Shooter: 3 Gopher walk-ons have received a scholarship UPDATED 2/24: Bak/Christenson

[nc2mn]

This is probably naive or just silly, but is it possible to remove a fb scholarship, remove him from the roster, but still cover his completing the degree? Like what has been discussed here for medical cases like Jimmy Gjere.

 

[Sportsfan24]

This is probably naive or just silly, but is it possible to remove a fb scholarship, remove him from the roster, but still cover his completing the degree? Like what has been discussed here for medical cases like Jimmy Gjere.

The answer to your question is yes. Players who can no longer play do to injury are allowed to keep their scholarship but not have it count towards the team total. In essence the team gets another scholarship to replace the player.

What I find interesting is that seldom do you see players who actually played at some point go this route? To be clear, I suspect/wonder if teams use this as a means to create a win win situation for all parties involved (keep a player who otherwise would get his scholarship pulled on scholarship).

Jimmy Gjere situation? I have no knowledge what so ever about his deal so I hope nobody thinks I'm insinuating anything about him, the gophers or any other player.

 

[RoyalGopher]

SF24, how do you know (or do you not know) if Kill has pulled schollies of student-athletes that haven't graduated yet?

 

[highwayman]

Still on this subject, eh? Scholarships don't get "pulled" if a player graduates. If a player doesn't get into grad school or doesn't want to go to grad school, there is no scholarship to "give," the player moves on.

In the case of players like Garin, they decided to get a job.

Kill knows exactly how many scholarships he has to give. No one here does. This is tiresome.

 

[Sportsfan24]

SF24, how do you know (or do you not know) if Kill has pulled schollies of student-athletes that haven't graduated yet?

I have no idea if they all graduated or not.

If that is the case and the distinction any coach chose to go by in not renewing a scholarship of a
player who doesn't play (unless of course you are a non scholarship player and one isn't available) I certainly agree that would be better than a situation where a coach just said " screw it, you suck
I'm giving that scholarship to someone who plays.

Keep in mine I'm not assigning blame to anyone, I'm just pointing out the negative outcome of ANY decision a coach could make when it comes to pulling/renewing or not pulling/renewing a scholarship.

A player who has graduated may have done so early by sacrificing summer and the limited family
time he would get by attending summer school and carrying as many credits so that he could get a jump on completing his graduate degree while on scholarship. Pulling his scholarship early would nullify that sacrifice.

Note:
A coach allowing a player to graduate before pulling his scholarship benefits as mush if not more than the player. Remember coaches have to be concerned about APR or they could lose scholarships down the road, also we know coaches are fond of talking about the graduation rate of their players.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Still on this subject, eh? Scholarships don't get "pulled" if a player graduates. If a player doesn't get into grad school or doesn't want to go to grad school, there is no scholarship to "give," the player moves on.

In the case of players like Garin, they decided to get a job.

Kill knows exactly how many scholarships he has to give. No one here does. This is tiresome.

My man a scholarship is in fact pulled if it is done so and the player has eligibility remaining....and still wants to be a part of the team.

 

[dpodoll68]

Still on this subject, eh? Scholarships don't get "pulled" if a player graduates. If a player doesn't get into grad school or doesn't want to go to grad school, there is no scholarship to "give," the player moves on.

In the case of players like Garin, they decided to get a job.

Kill knows exactly how many scholarships he has to give. No one here does. This is tiresome.

Why does it bother you so much when people talk about this?

 

[STPGopher]

The answer to your question is yes. Players who can no longer play do to injury are allowed to keep their scholarship but not have it count towards the team total. In essence the team gets another scholarship to replace the player.

What I find interesting is that seldom do you see players who actually played at some point go this route? To be clear, I suspect/wonder if teams use this as a means to create a win win situation for all parties involved (keep a player who otherwise would get his scholarship pulled on scholarship).

Jimmy Gjere situation? I have no knowledge what so ever about his deal so I hope nobody thinks I'm insinuating anything about him, the gophers or any other player.

See Alabama...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509901468451306.html

 

[MaxyJR1]

So a we have the following options which is why this is a complicated subject. Feel free to add where I miss but here is a start of six items that could affect who and when scholarships are given.

1. Player plays all four years and scholarship is done.
2. Player red-shirts and now has the following options.
a. Graduate early and move on.
b. Graduate early and do grad. work.
c. Pace to graduate in five years.
3. Player could transfer/drop out at any point.
4. Player could get scholarship pulled at any point.
5. Player gets injured and has to retire.
6. Player gets a medical/family hardship season.

