Krick leaving program, Jensen still deciding what he wants to do

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
45,505
14,382
113

DuckDynastyCy

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
1,003
32
48
Nashville, TN
A few problems here:
1. You can't enforce that. It derails the point of going to college, which is school, not sports. Even the NCAA isn't crass enough to go with that. I also doubt that holds up in court.
2. If you inform the staff a year early, you pay the price, or possibly have your scholarship removed. What kind of recourses are you putting in to protect the student?
3. The disadvantage: That's just a 'welcome to the big boy world of work' for the staff. People leave jobs, and there's nothing wrong with that, whether it leaves their old employer at a disadvantage or not. There can't be anything wrong with a college graduate leaving school. They've fulfilled their requirement.

Your version is slanted only in favor of the program, and leaves the student-athlete out to dry.

That's your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. The school is being penalized if a kid graduates/leaves early and were counting on him to play his 5th year in the program, a point in their career which coaches build you to be your best. In no way does what I propose or change what is currently in place. It only penalizes the kid who does not inform his Team/School/Staff in due course that he doesn't plan to contribute to the team in his final year of eligibility. If he informs the staff in his 3rd year playing that this Fall will be his last, he gets off just as he does now. No harm, no foul. He graduates with no penalty just as he does now.

I do agree that the main point of school is to get an education. However, the school is offering tuition in exchange for PLAYING football at that school. If the kid gets 4 years of education and a degree but only plays 3 years, I cannot see how you feel that favors the staff/school? No kid should ever have his scholarship removed because he chooses not to play his 5th year if he wants to and I agree, in the RARE instance that would ever occur, then he should have protection.

Regarding the cost, not sure where the $20K is coming from and the sport is Football, not basketball? Basketball is a whole different dynamic with many more players leaving early for pro ball etc. You are comparing apples and oranges. The amount of physical development in football is much more important in football and why so many freshmen redshirt in football to start with. Redshirting leads to the situation at hand. My thoughts were around $5-$8k, so put that $20k back in your pocket sport.

It can be enforced if everyone sees that value in it. I think most coaching staffs would!
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
45,505
14,382
113
That's your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. The school is being penalized if a kid graduates/leaves early and were counting on him to play his 5th year in the program, a point in their career which coaches build you to be your best. In no way does what I propose or change what is currently in place. It only penalizes the kid who does not inform his Team/School/Staff in due course that he doesn't plan to contribute to the team in his final year of eligibility. If he informs the staff in his 3rd year playing that this Fall will be his last, he gets off just as he does now. No harm, no foul. He graduates with no penalty just as he does now.

I do agree that the main point of school is to get an education. However, the school is offering tuition in exchange for PLAYING football at that school. If the kid gets 4 years of education and a degree but only plays 3 years, I cannot see how you feel that favors the staff/school? No kid should ever have his scholarship removed because he chooses not to play his 5th year if he wants to and I agree, in the RARE instance that would ever occur, then he should have protection.

Regarding the cost, not sure where the $20K is coming from and the sport is Football, not basketball? Basketball is a whole different dynamic with many more players leaving early for pro ball etc. You are comparing apples and oranges. The amount of physical development in football is much more important in football and why so many freshmen redshirt in football to start with. Redshirting leads to the situation at hand. My thoughts were around $5-$8k, so put that $20k back in your pocket sport.

It can be enforced if everyone sees that value in it. I think most coaching staffs would!

As pointed out, in the past schools have not guaranteed the 4 year scholarship and can cut a player at any time for any reason in most cases. If a player leaves early then the scholarship is not lost, it can be given to someone else. Good luck. Your claim of damages because a player leaves early is BS. It is not indentured slavery to get a scholarship to play football.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
45,505
14,382
113
For those interested, it looks like Northwest Missouri State and Collin Bevins are in the Division II title game today.
 
Last edited:

Newell

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2013
702
488
63
74
Their problem on defense was lack of depth at defensive tackle. I don't see them improving that position with new signings, at least not yet. Losing Clinkscales to Nebraska was a big loss.
 

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
27,017
23,682
113
Des Moines, Ia.
Their problem on defense was lack of depth at defensive tackle. I don't see them improving that position with new signings, at least not yet. Losing Clinkscales to Nebraska was a big loss.
"Their"? "Their" who? Whatever problems there were on defense (and there were many) for ISU, depth at defensive tackle was hardly one of them. At least, not among the foremost. Not even close.
 

ajk4st8

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2006
16,483
737
113
42
Ankeny
"Their"? "Their" who? Whatever problems there were on defense (and there were many) for ISU, depth at defensive tackle was hardly one of them. At least, not among the foremost. Not even close.


Iowa State's depth at DT is a lot like Iowa's depth in basketball. Lots of numbers, with a lot of extremely average at best guys.
 

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
27,017
23,682
113
Des Moines, Ia.
Iowa State's depth at DT is a lot like Iowa's depth in basketball. Lots of numbers, with a lot of extremely average at best guys.
Ummm...yeah. You mean, like how 1st team all conference Jake McDonough was "average at best"?

Or are you talking about how Coe and Irving are slow, plodding and immobile?
 

IAStubborn

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,380
623
113
Not so much anymore. I think most are 4 year agreements.
only 1 four year scholarship was issued by ISU last year prior to that all schollies were 1 year. They have the ability now but most athletes dont know to negotiate for that at signing time. I was curious to who the four year was last year. My bet was Georges. I havent seen how many were issued for this school year.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
45,505
14,382
113
So when some of our athletes talk about transferring and do so, do you think they are persuaded by the coaches or come up with it all on their own due to lack of playing time? I know back in the Mac Era of a kid who was given a scholarship because we had an extra to burn and that kid was explicitly told that his scholarship was a conditional scholarship that might be revoked if he did not pan out. He didn't pan out and after two years his scholarship was revoked. We had a lot of reaches in the Mac Era.
 

