Btw also saw this story linked on Facebook and nearly every comment there expresses outrage. The whole "happens all the time" attitude seems to be mostly on BI.

freshfunk;842353234 said:

---

What's that mean?

I've mentioned on other threads that I was a Grisom fan, especially after seeing his story last year. I also lamented earlier this season (probably last week) that I was sad to see him gone when we heard the news. Hearing that this was the reason makes me angry, especially for someone who comes from a very disadvantaged background and was literally working 2-3 jobs and sleeping 5 hours a day so that he could keep up with his academics AND play football. I'm a sucker for people who try that hard to get ahead in life and improve their and their family's situation.

Btw this isn't just on the coaching staff but on the AD as well. What the hell are they doing? Where's the support the kids are getting when crap like this happens in a byzantine state run system? I wish someone here had a way of contacting the interim AD and expressing the frustration and anger over something like this.

---

Don't go Upton Sinclair yet is what I mean. I don't think there's a single person here that isn't highly empathetic towards Grisom's horrible situation and who doesn't feel like he was the victim of a big bureaucratic mistake but let's wait to hear both sides of the story before pointing fingers.

freshfunk;842353243 said:

---

Btw also saw this story linked on Facebook and nearly every comment there expresses outrage. The whole "happens all the time" attitude seems to be mostly on BI.

---

Of course it's terrible that Cal caused an 11k screwup. Most normal people will agree. But let's be real, if not for that screwup, we likely never hear about this. He's not screwed because he lost his scholarship as he as ready to go back to being a walk on with the team. We're hearing about it because the 11k completely set him back.

socaliganbear;842353246 said:

---

Of course it's terrible that Cal caused an 11k screwup. Most normal people will agree. But let's be real, if not for that screwup, we likely never hear about this. He's not screwed because he lost his scholarship as he as ready to go back to being a walk on with the team. We're hearing about it because the 11k completely set him back.

---

I'm still waiting to hear the last time at Cal a walk-on got his schollie revoked while in good academic standing and contributing to the team on the field.

freshfunk;842353250 said:

---

I'm still waiting to hear the last time at Cal a walk-on got his schollie revoked while in good academic standing and contributing to the team on the field.

---

Why would you hear about it? Your focus on this issue is misplaced.

freshfunk;842353250 said:

---

I'm still waiting to hear the last time at Cal a walk-on got his schollie revoked while in good academic standing and contributing to the team on the field.

---

I don't think the "loss" of the scholarship is a big deal, the $11,000 will screw him over because even he gets outside cash there will be eligibility issues.

freshfunk;842353250 said:

---

I'm still waiting to hear the last time at Cal a walk-on got his schollie revoked while in good academic standing and contributing to the team on the field.

---

Issac Lapite this past year. He decided that he just wanted to graduate and did not want to be on the football program as a walk-on in 2014.

I'm sure that each position group has an allotment of schollies. As we know, wr is a position of depth for us. I'm not surprised or outraged by it.

freshfunk;842353243 said:

---

Btw also saw this story linked on Facebook and nearly every comment there expresses outrage. The whole "happens all the time" attitude seems to be mostly on BI.

---

well FF, id say most people on BI are probably more familiar with the college football landscape than most people just on facebook. personally ive had friends play college football, not at Cal but one at UH. He was a recruited scholarship player and they sent him packing once it was clear that he wasnt going to contribute. just didnt renew his scholy and moved on. its a lot more common than people think.

Grisom's case sounds worse in that he wasnt told how long his scholarship was good for(some sort of miscommunication likely occurred) and the administrative F' up, but as far as not renewing scholarships, its commonplace. thats why schools offering 4 year scholarships out the gate may have an advantage in recruiting

NYCGOBEARS;842353244 said:

---

Don't go Upton Sinclair yet is what I mean. I don't think there's a single person here that isn't highly empathetic towards Grisom's horrible situation and who doesn't feel like he was the victim of a big bureaucratic mistake but let's wait to hear both sides of the story before pointing fingers.

---

Well the article has quotes from the associate AD saying schollies are rarely revoked when the student is in good standing.

We hear that he found out over email and heard nothing from the coaches.