 

[Sportsfan24]

See Alabama...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509901468451306.html

Thanks for finding this! What I found particularly interesting was this:

"Others who took these scholarships say they believe the school is violating the spirit of the rule. Mr. Kirschman, the linebacker, said he injured his back in April 2008 but continued practicing with the team through the spring of 2009. That May, he was approached by coaches and trainers and asked to take a medical scholarship."

This confirms what I already know to be true, which is trainers/medical staff are paid by the school and act in the best interest of the school first....which is problematic for their patients/players.

 

[John Galt]

Thanks for finding this! What I found particularly interesting was this:

"Others who took these scholarships say they believe the school is violating the spirit of the rule. Mr. Kirschman, the linebacker, said he injured his back in April 2008 but continued practicing with the team through the spring of 2009. That May, he was approached by coaches and trainers and asked to take a medical scholarship."

This confirms what I already know to be true, which is trainers/medical staff are paid by the school and act in the best interest of the school first....which is problematic for their patients/players.

Are you really suggesting that team doctors and medical staff are intentionally misdiagnosing and providing inadequate treatment for certain players that the coaching staff doesn't want as part of the team?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Thanks for finding this! What I found particularly interesting was this:

"Others who took these scholarships say they believe the school is violating the spirit of the rule. Mr. Kirschman, the linebacker, said he injured his back in April 2008 but continued practicing with the team through the spring of 2009. That May, he was approached by coaches and trainers and asked to take a medical scholarship."

This confirms what I already know to be true, which is trainers/medical staff are paid by the school and act in the best interest of the school first....which is problematic for their patients/players.

I think we all knew and have accepted that, the question has ALWAYS been "to what degree"?

If you're suggesting that the medical staff will do things like is being described in this article, sure. If you're suggesting that the medical staff might "work the rules" with medical redshirts (maybe find a kid a tad more injured than they really are), sure.

If we are starting to suggest that a staff is going to intentionall misdiagnose someone for more nefarious purposes, I can't believe that.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Are you really suggesting that team doctors and medical staff are intentionally misdiagnosing and providing inadequate treatment for certain players that the coaching staff doesn't want as part of the team?

I think I was pretty clear; when weighing the desires of the team versus that of the player I believe they tend to lean towards the team.

Surely you are not surprised? Who pays their salary? Who determines if they will remain employed? It certainly isn't the players. Could you imagine your personal physician discussing your medical situation with your employer, arriving at a conclusion and THEN presenting that conclusion to you...in the presence of your employer? Of course not.

While I never suggested or said what you implied in your question....yes I believe based on the current system at some school, somewhere doctors are intentionally misdiagnosing players the staff don't want around. That's what the article was about.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I think we all knew and have accepted that, the question has ALWAYS been "to what degree"?

If you're suggesting that the medical staff will do things like is being described in this article, sure. If you're suggesting that the medical staff might "work the rules" with medical redshirts (maybe find a kid a tad more injured than they really are), sure.

If we are starting to suggest that a staff is going to intentionall misdiagnose someone for more
nefarious purposes, I can't believe that.

You say "the" are you speaking specifically about a program (gophers)? Me? I'm talking about college sports in general.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I think I was pretty clear; when weighing the desires of the team versus that of the player I believe they tend to lean towards the team.

Surely you are not surprised? Who pays their salary? Who determines if they will remain employed? It certainly isn't the players. Could you imagine your personal physician discussing your medical situation with your employer, arriving at a conclusion and THEN presenting that conclusion to you...in the presence of your employer? Of course not.

While I never suggested or said what you implied in your question....yes I believe based on the current system at some school, somewhere doctors are intentionally misdiagnosing players the staff don't want around. That's what the article was about.

This is stupid. All the kid has to do is get a second opinion and threaten to sue and this would go away. No way are they misdiagnosing to get rid of kids.

 

[Killjoy]

I think Sportsfan24 is wasting his time here. He should be writing his play "Doubt". After that it can be made into a movie and finally and an opera. I have no doubts about it.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I should also reiterate what I said early. That strongly suggesting to a player to take the medical is much better than simply not renewing the scholarship and saying "have a good life."

Like I also said, there are no simple answers.

