FishDuck Article Administrator No. 1 Share Posted March 7, 2023 There is a strange rule in College Football where a first-year head coach with a program has the ability to remove players from the football team, and the team will regain that scholarship right away. This rule has been used in recent years to help transform teams. In the case of Lincoln Riley and USC, we saw him cut enough ... This First-Year Coaching Rule Should Be Made Permanent FISHDUCK.COM There is a strange rule in College Football where a first-year head coach with a program has the ability to remove players from the football team… 1 2 Two Sites: FishDuck and the Our Beloved Ducks forum, The only "Forum with Decorum!" And All-Volunteer? What a wonderful community of Duck fans! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 2 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Life is tough and the sooner young people learn tough lessons the better. If a student athlete makes a mistake they should learn a lesson. The game will teach them the same lesson, which is one reason I love the game. While I don't agree with the scholarship idea I do think athletes who get a bachelors degree deserve more. I would like to see Universities extend the ability of an athlete who earns his bachelors after competing 4-5 years the right to earn a masters free of charge. If they get a masters, then a PHD free of charge. The more soft landings we give our young the softer the generation will become. Athletic competition helps teach what we need in the next generation, and so does tough life choices. Let's continue to reward success, let our young learn to struggle and become stronger from the experience. It is the struggle which teaches us the most. Great ponder point, and I just respectfully disagree with how we should reward these student athletes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Haulin No. 3 Share Posted March 7, 2023 The rule is 1 year? Isn't DL outside the 1 year threshold? If not, how is the 1 year calculated? Start of spring ball? Start of fall camp? Signed contract? If this was covered, I missed it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tandaian No. 4 Share Posted March 7, 2023 I understand the 1st year rule, but why do the students have to have the short stick after year 1? When schools sign players to a scholarship, that is a contract for 4 or 5 years. Schools/Head coaches get a do over without consequences, but students don't? It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted without consequences, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is, but giving a school an out when they make the wrong decision doesn't feel like the right thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 5 Share Posted March 7, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 6:39 AM, Log Haulin said: The rule is 1 year? Isn't DL outside the 1 year threshold? If not, how is the 1 year calculated? Start of spring ball? Start of fall camp? Signed contract? If this was covered, I missed it. He would be outside of year 1 now. But if he used this rule he could have used it in December and there wouldn't have been any announcements about players being removed from the team but retaining their scholarships. So he probably already used this rule and we just don't know about it. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 6 Share Posted March 7, 2023 (edited) Amen David, Amen. Trying to build a college roster in a day and age of NIL, cut-throat recruiting, roster tampering, and restrictions on transfers governed only by dates when the transfer portal is open is chaos. Far easier to build a roster in the NFL than in the P5 and G5. Imagine how the Arizona coaching staff and fans feel about 3 of its best players being poached by USC. How about a very good Oregon TE room being hurt by losing a solid TE to USC? It's difficult to not see USC under Riley as the leader in roster tampering. Ask Coach Narduzzi at Pitt Opportunity for the players? I'm all for it but somehow in some way this 'chaos' has to be regulated and with an impotent NCAA there is nobody to provide regulation. IMO, with an 85 scholarship cap coaches should be able to 'cut' players so long, as you so noted David, players can retain their scholarship. Edited March 7, 2023 by Jon Joseph Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 7 Share Posted March 7, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 9:34 AM, Haywarduck said: Life is tough and the sooner young people learn tough lessons the better. If a student athlete makes a mistake they should learn a lesson. The game will teach them the same lesson, which is one reason I love the game. While I don't agree with the scholarship idea I do think athletes who get a bachelors degree deserve more. I would like to see Universities extend the ability of an athlete who earns his bachelors after competing 4-5 years the right to earn a masters free of charge. If they get a masters, then a PHD free of charge. The more soft landings we give our young the softer the generation will become. Athletic competition helps teach what we need in the next generation, and so does tough life choices. Let's continue to reward success, let our young learn to struggle and become stronger from the experience. It is the struggle which teaches us the most. Great ponder point, and I just respectfully disagree with how we should reward these student athletes. Love the graduate school idea. I would expand it in the situation you described to an entire conference proving tuition-free graduate school opportunities. Loyalty in a day and age of players 'jumping ship' should be rewarded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 8 Share Posted March 7, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 8:05 AM, Tandaian said: I understand the 1st year