forums

Scholarship Distribution

chipcane said:
So yeah, some on the board have an elitist attitude, or at least project themselves that way. I remember one time being 'called out' for having a critical take during the '20 season re: Manny of all things(as I recall). At that time MANY were believers. The poster cited me as a troll because I had only twenty-something posts after recently joining the community. In fact, I've followed the 'Canes closely for some forty + years and worked in sports talk radio when I last lived in So. FL. in the early 90's. Not that credentials are required, but elitists act as if they are. This is an online community with all types ranging in age and overall football knowledge. IMO, regardless, everyone should be treated with respect. Yeah, ridicuolous takes may provoke a quip - but no need to be an a** hat.
Click to expand...
Old Man Good Job GIF
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
So you created your account today, and you suddenly have a ton of questions on this issue?

I'll make this simple. Before COVID and the COVID rule changes, we had 9 returning seniors. On top of that, there are things called "IC rules" and "you can only exceed 85 for one year". And don't even get me started on how easy (and cheap) it is for STATE schools to have walk-ons on their rosters.

Did you ACTUALLY see a link that said Oregon had 114 RECRUITED SCHOLARSHIP players, or was it just ROSTER players? Did it include walk-ons? You are missing the differences between apples and oranges.

Here's a hint, if you see a guy with ZERO stars on a P5 roster, you can bet your bottom dollar that he's a walk-on (even if he was eventually given a one-year non-renewable scholarship). And 2-stars who are not kickers or punters or long snappers? Usually Preferred Walk-Ons.

So, yeah, Alabama and Oregon were just KILLING us, because, the rules...and Miami laziness...
Click to expand...
Well, I created the account today so that I could post. I normally just go through and read, but felt like I had a question that I could not find the answer to. So I don't think that the question was answered. Was there a scholarship limit that was extended or could teams just sign and keep as many scholarships as they wanted. It looked to me as if all the kids that were on there were active for the previous season except for the recruits who I was not counting in my numbers. I'm sorry if my post offended anyone I just wanted to know how other teams were doing this?
 
Givemhill said:
Well, I created the account today so that I could post. I normally just go through and read, but felt like I had a question that I could not find the answer to. So I don't think that the question was answered. Was there a scholarship limit that was extended or could teams just sign and keep as many scholarships as they wanted. It looked to me as if all the kids that were on there were active for the previous season except for the recruits who I was not counting in my numbers. I'm sorry if my post offended anyone I just wanted to know how other teams were doing this?
Click to expand...


For last year, the 85 scholarship cap was simply removed, for those under scholarship already, plus new signees (subject to the 25 per year limit IC rule), plus (apparently, from looking at Oregon) walk-ons.

What that means is this: Miami had 9 seniors going into 2020, and they could all come back in 2021. If IN ADDITION you signed the 25 new kids, you could exceed the 85 cap. But you couldn't go out and find 25 extra kids, just because the 85 cap was gone for one year.

Then, by 2022, you have to be back at 85 total for scholarships.

So if you look at any of those schools, for instance Oregon, you have to: (a) remove any walk-ons (usually, the zero to two star guys), and (b) remove any kids who will be leaving. Whatever that number is, let's say it was 110, you will need to be back down to 85 for 2022. Whether you get to that number from graduation, NFL draft, transfer, etc., it doesn't matter.

Your post was not offensive in any way. My response was overly sarcastic, and for that, I apologize to you directly. There has been a ton of debate and analysis for the past 2 years, and there are a ton of threads on this, but it is no problem if you were unaware of this.

All the best, happy to answer any follow-up questions.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
For last year, the 85 scholarship cap was simply removed, for those under scholarship already, plus new signees (subject to the 25 per year limit IC rule), plus (apparently, from looking at Oregon) walk-ons.

What that means is this: Miami had 9 seniors going into 2020, and they could all come back in 2021. If IN ADDITION you signed the 25 new kids, you could exceed the 85 cap. But you couldn't go out and find 25 extra kids, just because the 85 cap was gone for one year.

Then, by 2022, you have to be back at 85 total for scholarships.

So if you look at any of those schools, for instance Oregon, you have to: (a) remove any walk-ons (usually, the zero to two star guys), and (b) remove any kids who will be leaving. Whatever that number is, let's say it was 110, you will need to be back down to 85 for 2022. Whether you get to that number from graduation, NFL draft, transfer, etc., it doesn't matter.