And when Dykes was asked for a comment, he issued a written statement:

Quote:

---

“One of the best things I have the opportunity to do as a head coach is reward a deserving student-athlete with an athletic scholarship and we’ve been able to do that 13 times in the 21 months that I have been at Cal. It is always a big day not only for the scholarship recipient but also to their teammates who see hard work put in both on and off the field rewarded.

We value the contributions of every member of our team and any time we have available scholarships we award them to deserving student-athletes, but we also are limited to 85 scholarships and must manage those accordingly.”

---

That seems to say enough about the story to make an opinion. Is there anything else to Sonny's side? Are we going to find out Grisom broke team rules or was on academic probation? I doubt it.

But you know what? I look forward to the press asking him at the next post-practice and seeing if he gives a real response other than they had to make room for other athletes.

btsktr;842353257 said:

---

Issac Lapite this past year. He decided that he just wanted to graduate and did not want to be on the football program as a walk-on in 2014.

---

I'm talking about this happening under a different coaching staff. Sonny seems to have a habit of doing this. Plus he graduated.

NYCGOBEARS;842353251 said:

---

Why would you hear about it? Your focus on this issue is misplaced.

---

I've asked socaligan as he's portraying this as a completely normal situation and not as an exception.

NYCGOBEARS;842353251 said:

---

Why would you hear about it?

---

Haha... Of course it is freshfunk not understanding again. That guy doesn't understand the alphabet. He didn't get his Schollie revoked. He earned a 1 year schollie as a preferred walkon. There is a huge difference. He choose to come to Cal to get a degree and wanted to play football. He then did so well showing tremendous heart and desire that he was rewarded with a schollie... For one year. You are going to be waiting a long time to hear the last time a "walkon" got his schollie revoked because there is nothing to revoke. They gave the schollie to another walkon who earned it through hard work, Frazer a 3rd string OG, that will probably never play. They try and give it to the walkons who deserve it the most. Last year it was Grisom who worked his ass off and this year it was Frazer.

I like Grisom. I love what he did. I will say though something doesn't add up.... I am a little shocked he didn't notice an 11K over pay. I am a little shocked if he was only 4K over paid and paid it back that he can't prove that and fix this situation. I am a little shocked he didn't know exactly what he signed. I am a little shocked he had no clue how scholarships work especially around walkons which he was. I am a little shocked if the staff had never talked to him about it. I am sure there is much more to this than the one sided story we are hearing.... I am not a little shocked freshfunk is here complaining about something.

NYCGOBEARS;842353258 said:

---

I'm sure that each position group has an allotment of schollies. As we know, wr is a position of depth for us. I'm not surprised or outraged by it.

---

Wouldn't one conclude, then, that we had more room to keep him on schollie?

have contacted Compliance about what we can do, waiting to hear back.

freshfunk;842353266 said:

---

I'm talking about this happening under a different coaching staff. Sonny seems to have a habit of doing this. Plus he graduated.

---

You said any previous player. Now your changing you criteria? It is common practice that if a football team is under the alloted 85 scholarships they will give the rest to deserving walk ons for that year. At the end of the year these are revoked so they could be used on incoming recruits.

PS: Issac Lapite still had one more year athletic eligibility left if he chose to use it. He would have come back as a walk-on with an oppurtunity to earn that scholarship back for available # they had this year.

jamonit;842353270 said:

---

Haha... Of course it is freshfunk not understanding again. That guy doesn't understand the alphabet. He didn't get his Schollie revoked. He earned a 1 year schollie as a preferred walkon. There is a huge difference. He choose to come to Cal to get a degree and wanted to play football. He then did so well showing tremendous heart and desire that he was rewarded with a schollie... For one year. You are going to be waiting a long time to hear the last time a "walkon" got his schollie revoked because there is nothing to revoke. They gave the schollie to another walkon who earned it through hard work, Frazer a 3rd string OG, that will probably never play. They try and give it to the walkons who deserve it the most. Last year it was Grisom who worked his ass off and this year it was Frazer.

