Unit2Sucks;842353369 said:

---

So you would have let a guy like Grisom bust his ass to work multiple jobs to pay for school and have a scholly go to waste in 2013? I don't understand that at all. I don't like what happened to him and I would be more than happy to join into any compliant efforts to help him, but not using up all your extra schollys to give hard-working walk-ons 1-year deals is a step backwards. Clearly when you grant a one-year scholly to a walk-on you have to make it clear that he's back to the back of the line the next year depending on how many kids you sign, etc. but to let those go to waste would be a big morale-killer.

---

I'm in agreement with all of this. It's fine to me to award a scholie to a walk-on for just one year, but you have to be up front about it. How the heck else would they know?

KevBear;842353380 said:

---

I'm in agreement with all of this. It's fine to me to award a scholie to a walk-on for just one year, but you have to be up front about it. How the heck else would they know?

---

I'm fine with this as well. If it were clearly communicated to him at the time of the reward that it was 1 year, I would be completely OK with it. But it looks like it wasn't unless Grison is lying. And the instances I know of walk-ons getting schollies are ones where they continued to get it until they left Cal.

KevBear;842353379 said:

---

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.

---

Really starters got renewed a scholarship is your argument now? smdh... Did it ever occur to you that Grisom is at some fault here? Have you ever signed a contract and not been explained what you are signing? When is the last time you bought a car? They take like 2 hours making you sign a billion things about what you are agreeing to and what you aren't agreeing to. Could you remember everything that you agreed to a year later? Is that my fault or the dealerships fault if the next year I didn't understand something I signed? Sadly is, this can all be Grisom's fault or this could all be Cal's fault or most likely it lies somewhere in between. I feel bad for Grisom, but I don't know the whole story and you don't either. Can you agree with that at least? If so, can you also agree that you are getting upset at Cal and Cal coaches about something you don't know fully about... Oh no I lost you

freshfunk;842353372 said:

---

Thanks for your reply, Vandy. If we have any former schollie athletes on the board, it would be interesting to hear your positions as well.

What's funny is that you say that "you can be damned sure that a walk on player who is subsequently granted a scholarship knows that it can be taken away next year" and, yet, here we are. Perhaps it's not as clear cut and obvious as you think.

---

I can't speak for football players who are walkon's and get a scholarship before their senior year. I can just say, from personal experience, sort of watercooler talk, it was known that it's a one year deal pending subsequent approval for the next year. That is from my interactions with walk-on football players who earned scholarships who are my very close friends, including my best friend. It's just the way it is (was?). Maybe the culture in the AD is not what it was when I was at Cal, so it seems that he assumed that he was getting the scholarship for the rest of his time. He obviously assumed wrongly. He apparently didn't read the scholarship agreement, or at the least, didn't comprehend the terms of the agreement.

He was also given more money than anyone else on the team. It sounds like he noticed the anomaly and gave it back (or at least tried to). The author doesn't note whether he asked the question "did you spend the extra $11k?" He could have only spent a grand above that and just needs to pay that amount back. I mean, do we really know at this point from what the author wrote whether he actually spent $11k more than he should have?? There's a lot more here, and we are only really getting one side to it.

KevBear;842353380 said:

---

I'm in agreement with all of this. It's fine to me to award a scholie to a walk-on for just one year, but you have to be up front about it. How the heck else would they know?

---

You are assuming they weren't... Could it not be possible that they did tell Grisom more than once and he A) didn't understand? B) was so excited he couldn't comprehend or his mind was racing and didn't hear it all? C) he is lying? D) He wasn't told at all? E) He forgot? F) He got confused? G) All of the above? H) None of the above? I) some of the above?

jamonit;842353384 said:

---

Really starters got renewed a scholarship is your argument now? smdh... Did it ever occur to you that Grisom is at some fault here? Have you ever signed a contract and not been explained what you are signing? When is the last time you bought a car? They take like 2 hours making you sign a billion things about what you are agreeing to and what you aren't agreeing to. Could you remember everything that you agreed to a year later? Is that my fault or the dealerships fault if the next year I didn't understand something I signed? Sadly is, this can all be Grisom's fault or this could all be Cal's fault or most likely it lies somewhere in between. I feel bad for Grisom, but I don't know the whole story and you don't either. Can you agree with that at least? If so, can you also agree that you are getting upset at Cal and Cal coaches about something you don't know fully about... Oh no I lost you

---

+1 (+)

Vandalus;842353387 said:

---

I can't speak for football players who are walkon's and get a scholarship before their senior year. I can just say, from personal experience, sort of watercooler talk, it was known that it's a one year deal pending subsequent approval for the next year. That is from my interactions with walk-on football players who earned scholarships who are my very close friends, including my best friend. It's just the way it is (was?). Maybe the culture in the AD is not what it was when I was at Cal, so it seems that he assumed that he was getting the scholarship for the rest of his time. He obviously assumed wrongly. He apparently didn't read the scholarship agreement, or at the least, didn't comprehend the terms of the agreement.

