Toggle sidebar

A. Carter

I personally believe that the reason the coaches have not

even suggested it is because they want to give AC every benefit of the doubt to come back and play.

Don't forget that my initial comment was made with the premise that AC MIGHT be able to play and the coaches were just being careful and also hopefully shock those we are playing.

I pray everyday that AC can play!
 
Alanbama27 said:
absolutely NOTHING to do with the number we are allowed to give away. The only way you can give a walk-on a "new" scholarship is by using one of the 19 that we had available last year or the 17 we had prior to that. AC's scholarship can ONLY go to someone who was a walk-on last year.

Read the rules my good man, but that's why we're wasting a scholarship. Injuries to current scholarship players or scholarships lost due to academics can ONLY be used if they are given to walk-ons from the previous year "IF" you don't have any of the 19 left from this year.

Basically what I'm saying is that while someone may have earned the scholarship that walked on last year, we can't afford to use one of the 19 available from this signing class.
Click to expand...

I do know the rules my good man. I can guarantee you that TerryP and JessN know them also.

Carter's scholarship with UA is costing us nothing at this time. We're limited to 80 through the end of this year by NCAA rules but have only 70-74 on scholarship anyway. We were also limited to 19 initial counters this year and filled all slots, so it didn't cost us there, either.
 
Last edited:
Alan,

You're just simply 100% wrong on this one. Alabama can award up to 80 scholarships this year. We have 70-74 on scholarship. In other words, we can award between 6 and 10 scholarships to walk-ons already without having to take Carter's scholarship away -- but we haven't awarded those 6-10 scholarships yet. Why? Probably because we haven't found 6-10 walk-ons that are worthy of scholarships.

If we had 79 or 80 on scholarship at this time, you'd have a legitimate point. But we don't. The other consideration is academic year. If we award a scholarship to a walk-on redshirt sophomore, he's going to stay a counter for three more years. If we add too many, then when it comes time to recruit for the 2005-06 collegiate year, we could end up having to give out less than 25 scholarships to incoming freshmen -- freshmen who are probably better than some of the walk-ons we have.

I just don't see the argument here. It's pretty much cut-and-dried that we'd have to have 10 deserving walk-ons get scholarships before Carter's becomes an issue. Since we obviously don't have 10 deserving walk-ons who don't have scholarships yet, there is no "wasting" of a scholarship here.
 
Jess, I am pretty darn sure you're mistaken here...

Just because a team can have 80 on scholarship doesn't mean they can offer more scholarships than they were limited to by the NCAA. The only way Alabama can give out another scholarship at this time is for it to come from a current player who flunks out of school or is injured and dropped from the team. I am unclear as to how you believe that the number scholarships available has anything to do with the number we can offer, but frankly you my friend are just wrong!

I would encourage you to call someone who knows the rules and ask them for the interpretation because if your stance was correct, we would not have been limited to 19 this year as we were, but rather we could have given out 25 by the way you believe the rules read. The way I'm getting to the 25 is by taking the 19 we gave out and adding the difference (6) between the 74 (or so) we have on scholarship and the 80 we are allowed to have.

The problem with your theory is that it doesn't meet NCAA requirements and I am baffled that you don't understand that. Also from my understanding, if you lose a kid on scholarship and don't award his scholarship to a walk-on within a certain period of time you actually lose the ability to do so. I am not 100% certain about that portion, but am about the other and I guess we'll have to get someone on the staff to clarify this debate.

Nevertheless, as sure as you are is as sure as I am.
 
Alan,

As long as the player has been on the team for at least 2 years, the walk-on can be given a scholarship as long as the total amount of scholarships doesn't go over 85. (Or 80 in our case at the moment.) This DOES NOT count against the number of allowed scholarships per year. So, technically, Matt Miller could be awarded a scholly, and it would not be against NCAA rules. He's a senior, we have less than 80 total. It would have nothing to do with the 19 we've already signed. AC being on scholarship hurts absolutely nothing.
 
You both have it wrong

Jess:

The fact that we haven't filled the 6 remaining schollys (and still stay under 80) has nothing to do with the quality of the walk-ons. It has everything to do with the fact that we could only award 19 schollys this year and were limited over the last two years as well.

Alan:

We cannot skirt the annual scholly limitations by awarding additional schollys that we would not have been able to give to an incomming freshman without it counting against that year's limitation, whether it be 19 or 25.

Trust Bayoutider, Jess, and me on the point that because we were limited to 19 and we filled them and had greyshirts to boot, while at the same time having not reached the NCAA limitation on us of 80, Carter's scolly is not being wasted.

Think about it man. If someone had a career ending injury, the collegiate coaches could not give out his scolly as a 26th by having the player petition for a sixth year of eligibility.

