Earn your scholarship, you lazy bum!

Reading Bill King’s post about Georgia adopting a new policy on multi-year scholarships, I see that Steve Spurrier quote that many others subscribe to in arguing that it’s a bad approach to take:

“What if a young man decides he doesn’t want to give much effort or go weightlifting or go to workouts? How do you get rid of him? Everybody has to earn his or her way in life.”

So here’s what I’m wondering – is keeping athletes on a short contractual leash the only way that Steve Spurrier knows how to motivate a football player?  (If so, that might explain his less than stellar NFL career.)  I mean, whatever happened to threatening to take away playing time as a stick (or promising more as a carrot)?  What about simply being an inspirational leader as a coach to get kids to go the extra mile?

If the answer to that is that some kids can’t be reached, surely that’s something Spurrier should have noticed on the recruiting trail in the first place, no?  In any event, is it necessary to have the rule for all 85 student-athletes on scholarship if only a handful are a motivational problem?

Let’s face it.  Spurrier isn’t carping about effort.  He wants to maintain control over roster space when a kid doesn’t pan out to his satisfaction.  And that’s his business, honestly.  But he shouldn’t whine if another coach wants to go about his business differently (as long as it’s within the rules, of course.)  And Spurrier shouldn’t make it sound like it’s the player’s fault when he goes into Mr. Ruthless mode.

**************************************************************************************

UPDATE:  Spurrier has an ally in Paul Johnson.

22 Comments

Filed under The Evil Genius

22 responses to “Earn your scholarship, you lazy bum!

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    I don’t see where Spurrier whined per se about other schools doing things differently, but I hope he lives to rue the day he ever said that quote above.

  2. It’s not like Spurrier is _required_ to give out 4-year schollies, right? Pretty sure the rule just makes it an option. If he’s so up in arms about it, let him hand out the one-year renewables. If it kills him on the recruiting trail, well, the golf course is ready when he is.

  3. jadams

    Offseason workouts are voluntary and NCAA rules forbid coaches from monitoring attendance. So, how would Spurrier know a guy needed to be punished for not working out?

  4. Always Someone Else's Fault

    Let Spurrier remove “the bum” from the roster, but leave South Carolina on the hook for his degree and keep counting his academic progress as a part of the school’s APR. Let the kid remove himself from the roster, but leave South Carolina on the hook for his degree and his academic progress.

    You remove the coach’s power of the student athlete completely.

    Why is this such a non-starter?

  5. Irishdawg

    “is keeping athletes on a short contractual leash the only way that Steve Spurrier knows how to motivate a football player? ”

    NO, there is always the method of humiliating the player in the media. He’s a miserable dick.

  6. AthensHomerDawg

    Maybe Steve is still sensitive about the Garcia thing.

  7. shane#1

    A kid that can handle the academic load and play football at UGA has to work his tail off. Lazy players will usually weed themselves out by not maintaining their GPA. Kids that don’t get with the program on the field usually have problems off field. Again they weed themselves out. I don’t see a problem with four year schollys.

    • Well put Shane. The coaches that are complaining about this are basically saying they want as many mulligans on their recruits as possible to cover up when they screw up with their evaluations. Just another reason why I love having Richt as the coach at UGA.

    • Otto

      Didn’t seem the case at RB until Richt finally kicked them off the team. Remember many have even criticized Moreno in ’08 for not giving all he had.

      As much as I dislike USC, under Pete they and Bama have shown competition for playing time produces players who want to compete.

      I don’t have a problem with 1 yr contracts.

      What I have a problem with is transfer rules. Players should be able transfer without a lost season without restrictions if their scholarship gets pulled.

    • Ubiquitous GA Alum

      Agreed … It’s not like a player will always stay 4-5 years. Certain “cancers” & “loafers” will be offered opporunties outside the organization – read playing time.

      CMR already employs this approach … now it’s just codified.

      • Otto

        Otto, CMR still has a possible loafer at RB, thus 2 more signing on this year. If said loafer doesn’t get his act together the program should be able to cut him.

        In my opinion, The RB should be able to transfer without restriction the next year without lost eligibilty but the NCCA may not like that.

        • Are you referring to the leading FR rusher in the SEC or the rusher who despite a few missed games finished 6th in the best conference in the country in rushing as a FR? Not saying the guy didn’t have his issues but not exactly like he didn’t do some really good things for the team as well.

  8. DawgPhan

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I dont know if it will provide any advantage to schools giving out 4 year scholarships or not. I guess it gives the Kentucky’s of the world a leg up, but will it really help in the UGA v Bama battles?

  9. kp

    Is Div 1 football the only level of football without a “cut”?

  10. Pingback: Post #146: Thursday Morning Hangover « sugarfalling

  11. Go Dawgs!

    So, who do you want to play for, blue chippers? Mark Richt or Steve Spurrier? Mark Richt or Paul Johnson?

  12. Scott

    Great post Senator.