I like Grisom. I love what he did. I will say though something doesn't add up.... I am a little shocked he didn't notice an 11K over pay. I am a little shocked if he was only 4K over paid and paid it back that he can't prove that and fix this situation. I am a little shocked he didn't know exactly what he signed. I am a little shocked he had no clue how scholarships work especially around walkons which he was. I am a little shocked if the staff had never talked to him about it. I am sure there is much more to this than the one sided story we are hearing.... I am not a little shocked freshfunk is here complaining about something.

---

"Revoked", "not earned"... semantics. Show me the last time this happened at Cal (not under Sonny as it's clear he's willing to pull 'em).

freshfunk;842353250 said:

---

I'm still waiting to hear the last time at Cal a walk-on got his schollie revoked while in good academic standing and contributing to the team on the field.

---

why would this matter? walk-ons are rarely awarded scholarships, and if they are, they are one-year schollies up for renewal, like everyone else gets. a coach CAN choose to not renew it.

freshfunk;842353264 said:

---

Well the article has quotes from the associate AD saying schollies are rarely revoked when the student is in good standing.

We hear that he found out over email and heard nothing from the coaches.

And when Dykes was asked for a comment, he issued a written statement:



That seems to say enough about the story to make an opinion. Is there anything else to Sonny's side? Are we going to find out Grisom broke team rules or was on academic probation? I doubt it.

But you know what? I look forward to the press asking him at the next post-practice and seeing if he gives a real response other than they had to make room for other athletes.

---

Your anger is misplaced. He was given a gift of a schollie last year. The gift was not guaranteed. The real mistake was the administrative one. That is horrible. No one disputes that. If there was a lack of communication on the part of the coaching staff in notifying Grisom, then that is also a mistake. Ultimately, it was incumbent on Grisom to make sure of the status of his schollie and to monitor his finances. I too was once a poor college student. I understand.

btsktr;842353276 said:

---

You said any previous player. Now your changing you criteria? It is common practice that if a football team is under the alloted 85 scholarships they will give the rest to deserving walk ons for that year. At the end of the year these are revoked so they could be used on incoming recruits.

PS: Issac Lapite still had one more year athletic eligibility left if he chose to use it. He would have come back as a walk-on with an oppurtunity to earn that scholarship back for available # they had this year.

---

I thought it was pretty clearly implied in my original statement that I blame the coaching staff. Lapite doesn't count as a previous player considering he got the schollie the same time as Grisom, last year.

WhipItOutJoe;842353091 said:

---

Eeyore - he was given a one year scholarship to reward him for his dedication last year. Recruited athletes are offered 4 year scholarships whereas walk-ons are offered 1 year scholarships on very rare occasions. If he was one of the top receivers on the team, you are correct that the scholly would have been renewed. Otherwise, the coaches make it available for other players. That fact that he did not know this is a bit surprising as he is on a team filled with athletes, some on scholarship, some not.

---

jamonit;842353108 said:

---

Goff and Rubenzer were not walk on players... Did you not read the article? Walk ons, who receive a Scholarship, get one for one year.

---

According to the article, both of you have it wrong.

Quote:

---

"According to associate athletic director and head of compliance Chris Stivers whose office ensures Cal's athletic teams comply with NCAA regulations every Cal football player is signed to a one-year renewable scholarship.

Rarely does this actually matter in practice. Technically, however, coaches still retain the right to revoke scholarships for performance-related issues. According to Stivers, this almost never occurs at Cal.

"At Cal, generally, no, we do not revoke scholarships on the basis of performance," Stivers said. "If it's somebody who's not as good as the coach thought they were going to be, we make the coach live with it. That's why we feel we don't even need to give four-year scholarships. If the student's not having major conduct issues, it will be renewed."

Grisom stated the coaches never approached him with issues about his behavior or for having a lackluster work ethic.

---

Maybe promoted walk-ons are exempt from that rule which, as articulated by a Cal associate AD, says that if a student-athelte is not having major conduct issues their scholie will be renewed...but that is not what the associate AD said. Nor is it anywhere else in the article. And I can't remember a Cal player who's come in as a walk-on, been given a scholarship and then had the scholarship pulled the next year. Can anyone else?

