jamonit;842353308 said:
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.
I think that there are problems with your understanding. I do not buy your story that (non-senior) walk-ons who are awarded a scholarship
categorically have in the past fallen under a separate administrative practice in the Cal FB program where the renewal of their scholarship is subject to a different review policy than other players.
I can recall several senior walk-ons who were not meaningful contributors on the field who were rewarded for their efforts with scholarships. In those cases, the issue of renewal is not applicable. Here the concept of the "reward" scholarships created by having <85 scholarship players on the roster makes sense.
I can't recall very many underclassmen walk-ons who were given scholarships who were not meaningful contributors on the field. I also cannot recall any of them losing the scholarship after it had been awarded (except for Lapite who was mentioned earlier in the thread and who had graduated--I'm pretty sure Cal has made even recruited scholarship athletes who had remaining eligibility but were not wanted move on after graduating).
Regardless, we know of many, many walk-ons who earned a scholarship as underclassmen and remained as scholarship players their entire careers. Are you telling me that each offseason after they were initially given scholarships that Tedford called Chris Manderino or Mike Mohammed into his office and said, "Congrats, your scholarship will be renewed this year" and before that they were sweating it? No, I bet you anything that was not the case, that once they were given their scholarships there was never another conversation about whether the scholarship would be renewed beyond whatever formality every scholarship player--recruited or not--undergoes to "renew" their scholarship each year.
At least one of the following things must be true for Dykes to not be in the wrong here:
(1) It must be common practice for underclassmen walk-ons to assume--without being told--that if they are given a scholarship it will only be for that year unless they're explicitly told otherwise.
(2) Dykes told Grisom when he gave him the scholie that it would only be for that year.
Grisom's experience implies that (1) is not true, since he assumed his scholarship was permanent. I also do not believe that (1) is true. In fact, I suspect that it is the opposite, that if a coach intends to give a freshman walk-on a scholarship only for that year that he will make it explicitly clear "This is only for this year. I make no promises after that." (at least on a team that claims to not revoke the scholarships of recruited players for performance reasons)
Grisom directly claims that (2) is not true.
Is there more to this story? Dykes knows, but we don't because he won't speak up.