 

[Sportsfan24]

This is stupid. All the kid has to do is get a second opinion and threaten to sue and this would go away. No way are they misdiagnosing to get rid of kids.

Sue? Offering a kid a medical is far better than not renewing the scholarship.

 

[AShreve20]

I don't think they can just pull someone’s scholarship. According to NCAA rules financial award cannot be for "less than one academic year" unless certain circumstances are met. But even then the shortened award period would have to be known up front. i.e. if you know someone is graduating or will already use up all their eligibility in a given time you can give financial award for less than 1 year (as long as criteria is met beforehand).

15.3.3 Period of Institutional Financial Aid Award.
15.3.3.1 Period of Award. If a student’s athletics ability is considered in any degree in awarding financial aid,
such aid shall neither be awarded for a period less than one academic year nor for a period that would exceed the
student’s five-year period of eligibility (see Bylaws 14.2 and 15.01.5). One year grants-in-aid shall be awarded
(as set forth in the written statement per Bylaw 15.3.2.3) in equal amounts for each term of the academic year.
(Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06, 10/27/11 effective 8/1/12; awards may be executed before 8/1/12)
15.3.3.1.1 One-Year Period. An institution may award athletically related financial aid to a studentathlete
for a period of less than one academic year only under the following circumstances: (Adopted:
4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) Midyear Enrollment. A student-athlete whose first full-time attendance at the certifying institution
during a particular academic year occurs at midyear (e.g., the beginning of the second semester
or second or third quarter of an academic year) may receive a financial aid award for the remainder
of that academic year. (Revised: 5/9/06)
(b) Final Semester/Quarter. A student-athlete may receive athletically related financial aid for less
than one academic year, provided the student is in the final semester or final two quarters of his or
her degree program and the institution certifies that the student is carrying (for credit) the courses
necessary to complete the degree requirements.
(c) Graduated During Previous Academic Year and Will Exhaust Eligibility During the Following
Fall Term. A student-athlete who graduated during the previous academic year (including summer)
and will exhaust his or her athletics eligibility during the following fall term may be awarded
athletically related financial aid for less than one academic year. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(d) One-Time Exception. One time during a student-athlete’s enrollment at the certifying institution he
or she may be awarded athletics aid for less than a full academic year, provided the student-athlete has
been enrolled full time at the certifying institution for at least one regular academic term and has not
previously received athletically related financial aid from the certifying institution. (Revised: 5/19/09)
(e) Eligibility Exhausted/Medical Noncounter. Eligibility Exhausted/Medical Noncounter. A student-
athlete who has exhausted eligibility and is exempt from counting (per Bylaw 15.5.1.6) in
the institution’s financial aid limit, or a student-athlete who is exempt from counting (per Bylaw
15.5.1.3) due to an injury or illness may receive athletically related financial aid for less than one academic
year. If an institution awards aid under this provision, the institutional financial aid agreement
shall include specific nonathletically related conditions (e.g., academic requirements) the studentathlete
must satisfy in order for the aid to be renewed for the next academic term or terms. If the
student-athlete satisfies the specified conditions, the institution shall award financial aid at the same
amount for the next term or terms of the academic year. If the student-athlete does not satisfy the
specified conditions, he or she must be provided a hearing opportunity per Bylaw 15.3.2.4. (Adopted:
4/24/08 effective 8/1/08)
209
15
Financial Aid
15.3.3.1.2 Effect of Violation. A violation of Bylaw 15.3.3.1 in which financial aid is awarded for
a period of less than one academic year shall be considered an institutional violation per Constitution
2.8.1; however, the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete’s eligibility shall not be affected. (Adopted:
10/29/09)



The 3 openings maybe due to Mid-Year replacements for someone that graduated and left, or someone who left voluntarily. But it appears a scholarship can only be taken away for one of the following reasons.