Unless Grisom is lying/"mistaken" somewhere, Dykes ****ed up. It's obviously a big deal for a walk-on to get a scholie--in case we didn't figure this already, Dykes awarding it to Grisom in front of the entire team last year should be a tip-off. He didn't have five minutes to spare to sit Grisom down in his office and tell him he was losing the scholarship? Maybe even at the same time offer some encouragement for what must be a tremendous reversal for the kid? Eeyore was right about one thing: this is like being laid-off by your boss in an email. Unless something in the article is untrue, that's garbage. It would either be a sorry oversight by Dykes (and Likens), or just plain ****ed up.

To the posters who take exception to criticism of Dykes here on the basis that we haven't heard his side of the story: he had an opportunity to comment and chose to submit a form letter that only in the vaguest sense references the situation and does not at all addresses Grisom's assertions. This isn't some great legal caper where I get that one party might choose to keep their mouth shut in order to protect themselves from legal judgment. Dykes could set the record straight if he wanted to, and if he doesn't want to then that should speak volumes.

GivemTheAxe;842353158 said:

---

Plus we often accept the statements of some party at face value without asking: 1. Does this person know all the facts 2. Does this person understand what he knows. 3. is this person accurately reporting all the facts he does know. 4. Does this person have any reason to shade the facts one way or another.

---

Let's not mystify ourselves unnecessarily. There is not that much ambiguity in Grisom's story (at least as pertains Dykes--the $11,000 is another matter). Grisom says (1) no one on the coaching staff told him when he was awarded the scholarship that it might not be renewed after one year. Grisom says (2) no one on the staff bothered to inform him that the scholarship would in fact not be renewed. FWIW, Grisom claims that Likens himself was "stunned" that no one informed Grisom he was losing the scholarship before Grisom received that email notification. For (1) and (2), if there's another side to the story, Dykes could give it if he wanted to. He was given a chance to comment and chose not to. I refuse to take "No Comment" as an answer which deserves to be rewarded with a continuation of the neutral skepticism that might rightfully exist when a story is initially reported.

The Cal Financial Aid office deserves criticism too. They made an administrative error. Ok, happens. They need to take action in order to not violate federal guidelines. Ok, I get that. So their action is to tell this kid (who until he got an athletic scholarship was receiving need-based financial aid) that he needs to pay them $11,000 in six weeks or GTFO? According to the article, this admin error actually affected several student-athletes. I'm curious about how they were "notified" they owed this money back now. Letter or phone call? What should have happened is that they should know $11,000 is a lot of money for almost any college student to come up with in less than two months, especially those who but for their athletic scholarships would be receiving substantial need-based financial aid and should be prepared to take exceptional steps to help reconcile the situation. I don't just mean setting up an installment plan (which evidently they haven't quite been able to do yet), I mean going to bat with their federal regulators and get an exception to the requirement that the $11,000 is paid back immediately so that it can be deferred until after graduation. Maybe they did try that anyway but it's impossible to know, since all they say in the article is bureaucrat speak--"We feel bad that there was an error, and we understand their frustration."

Lastly, CFB is a business, but as long as we're going to continue to subscribe to this (farcical) student-athlete paradigm, we should recognize that programs have a greater responsibility to their scholarship student-athletes than to be able to treat them like freelance hirelings. I'm with AAD Stivers: absent misconduct, the scholarships should not be revoked. I include in misconduct the breeching of team rules--if a guy misses enough workouts/practices/film studies, that should not be tolerated. But if a guy shows up and keeps his nose clean but isn't the football player you thought he would be, well tough luck. If we're treating players as pros, I say cut his ass, but if we're going to pretend this student-athlete thing is real then let's treat them like people we have responsibility for.

Regardless, it's senseless that the program can unilaterally end the relationship without penalty but the player can't. If the team can terminate the scholarship on a yearly basis, there's no reason that the player shouldn't be able to walk away from the team at the end of any year without sitting out a year. That's just bull****.

btsktr;842353276 said:

---

You said any previous player. Now your changing you criteria? It is common practice that if a football team is under the alloted 85 scholarships they will give the rest to deserving walk ons for that year. At the end of the year these are revoked so they could be used on incoming recruits.

