or request transfer if that is what he wants them to do. Is Spurrier getting lazy? Or are we really buying the argument that he wants to do this so he can take the higher ground and reward deserving walk-ons?
And finally, what does he 'officially' know about these kids other than what he learned last Spring? Why not make this decision then and give these kids a better chance to look at options? If this coach is pulling player's schollies because of something they failed to do during VOLUNTARY workouts it is worthy of NCAA investigation. The word voluntary has a definition after all both in the dictionary and in the NCAA handbook.
I put 'types of reasons Spurrier is using' in quotes because in fairness I really don't know what those are in specific detail. I do know that a number of coaches in SC either went off half-gamecocked or they do know the details and don't want their kids treated this way. Ninety coaches is a lot in Ohio and it is a hell of a lot in a state with a third of the population of Ohio.
You can make the case that a coach has the right to not renew schollies based on performance - which is what this 'appears' to be (there certainly isn't any discussion of grades, drugs, or other misconduct). But if that is not the generally accepted practice Spurrier will pay the piper. I would not want to try to recruit against the puclicity he is getting over this. (Can you imagine the field day Michigan and ND would have if 90 coaches in Ohio signed such a letter?)
All that aside, I don't know any coach worth his salt who can't get a player to voluntary quit or request transfer if that is what he wants them to do. Is Spurrier getting lazy? Or are we really buying the argument that he wants to do this so he can take the higher ground and reward deserving walk-ons?
And finally, what does he 'officially' know about these kids other than what he learned last Spring? Why not make this decision then and give these kids a better chance to look at options? If this coach is pulling player's schollies because of something they failed to do during VOLUNTARY workouts it is worthy of NCAA investigation. The word voluntary has a definition after all both in the dictionary and in the NCAA handbook.
Upvote
0
jwinslow said:
Did you even read my post? Didn't I say the guy should be in at least the three-deep? Under your scenario, Ross is #3, so he wouldn't have his schollie yanked. I also said a senior should be in the three-deep, not an underclassman...assuming he's low on the depth chart as a senior, chances are that he redshirted as a freshman, and thus will have had four years to work up into the three-deep. Or as a minimum be a solid special teams player and/or scout team player. The situation of a schollie actually being pulled for lack of ability/contribution should be indeed extraordinarily rare, but it should be an option available to the staff.
Upvote
0
OSUBasketballJunkie
Never Forget 31-0
Spurrier renews another scholarship
Posted: Thursday August 11, 2005 12:12PM; Updated: Thursday August 11, 2005 12:12PM
<!--startclickprintexclude--><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://i.a.cnn.net/si/.element/ssi/js/2.0/clickability/button2356_1.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href; </SCRIPT>
<!--endclickprintexclude-->COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A second player who got a letter from South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier revoking his scholarship has earned it back.
Spurrier made the announcement Wednesday.
Spurrier sent letters to six players over the summer taking away their scholarships. Three of those were receiver Grayson Mullins, defensive back Trent Usher and lineman Josh Winchell. Usher and Winchell are transferring. Mullins' appeal to retain his scholarship was denied.
"So six guys got letters, two have been renewed," Spurrier said Wednesday. "They stayed here, remained quiet, didn't burn any bridges and did what they were supposed to do. As it turned out, we ended up not renewing four."
The players who earned their scholarships back were not identified.
The move to take away scholarships angered some state high school football coaches. The board of directors of the South Carolina Football Coaches Association sent a letter of protest to Spurrier, calling his move "unethical." About 90 coaches signed the letter.
Spurrier said he has received several calls of support from high school football coaches around the state.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
<!--startclickprintexclude-->
Posted: Thursday August 11, 2005 12:12PM; Updated: Thursday August 11, 2005 12:12PM
<!--startclickprintexclude--><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://i.a.cnn.net/si/.element/ssi/js/2.0/clickability/button2356_1.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href; </SCRIPT>
<!--endclickprintexclude-->COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A second player who got a letter from South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier revoking his scholarship has earned it back.
Spurrier made the announcement Wednesday.
Spurrier sent letters to six players over the summer taking away their scholarships. Three of those were receiver Grayson Mullins, defensive back Trent Usher and lineman Josh Winchell. Usher and Winchell are transferring. Mullins' appeal to retain his scholarship was denied.
"So six guys got letters, two have been renewed," Spurrier said Wednesday. "They stayed here, remained quiet, didn't burn any bridges and did what they were supposed to do. As it turned out, we ended up not renewing four."
The players who earned their scholarships back were not identified.
The move to take away scholarships angered some state high school football coaches. The board of directors of the South Carolina Football Coaches Association sent a letter of protest to Spurrier, calling his move "unethical." About 90 coaches signed the letter.
Spurrier said he has received several calls of support from high school football coaches around the state.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
<!--startclickprintexclude-->
Upvote
0
OSUBasketballJunkie
Never Forget 31-0
cnnsi.com
8/15/06
8/15/06
Spurrier closes practices to public
Posted: Tuesday August 15, 2006 12:29AM; Updated: Tuesday August 15, 2006 12:29AM
<!--startclickprintexclude--><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://i.a.cnn.net/si/.element/ssi/js/2.0/clickability/button2356_1.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href; </SCRIPT>
<!--endclickprintexclude-->COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier says he is closing the rest of his team's practices because too much about what happens is being reported on Internet sites.
Spurrier says he is sorry the fans won't be able to watch the Gamecocks anymore, but too much was being revealed on the Web.
Spurrier made the surprise announcement Monday night. Practices were scheduled to remain open until the weekend.
Since he was hired before last season, Spurrier has held a number of open practices -- bucking a trend by most coaches of keeping nearly all their workouts closed to the public.
Also on Monday, running back Mike Davis shed his yellow jersey and took some hits for the first time during fall drills.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Upvote
0