He was also given more money than anyone else on the team. It sounds like he noticed the anomaly and gave it back (or at least tried to). The author doesn't note whether he asked the question "did you spend the extra $11k?" He could have only spent a grand above that and just needs to pay that amount back. I mean, do we really know at this point from what the author wrote whether he actually spent $11k more than he should have?? There's a lot more here, and we are only really getting one side to it.

---

well put

btsktr;842353377 said:

---

I had a cousin who was offered a walk-on spot at UCLA for men's water polo. The coach at UCLA explained to him that he might have the opportunity to earn a scholarship on a yearly basis, if there we extras available. There never was any extras and he quit the team.

If you think about a kid who was offered a scholarship out of high school, he is probably told that we will honor this commitment throughout your time here if you remain in good academic standing. As a walk-on, the coaches probably tell you that you have an opportunity to earn a scholarship if there are extras available.

It was never REVOKED because there was never a guarantee for a second year. The deal was that you made the team as a walk-on and were never guaranteed a scholarship. But luckily for you we have the opportunity to pay for 1 year of education to the amount of scholarships we have available.

If the AD was so against NOT RENEWING a scholarship, then why would they them do this? The deal at most schools today is that if you are offered a scholarship out of high school then we will RENEW every year as long as you are in good academic standing.

---

This is exactly the discussion I had with multiple schools. I was recruited at Miami and ASU for football, and this was specifically the pitch. Come here, work your ass off, and we might have room for a one year renewable scholarship depending upon the numbers and if you can perform. It was very clear. That's why I am so surprised that Grissom had the opposite impression. It's on the coaches to set proper expectations, but it's also on the individual to accept responsibility to listen and comprehend what's happening to them. If the coaches lied to him about this I have a much bigger issue with it. I am very disappointed that they didn't have a man to man conversation about it being non-renewed, as this should have happened and Dykes hopefully apologized to Grissom and his family for that.

Quote:

---

You are assuming they weren't... Could it not be possible that they did tell Grisom more than once and he A) didn't understand? B) was so excited he couldn't comprehend or his mind was racing and didn't hear it all? C) he is lying? D) He wasn't told at all? E) He forgot? F) He got confused? G) All of the above? H) None of the above? I) some of the above?

---

This precisely.

Vandalus;842353393 said:

---

This is exactly the discussion I had with multiple schools. I was recruited at Miami and ASU for football, and this was specifically the pitch. Come here, work your ass off, and we might have room for a one year renewable scholarship depending upon the numbers and if you can perform. It was very clear. That's why I am so surprised that Grissom had the opposite impression. It's on the coaches to set proper expectations, but it's also on the individual to accept responsibility to listen and comprehend what's happening to them. If the coaches lied to him about this I have a much bigger issue with it. I am very disappointed that they didn't have a man to man conversation about it being non-renewed, as this should have happened and Dykes needs to apologize for that.

---

Actually seeing this made me think of something... Grisom wasn't a preferred walkon. He actually just walked on to the team. It could be that he wasn't told the whole way like most preferred walkons are... I wonder if it is possible that they assumed he knew because they did explain this to all preferred walkons. Seems highly unlikely this wouldn't have been discussed between walkons at all though, but Grisom is the super rare story of being an actual walkon from nowhere. Either way though, we don't know and probably never will know. To slam the staff without knowing what really happened from an article where Grisom is like I don't really know what happened takes a special type of dedication.

jamonit;842353396 said:

---

Actually seeing this made me think of something... Grisom wasn't a preferred walkon. He actually just walked on to the team. It could be that he wasn't told the whole way like most preferred walkons are... I wonder if it is possible that they assumed he knew because they did explain this to all preferred walkons. Grisom is the super rare story of being an actual walkon from nowhere. Either way though, we don't and probably never will know. To slam the staff without knowing what really happened from an article where Grisom is like I don't really know what happened takes a special type of dedication.

