Skipping the big game

[The Sultan]

Correct.  Those that think they are rock solid at a certain position in the draft, they will sit out.  Their scholarship dollars should be docked...quite frankly....but oooooohhh, I'm a tyrant because they aren't living up to their agreed upon grant in aid they signed.  Tyranical.   

Why would you be a tyrant for enforcing a contract?  It would be monumentally stupid to enforce it, but it's not tyrannical.

You're a tyrant because you'd think nothing of throwing people in jail for crimes there is no evidence that they committed. But that's a different topic.

But your whiney victimization knows no bounds of topics, which is why no one would really mind if you fell off of Scoop forever.

For now, keep on topic.

[The Sultan]

Remember, there have been quite a few players who have increased their values in these games.  I'm sure there have been some flip sides as well

Right. But the players who are skipping these games are usually projected to be high picks where the downside risk is greater than the upside of having a big game on a big stage.

But my opinion is that good coaches won't have a problem with this, and can actually use it as a recruiting tool.

[Uncle Rico]

Let players earn off their likeness.

[Jay Bee]

Remove the scholarship, consider a clawback, and publicly admonish!

The poor schools are in an eff'd position where they can't do the above, but it would be reasonable to do so.

Student-athletes get so much.

[Jockey]

Why would you be a tyrant for enforcing a contract?  It would be monumentally stupid to enforce it, but it's not tyrannical.

You're a tyrant because you'd think nothing of throwing people in jail for crimes there is no evidence that they committed. But that's a different topic.

But your whiney victimization knows no bounds of topics, which is why no one would really mind if you fell off of Scoop forever.

For now, keep on topic.

He is not for honoring contracts. He is for athletes honoring contracts. Coaches? meh.

[Cheeks]

Why would you be a tyrant for enforcing a contract?  It would be monumentally stupid to enforce it, but it's not tyrannical.

You're a tyrant because you'd think nothing of throwing people in jail for crimes there is no evidence that they committed. But that's a different topic.

But your whiney victimization knows no bounds of topics, which is why no one would really mind if you fell off of Scoop forever.

For now, keep on topic.

I can think of plenty who would mind here, but I get those that share opposite views don't like it when someone brings up opposite viewpoints....easiest to just make them go away or discredit them at every turn.  Oh now...victimhood card.

I would throw people in jail for trying to sabotage a plane with 150 people on board to send a strong message not for anyone to do it again...but that's a different topic.

For now, keeping on topic.... they sign to play football, basketball, etc for a school.  It doesn't say "until I feel like it", it doesn't say "until I deem the games aren't as important".  So yes, I would enforce it because the person agreed to compete for the school, not compete for the school when they felt like it.

[reinko]

I can think of plenty who would mind here, but I get those that share opposite views don't like it when someone brings up opposite viewpoints....easiest to just make them go away or discredit them at every turn.  Oh now...victimhood card.

I would throw people in jail for trying to sabotage a plane with 150 people on board to send a strong message not for anyone to do it again...but that's a different topic.

For now, keeping on topic.... they sign to play football, basketball, etc for a school.  It doesn't say "until I feel like it", it doesn't say "until I deem the games aren't as important".  So yes, I would enforce it because the person agreed to compete for the school, not compete for the school when they felt like it.

Do athletic scholarship contracts mandate participation, and if not, then penalties?  I honestly don't know.  If so, let's see actual contractual language and actual facts, for both sides of this argument.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Do athletic scholarship contracts mandate participation, and if not, then penalties?  I honestly don't know.  If so, let's see actual contractual language and actual facts, for both sides of this argument.

You's new here, ain't ya? 

[MU82]

I have nothing against schools attempting to claw back scholarships from players who skip college games, if that's what they want to do.

It would send quite a message to future recruits, but that would be their choice. And it would not get a single pro-bound athlete to change his mind.

"Let's see, I'm about to make tens of millions of dollars ... but I'd better risk a career-ending injury to play in the Chick-fil-A Weed Eater Blockbuster Video WorldCom Bowl because they're gonna make me repay my $50K scholarship."

If the NCAA wants to make such a thing national policy, cool. Maybe they could fold it into the new rules that permit athletes to profit off their own likenesses while retaining eligibility.

[muwarrior69]

Let players earn off their likeness.