PS: Issac Lapite still had one more year athletic eligibility left if he chose to use it. He would have come back as a walk-on with an oppurtunity to earn that scholarship back for available # they had this year.

---

It wasn't revoked... It is for one year. After that year the available scholarship goes back to use on new recruits. If they don't have all 85 scholarship players again they can use it again on the same player or reward another walkon.... This year for example they are rewarding Frazer with a free year of school. It is a way to reward walkon players who earn a year free of schooling from the school they had been paying for. How it happened with the mistake on money is what sucks. To bad it wasn't able to be resolved when he first got the 11K to much.

freshfunk;842353266 said:

---

I'm talking about this happening under a different coaching staff. Sonny seems to have a habit of doing this. Plus he graduated.

---

You skewer Sonny for not winning and now you're criticizing him for doing what if takes?

btsktr;842353276 said:

---

You said any previous player. Now your changing you criteria? It is common practice that if a football team is under the alloted 85 scholarships they will give the rest to deserving walk ons for that year. At the end of the year these are revoked so they could be used on incoming recruits.

PS: Issac Lapite still had one more year athletic eligibility left if he chose to use it. He would have come back as a walk-on with an oppurtunity to earn that scholarship back for available # they had this year.

---

It wasn't revoked... It is for one year. After that year the available scholarship goes back to use on new recruits. If they don't have all 85 scholarship players again they can use it again on the same player or reward another walkon.... This year for example they are rewarding a few others like Frazer with a free year of school. It is a way to reward walkon players who earn a year free of schooling from the school they had been paying for. How it happened with the mistake on money is what sucks. To bad it wasn't able to be resolved when he first got the 11K to much.

NYCGOBEARS;842353279 said:

---

Your anger is misplaced. He was given a gift of a schollie last year. The gift was not guaranteed. The real mistake was the administrative one. That is horrible. No one disputes that. If there was a lack of communication on the part of the coaching staff in notifying Grisom, then that is also a mistake. Ultimately, it was incumbent on Grisom to make sure of the status of his schollie and to monitor his finances. I too was once a poor college student. I understand.

---

No, the gift was not guaranteed. But if it's nearly always the case that schollies are not revoked unless a student is no longer in good standing, then I think it's completely valid to be angry when it does happen. Again, legally it's OK but morally reprehensible. The associate AD is quoted as saying:

Quote:

---

“At Cal, generally, no, we do not revoke scholarships on the basis of performance,” Stivers said. “If it’s somebody who’s not as good as the coach thought they were going to be, we make the coach live with it. That’s why we feel we don’t even need to give four-year scholarships. If the student’s not having major conduct issues, it will be renewed.”

---

That's pretty cut and dry to me. There is no distinction made between schollies award to walk-ons or recruited athletes, which some seem to think create a distinction here. In fact the article seems to do the opposite:

Quote:

---

According to associate athletic director and head of compliance Chris Stivers — whose office ensures Cal’s athletic teams comply with NCAA regulations — every Cal football player is signed to a one-year renewable scholarship.

---

Now if people can show me that this is common practice in respectable programs, I'll gladly sheath my anger. But Stiver is quoted as saying that they "make the coach live with it" and it's why Cal doesn't award four-year scholarships" which implies that this doesn't typically happen.

freshfunk;842353266 said:

---

I'm talking about this happening under a different coaching staff. Sonny seems to have a habit of doing this. Plus he graduated.

---

what's wrong with deciding not to renew Lapite's scholarship? ASSUMING Lapite didn't just decide to quit the team.

That's pretty cut and dry to me. There is no distinction made between schollies award to walk-ons or recruited athletes, which some seem to think create a distinction here. In fact the article seems to do the opposite:

freshfunk;842353266 said:

---

Now if people can show me that this is common practice in respectable programs, I'll gladly sheath my anger. But Stiver is quoted as saying that they "make the coach live with it" and it's why Cal doesn't award four-year scholarships" which implies that this doesn't typically happen.