---

Very astute observation. I noticed that line about him being a try-out walk-on. I just sort of assumed that the author was using some creative licence to make it sound like a Rudy situation; was this in fact what happened? Did he just get admitted and then showed up one day? I know with Holmoe there was a few people who did this - they had an open try out day; a fraternity brother and rugby player tried out on a lark and made the team as a walk-on (non-travelling) member, but I assumed we only did closed/invited "try outs" now. Can MB comment on this?

According to a poster on another site, James straight up walked on.

Quote:

---

 He was a member of my student orientation group
He had one of the nicest personalities I can remember encountering in my 4 years here. We were over at FPF together but I should have kept in touch better. I remember though that we both had fun laughing together when we met in the summer, and that one of the things he was proudest of, was that he was at the University for his education, and didn’t want it assumed that he was there simply for his athletic talent. He planned to ask Tedford if he could work out with the team, but being in FPF puts you in the category of UC Extension so you can’t do much with the sports teams. It was amazing to hear that he’d made the team down the road before we were scheduled to leave. It’s a pity things didn’t work out for him. I hope things come together though.

---

Vandalus;842353360 said:

---

Revenue sport athletes that are recruited guys have the opposite expectation - it's just known that you get it for 4-5 years and that's the way it is, but you can be damned sure that a walk on player who is subsequently granted a scholarship knows that it can be taken away next year.

And as others have said, almost all awarded scholarships to walkons occur when they are seniors. This was definitely an anomaly.

---

I'm interested in how you know that non-senior walkons on scholarship do not enjoy the same expectation that recruited players have that their scholarship will be renewed given that, as you say, almost all awarded scholarships to walkons occur when they are seniors (and most of the ones that aren't seniors were guys who contributed heavily on the field). I can believe it's an anomalous situation, but I have trouble believing they should assume without being told that it's only going to be for one year.

Vandalus said:

---

It's also VERY clear if you actually read the scholarship agreement.

---

Yeah, but that's the same scholarship agreement for all players, walk-on or recruit, right?

Vandalus;842353401 said:

---

Very astute observation. I noticed that line about him being a try-out walk-on. I just sort of assumed that the author was using some creative licence to make it sound like a Rudy situation; was this in fact what happened? Did he just get admitted and then showed up one day? I know with Holmoe there was a few people who did this - they had an open try out day; a fraternity brother and rugby player tried out on a lark and made the team as a walk-on (non-travelling) member, but I assumed we only did closed/invited "try outs" now. Can MB comment on this?

---

That was from the article last year. Something like JT had an open try out and he made the team as a try out walkon. Still though I am sure they would have mentioned scholarships then and I am sure other walkons would have talked about it. How you can no nothing about it when you have been with the team for what 2-3 years and all the players and Lapite just had the same thing happen and you sign an agreement that I am sure they went over... I can't see it honestly. I think he just missed it or misunderstood everything.

KevBear;842353410 said:

---

I'm interested in how you know that non-senior walkons on scholarship do not enjoy the same expectation that recruited players have that their scholarship will be renewed given that, as you say, almost all awarded scholarships to walkons occur when they are seniors (and most of the ones that aren't seniors were guys who contributed heavily on the field). I can believe it's an anomalous situation, but I have trouble believing they should assume without being told that it's only going to be for one year.



Yeah, but that's the same scholarship agreement for all players, walk-on or recruit, right?

---

He explained that here... "This is exactly the discussion I had with multiple schools. I was recruited at Miami and ASU for football, and this was specifically the pitch. Come here, work your ass off, and we might have room for a one year renewable scholarship depending upon the numbers and if you can perform. It was very clear."

See above for prior point.

KevBear;842353410 said:

---

Yeah, but that's the same scholarship agreement for all players, walk-on or recruit, right?

---

Truth be told, I can't say with 100% certainty since I'm sure its not the exact same language as when I was in school and it's not like I've ever read a Cal football scholarship agreement since I was never a party to one, but I'm 99% sure that a football scholarship agreement and the terms therein are identical to each other whether given to a recruited player or a walk-on. It just makes sense that the lawyers in the room keep it the same, and since football can't have partial scholarships, they will be identical.

