The one year scholarship

This question was place on the Oversite.com website

I have yet to read a real argument why this practice is so bad. Your whole reasoning is based on the coach not explaining that a scholarship is for one year only and eventually may not be extended. Is there any proof that Saban (or any other coach) has removed the scholarship from anyone who wasn’t told this? You then say that it creates an unfair advantage. I disagree, it may well be an advantage, but only one created by the coach who makes fair use of the rules and is able to effectively plan for the future.

 I disagree.



 This is my response:

Someone stated above that they see nothing wrong with not renewing scholarships as long as it is explained to the student beforehand and wanted an argument against the practice.  Let's look at two hypothetical situations: 

Two students from Smalltown High get accepted to "State U" on scholarships. 

The first maxed out all the standardized tests and got an academic scholarship in his chosen major.  At the end of the first year he achieves a 3.0 GPA.  Since the scholarship depends on him achieving a 3.2 GPA his scholarship is taken away.  He returns to Smalltown and starts his new career bagging groceries.

The second is a blue chip football player and he got an athletic scholarship to play football.  At the end of the first year he achieves a 3.0 GPA but it is obvious from the first snap during two-a-days that he has little hope of ever seeing any playing time.  Since his scholarship depends on his football skill his scholarship is taken away.  He returns to Smalltown and starts his new career bagging groceries.

Two similar situations.  Same ending.  We all accept students losing an academic scholarship if don't make the grade.  Why can't we use the same standard for college athletics?

The reason I would argue is the situations are a bit different.  A university's main purpose is to educate not to play football.   The two people in my example are performing better than the average student but only one was given a scholarship to excel in academics.  The other student is on a football scholarship and it is almost impossible to come up with a consistently fair way to judge football skill like a GPA does for academic performance.  That means to keep an athletic scholarship you need to keep the coach happy and that is akin to being a job and not a student.

I realize that these students spend a lot more time in the weight room than in the classroom and that college football lost its status as a pure amateur endeavor a long time ago.  However, "cutting" players because they aren't playing as well as originally expected is another step towards professionalism that I'd prefer college football not take.  I'd prefer to hold on as long as possible to the ideal that these are educational institutions that happen to have a football team and not the other way around.

I realize that this is a mostly emotional argument and will be unlikely to change the mind of any that currently feel the practice is OK.  That is why I agree with the owner of this site that the NCAA should require every school to declare a recruiting budget on signing day that can't exceed 85.  This would at least create an equal playing field and limit the practice.