---

ALL THE TIME. and it's happened here too before. whatever Stiver said is just to cover Cal's ass from a PR point of view. other schools have nicer-sounding excuses that never get exposed in their schools' papers.

"medical retirement"
"focusing on academics"
"expanding his interests outside of football"

....etc.

NYCGOBEARS;842353285 said:

---

You skewer Sonny for not winning and now you're criticizing him for doing what if takes?

---

So you're OK with doing anything, even ethically wrong, to win? Give me a break, NYCGO. You're better than this trolling.

btsktr;842353257 said:

---

Issac Lapite this past year. He decided that he just wanted to graduate and did not want to be on the football program as a walk-on in 2014.

---

So he graduated? That's a little different. I don't see any responsibility for the team to keep unwanted players on scholarship after graduation, even if they still have eligibility.

beeasyed;842353291 said:

---

what's wrong with deciding not to renew Lapite's scholarship? ASSUMING Lapite didn't just decide to quit the team.

---

I think it's wrong but he consequences are less severe because he graduated. Regardless, Sonny's shown he's willing to do this. Did we ever see this under Tedford or prior coaches?

KevBear;842353282 said:

---

According to the article, both of you have it wrong.



Maybe promoted walk-ons are exempt from that rule which, as articulated by a Cal associate AD, says that if a student-athelte is not having major conduct issues their scholie will be renewed...but that is not what the associate AD said. Nor is it anywhere else in the article. And I can't remember a Cal player who's come in as a walk-on, been given a scholarship and then had the scholarship pulled the next year. Can anyone else?

Unless Grisom is lying/"mistaken" somewhere, Dykes ****ed up. It's obviously a big deal for a walk-on to get a scholie--in case we didn't figure this already, Dykes awarding it to Grisom in front of the entire team last year should be a tip-off. He didn't have five minutes to spare to sit Grisom down in his office and tell him he was losing the scholarship? Maybe even at the same time offer some encouragement for what must be a tremendous reversal for the kid? Eeyore was right about one thing: this is like being laid-off by your boss in an email. Unless something in the article is untrue, that's garbage. It would either be a sorry oversight by Dykes (and Likens), or just plain ****ed up.

To the posters who take exception to criticism of Dykes here on the basis that we haven't heard his side of the story: he had an opportunity to comment and chose to submit a form letter that only in the vaguest sense references the situation and does not at all addresses Grisom's assertions. This isn't some great legal caper where I get that one party might choose to keep their mouth shut in order to protect themselves from legal judgment. Dykes could set the record straight if he wanted to, and if he doesn't want to then that should speak volumes.



Let's not mystify ourselves unnecessarily. There is not that much ambiguity in Grisom's story (at least as pertains Dykes--the $11,000 is another matter). Grisom says (1) no one on the coaching staff told him when he was awarded the scholarship that it might not be renewed after one year. Grisom says (2) no one on the staff bothered to inform him that the scholarship would in fact not be renewed. FWIW, Grisom claims that Likens himself was "stunned" that no one informed Grisom he was losing the scholarship before Grisom received that email notification. For (1) and (2), if there's another side to the story, Dykes could give it if he wanted to. He was given a chance to comment and chose not to. I refuse to take "No Comment" as an answer which deserves to be rewarded with a continuation of the neutral skepticism that might rightfully exist when a story is initially reported.

The Cal Financial Aid office deserves criticism too. They made an administrative error. Ok, happens. They need to take action in order to not violate federal guidelines. Ok, I get that. So their action is to tell this kid (who until he got an athletic scholarship was receiving need-based financial aid) that he needs to pay them $11,000 in six weeks or GTFO? According to the article, this admin error actually affected several student-athletes. I'm curious about how they were "notified" they owed this money back now. Letter or phone call? What should have happened is that they should know $11,000 is a lot of money for almost any college student to come up with in less than two months, especially those who but for their athletic scholarships would be receiving substantial need-based financial aid and should be prepared to take exceptional steps to help reconcile the situation. I don't just mean setting up an installment plan (which evidently they haven't quite been able to do yet), I mean going to bat with their federal regulators and get an exception to the requirement that the $11,000 is paid back immediately so that it can be deferred until after graduation. Maybe they did try that anyway but it's impossible to know, since all they say in the article is bureaucrat speak--“We feel bad that there was an error, and we understand their frustration.”

