Can the new coach rescind some of the exisiting scholarships?(please)

#26
#26
Ohio Vol said:
I strongly disagree. For one thing, the annual scholarship limits prevent a wholesale housecleaning and restocking. If a new coach wants to drop 25 guys, it's not like he can have a 50-kid recruiting class to fill those slots.

Second, in the cutthroat world of recruiting, what kind of message would that send to recruits or their parents? "Come to State U, and if you don't perform within a year or two, we'll throw you back out on the street. Since most other schools would rather take an 18-year-old than a 20-year-old transfer who couldn't hack it at State U, he'll be living at home and flipping burgers until he's 30 with no college degree."

If nothing else, keeping five or so junk players around (and making a big show of it) would be good for the image. A new coach standing up and saying, "I believe we have a few players who are useless in our systems, but it would be wrong to just throw them aside when they've committed so much to this wonderful school" would certainly not be detrimental.
Click to expand...
Recruits and parents understand it's a dog eat dog world. They don't worry about getting their scholarships pulled because they all think they're going to be 3 time All Americans. Saban axed a bunch of guys when he came to Alabama. Plenty of guys have done the same. It never hurts recruiting half as bad as keeping dead weight around and losing.
 
#27
#27
Ohio Vol said:
Second, in the cutthroat world of recruiting, what kind of message would that send to recruits or their parents? "Come to State U, and if you don't perform within a year or two, we'll throw you back out on the street. Since most other schools would rather take an 18-year-old than a 20-year-old transfer who couldn't hack it at State U, he'll be living at home and flipping burgers until he's 30 with no college degree."
Click to expand...
C-USA is filled with guys who washed out of the SEC. MAC schools readily welcome guys sent packing from the Big Ten. The WAC provides PAC 10 stiffs with a soft landing.
 
#28
#28
billbattle said:
Obama will make these other teams share their wealth.
Click to expand...

Another one of the Obama redistribution posts. I think doing some additional research and not taking everything you hear from the media as Gospel would allow you to formulate some logical and intelligent opinions.

Let me share something with you that you might not know thanks to the national media's inability to tell the whole story.

The majority of access and current capital in tax deferred investment vehicles belong to the richest people in America. As a percentage of total annal earnings, many of these people pay out substantially less as taxes when compared to normal, middle-class citizens. For instance, Ross Perot pays out only about 7% of what he makes a year in the form of taxes thanks to large investments in tax deferred or tax free (think international) investments. So in reality these people are taking advantage of a system that penalizes the majority of Americans and don't pay their fair share anyway. Thus increasing their taxes would result in them still not paying out near their fair share.

Sometimes you have to dig deeper into things...
 
#29
#29
phi0129 said:
Another one of the Obama redistribution posts. I think doing some additional research and not taking everything you hear from the media as Gospel would allow you to formulate some logical and intelligent opinions.

Let me share something with you that you might not know thanks to the national media's inability to tell the whole story.

The majority of access and current capital in tax deferred investment vehicles belong to the richest people in America. As a percentage of total annal earnings, many of these people pay out substantially less as taxes when compared to normal, middle-class citizens. For instance, Ross Perot pays out only about 7% of what he makes a year in the form of taxes thanks to large investments in tax deferred or tax free (think international) investments. So in reality these people are taking advantage of a system that penalizes the majority of Americans and don't pay their fair share anyway. Thus increasing their taxes would result in them still not paying out near their fair share.

Sometimes you have to dig deeper into things...
Click to expand...

You do realize the media is well known to be very liberal biased?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
VOLinthaATL said:
You do realize the media is well known to be very liberal biased?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The media is well known for manipulation of information for whichever side they are on or downright lies. There are also some quality journalists out there. I'm neither liberal or conservative. I don't believe in having to make a choice like that and broad classifications that were basically beat into my head when I was a child. Having 6 or so candidates (in the primaries) with which to make a choice with regards to one of the most important jobs in the world is also a joke.

What I said in my post is straight fact based on my background with a MBA in Finance and as a Financial Analyst for one of the largest companies in the world. All areas of finance are my life, and I make sure to educate myself as much as I can in these arenas just as others on this board are much more knowledgeable than I in other areas. It has nothing to do with Obama or McCain. I don't particularly like either one of them.
 
#31
#31
I believe the redistribution talk has a lot to do with checks going to people that don't pay taxes with that being funded by an increase in taxes on those that pay the majority of them.
 
#32
#32
kptvol said:
I believe the redistribution talk has a lot to do with checks going to people that don't pay taxes with that being funded by an increase in taxes on those that pay the majority of them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I thought all the talk was referring to raising taxes of the wealthiest Americans. Don't you see the irony in that statement though. Essentially thats what just happened with the bailout. Only the Wall St. boys pay at least some taxes and a strong element of greed, deception, and downright fraud also played a vital role.
 
