Thought this was an interesting article about Marshall recruiting.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x ... d-go-at-MU

GoApps70 wrote:Thought this was an interesting article about Marshall recruiting.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x ... d-go-at-MU

Please tell me we do not play these games. Pulling scholarships from kids that have signed national letters of intent so you can sign someone else's cast off sounds a little bit lame.

GoApps70 wrote:Thought this was an interesting article about Marshall recruiting.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x ... d-go-at-MU

Are you surprised, GoApps70?

one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

Wow, that's pretty shady stuff. Kind of seems like there ought to be an NCAA penalty for that, unless the recruits agreed to it (not that I expect they'd do so without some coercion).

Pretty interesting article, but the writer let them off the hook a bit with this line:

"Marshall already is faced with having the smallest recruiting class of Doc Holliday's tenure in 2015, so gray-shirting was out of the question."

So if they didn't have room to grayshirt those players and take them in 2015, how do they have room to take six non-qualifiers who don't count against the 85 limit this year but WILL count next year, assuming they get eligible?

moehler wrote:one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

Though I don't like this it is basically what right to work for less states do with employment law. No reason need be given and all is fair short of a few federal laws against protected classes of people.

I care for neither the 1 year scholly offer nor do I like RTWforless. Either way the person without power has the potential to be screwed over for no reason other than a whim.

moehler wrote:one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

I would imagine that the NLI has language within the contract stating that it is renewable yearly at the discretion of the Athletic Department.

AppSt94 wrote:

moehler wrote:one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

I would imagine that the NLI has language within the contract stating that it is renewable yearly at the discretion of the Athletic Department.

I am sure it does, and I don't mind having something in there to protect the school. But it should be spelled out clearly. (not coming to practice, obviously not trying,hazing or criminal problems) and there should be a right to appeal to an outside arbitrator. And there should be plain language not legal jargon to explain all of this in clear bold font of a size that is easy to read without a magnifying glass.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

AppSt94 wrote:

moehler wrote:one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

I would imagine that the NLI has language within the contract stating that it is renewable yearly at the discretion of the Athletic Department.

I am sure it does, and I don't mind having something in there to protect the school. But it should be spelled out clearly. (not coming to practice, obviously not trying,hazing or criminal problems) and there should be a right to appeal to an outside arbitrator. And there should be plain language not legal jargon to explain all of this in clear bold font of a size that is easy to read without a magnifying glass.

I agree. There has to be some sort of non renew for cause. With the natural attrition from year to year, I would hope that a player losing his spot for a better player is the RARE exception and not the norm. I would like to see a larger sample to corroborate Marshall's problem.

AppSt94 wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

AppSt94 wrote:

moehler wrote:one of the two "dirty little secrets" collage football programs would wish we didn't know about, the other, that schlorships are only 1 year binding, not 4, and a coach, at his choice, and without giving a reason, can take a schlorship away from a kid who has done nothing wrong.

I would imagine that the NLI has language within the contract stating that it is renewable yearly at the discretion of the Athletic Department.

I am sure it does, and I don't mind having something in there to protect the school. But it should be spelled out clearly. (not coming to practice, obviously not trying,hazing or criminal problems) and there should be a right to appeal to an outside arbitrator. And there should be plain language not legal jargon to explain all of this in clear bold font of a size that is easy to read without a magnifying glass.

I agree. There has to be some sort of non renew for cause. With the natural attrition from year to year, I would hope that a player losing his spot for a better player is the RARE exception and not the norm. I would like to see a larger sample to corroborate Marshall's problem.

I doubt it happens often. But just having the language in place can have a chilling effect on dealing with problems from the student athlete side due to what could happen.