Suhrthing
Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,151
Indeed. She's pretty far from my views - but has been pragmatic from what i've seen.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.She’s been in the portal.
Open to arguments from all sides.
Scholarships are one year renewable, so this seems to be a case of “You no longer have a scholarship at UM for next season”
This might be the case, but I haven’t heard of these changes.I thought P5 schools can no longer pull a scholarships for athletic reasons?
Baxas leg is a cancer for sureThis. 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.
No but they multiplying rapidlyYour creatures aren't inbreeding are they?
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.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.
I was talking about 85 being the number, not per position.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.
My guess is that some may be encouraged to find better other opportunities, but not many.I was talking about 85 being the number, not per position.
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.
Lol. I see that.No but they multiplying rapidly
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 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
yet she votes for whatever she is told toIndeed. She's pretty far from my views - but has been pragmatic from what i've seen.
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 itIDK 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
joke??Polenday is definitely the bad culture guy we need processed out.
Yesjoke??
My god those teeth, have you ever seen more perfect?She’s so beautiful.