Worst idea ever?

[Fungo Squiggly]

Let me preface this with a disclaimer (or two). First, this is a purely hypothetical situation. I have never heard of this happening, nor do I know if it actively occurs. Second, I am not in favor of this policy. I just want to get a feel for some other folks reactions to the idea.

If a scholarship player does not perform well in his/her sport, should the university have the right to revoke or reduce his/her scholarship?

Here is my thinking:
Everything about this idea feels wrong to me, but I don't know why. I have found it much easier to rationalize taking the scholarship away from the athlete rather than continuing to provide for him/her, but it still seems like the incorrect line of action.

As a student, I attend OSU on scholarship. This scholarship was awarded based on my academic abilities. If I failed to perform as anticipated, they would not hesitate to reduce/revoke my scholarship amount. These athletes are awarded scholarships based on physical abilities, but if they don't perform as anticipated, they still get their fees paid.

If possible, I would like to hear someone else's thoughts on the subject.

 

[AKAK]

Because.. no matter how much you don't want to think it is.. this is not Professional Sports.

And for a whole lot of other reasons.



This IS the dumbest idea ever.

Ps- the rep stick is out.

 

[exhawg]

A few thoughts:
-1A schools can only offer full rides. They can't reduce it.
-If a player doesn't keep their grades up or gets in trouble the school can pull the scholarship
-If a player keeps their nose clean and just don't pan out on the field the school can't do anything for the 4 years, but they don't have to grant you a redshirt year if you aren't playing. I was in the senior picture 2 years because of that.
-If a coach really wants to get rid of a player he will find a way. All he has to do is make the player hate playing so much that they quit. We had several players get run off while I was in college. I.e. if you want a QB to quit move them to TE.

 

[OilerBuck]

You can't use the academic scholarship comparison...because your academic scholarship is revoked if you perform below the upper tier of students at the school. Even the WORST scholarship athletes are still in the upper tier of the school at their sport.

I think that athletic scholarships should only be stripped based on poor conduct. A lot of these kids couldn't go to school without a scholarship and unless they really make a mistake, they should keep that opportunity.

 

[jwinslow]

You can't take a player's schollie away because he's not playing good enough, because how the heck do you define good enough? It creates too much of a loophole for coach's threatening their players with lost scholarships and such...

I understand your line of thinking but it would be very bad if that were allowed IMO

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

you must watch games with my dad

the line "take his scholarship and get him on the next flight out of columbus" is used several times a game. if he was running the show, Zwick would have had his scholarship taken away about 20 times now.

 

[jwinslow]

I bet your dad wanted Nuge gone too

 

[coastalbuck]

If a coach really wants to get rid of a player he will find a way.

Nuff said!!!

 

[NorthShoreBuck]

Hawg

Do you remember if your ride was for four years or did you automatically reup every year?

I do not remember, after too many knee surgeries I called it quits after two years. Good thing was I finished school on grants and a few loans so my cost was minimal.

You know if you are wanted or needed pretty quickly. The QB to tight end move is just one way coaches tell you that you are not wanted.

The amazing thing is we probably lost 1/3 of our incoming class after the first year. Injuries, grades, homesickness, girlfriends pregnancy, not starting all took out a few.

 

[IronBuckI]

Grades and conduct are the only two reasons that I can see as a reason for pulling anyones scholly. Regardless of performance on the field, a player is still there to get an education. If the kid isn't producing in the classroom, then they obviously aren't interested in keeping their scholarship, IMO.

 

[exhawg]

Hawg

Do you remember if your ride was for four years or did you automatically reup every year?

I do not remember, after too many knee surgeries I called it quits after two years. Good thing was I finished school on grants and a few loans so my cost was minimal.

You know if you are wanted or needed pretty quickly. The QB to tight end move is just one way coaches tell you that you are not wanted.

The amazing thing is we probably lost 1/3 of our incoming class after the first year. Injuries, grades, homesickness, girlfriends pregnancy, not starting all took out a few.

It automatically reuped every year through 4 years. As long as you didn't screw up they couldn't touch it. We had plenty of guys that were mistakes, but stayed on schollie 4 years. I think about half my class didn't play football anymore by the time we finished up.

 

[BB73]

If a school did drop scholarships based solely on lack of athletic performance, the other schools would immediately use that information against it in recruiting. It would be a no-class thing to do. Schools typically retain the schollies for players that get injured and can no longer play. Some do this because it's the right thing to do, some do this so they're not called out for having no class and dumping the scholarship.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Thanks for the thoughts. I am glad to see I titled the thread appropriately.

 

[KevinBuck]

Some info

According to this site:
http://www.nasl.com/college/how_college_scholarships_really_.htm

"In both head-count and equivalency sports, a player's aid is subject to annual renewal."


And I'm not sure if scholarships are the same as grants-in-aid (there is no specific mention of "scholarships" in the OSU student-athlete handbook), but GIAs are awarded on an annual basis, with these stipulations:

"The following procedures govern the renewal process as well as grant-in-aid grievance procedures.​

(1) All student-athletes are notified of their renewal status by July 1.​

(2) The student-athlete's responsibilities in the classroom and as a member of the athletic program must be met to insure renewal of grant-in-aid.​

(3) Relative lack of athletic ability or serious injury will​

​

NOT result in denied renewal of grantin-aid."​

http://ohiostatebuckeyes.collegesports.com/genrel/handbook-toc.html​

​

So it sounds like scholarships are technically awarded on a year-to-year basis, but at least at OSU they cannot be revoked based on athletic performance--which is as it should be in amateur sports. But I have heard much dumber ideas in my day...​

 

[ScarletFever]

An academic scholarship is awarded on scholarly merit and hence can be revoked if the student doesn't perform in the classroom. Fair.

An athletic sholarship is awarded to exemplory STUDENT athletes. It too can be revoked if the student doesn't perform in the classroom. Atheltics should be considered a distance second in priorties (who am I kidding, right?). In reality though, someone said it best earlier, how peanlize the athlete who performs to their god given ability but is still not good enough (perhaps becasue there is a better athlete...). Imo, if the kid is achieving in the classroom and qualified to perform athletically by maintaining their eligebility then they have fullilled their end of the agreement.


You shouldn't penalize me for not being as good as you thought I was, when you are getting all god gave me. Just wouldn't be fair, nor practical for that matter.