rule, but why do the students have to have the short stick after year 1? When schools sign players to a scholarship, that is a contract for 4 or 5 years. Schools/Head coaches get a do over without consequences, but students don't? It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted without consequences, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is, but giving a school an out when they make the wrong decision doesn't feel like the right thing. The solution I am proposing is to extend this rule, with limits the current version for year 1 coaches is a bit much, especially if it is permanent, because right now the problem is that student-athletes who want to remain students at this schools can find themselves in various degrees of toxic football cultures with coaches wanting to open up more room for new players who can make a greater impact. This pushes the student to either leave or live with it which isn't fair on anyone. Coaching staves are working harder than ever to build the roster they need to compete and there will always be players who don't live up to their recruitment billing but those players should be given an option to be cut from the team but retain their scholarship for the duration of their eligibility at the school they chose rather than feel like they don't belong with their team by a coaching staff that would like nothing more than for them to transfer. It gives an option for players who really want to continue to be students rather than athletes. Right now College Football players really seem to fall into two distinct categories. One is the super star player grouping where they are big time players with NFL potential and they are receiving NIL money and basically professionals right now. The other category are players who were good enough to earn a scholarship with their school and some of these players are able to make it big but most of them will only contribute in a limited role whether that is scout team, special team, or even some limited reps during the game. These are the players who are the most negatively impacted by the rise of the Transfer Portal and NIL because these players won't have a home if they go into the portal. These are the players who really get "paid" through receiving their education. There may be Oregon pictures in this article but this isn't an article directly targeted at Oregon but rather all of college football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lownslowav8r No. 9 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Those cut should keep their scholarships and be allowed to use the Transfer Portal without losing the scholarship. If they don’t find a new home they can still get an education. If they transfer hopefully they’ll have a scholarship at their new school. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 10 Share Posted March 7, 2023 It may not be easy, but the best life lesson is consequences. The more protections we put in for those who fail the more of a disservice we do for them in the end. One of the big problems is almost every student athlete believes they fall into the first category you described David, they're all superstars. If they don't make it the coach had it in for them. This is a big reason the portal is full, and superstars aren't getting a second chance. Maybe each full ride athletic scholarship should include tuition for 4 years, (130 credits) the rest is on them if they fail to live up to the athletic side of things. I do like the carrot approach where if you succeed you get even more. The benefit to a program is immense when a player has completed 4-5 years at a school. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 11 Share Posted March 7, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 1:24 PM, Haywarduck said: It may not be easy, but the best life lesson is consequences. The more protections we put in for those who fail the more of a disservice we do for them in the end. One of the big problems is almost every student athlete believes they fall into the first category you described David, they're all superstars. If they don't make it the coach had it in for them. This is a big reason the portal is full, and superstars aren't getting a second chance. Maybe each full ride athletic scholarship should include tuition for 4 years, (130 credits) the rest is on them if they fail to live up to the athletic side of things. I do like the carrot approach where if you succeed you get even more. The benefit to a program is immense when a player has completed 4-5 years at a school. And I think this serves those who jump into the transfer portal looking for greener pastures just fine. I'm more concerned about those students who know their ability and know the risk of not finding a new home is too great. But at the same time there are most assuredly programs that are pushing students out in order to make room for transfers and those students who just want to stay at their school and remain on a scholarship that they earned. I don't think there would be that many student-athletes who would take this approach of opting to be cut but remain at the school as many would like to still play football. But I do feel with the meat grinder that is taking place with college athletics that there should be a way that a coach can get rid of a player that gives the player the choice to stay at the school under scholarship. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanLduck No. 12 Share Posted March 7, 2023 It's my understanding that not all schollies offered are necessarily for all 4/5 years. I seem to recall reading that Alabama can and does pull schollies from underperforming players. Oregon offers more 4 years than most, I think, but is this a reality too? If you don't play, you should have to pay. IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