15.3.4.2 Reduction or Cancellation Permitted. Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics
ability may be reduced or canceled during the period of the award if the recipient: (Revised: 1/11/94, 1/10/95)
(a) Renders himself or herself ineligible for intercollegiate competition;
(b) Fraudulently misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement
(see Bylaw 15.3.4.2.3);
(c) Engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary penalty (see Bylaw 15.3.4.2.4); or
(d) Voluntarily (on his or her own initiative) withdraws from a sport at any time for personal reasons; however,
the recipient’s financial aid may not be awarded to another student-athlete in the academic term
in which the aid was reduced or canceled. A student-athlete’s request for written permission to contact
another four-year collegiate institution regarding a possible transfer does not constitute a voluntary withdrawal.
(Revised: 1/10/92, 1/11/94, 1/10/95, 1/9/96, 12/13/05, 9/11/07)


That being said, football scholarships are 1 year only, as alreadly mentioned on this thread. So if Kill chose not to renew someone's scholarship, the student-athlete has to be informed in writing on or before July 1 that they won't have a scholarship for the following academic year. So if Kill were to "pull" someone's scholly, that couldn't happen until Fall semester.

Also for the 3 walk-on athletes who were awarded scholarships, if they haven't been in school for a full 2 years, they would have to count against the annual "25"; which probably wouldn't be too much of a concern anyway with only 19 being signed (+1 for Bobek depending on when he counted).

 

[AShreve20]

another intresting rule:

15.5.1.5 Cancellation of Aid. Once an individual becomes a counter in a head-count sport (see Bylaws
15.5.2, 15.5.4, 15.5.5, 15.5.6, 15.5.7 and 15.5.8), the individual normally continues as a counter for the remainder
of the academic year. However, if he or she voluntarily withdraws from the team prior to the first day of
classes or before the first contest of the season (whichever is earlier) and releases the institution from its obligation
to provide financial aid, the individual no longer would be considered a counter (see Bylaws 15.5.2.2 and
15.5.6.4.1).


It seems like if someone left the program, their scholarship couldn't be replaced until the next academic year as they would have already counted toward 85. I could very well be interpreting things incorrectly (or missing rule or exception) but it seems that they would only have 3 spots available to award a walk on, if they had those spots open all along, or if they are replacing someone who actually graduated (mid-year replacement).

15.5.6.3.5 Midyear Replacement. [FBS/FCS] A counter who graduates at midyear or who graduates
during the previous academic year (including summer) may be replaced by an initial counter, who shall be
counted against the initial limit either for the year in which the aid is awarded (if the institution’s annual
limit has not been reached) or for the following academic year, or by a student-athlete who was an initial
counter in a previous academic year and is returning to the institution after time spent on active duty in the
armed services or on an official religious mission. In bowl subdivision football, an institution may use the
midyear replacement exception only if it previously has provided financial aid during that academic year
to the maximum number of overall counters (85 total counters). In championship subdivision football,
an institution may use the midyear replacement exception only if it previously has provided financial aid
during that academic year that equals the maximum number of overall equivalencies or overall counters.
(Revised: 4/20/99 effective 8/1/99, 6/8/99, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 8/2/05, 12/15/06, 1/14/08 effective 8/1/08,
4/2/10, 1/15/11)

 

[Sportsfan24]

Ashreve20;

Getting back on topic with the gophers situation I think folks have correctly stated that the scholarships of graduated players were simply not renewed.

My personal position is that while it sucks that a kid who had eligibility left and wants to continue playing; he should be happy that the staff allowed him to keep it until he graduated versus not renewing once they realized he was going play significant minutes.

I have the same opinion towards a player who is "steered" toward a medical when he isn't going to play but hasn't graduated. He should be happy the staff is "taking" care of him.

Either situation may not be the preferred situation of the player but it's the best of a bad situation.

 

[AShreve20]

Ashreve20;

Getting back on topic with the gophers situation I think folks have correctly stated that the scholarships of graduated players were simply not renewed.

My personal position is that while it sucks that a kid who had eligibility left and wants to continue playing; he should be happy that the staff allowed him to keep it until he graduated versus not renewing once they realized he was going play significant minutes.

I have the same opinion towards a player who is "steered" toward a medical when he isn't going to play but hasn't graduated. He should be happy the staff is "taking" care of him.

Either situation may not be the preferred situation of the player but it's the best of a bad situation.

I guess my point would be, that as far as I know (and I don't claim to know for certain - but seems the case based on the NCAA rules) is that if annual scholarships weren't renewed it wouldn't take effect until the fall semester. Weren't the walk ons awarded scholarships for Spring semester? I know the statement didn't fully clarify, but it sounds like they were on scholarship as of the bowl game, as opposed to awarded scholarship after the bowl game for fall semester. If this is all true, then the openings wouldn't have come from someone who simply didn't have their scholarhip renewed.