Now that I thought about this, I believe women athletes just might earn more off their "likeness" than men. Let's be honest, sex sells.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

1.  Isn't the first semester concluded before bowl season?  Players can just withdraw from school at the conclusion of the semester.   They may have even graduated by this time.  Universities trying to get a clawback would face a steep legal challenge.

2.  If players skipping bowl games is that big of a deal, schools can give the players a financial incentive to play.  But I don't think the NCAA members will make the rule change.

[Pakuni]

2.  If players skipping bowl games is that big of a deal, schools can give the players a financial incentive to play.  But I don't think the NCAA members will make the rule change.

Shouldn't swag bags be enough?

[MU82]

Obviously, Trevor Lawrence isn't gonna skip the national title game.

But I wouldn't blame him a bit for sitting out all of next season. He could "retire" as a college football legend having never lost a game in 2 years, with 2 national titles (that's if he beats LSU; he'd still have a helluva resume even if Clemson loses) ... refine his game by working at his own pace with a QB guru ... make major money as an endorser ... stay healthy ... and still be the No. 1 overall pick in the 2021 draft.

If he comes back, he will have a target on his back. Defensive players will try to crush him, critics will find reasons to nitpick about his game, a serious injury could cost him $100 million-plus, etc. All one has to do is look at what happened to Tua this year.

Lawrence probably won't skip the 2020 season, but he probably should at least seriously consider it.

[StillAWarrior]

Just got around to looking at the language on this in the grant in aid.  Not sure if this is standardized across institutions, but I suspect that it is.  The language in the grant-in-aid says (or at least said in November 2016), "I am aware that pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 15.3.4 and associated NCAA interpretations, the amount of this aid may be immediately reduced or cancelled during the term of this award if...I voluntarily withdraw from this sport for personal reasons..."

So, it would be consistent with the agreement to stop offering the GIA, but there is no provision to recover past payments.  I don't know how many of the players who skip the bowl games return for the spring semester (suggesting the GIA is not cancelled) or how many stop attending at the end of the fall semester (receiving no further GIA).

[The Sultan]

Just got around to looking at the language on this in the grant in aid.  Not sure if this is standardized across institutions, but I suspect that it is.  The language in the grant-in-aid says (or at least said in November 2016), "I am aware that pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 15.3.4 and associated NCAA interpretations, the amount of this aid may be immediately reduced or cancelled during the term of this award if...I voluntarily withdraw from this sport for personal reasons..."

So, it would be consistent with the agreement to stop offering the GIA, but there is no provision to recover past payments.  I don't know how many of the players who skip the bowl games return for the spring semester (suggesting the GIA is not cancelled) or how many stop attending at the end of the fall semester (receiving no further GIA).

And since school isn't in session during a bowl game, there won't be any aid to cancel.  If an athlete completes the semester, moves back home, etc., and then withdraws from school, the school has no recourse because cancellation only applies "during the period of the award."  (ie, the first semester)

[Jay Bee]

Just got around to looking at the language on this in the grant in aid.  Not sure if this is standardized across institutions, but I suspect that it is.  The language in the grant-in-aid says (or at least said in November 2016), "I am aware that pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 15.3.4 and associated NCAA interpretations, the amount of this aid may be immediately reduced or cancelled during the term of this award if...I voluntarily withdraw from this sport for personal reasons..."

So, it would be consistent with the agreement to stop offering the GIA, but there is no provision to recover past payments.  I don't know how many of the players who skip the bowl games return for the spring semester (suggesting the GIA is not cancelled) or how many stop attending at the end of the fall semester (receiving no further GIA).

Not standardized, but 15.3.4.2(d) is clear. Aid can be reduced or canceled if there is voluntary withdrawal. I wonder if any kids who skip actually do want to continue studies in the Spring, and what schools have done in these cases.

[StillAWarrior]

Not standardized, but 15.3.4.2(d) is clear. Aid can be reduced or canceled if there is voluntary withdrawal. I wonder if any kids who skip actually do want to continue studies in the Spring, and what schools have done in these cases.

My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that schools generally permit it and extend the GIA to the spring semester, even in cases where players skip the bowl games.

[Cheeks]

I have nothing against schools attempting to claw back scholarships from players who skip college games, if that's what they want to do.