I should add, I could be wrong. With the above caveat, I believe they are the same. I have no reason to doubt that, but of course, I've been wrong before so I'm not the expert here. Perhaps a former football player can chime in. I'll ask my buddy tomorrow at the game if I can remember among the beers, etc. etc.

now makes sense to sonny's hesitation of explanation of the grissom situation start of fall camp.. not that he could say anything but his face said it all .. aka stuff is all messed up

Daily cal sucks

Dirtbag move by Likens and Dykes by not communicating to the young man that the schollie was for a year only. Dykes and Likens as the Coach and Position Coach had the responsibility to communicate this to their player and for Likens to act surprised that Grisom hadn't been told what was going to happen means that they did not communicate this to the young man. Then Dykes puts out a prepared statement that sounds like a corporate attorney or public relations specialist wrote it and it's just chickensh*t. The young man deserved better from both coaches. Now someone who they saw fit to reward with an athletic scholarship for his hard work and dedication is suddenly no longer worthy. Why is he no longer worthy? This situation may be one of the reasons that athletes want to be treated as employees at least then they would have some protection.

The fact that there is a disparity in the amount overawarded, the amount that was actually awarded, and the request that Grisom repay some $11,000.00 is cause for concern. Seems like there were a lot of people and a department which should be held accountable for this screw up. It seems like they have no system to prevent this sort of thing from happening to anyone who might be an athlete playing at Cal. Imagine if you were told while a student at Cal you now owe us $11,000.00 and we want it now.

jamonit;842353419 said:

---

He explained that here... "This is exactly the discussion I had with multiple schools. I was recruited at Miami and ASU for football, and this was specifically the pitch. Come here, work your ass off, and we might have room for a one year renewable scholarship depending upon the numbers and if you can perform. It was very clear."

---

No, not at other schools, at Cal. I imagine there are many schools whose policy regarding scholarship renewal does not conform to Cal's stated policy.

Could one of the mods connect with the author of the article at the Daily Cal (mrosen@dailycal.org)? Based on his twitter comments it looks like he knows how to help. Perhaps we could organize something larger here but want to make sure it's done properly.

I'll happily drop several hundred on the kid to help his situation.

freshfunk;842353632 said:

---

Could one of the mods connect with the author of the article at the Daily Cal (mrosen@dailycal.org)? Based on his twitter comments it looks like he knows how to help. Perhaps we could organize something larger here but want to make sure it's done properly.

I'll happily drop several hundred on the kid to help his situation.

---

thank you ... someone make it happen .. ill pitch in too and i aint got it at all but ill scrape up something ..

stop talking and work to fix it .. otherwise _________ ___ _______ _ talking about is not going to help anybody griss or the school nobody

yes it was all bad .. its clear a few people dropped the ball ...

jamonit;842353384 said:

---

Really starters got renewed a scholarship is your argument now?

---

All Cal FB players have 1 year renewable scholarships. Didn't you read what the Cal AAD said in the article?

jamonit said:

---

smdh... Did it ever occur to you that Grisom is at some fault here?

---

I am almost certain I gave more weight to the possibility that Grisom is at fault here than you did to the possibility that the staff was at fault. smdh...

jamonit said:

---

Have you ever signed a contract and...

---

I've signed many, many documents without reading them and with getting only the most summary explanation of what was inside. A lot of them could have had clauses giving away my first born and I'd never know, because I didn't read them and the person handing it to me tells me in six words what this 1,200 word three-page document is about. Bottom line about the contract: it's the same one all Cal scholarship players have, recruit or former walk-on alike. Since according to Cal's own ADs, Cal automatically renews athletic scholarships in almost all cases but major misconduct, I don't see this as something that casts significant doubt on Grisom's claims that he was never aware that the scholarship would only be made available for him for that one year.

I want to be sure you understand the nuance, so I'm going to walk you through it:

(1) Every single Cal football player officially and legally has the exact same one-year renewable scholarship

(2) According to Stivers, if a student-athlete is not having major conduct issues, their scholarship will be renewed

So Grisom has the same contract as every other Cal FB player, and every Cal FB player who isn't involved in misconduct always gets re-upped (at least until the graduate). According to Grisom, he was never told by the staff that this was a "gift" that was never intended to be renewed. If all of these things are true, how could he be at fault for going into this year assuming he would continue as a scholarship player?

jamonit said:

---

Sadly is, this can all be Grisom's fault or this could all be Cal's fault or most likely it lies somewhere in between. I feel bad for Grisom, but I don't know the whole story and you don't either. Can you agree with that at least? If so, can you also agree that you are getting upset at Cal and Cal coaches about something you don't know fully about... Oh no I lost you

---

jamonit;842353388 said:

---

You are assuming they weren't... Could it not be possible that they did tell Grisom more than once and he A) didn't understand? B) was so excited he couldn't comprehend or his mind was racing and didn't hear it all? C) he is lying? D) He wasn't told at all? E) He forgot? F) He got confused? G) All of the above? H) None of the above? I) some of the above?

