1. 

   Bobby Dennis
   April 15th, 2010 - 15:47

   Unless I am mistaken, the SEC has adopted a rule of not signing any more than 26. I do agree that some players do get “kicked” to the curb.
   It can be brutal, however the reality is, life in general “ain’t fair”.
   To suggest otherwise, is unrealistic.

   I have 3 points to make in response.

   1. In the event of a career ending injury to a player (I.E.)Tyrone Prothro, are you suggesting that the University loose one of their “85″ to deplete an active roster??

   To suggest that a certain player could find a “place on the team” although they can not contribute on the field???….To me that is dead weight. After all, they are here to get an education, first and foremost?? A medical scholarship would provide them that opportunity.

   Using this logic, teams could loose several players to severe injuries in any given season. If not for the medical scholarships, a team could have a quite a few “undergraduate assistants” and would count against the magic “85″.

   2. To imply OSU is unique in providing available scholarships to walk-ons who have deserved the opportunity is misleading. Does the name Rashad Johnson ring a bell??
   Yep…it was Nick Saban who offered a scholarship to this walk on, which by the way became the starting safety on the 2008 team.

   3. Is this division 1 college football, or is this “daddy” ball??
   Say what you want about Saban. He demands excellence from his players on and off the field. Should they not, they pay the penalty. A scholarship is a privilege, not a right. It’s a concept that society no longer grasps or comprehends anymore.

   You don’t think Saban’s former players respects him???? Perhaps you didn’t see the 2007 BAMA/LSU game. Almost every LSU Player met Saban on the field after the game to show their appreciation and respect.

   I don’t understand the motives in demonizing the SEC. The Big 10 and OSU are as fine of a conference and program in athletics.

   I think the biggest problem with the Big 10 is…

   a. Loosing a lot of blue chips to southern schools (Mark Ingram) for example. Kids want to play in the comfort of the Southeast and/or California.

   b. The Big 10 hasn’t gotten on board with a 12 team conference and a conference championship game. It generates revenue and interest. But most importantly, it promotes the Conference nationally. Saban, like Bryant are (were) not necessarily the most brilliant football minds as x’s and o’s go, BUT they understood the importance of promoting their program and implimenting a process.

   The SEC is the envy of College football…..The New York Yankees are the envy of MLB. What in the Hell is wrong with dynasties in America. By the way, Michigan, Notre Dame and Ohio State fall into that catagory….Whats the real issue here??

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     Lee Roi Jordan
     April 19th, 2010 - 13:48

     Nothing is wrong with dynasties, but you are mixing apples and oranges a bit. The SEC is a league, not a team. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to claim that the SEC is the envy of college football – The American League is the envy of MLB or the NFC is the envy of the NFL (we all remember the images of fans in Chicago, Green Bay and Dallas chanting NFC!! NFC!! NFC!! as the Saints were winning the Super Bowl).

     ( REPLY )
2. 

   KA
   May 4th, 2010 - 09:49

   Bobby,

   I would like to address your comments; specifically, what many college football fans have come to abhor about what the SEC (not alone, but many in that conference are the avant garde of repugnant practices) have come to represent.

   1. In the event of a career ending injury to a player, I.E. Tyrone Prothro, are you suggesting the University lose one of their 85 and deplete the active roster?

   Most would agree that a student athlete that is medically unable to participate should continue to receive the free college education he was promised when he agreed to play football.

   The part most college football fans find repugnant, is when that player is influenced to accept a medical prognosis that other doctors would not support. (This site has documented this practice for multiple players from SEC schools). Not saying this is always the case; there are certainly players that are actually unable to participate like Tyron Prothro or Tyson Gentry at Ohio State. However, any time a player is persuaded to accept a medical hardship when it is unnecessary, a little bit of college football’s soul dies.

   2. To imply OSU is unique in providing available scholarships to walk-ons who have deserved the opportunity is misleading. Does the name Rashad Johnson ring a bell?

