Florida Cuts Two to Make Scholarship Cap
According to a tweet today by Palm Beach Post writer Ben Volin, the Florida Gators were two scholarships over the 85-player cap as of National Signing Day this year. Ignoring the question of how Volin knew this (or "calculated" it) for now, it's worth noting that two players were allegedly cut, to make the cap. One of them, defensive tackle Gary Brown, had some legal trouble last year and the other, defensive tackle Edwin Herbert, was a JuCo transfer who didn't make any meaningful contributions on the field last year.
It stands to reason that, had it not been for Meyer engaging in the dreaded "over-signing", these two humble student athletes would still have their scholarships.
This case illustrates the fact that quality coaches are always going to have a plan for making it under the cap. There is little doubt that Meyer would've kept these guys if he could. Florida, like most other major football programs, budgets to give out 85 scholarships every year, and it really does them very little good to save the money. If the player is not causing problems and there is even an outside shot he could turn into a contributor, you might as well keep him around. The limit changes that, though, because once you hit the cap, those guys who might turn into something by their senior year are keeping you from having the younger kids who could be something right away or in a year or two with a couple left on scholarship.
Meyer had a plan. Pursue a certain number of players and, depending on how many of them he got, some cuts might have to be made. It would have been suicide for him to offer a single scholarship before he had a prioritized list of which players were on the chopping block and how many commits he'd need before he had to start throwing off dead weight.
As has been true throughout this over-signing debate, the math is immutable: if the limit is 85 and your current roster plus the new scholarships you promise exceeds that number, someone has to get cut. The faulty reasoning, however, is in assuming that cutting a player is somehow immoral or unacceptable.
The idea that a player is owed 5 years worth of free tuition and a spot on a roster because he, at one point, signed a letter of intent is laughable, and this is an example of how stories like this should play out: a few relatively unsurprising roster moves drawing little in the way of commentary or righteous indignation.
Brown and Herbert might have gotten five full years of free education, but they got more than most folks get and, just like with Academic scholarships, these grants don't come no-strings-attached.
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I AM FROTHING WITH INDIGNANT OUTRAGE...
…THAT THESE TWO YOUNG SCHOLARS oh forget it.
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
by Todd on Mar 23, 2010 7:57 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
It's always been easy to see for me.
If you’re there on a grade-based scholly and goof off, or are not smart enough to keep it, you lose it. If you’re there on a sports-based scholly and goof off, or are not good enough, you lose it. Seems to be a double standard here in some people’s minds, and it makes no sense at all.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Mar 23, 2010 8:47 AM CDT reply actions
I'm not so sure we want to go there
I know that technically every NCAA scholarship is only for year but, when a kid is offered a football scholarship, it is pretty well university known to be a four or five year scholarship. If you were routinely cutting players, other schools would kill you in recruiting with that fact.
I find it difficult to believe that any coach would promise a kid more than one year of scholarship considering that a) it’s against the rules and b) it could create a sticky legal situation where a school could be legally required to keep the kid on scholarship.
As RememberTheRoseBowl points out, this is no different from any other scholarship.
And I don’t see this really hurting anyone unless they start cutting sophomores. I doubt many players considering a ‘Bama scholarship think they’re not going to be good enough to play by their junior or senior year. Saban is known for pretty much telling kids straight up: you’ll play if you’re good enough, rather than kissing their asses, so I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t also tell them “You won’t get cut if you’re good enough to play on the team.”
Sure, if you start cutting players who actually saw playing time you might open yourself up to that, but guys who hang out on the scout team and never even see special teams play? Nah, no kid thinks that’s going to be them.
I'm wrong all the time.
I agree completely...
Scholarships are conditioned upon doing certain things, namely staying out of trouble off the field, giving the proper amount of effort both on the playing field and in the workout programs, and focusing accordingly on academics. If players fall short in any of those areas, it’s fair game to rescind a scholarship.
Frankly, you’re right, any player ought to know this, and I imagine most coaches are very up front about this. I highly doubt many coaches go out and tell high school seniors, “Yeah, you can come to school x, and even if you get arrested a couple of times, slack of in practice, and are scout team fodder after three years, we’re definitely renewing your scholarship for as long as you are eligible.” There may be a coach or two out there saying something like that, but if so they are lying through their teeth and anyone with a brain can see it.
And besides, who cares if strings are attached to athletic scholarships? You are there to play your sport, period. A full paid ride to a state university is easily worth 35,000+, and quite frankly they aren’t paying that just to bring on board your 2.7 GPA and 19 on the ACT. Let’s be adults about this and discuss it rationally. Having deals like this is in no way different than the usual GPA minimum requirements and the like that are always attached to traditional academic scholarships.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 23, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
"...and quite frankly they aren’t paying that just to bring on board your 2.7 GPA and 19 on the ACT"
word.
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
What was that about Lane Kiffin?
Yeah, you can come toUTUSCschool x, and even if you get arrested a couple of times, slack of in practice, and are scout team fodder after three years, we’re definitely renewing your scholarship for as long as you are eligible.
by billycthulhu on Mar 23, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
what was that about bryce brown?
Yeah, you can come to UT USCschool x, and even if you get arrested a couple of times, slack of in practice, and are scout team fodder after three years, we’re definitely renewing your scholarship for as long as you
are eligiblehaven’t quit the program after a mere 10 months of being there…
there, FTFY…
for the next five days there is nothing in my heart but hate. pure, untempered, ice-cold hate. fond memories are for saturday. - Kleph
by tempebamafan on Mar 24, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
At the end of the day nobody actually cares about kids getting cut. People who gripe about this issue are pretty universally using it to talk about something else. Like how Coach A is WAY WORSE than Coach B. Or how it’s a slow news day, and they need hits, so here’s something that will bring a huge number of readers, or whatever else.
There’s just not a considered, rational option that includes no nuance beyond “You shouldn’t cut kids before their eligibility is up”, and the original pissing and moaning took that as a given and raged about the horrible injustice of oversigning. Those of us on the other side probably screwed up when we attacked the ragey sub-points rather than the nonsense assumption they were based upon,
I'm wrong all the time.
Those of us on the other side probably screwed up when we attacked the ragey sub-points rather than the nonsense assumption they were based upon.
True.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 23, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
reminds me of an arguement i just had about the health care bill
the point i wound up conceding was; you cant say that this is a bad bill because it fails to address all the causes of our current health care clusterfuck. you can only, honestly, compare it to the current status quo. to say this bill sucks because it’s not as good as a mythical “perfect bill” is the ultimate strawman argument.
and i was like; “damn, you got me there. but mark my words this is just going to make insurance companies even more loot and it’s all going to be paid for directly by consumers through increased premiums and indirectly by consumers via gov’t subsidy…”
for the next five days there is nothing in my heart but hate. pure, untempered, ice-cold hate. fond memories are for saturday. - Kleph
by tempebamafan on Mar 24, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Scholarships are supposed to be guaranteed for the entire college careers?
Sweet! I’ll let UA know and now I won’t have to worry about meeting my academic requirements to keep my money next year.
cuts SHOULD be a part of the 85 scholarships. cause there’s no way ALL 85 players on scholarship are keeping up their end of the bargain; off the field. on the field and in the classroom. i would think you want to have as many worthy players on scholarship as possible. and that would require cutting some players who don’t deserve it.
still waiting to hear about this on espn...
and MGO blog…
and clay travis…
and the wizard of odds…
and cbs’ chris dodd…
and furman bisher.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.

by 
