Lastly, CFB is a business, but as long as we're going to continue to subscribe to this (farcical) student-athlete paradigm, we should recognize that programs have a greater responsibility to their scholarship student-athletes than to be able to treat them like freelance hirelings. I'm with AAD Stivers: absent misconduct, the scholarships should not be revoked. I include in misconduct the breeching of team rules--if a guy misses enough workouts/practices/film studies, that should not be tolerated. But if a guy shows up and keeps his nose clean but isn't the football player you thought he would be, well tough luck. If we're treating players as pros, I say cut his ass, but if we're going to pretend this student-athlete thing is real then let's treat them like people we have responsibility for.

Regardless, it's senseless that the program can unilaterally end the relationship without penalty but the player can't. If the team can terminate the scholarship on a yearly basis, there's no reason that the player shouldn't be able to walk away from the team at the end of any year without sitting out a year. That's just bull****.

---

Thank you, Kev. I'm glad not everyone here is blinded by winning and blind support of the staff such that they're unwilling to see this for what it is.

freshfunk;842353293 said:

---

So you're OK with doing anything, even ethically wrong, to win? Give me a break, NYCGO. You're better than this trolling.

---

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Go on with your circular arguments. I'm going to focus in Sac State.

Doesn't make Dykes or Cal look good. But I think this sort of thing (apart from the financial aid snafu) is pretty common - most schools give conditional schollies to walk-ons. Sounds like the coaching staff could use some training in effective communication, though.

freshfunk;842353298 said:

---

Thank you, Kev. I'm glad not everyone here is blinded by winning and blind support of the staff such that they're unwilling to see this for what it is.

---

1. Hold your horses, we've only just won 1 game.

2. Dykes is trimming the roster. This is fair game.

3. Even people who don't support Dykes think this is above board, from a football perspective. Well maybe not the finding out by email part.

4. You reference Kev's message:

"Regardless, it's senseless that the program can unilaterally end the relationship without penalty but the player can't. If the team can terminate the scholarship on a yearly basis, there's no reason that the player shouldn't be able to walk away from the team at the end of any year without sitting out a year. That's just bull****."

So you're against this entire college system. Well, go reform it then.

5. All colleges do this in various guises to various extents. Difference is we rarely do it, and we almost never do it to full-ride athletes. Unless they're bad apples. But even then, we just "recommend" them to go pro. Or leave on their own.

KevBear;842353282 said:

---

According to the article, both of you have it wrong.



Maybe promoted walk-ons are exempt from that rule which, as articulated by a Cal associate AD, says that if a student-athelte is not having major conduct issues their scholie will be renewed...but that is not what the associate AD said. Nor is it anywhere else in the article. And I can't remember a Cal player who's come in as a walk-on, been given a scholarship and then had the scholarship pulled the next year. Can anyone else?

Unless Grisom is lying/"mistaken" somewhere, Dykes ****ed up. It's obviously a big deal for a walk-on to get a scholie--in case we didn't figure this already, Dykes awarding it to Grisom in front of the entire team last year should be a tip-off. He didn't have five minutes to spare to sit Grisom down in his office and tell him he was losing the scholarship? Maybe even at the same time offer some encouragement for what must be a tremendous reversal for the kid? Eeyore was right about one thing: this is like being laid-off by your boss in an email. Unless something in the article is untrue, that's garbage. It would either be a sorry oversight by Dykes (and Likens), or just plain ****ed up.

To the posters who take exception to criticism of Dykes here on the basis that we haven't heard his side of the story: he had an opportunity to comment and chose to submit a form letter that only in the vaguest sense references the situation and does not at all addresses Grisom's assertions. This isn't some great legal caper where I get that one party might choose to keep their mouth shut in order to protect themselves from legal judgment. Dykes could set the record straight if he wanted to, and if he doesn't want to then that should speak volumes.