As for the points you made, I would be i agreement

 

[Sportsfan24]

I guess my point would be, that as far as I know (and I don't claim to know for certain - but seems the case based on the NCAA rules) is that if annual scholarships weren't renewed it wouldn't take effect until the fall semester. Weren't the walk ons awarded scholarships for Spring semester? I know the statement didn't fully clarify, but it sounds like they were on scholarship as of the bowl game, as opposed to awarded scholarship after the bowl game for fall semester. If this is all true, then the openings wouldn't have come from someone who simply didn't have their scholarhip renewed.

As for the points you made, I would be i agreement

You make a good point. I guess it would depend on if the rules allowed for a coach to not renew mid-year if a player graduates mid-year? This of course is assuming the walk-ons were for spring semester.

 

[GopherHomer]

I have no sympathy for a player that gets his scholarship pulled when he "wants to play more." If he wants to finish his degree, then I believe he should have that paid for. But, if he has his degree and simply wants to take a couple BS grad school classes to sit the bench, the coach has every moral right to pull that 'ship. Sportsfan is a quality poster, and seemingly a good man, but let's not forget that he does not have any opinion that is more valid than the rest of us. His son's situation obviously has led to some unique situations with various coaching staffs, but we should take his views with a grain of salt (not saying he is in the wrong, because his allegiance should be with his son over football programs...that's part of the reason why I view him as a good man. But, while he may not be IN the wrong...he may be wrong).

 

[Sportsfan24]

I have no sympathy for a player that gets his scholarship pulled when he "wants to play more." If he wants to finish his degree, then I believe he should have that paid for. But, if he has his degree and simply wants to take a couple BS grad school classes to sit the bench, the coach has every moral right to pull that 'ship. Sportsfan is a quality poster, and seemingly a good man, but let's not forget that he does not have any opinion that is more valid than the rest of us. His son's situation obviously has led to some unique situations with various coaching staffs, but we should take his views with a grain of salt (not saying he is in the wrong, because his allegiance should be with his son over football programs...that's part of the reason why I view him as a good man. But, while he may not be IN the wrong...he may be wrong).

I agree, my opinion is no better than the next guy (I have said that to ad nauseam).

I would however argue that unlike most men I have the ability to disassociate myself from taking things personally or being swayed by personal issues. I think I have more than demonstrated that over the years. I would also suggest that it is others who can't seem to disassociate my opinion from the fact that I had a son
who played. I suspect they do this because they are insecure in the value of their own opinion or they are projecting on me how the would behave if they were in my shoes.

The fact of the matter is I have been a "sports fan" who has blogged or called
shows like KFAN for 20 years. I have been contemplating "retiring" for a few
months or so and then coming back as an unknown, maybe this would help the insecure folks.

 

[play hard]

Sports Fan 24 _ Don't retire. its been fun to view your opinions. I love the way you are able to make everyone think about the Big business of College Football. You have a unique perspective on things that are awesome. You have done your job getting people to post now. Dont' retire !!!

 

[GophersInIowa]

Sports Fan 24 _ Don't retire. its been fun to view your opinions. I love the way you are able to make everyone think about the Big business of College Football. You have a unique perspective on things that are awesome. You have done your job getting people to post now. Dont' retire !!!

I agree. I don't always agree with his opinions, but he does provide a different perspective and is always civil.

 

[AShreve20]

You make a good point. I guess it would depend on if the rules allowed for a coach to not renew mid-year if a player graduates mid-year? This of course is assuming the walk-ons were for spring semester.

One option that I don't know has been brought up, but what if these scholarships were made available for the spring semester by someone who already used up all of their eligibility and graduated in December (allowing for walk on be added as mid-year replacement). And no one who still had eligibility remaining or credits left to graduate was forced out, or had scholly pulled. It seems that could be most logical explanation for where these 3 current walk on scholarships came from.

That being said, there very well may be some guys who have eligibility left and won't be back in the fall with their scholly not being renewed or "pulled". But that may just be to make the 2013-2014 counter numbers (85) work, not necessarily explain where these current walk on scholarships came from (assuming they are for current semester).

 

[EE_Gopher]

My guess:

Derrick Engel
Zach Mottla
Mike Henry

 

[Tim Riggins]

My best guess is there are 3 scholarships open for Spring semester and instead of them not being used, Kill decided to reward some walk ons for at least a semester. By not making it public, it won't appear like they were "taken away" in the fall if there aren't ships available.