---

Yeah, sure. It's entirely possible that Grisom is lying or mistaken. Of course, I already acknowledged that was a possibility in my first post, but that couldn't matter less.

You are correct in that all we have is Grisom's side of the story. It's not proof of anything--or at all necessarily true, but it's pretty plain and entirely plausible and so far not a single word has been given by anyone party to the incident to dispute the truth of what he says. All we have is Grisom's side of the story because Dykes opted for 'no comment.' This should matter to you, this is a serious allegation, not in a legal sense but in a public relations sense and frankly in a sense of decency and responsibility. People who aren't associated with the program or big time CFB read that and were disgusted. If how Grisom says it happened is not accurate/truthful, Dykes should speak up because he's being accused of doing a garbage thing. This is not a 'take the high road' situation. It seems very significant to you that we do not know the "whole story," but that's because Dykes preferred it that way. Interestingly, in your many posts in this thread I don't see one word of criticism for Dykes for failing to come up with the rest of the story.

did the daily CAL go to the AD's office and demand an interview or explanation ?

has there be any response form the people in charge ? publicly to address this

like i said b4 who is runnning the pr at this fricking school...

Eeyore;842353341 said:

---

Fine, substitute "not renewing scholarship" for "pulling scholarship". My stance does not change. Even if you don't want to renew, then tell him in person. Dykes/Likens are not oblivious to Grisom's financial situation. Daily Cal had an article about Grisom a year ago. If you're not renewing, tell him early and tell him yourself. Don't cop out and let some admin email do the job for you.

---

The communication was surely messed up by the staff. We absolutely agree.

Creeping Incrementalism;842353154 said:

---

Straight out of Office Space! He got fired, but no one ever bothered to tell him about it, but because of a glitch in accounting, he kept on getting paid! So what did they do?



A similar thing happened to my mom while at Cal. She was working as a staff research assistant at Cal, doing work for professors for various grants, and her grant ran out but she didn't find out until she didn't get her paycheck. Thankfully, someone was able to fix it.

---

This was more than 25 years ago, but I was in a situation where I was over-awarded several hundred dollars by the financial aid office. I recall the award sheet/accounting being somewhat complicated - between the combination of work-study awards and federal and state grants, it was a lot for me to understand (I came from a modest background and received quite a bit of aid to attend Cal). The paperwork was particularly daunting as a first-generation college student and teenager with zero counsel from any grown ups or the Financial Aid office. However, the semester I received the overpayment, I did notice it, but I assumed it was tied to a change in my eligibility for aid. So I can see where Grisom might have been confused by it all.

Eventually the Financial Aid office sent me a letter asking me to contact them regarding the overpayment. The FA officer I met with was nice enough but I specifically remember him giving me a blank stare when I asked him why I needed to pay it back if it was their mistake . They were very willing to set up repayment over time, but like Grisom I was told I wouldn't be able to register for classes until I agreed to the repayment schedule.

Creeping Incrementalism;842353154 said:

---

Straight out of Office Space! He got fired, but no one ever bothered to tell him about it, but because of a glitch in accounting, he kept on getting paid! So what did they do?



A similar thing happened to my mom while at Cal. She was working as a staff research assistant at Cal, doing work for professors for various grants, and her grant ran out but she didn't find out until she didn't get her paycheck. Thankfully, someone was able to fix it.

---

The problem here is that Cal doesn't fix glitches, they ARE the glitch.

Boohoo. There are millions of child sex slaves in this world, and we're to feel bad for a guy who was going to have to pay for more years of college than he had mistakenly anticipated? Everyone knows walk-on scholarships aren't guaranteed for more than one year. The vast majority of the people in this world would consider it a privilege to pay to get a Cal education.

KevBear;842353640 said:

---

You are correct in that all we have is Grisom's side of the story. It's not proof of anything--or at all necessarily true, but it's pretty plain and entirely plausible and so far not a single word has been given by anyone party to the incident to dispute the truth of what he says. All we have is Grisom's side of the story because Dykes opted for 'no comment.' This should matter to you, this is a serious allegation, not in a legal sense but in a public relations sense and frankly in a sense of decency and responsibility. People who aren't associated with the program or big time CFB read that and were disgusted. If how Grisom says it happened is not accurate/truthful, Dykes should speak up because he's being accused of doing a garbage thing. This is not a 'take the high road' situation. It seems very significant to you that we do not know the "whole story," but that's because Dykes preferred it that way. Interestingly, in your many posts in this thread I don't see one word of criticism for Dykes for failing to come up with the rest of the story.