Your post was not offensive in any way. My response was overly sarcastic, and for that, I apologize to you directly. There has been a ton of debate and analysis for the past 2 years, and there are a ton of threads on this, but it is no problem if you were unaware of this.

All the best, happy to answer any follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
Bravo, you didn't disappoint..
 
TheOriginalCane said:
For last year, the 85 scholarship cap was simply removed, for those under scholarship already, plus new signees (subject to the 25 per year limit IC rule), plus (apparently, from looking at Oregon) walk-ons.

What that means is this: Miami had 9 seniors going into 2020, and they could all come back in 2021. If IN ADDITION you signed the 25 new kids, you could exceed the 85 cap. But you couldn't go out and find 25 extra kids, just because the 85 cap was gone for one year.

Then, by 2022, you have to be back at 85 total for scholarships.

So if you look at any of those schools, for instance Oregon, you have to: (a) remove any walk-ons (usually, the zero to two star guys), and (b) remove any kids who will be leaving. Whatever that number is, let's say it was 110, you will need to be back down to 85 for 2022. Whether you get to that number from graduation, NFL draft, transfer, etc., it doesn't matter.

Your post was not offensive in any way. My response was overly sarcastic, and for that, I apologize to you directly. There has been a ton of debate and analysis for the past 2 years, and there are a ton of threads on this, but it is no problem if you were unaware of this.

All the best, happy to answer any follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification!
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Wait, so you created a second account to get into fights with people while you try to defend your other account? Or maybe WanderFranco is your first account?

All these alt accounts are sooooo confusing...
Click to expand...
One the upside, he didn't use "Cane" in either of them, that's got to be a first.
 
chipcane said:
So yeah, some on the board have an elitist attitude, or at least project themselves that way. I remember one time being 'called out' for having a critical take during the '20 season re: Manny of all things(as I recall). At that time MANY were believers. The poster cited me as a troll because I had only twenty-something posts after recently joining the community. In fact, I've followed the 'Canes closely for some forty + years and worked in sports talk radio when I last lived in So. FL. in the early 90's. Not that credentials are required, but elitists act as if they are. This is an online community with all types ranging in age and overall football knowledge. IMO, regardless, everyone should be treated with respect. Yeah, ridicuolous takes may provoke a quip - but no need to be an a** hat.
Click to expand...
I'll just mention that if you treat every new poster who says something inflammatory like they're a troll, you'll be right 9/10 times. Sure, it's not fair to that 10th guy, but the schtick gets old. Speaking for myself, it's not elitism so much as I'm just tired of it. Anyway, glad you stuck around.
 
It's actually a great thing we didn't take much advantage of the COVID rules - teams like NC St and Wake have only been able to take tiny classes because they're chock-a-block full of COVID players who've been granted an additional year.
 
OldhamA said:
It's actually a great thing we didn't take much advantage of the COVID rules - teams like NC St and Wake have only been able to take tiny classes because they're chock-a-block full of COVID players who've been granted an additional year.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a matter of taking advantage of it. We used the rule but only had 9 Covid seniors return. It just means we should have lots of room for kids in ‘22 and ‘23 especially with the plus 7 rule for portal kids. Miami FINALLY will play near 85 which is a first since Shannon.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
For last year, the 85 scholarship cap was simply removed, for those under scholarship already, plus new signees (subject to the 25 per year limit IC rule), plus (apparently, from looking at Oregon) walk-ons.

What that means is this: Miami had 9 seniors going into 2020, and they could all come back in 2021. If IN ADDITION you signed the 25 new kids, you could exceed the 85 cap. But you couldn't go out and find 25 extra kids, just because the 85 cap was gone for one year.

Then, by 2022, you have to be back at 85 total for scholarships.

So if you look at any of those schools, for instance Oregon, you have to: (a) remove any walk-ons (usually, the zero to two star guys), and (b) remove any kids who will be leaving. Whatever that number is, let's say it was 110, you will need to be back down to 85 for 2022. Whether you get to that number from graduation, NFL draft, transfer, etc., it doesn't matter.

Your post was not offensive in any way. My response was overly sarcastic, and for that, I apologize to you directly. There has been a ton of debate and analysis for the past 2 years, and there are a ton of threads on this, but it is no problem if you were unaware of this.

All the best, happy to answer any follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
the lion king GIF
 
Advertisement
Back
Top