To know that you'd be set for 4 years at a position - any position seems like the oppositie of "a waste of a scholarship." If it's a scholly for a position where you're asked to go out and win the game or win the field position battle - don't see how you could be more strategic.
Been familiar with Tennessee's situation for several decades. Don't feel like you have to cut me slack, just tell me, given last night's result, what is a position "of more importance and need?" I mean this as a serious, well intentioned football question. Not trying to do any testosterone...
Its the assumed "bottom line" that is the real head scratcher. Just to use the team we just played as an example. Their kicker, Casey Barth, still has eligibility, but they've already got a scholarship commit from a great incoming freshman. Barth's brother played at Carolina before him and is...
Don't see how that's a better argument Nick. Scolarships are the "currency" of college football. We spend our money on what's important. Recruiting is supposed to be about coaches doing their job at determining who has value in the marketplace and spending wisely. When it comes to freebie...
In terms of game outcomes, the insistence on relying on walk ons in the kicking game makes no sense. Can you really afford not to build depth here as with other positions?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.