Let's not mystify ourselves unnecessarily. There is not that much ambiguity in Grisom's story (at least as pertains Dykes--the $11,000 is another matter). Grisom says (1) no one on the coaching staff told him when he was awarded the scholarship that it might not be renewed after one year. Grisom says (2) no one on the staff bothered to inform him that the scholarship would in fact not be renewed. FWIW, Grisom claims that Likens himself was "stunned" that no one informed Grisom he was losing the scholarship before Grisom received that email notification. For (1) and (2), if there's another side to the story, Dykes could give it if he wanted to. He was given a chance to comment and chose not to. I refuse to take "No Comment" as an answer which deserves to be rewarded with a continuation of the neutral skepticism that might rightfully exist when a story is initially reported.

The Cal Financial Aid office deserves criticism too. They made an administrative error. Ok, happens. They need to take action in order to not violate federal guidelines. Ok, I get that. So their action is to tell this kid (who until he got an athletic scholarship was receiving need-based financial aid) that he needs to pay them $11,000 in six weeks or GTFO? According to the article, this admin error actually affected several student-athletes. I'm curious about how they were "notified" they owed this money back now. Letter or phone call? What should have happened is that they should know $11,000 is a lot of money for almost any college student to come up with in less than two months, especially those who but for their athletic scholarships would be receiving substantial need-based financial aid and should be prepared to take exceptional steps to help reconcile the situation. I don't just mean setting up an installment plan (which evidently they haven't quite been able to do yet), I mean going to bat with their federal regulators and get an exception to the requirement that the $11,000 is paid back immediately so that it can be deferred until after graduation. Maybe they did try that anyway but it's impossible to know, since all they say in the article is bureaucrat speak--“We feel bad that there was an error, and we understand their frustration.”

Lastly, CFB is a business, but as long as we're going to continue to subscribe to this (farcical) student-athlete paradigm, we should recognize that programs have a greater responsibility to their scholarship student-athletes than to be able to treat them like freelance hirelings. I'm with AAD Stivers: absent misconduct, the scholarships should not be revoked. I include in misconduct the breeching of team rules--if a guy misses enough workouts/practices/film studies, that should not be tolerated. But if a guy shows up and keeps his nose clean but isn't the football player you thought he would be, well tough luck. If we're treating players as pros, I say cut his ass, but if we're going to pretend this student-athlete thing is real then let's treat them like people we have responsibility for.

Regardless, it's senseless that the program can unilaterally end the relationship without penalty but the player can't. If the team can terminate the scholarship on a yearly basis, there's no reason that the player shouldn't be able to walk away from the team at the end of any year without sitting out a year. That's just bull****.

---

That is a ton of words... The gist of it. If you are a recruited scholarship athlete you will be renewed every year unless their is a reason not performance based to revoke. Walkons who receive a scholarship do not fall under this same thing. They are given a 1 year scholarship as a reward. Most are given to SRs who have worked hard every year as a reward. As a walkon you can again earn a scholarship the following the year, but it is not guaranteed and doesn't need to be signed off to revoke like a recruited athlete does. It is understood that because we are allowed 85 scholarship players that when we are under that number rather than not use a scholarship it we can give a hard working walkon for a year of free schooling. If it was like a recruited athletes then you would never see a JR get a scholarship because they would just give it to all SRs. Sonny has given more free years than most coaches these last couple of years. Most other coaches do what is called over signing. JT included where we are forced to make some recruits greyshirt because we signed to much and can't fit them into our 85 numbers. Dykes hasn't done nearly that much of that and because he hasn't he has been able to reward free years of school to walkon student athletes who have been paying their own way. Hope that helps.

NYCGOBEARS;842353279 said:

---

Your anger is misplaced. He was given a gift of a schollie last year. The gift was not guaranteed. The real mistake was the administrative one. That is horrible. No one disputes that. If there was a lack of communication on the part of the coaching staff in notifying Grisom, then that is also a mistake. Ultimately, it was incumbent on Grisom to make sure of the status of his schollie and to monitor his finances. I too was once a poor college student. I understand.

---

thank you! Absolutely clear and concise....not much to argue about with your explanation.

Grisom probably did not hear the one year proviso when he was granted the scholarship.....otherwise, the coaching staff screwed up in not letting him know.