It would send quite a message to future recruits, but that would be their choice. And it would not get a single pro-bound athlete to change his mind.

"Let's see, I'm about to make tens of millions of dollars ... but I'd better risk a career-ending injury to play in the Chick-fil-A Weed Eater Blockbuster Video WorldCom Bowl because they're gonna make me repay my $50K scholarship."

If the NCAA wants to make such a thing national policy, cool. Maybe they could fold it into the new rules that permit athletes to profit off their own likenesses while retaining eligibility.

The message it would send is we are giving you a free education in exchange for you participating in our season.  That's the deal.


Don't worry, all of you outraged by NIL are going to get that soon enough....along with all the warts that go with it.  The "solve" that so many of you think it becomes, only opens up new problems.

[Cheeks]

Shouldn't swag bags be enough?

Shouldn't honoring the document they signed be enough?    Cue the "but coaches don't honor document nonsense"....except they do...buyout clauses are the penalty. They cannot just up and leave without that penalty.   If players don't want to honor the commitment they are signing, then don't sign them...play somewhere else, go pro, abandon your teammates and school - your decision.

[Cheeks]

And since school isn't in session during a bowl game, there won't be any aid to cancel.  If an athlete completes the semester, moves back home, etc., and then withdraws from school, the school has no recourse because cancellation only applies "during the period of the award."  (ie, the first semester)

I want to make sure I understand how you might be interpreting this.  A college basketball player their season straddles both semesters.  The GIA covers tuition, etc, for both semesters.  I understand you are talking football above, but say in basketball are you suggesting a college basketball player is a free agent between semesters since the period of the award stopped at the semester finish?   

Again, not accusing...asking if that would complete your thought process?

[The Sultan]

Shouldn't honoring the document they signed be enough?    Cue the "but coaches don't honor document nonsense"....except they do...buyout clauses are the penalty. They cannot just up and leave without that penalty.   

They literally can do so if they leave during a semester break - like before a bowl game.

[Pakuni]

Shouldn't honoring the document they signed be enough? 

Nothing in the document requires a kid to continue playing if he/she chooses to no longer play, nor does it state that it would be a violation of the contract.

[Cheeks]

Nothing in the document requires a kid to continue playing if he/she chooses to no longer play, nor does it state that it would be a violation of the contract.

It says the GIA can be reduced or immediately withdrawn as currently written.


I would suggest schools tighten these up in the future and pay for the GIA not on a quarterly or semester basis of the school year, but tie it to the season of competition.  I would also directly tie the GIA into that completion.  If you want 100% of your tuition covered you are available for 100% of the athletic calendar.  If you leave early, you are subject to having to pay a prorated difference of the time remaining in the academic calendar. 

Will some schools not do that as a recruiting tool?  Sure.  Go for it.  If I was a coach I'd ask if you are here to win, play for your teammates or are you just here to go through the motions and don't care?  Hmm...seems we recently had this discussion and absolutely there are some kids that are there only as a pitstop, could care little about winning and just want to get to the paycheck...fine...then sign with one of those schools.

[The Sultan]

It says the GIA can be reduced or immediately withdrawn as currently written.


I would suggest schools tighten these up in the future and pay for the GIA not on a quarterly or semester basis of the school year, but tie it to the season of competition.  I would also directly tie the GIA into that completion.  If you want 100% of your tuition covered you are available for 100% of the athletic calendar.  If you leave early, you are subject to having to pay a prorated difference of the time remaining in the academic calendar. 

Will some schools not do that as a recruiting tool?  Sure.  Go for it.  If I was a coach I'd ask if you are here to win, play for your teammates or are you just here to go through the motions and don't care?  Hmm...seems we recently had this discussion and absolutely there are some kids that are there only as a pitstop, could care little about winning and just want to get to the paycheck...fine...then sign with one of those schools.

So very shocked that you would want to limit the options of student athletes even more.

[Pakuni]

It says the GIA can be reduced or immediately withdrawn as currently written.

Right. If an athlete chooses not to play, the school has the option to stop providing him/her with the benefits of an athletic scholarship. So if Alabama Player A chooses to skip the Citrus Bowl, Alabama can choose not to educate him for free any more.
This seems entirely fair and reasonable.

But that's not the same as saying the athlete must play or that the schools have the right to seek a return of benefits previously earned.