#33
#33
phi0129 said:
Fair enough. I thought all the talk was referring to raising taxes of the wealthiest Americans. Don't you see the irony in that statement though. Essentially thats what just happened with the bailout. Only the Wall St. boys pay at least some taxes and a strong element of greed, deception, and downright fraud also played a vital role.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that a lot of people were going to have their life savings wiped out without that bailout.
 
#34
#34
kptvol said:
It was my understanding that a lot of people were going to have their life savings wiped out without that bailout.
Click to expand...

Something drastic had to happen I.E. the bailout. While it's structure (has small bills attached to it providing money for things the most extreme of which is for a company that builds small wooden figurines...these attachments were in order to gain widespread support from Congress) is one that just throws money at the problem, it will have little to no effect on the underlying problems. The money will mostly sit on the companies Balance Sheets (most of them don't need this money but need the ability to leverage and raise credit) and they won't be willing to lend it out. So really it won't accomplish anything in regards to the credit squeeze. Also, the inflated housing prices, greed/extortion/fraud of the investment banks (with the credit default swaps and speculative mortgage backed securities) that got us into this mess along with the rating agencies in the first place , get bailed out and are not held accountable for their mistakes. Did you know that Paulson used to be Goldman Sachs chairman and the banning of short-selling on 797 companies (Goldman Sachs included) came as a result of the whining of current GS chairman John Mack about how short-sellers were destroying their stock price? Turns out less than 3% of GS shares outstanding were being shorted and it was nothing more than a ruse to try and prevent the stock price from going lower. The whole ban ended up hurting the economy and these companies even more because it eliminated one side of the sell/buy equation. Furthermore, it changed the whole game. When the government can come in and just change all the rules and regulations we live by, nothing is safe anymore and all kinds of additional risk are present. Instead of allowing the market to correct itself, policies of interest rate targeting over the past 20 years by the Fed along with many other stupid decisions have been implemented b/c everyone's concerned with immediate prosperity. That's not how things work and that's why we are paying the price now. The start of this whole mess was in 2004 when the SEC passed a rule allowing these investment banks unlimited leverage. Previously, companies were only allowed to leverage at a level of 12 to 1. By allowing unlimited leverage, companies took on and created way too many risky instruments whose underlying value was nowhere near what they were saying.

Don't be fooled by what you hear. This massive meltdown/downturn could've been avoided. If we had just accepted economic slowdowns (History has told us they are a necessary thing) and allowed the markets to correct themselves, $3 trillion in 401K wealth wouldn't have been eliminated and $700 billion of taxpayers money wouldn't be going to the very irresponsible companies who got us in this mess.


I apologize for the long post...
 
#36
#36
kptvol said:
I thought that was the prevailing outlook.
Click to expand...

Well in some cases it is. At least the people who aren't afraid to tell the truth say it. I don't think they dig as deep as they can and really explain to everyone what exactly happened here. It's downright appalling to say the least. Some of the things that have happened lately are downright criminal. Lie after lie from the Fed, Paulson, and the government day by day. They say one thing and completely change their story/actions the next. None of the underlying problems will be fixed until there is more regulation (guarddog watching) of these companies that are too powerful for their own good. Selectively deciding who "we can't live without" and taking more and more time to scoop up "bad assets" to get them at deeper and deeper discounts (think $.10 on a $1 when all of these assets will eventually return to previous levels) are suspect at best. The gov. knows these things will recover in the next few years. And when they do, they will be selling them back for huge profits. And we won't hear about or see a dime for these assets we paid for by them "borrowing" from us.
 
#37
#37
hatvol96 said:
Recruits and parents understand it's a dog eat dog world. They don't worry about getting their scholarships pulled because they all think they're going to be 3 time All Americans. Saban axed a bunch of guys when he came to Alabama. Plenty of guys have done the same. It never hurts recruiting half as bad as keeping dead weight around and losing.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I remember back when I was a senior in high school, my dad went up to the head coach on a Monday night (they'd have a parents' get-together and watch film from the previous week) and mentioned the words "playing time" in a sentence where my name came up. The head coach started shifting a little and getting uncomfortable, and my dad said, "Don't worry, you see a lot more of him in practice and I'm never going to question your judgment as to whether or not he belongs on the field. If he's no good, you're the one who'd be able to tell."

And when I started coaching, I couldn't help but learn very quickly that very few parents have that attitude.
 
#38
#38
Ohio Vol said:
Good point.


And when I started coaching, I couldn't help but learn very quickly that very few parents have that attitude.
Click to expand...


Parents or fans... everybody second guesses the coach.

Hang in there, coach!
 
#39
#39
Here's how Bear Bryant handled it: If you couldn't cut it on the football field you were given an academic scholarship.
 
#40
#40
volmanbill said:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my post but my intent was to cover both new recruits and existing players. (thus the response to multiple posts) I wasn't trying to correct anyone.

Basically, a commitment is a commitment regardless of status. IMO
Click to expand...

no scholarship is for all four years, it is one year at a time and the next year is earned in the classroom, on the field and too many times lost off the field
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top