---

This is what gets me about the line of argument that we don't know the whole story. While technically true, we do have Grisom's side and he is on record, in the media, for his take of the events. Sonny was given an opportunity to comment and 1) his remarks make no mention of ever having spoken to Grissom regarding the duration of the scholarship and 2) no words of sympathy regarding his situation.

The contract argument is also pretty disingenuous. If you're old enough to have bought a house, then you've experienced signing 300 page contracts where it is nearly impossible to have read every single clause. The fact that this wasn't made as clear as day is a failure on the AD.

Both lines or arguments speak of a certain navet towards how the real world works. I imagine jamonit is relatively young.

2) dont think he could go into detail but when fall practiced opened sonny was ask bout grissom and he had disturbed look on his face with the word financial problems no f ing shttt

smh damn head ..

It's called "personal responsibility," folks. Lesson learned.

freshfunk;842353767 said:

---

This is what gets me about the line of argument that we don't know the whole story. While technically true, we do have Grisom's side and he is on record, in the media, for his take of the events. Sonny was given an opportunity to comment and 1) his remarks make no mention of ever having spoken to Grissom regarding the duration of the scholarship and 2) no words of sympathy regarding his situation.

The contract argument is also pretty disingenuous. If you're old enough to have bought a house, then you've experienced signing 300 page contracts where it is nearly impossible to have read every single clause. The fact that this wasn't made as clear as day is a failure on the AD.

Both lines or arguments speak of a certain navet towards how the real world works. I imagine jamonit is relatively young.

---

I'm going to assume Grisom was not a preferred walk on (as mentioned in a previous post) which basically means he has no rights, written or unwritten beyond the one year. When Dykes cleaned up the 2013 roster, scholarships became available and Grisom was offered a one year deal. Since he was not a preferred walk on or a recruit, he was not given the implied right of having his scholarship renewed automatically as long as he was qualified i.e. academically and athletically.

My take is Grisom was probably aware of the one year deal given to walk ons but only as they applied to seniors who worked hard over their careers and were rewarded with a scholarship in their final season. Grisom was a junior who actually had contributed in 2013 with 3 TDs and having the highest YPC on the team (10 receptions). He obviously wasn't one of the best receivers on the team but he certainly was deserving of a scholarship for his senior year. I don't think it ever entered Grisom's mind that he was still a "walk on" and that he had earned his keep as contributing member of the football team.

Dykes and Company did not handle this very well at all from the communication in letting Grisom know his status for the upcoming year to treating Grisom as a walk on, even though he was much better than that, as evidenced by his 2013 stats. We don't know the details in why Dykes let Grisom go but that's why he's the head coach.....there could have been character issues, too many WRs etc. I think the prudent thing might have been to offer Grisom a partial scholarship, sharing it with another deserving walk on for 2014 (I'm assuming you can split scholarships for FB).

they need to have meeting with all players hash this out clear up rules and understating .. too much grey area 4 me

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;842353671 said:

---

Boohoo. There are millions of child sex slaves in this world, and we're to feel bad for a guy who was going to have to pay for more years of college than he had mistakenly anticipated? Everyone knows walk-on scholarships aren't guaranteed for more than one year. The vast majority of the people in this world would consider it a privilege to pay to get a Cal education.

---

If someone doesn't have it as bad as a child sex slave their problems deserve to be met with derision? What a ****ing stupid take.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;842353671 said:

---

Boohoo. There are millions of child sex slaves in this world, and we're to feel bad for a guy who was going to have to pay for more years of college than he had mistakenly anticipated? Everyone knows walk-on scholarships aren't guaranteed for more than one year. The vast majority of the people in this world would consider it a privilege to pay to get a Cal education.

---

Wow, you're comparing Grisom's situation to that of child sex slaves. Didn't think anyone on BI would stoop to this level. I suppose Grisom should also consider it a privilege to entertain you on Saturdays. And if he's of no use to the team, throwing him off since he's a walk-on who doesn't need to have scholarship renewed... I'd like to think Cal alums consider walk-on as valuable as those with scholarships b/c these walk-on bust their asses and care about their academic experience. This is what separates Cal alums from SEC alums.