DuckDynastyCy

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
1,003
32
48
Nashville, TN
Not sure why on Earth you would want to force a player to stay an extra year when they want to move on (not that there is any way to do that anyway). Silly idea is silly.


I NEVER ever said he should be forced to stay a 5th year!! I said, as in BJ's case as an example, he graduates in 4 years fine. Even though he is leaving his 4th year of playing eligibility hanging out there, as long as he INFORMS the staff around Sept 1, pick the date, of his junior year eligibility wise, that he plans to play that year, graduate in the Spring, and then be done, and NOT use his 5th year, fine. Then he is giving the staff ample time to find his replacement.

However, it can put a staff/program recruiting wise at a major disadvantage if the kid plays his 3rd year, then AFTER the season is over, decides to hang it up and didn't inform the staff when the season began that will be his last, and the coaches then have to scramble to find a replacement after all the top JUCO DL have already committed somewhere else by then. You potentially end up taking a flyer 1* DL who has to go through Strength/Conditioning, learn the system, techniques and in most cases that kid does not play nearly as well as the kid that would have been a 5th year senior, and the TEAM suffers. In my mind, it penalizes CPR on a critical position on the field to win games, which affects his job security, or any other coach for that matter.

All I am saying is that these kids, if they plan to graduate early should have enough Accountability to inform their coach, and not penalize his teammates because he is deciding to end his career early. I started out saying that should be an Internal policy that CPR manages. Then CyErik asked how to enforce it and the only way to "enforce" something like this is to make it an NCAA policy and to have some Teeth in it. I suggested a $5-8K Tuition penalty for not informing the TEAM you are not playing your 5th year, costs which the staff must recuperate to fly all over the country and find a kid to replace the one that left early. And kids do not lose their scholarship at ISU for no reason (unless something has changed) unless they fail to make grades, skip practice, or fail to abide by the rules set out by the program. Do the right thing and no kid that I know of at ISU loses his scholarship under CPR. If that was the case, then I could name about 1/6 of the team each year that probably would lose their schollies because they are 4th and 5th year scholarship players who never see the field.

If every school, after summer camp let out, looked at their student athletes transcripts, sat them down and said hey Billy, you only need 24 credits to graduate, which would put the graduation date as next spring or summer, BEFORE your final year of playing eligibility. We are very proud of you, but do you plan on playing that 5th year or moving on with your life after football? I don't think that becomes a hard conversation to have. I also don't agree that CPR would penalize the kid and not play him that last (junior) year because the player wants to graduate in 4 years. CPR will put the best players on the field. His job security is based on winning games so not putting your best players out there would be a direct contradiction to winning games. This is Easy. I'm done with this conversation.
 

Newell

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2013
702
488
63
74
"Their"? "Their" who? Whatever problems there were on defense (and there were many) for ISU, depth at defensive tackle was hardly one of them. At least, not among the foremost. Not even close.

Iowa State was 112th in rushing defense. Even pathetic Northern Iowa rushed for 200 yards against ISU. Case closed.
 

clone2011

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2007
1,736
59
48
I NEVER ever said he should be forced to stay a 5th year!! I said, as in BJ's case as an example, he graduates in 4 years fine. Even though he is leaving his 4th year of playing eligibility hanging out there, as long as he INFORMS the staff around Sept 1, pick the date, of his junior year eligibility wise, that he plans to play that year, graduate in the Spring, and then be done, and NOT use his 5th year, fine. Then he is giving the staff ample time to find his replacement.

However, it can put a staff/program recruiting wise at a major disadvantage if the kid plays his 3rd year, then AFTER the season is over, decides to hang it up and didn't inform the staff when the season began that will be his last, and the coaches then have to scramble to find a replacement after all the top JUCO DL have already committed somewhere else by then. You potentially end up taking a flyer 1* DL who has to go through Strength/Conditioning, learn the system, techniques and in most cases that kid does not play nearly as well as the kid that would have been a 5th year senior, and the TEAM suffers. In my mind, it penalizes CPR on a critical position on the field to win games, which affects his job security, or any other coach for that matter.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it is possible that at the beginning of the season, Brandon did plan on staying for a 5th year (grad courses or whatever). Maybe something happened during the season -- job offer for after graduation, knew the NFL wasn't going to be in the picture, lost passion for the game, something came up in personal life, heck anything really -- and changed his mind about staying for a 5th year. You make it sound like he knew in August he was going to be done this year and sought out a way to screw over the staff and team in terms of recruiting.

IMO coaches should be ahead of the curve in recruiting -- know that there will be attrition and do their best to plan accordingly. Especially if they know an athlete will be graduating before their eligibility is up and there's a chance that student will choose not to return. If coaches aren't informed at the beginning of the season which kids are set to graduate within 2-3 semesters, someone on the academic services side of athletics isn't doing their job.
 

nhclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 20, 2008
3,636
1,624
113
Iowa State was 112th in rushing defense. Even pathetic Northern Iowa rushed for 200 yards against ISU. Case closed.
Most of UNIs rush yards (at least the bug runs) came off tackle against our DE/LB.
 

Luth4Cy

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2012
5,520
134
63
Ames, IA
This thread has turned into a plethora of awful arguments, many of which don't seem to have a ton to do with the original post.