   I do not have a strong opinion on this either way. I do not think any coaches should be forced or even coerced to reward walk-ons with scholarships. If OSU commonly does this and other teams do not, my fist inclination is that OSU is hamstringing itself and cannot complain when others do not follow this practice.

   The only reason I quoted your argument is that I found it humorous that you cite an example of Rashad Johnson (presumably an Alabama player?) being rewarded a scholarship, but then you say he was a starter.
   I think the point the original author was trying to make is that OSU rewards guys that are not important to the team’s success unlike the SEC which is cut throat and semi-professional.

   If Saban gave Rashad Johnson a scholarship, he did it at the expense of a former scholarship athlete (they have too many players already), further reinforcing the stereotype that the SEC team, and Alabama in particular, are willing to throw a kid away if it helps them win.

   3. Is this division 1 college football or is this “daddy ball?”… A scholarship is a privilege, not a right.

   Again, your opinion represents what is wrong with college football.

   (a) Division 1 college football or daddy ball?

   Your attempt to diminish the problem is a large part of the problem. Things will never change if no one admits there is a problem. Where do you draw the line? Can college football teams openly have cuts? Openly provide “academic” scholarships to 50 players a year? Allow players to avoid class all together?

   College football is great because of the student athlete concept. With professional players come professional attitudes, professional free agency, and apathy for the game itself.

   All of the schools that endorse and participate in the types of schemes (having additional scholarships, cutting players, having alternative scholarships for other players) brings college football nearer to professional ranks.

   It infuriates and saddens a large portion of college football fans.

   (b) A scholarship is a privilege not a right.

   I have to disagree with this as well.

   Once a player signs a letter of intent, it is a binding contract (albeit for 1 year). That player has a RIGHT to be on scholarship for that year and presumably for the entire 4 years. The player’s and the country’s perception of the scholarship at large, is that a scholarship is valid for 4 years.

   For a university to undermine this offer is sickening to many fans that feel this further cheapens and devalues the game.

   I hope most fans do not think the way you think. If so, in 20 years my children will not be able to enjoy the college game like I did. They will have meaningless, minor league football.

   Rather than the Big Ten join 1AA, why not have the SEC (and other slimy teams) observe both the letter and the spirit of the rules?

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     Joshua James
     May 4th, 2010 - 11:14

     Great post KA, I couldn’t have said it any better! Thanks for reading the site and joining in the conversation.

     ( REPLY )
3. 

   Ryan
   May 19th, 2010 - 18:12

   I find it very comical that you run this site on so much speculation and without the use of actual facts. You mention in this article a player by the name of Milton Talbert and have an exert saying that nobody knows what is wrong with him. I know that you did this to make people speculate and jump to conclusions that the coaching staff and medical staff is making something out of nothing to hoefully “run off” another player by placing him on medical hardship scholarship. I agree that he is a great candidate for a medical hardship scholarship but that’s only because I actually know what is wrong with him. Talbert has battled through multiple shoulder injuries and has had more than one surgery to repair damage to is shoulders. This all points to the fact that he is injury prone and medically should not be playing such a physical sport. He also recently had another injury that hasn’t yet been announced and had another surgery to fix it. I know because I sat beside him in class this past semester. It will be very hard for Milton to come back and even come close to competing for playing time so I think it would be great to place him on medical scholarship so that he can finish his education and he wont be exposed to further risk of injury. Sometimes that’s what a medical scholarship is about. A player may not have a career ending injury but instead a series of injuries that leads the medical staff to conclude that he shouldn’t play anymore.

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     Joshua
     May 19th, 2010 - 23:03

     Ryan,
     Couple of things here.

     1. We simply linked an article, there was no speculation on our part other than it had been reported on an Alabama website that Talbert might be a candidate for a medical hardship.

     2. We are not opposed to the medical hardship scholarship; we just think that it becomes suspicious when you have an oversigned roster and players have to be shed in order to avoid penalties from the NCAA.

     3. By oversigning, coaches are creating a situation where they can avoid roster depth issues by having more bodies available than they have room for and making attrition a necessity.

     4. We wish the best for Talbert.

     ( REPLY )

Leave a comment