About these Portal Announcements . . .

[Suhrthing]

She’s been in the portal.

Open to arguments from all sides.

Indeed. She's pretty far from my views - but has been pragmatic from what i've seen.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Scholarships are one year renewable, so this seems to be a case of “You no longer have a scholarship at UM for next season”

I thought P5 schools can no longer pull a scholarships for athletic reasons?

 

[Jaxson Villain]

I thought P5 schools can no longer pull a scholarships for athletic reasons?

This might be the case, but I haven’t heard of these changes.

 

[canefancarlos]

This. Unless they are cancers (and the ones leaving in the last few days seem like they are not cancers, but JAGs) there would be no reason for Manny to encourage them to leave now.

Baxas leg is a cancer for sure

 

[Cajuncane]

We gonna have a pro roster next year...53 players

 

[Canedog]

Your creatures aren't inbreeding are they?

No but they multiplying rapidly

 

[GojiraCane]

Well, we were well under the numbers, so it doesn’t make sense to tell them to leave. We need the bodies. I think they see the writing on the wall based on playing time next year.

In Polendey's case, it's a log-jam at TE. We were slated to carry 6 going into this season - one more than in 2018. We've only been above 5 tight ends on the roster once since 2012.

 

[jamiecane]

In Polendey's case, it's a log-jam at TE. We were slated to carry 6 going into this season - one more than in 2018. We've only been above 5 tight ends on the roster once since 2012.

I was talking about 85 being the number, not per position.

 

[GojiraCane]

I was talking about 85 being the number, not per position.

My guess is that some may be encouraged to find better other opportunities, but not many.

The challenge is that we have attritted 99 players in four years and have signed 93. Over five years, we lost 126 and signed 114. New coaches produce higher than normal turnover, and the 25 per year scholarship limit hurts our ability to claw back to 85. We need coaching stability.

Last year we lost 31 players against the 23 that we signed.

 

[rustywalkedaway]

Does anyone have a clue whether or not Mammy or crew has encouraged a number of these guys to hit the portal or hit the road?

Seems like ones going into the portal are not exactly carrying an abundance of accomplishment into the portal with them.

Isn't that true for most in the portal? The only exceptions I see are grad transfers, those who supposedly don't fit in a new regime, and those with "issues".

Not a lot of proven studs moving on, though certainly some previously highly ranked guys.

 

[Home Slice]

No but they multiplying rapidly

Lol. I see that.

 

[Fawk_U Haters]

I thought P5 schools can no longer pull a scholarships for athletic reasons?

This is not true. However a few schools, USCw being the most prominent that I’ve seen, have made their LOI a 4 year guarantee and not a yearly renewal.

I think it should be a 4 year guarantee. Would hamstring low class coaches like Saban

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

This is not true. However a few schools, USCw being the most prominent that I’ve seen, have made their LOI a 4 year guarantee and not a yearly renewal.

I think it should be a 4 year guarantee. Would hamstring low class coaches like Saban

IDK about Alabama, but the NCAA passed a rule that said P5 schools can't pull a scholarship for non-performance/athletic reasons:

Here are several facts about this rule:

– This new rule was voted in by the universities of the “Power 5” conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-12, and SEC, as well as Notre Dame. This rule must be followed by these 65 universities.

In 2015, the NCAA Division I “Power 5” Schools implemented a rule that has the effect of “protecting” Division I student-athletes from having their athletic scholarship cancelled or not renewed for any athletics reason. Quite simply, a coach cannot take away a scholarship for poor athletic performance.

– Other Division I schools and conferences can choose to follow this rule, but are not required to do so. So, an athlete receiving an athletic scholarship from a university that is NOT one of the 65 mentioned here might still receive a one-year scholarship which a coach can choose not to renew for the following academic year.

– The “protection” provided by this rule only applies to athletes who signed their National Letter of Intent and scholarship agreement after the new rule was approved in January of this year (at the NCAA Convention), will be enrolling in a Division I university as a freshman or new transfer this Fall, AND who will be receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment.

– The rule will NOT apply to athletes who are not receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment at their university. (Example: a volleyball player not receiving an athletic scholarship in their freshman year, but promised one in the following three years, will not receive the protection of this new rule.)

– It is still possible for universities to cancel or choose to not renew a scholarship for reasons that are NOT related to athletic performance.

The Facts About “Guaranteed” Multi-year NCAA DI Scholarships

NCAA Compliance Expert Rick Allen provides important facts about the new NCAA Division I rule which has the effect of “protecting” Division I student-athletes from having their athletic scholarship cancelled or not renewed for any athletic performance reason.

informedathlete.com

 

[svenben]

Indeed. She's pretty far from my views - but has been pragmatic from what i've seen.

yet she votes for whatever she is told to

 

[Fawk_U Haters]

IDK about Alabama, but the NCAA passed a rule that said P5 schools can't pull a scholarship for non-performance/athletic reasons:

Here are several facts about this rule:

– This new rule was voted in by the universities of the “Power 5” conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-12, and SEC, as well as Notre Dame. This rule must be followed by these 65 universities.

In 2015, the NCAA Division I “Power 5” Schools implemented a rule that has the effect of “protecting” Division I student-athletes from having their athletic scholarship cancelled or not renewed for any athletics reason. Quite simply, a coach cannot take away a scholarship for poor athletic performance.

– Other Division I schools and conferences can choose to follow this rule, but are not required to do so. So, an athlete receiving an athletic scholarship from a university that is NOT one of the 65 mentioned here might still receive a one-year scholarship which a coach can choose not to renew for the following academic year.

– The “protection” provided by this rule only applies to athletes who signed their National Letter of Intent and scholarship agreement after the new rule was approved in January of this year (at the NCAA Convention), will be enrolling in a Division I university as a freshman or new transfer this Fall, AND who will be receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment.

– The rule will NOT apply to athletes who are not receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment at their university. (Example: a volleyball player not receiving an athletic scholarship in their freshman year, but promised one in the following three years, will not receive the protection of this new rule.)

– It is still possible for universities to cancel or choose to not renew a scholarship for reasons that are NOT related to athletic performance.

The Facts About “Guaranteed” Multi-year NCAA DI Scholarships

NCAA Compliance Expert Rick Allen provides important facts about the new NCAA Division I rule which has the effect of “protecting” Division I student-athletes from having their athletic scholarship cancelled or not renewed for any athletic performance reason.

informedathlete.com

I like that rule and while it is a start just remember....You can make the facts fit any narrative you want. Coaches can still cancel guys out for non performance athletic wise, they just can’t say that’s why they’re doing it

 

[tsimonitis]

Polenday is definitely the bad culture guy we need processed out.

 

[Jmhcane]

Polenday is definitely the bad culture guy we need processed out.

joke??

 

[tsimonitis]

joke??

Yes

 

[Silver King]

She’s so beautiful.

My god those teeth, have you ever seen more perfect?