Knowing the love that AC has for the University, don't you think he would give someone else that scolly if it were possible?

Trust me, the limitations are counted back retroactively for scolly's awarded to a walk-on.
 
Alan,

You are arguing a situation that doesn't exist.

I am fully aware we could not award more than 19 scholarships last year. That is 19 scholarships to INITIAL COUNTERS. We could award as many scholarships to walk-ons already on the team as we wanted to. Since we have at most 74 on scholarship right now with a limit of 80, we could award a minimum of 6 scholarships to walk-ons.

Also, your statement, "The only way Alabama can give out another scholarship at this time is for it to come from a current player who flunks out of school or is injured and dropped from the team," is 100% in error. We have 6-10 scholarship slots available to us right now that WE ARE NOT USING BY OUR CHOICE. Period.

The only number that matters in regards to awarding scholarships to walk-ons currently in the program for more than two years is the number 80. No other numbers matter. If you want to award 50 scholarships to 50 walk-on seniors, you can do it so long as you don't cross the 80 threshold.

The number 19 pertains only to INITIAL COUNTERS. That would be freshmen and JUCO transfers. I believe it also pertains to walk-ons on campus for less than two years. But since we brought in 19 counters this past fall, Antonio Carter has nothing to do with that equation. We couldn't offer a 20th INITIAL COUNTER in any scenario, Antonio Carter or not.

The issue is whether we're wasting a scholarship on Antonio Carter. Since Alabama actually has a surplus of scholarships at the moment, the answer to that question is NO. Yes, you read that correctly -- a surplus. While the NCAA limited us to 80 scholarships as a result of the 2001-2002 probation case, our numbers have dropped lower than 80 because of (a) players like Thurman Ward and Tarry Givens quitting the team, and (b) senior classes that were larger than the freshman class we were allowed to bring in during February because of the restrictions on initial counters.

Furthermore, your last statement about awarding scholarships within a certain amount of time is very much off the mark. I don't know who told you that, but they either lied or didn't know what in the world they were talking about.

For the last time -- Alabama has 70-74 players currently on scholarship. Antonio Carter is one of those 70-74 players. We have 6-10 scholarships that are currently going to no one. We could therefore offer scholarships to 6-10 walkons like Matt Miller, J.P. Adams or Bo Freelend, still have A.C. Carter on scholarship and STILL be under the NCAA-mandated limit of 80. A.C. Carter is not keeping any other deserving athlete from being on scholarship at this time.

And to be polite, I'm not failing to understand anything.
 
Jess:

You may be right on walk-ons after two years being eligible for a scolly without it counting, but my understanding is that it would still be counted retroactively and would have to be offset by a Thurman Ward etc.

Remember, schollys are only one year in term. Thus, I don't understand how you believe we have 6 available schollys for walkons. Since we are going to be limited to 25 next year anyway, if you are correct, wouldn't we just give Bo Freeman and his like a scholly for this year only. My point is that it is still counted back retroactively. I'm pretty sure of this.
 
If it's counted retroactively, explain how we gave Rudy Griffin a scholarship this spring. Or Brian Bostick in fall 2003. Or David Cavan in 2002. Or Neal Thomas in 2000. Or any number of others.

Let's say you're right, and we've got Thurman Ward's and Tarry Givens' scholarships to give. They haven't been given yet. Ergo, how is A.C. Carter's scholarship "costing us" the ability to give a walk-on a scholarship? It's not. There are at least two in the hopper that haven't been used. At any rate, I'm pretty sure the retroactive count only goes back for two years. I know for a dead-solid fact it was a consideration when Cavan got his scholarship because Charley North said it was. Even if it isn't, it's a moot argument in this case because the specifications of the particular situation being argued don't exist.

As such, the argument that A.C. Carter is depriving a walk-on of the chance to play on scholarship isn't valid.
 
Update:

Did some checking in Tuscaloosa tonight and here's what I found out...

1) Alabama has 74 players on scholarship as of 8/19/04.

2) If you give a walk-on a scholarship within his first two years, he counts as an initial counter. Beyond that, he DOES NOT COUNT as an initial counter.

3) Once they get past their second year, you can put as many on scholarship as you want and the awards do not count retroactively. You just can't go over the 85 limit (or the 80 limit, in our case).

4) Confirmed that we have six scholarships we can award that we have not awarded yet, and A.C. Carter isn't costing anyone a scholarship unless we have seven walk-ons that need scholarships.

As to the question why we haven't put Freelend or another walk-on on scholarship, I don't know. What I do know is the A.C. thing is moot. Please don't ask who I talked to in Tuscaloosa, because I can't go into that, but I'll just say this is about as close to "expert testimony" as you can get without hearing it from Myles Brand himself.
 
FX013_EXPLODING_HEAD.jpg
 
Thank you to all for the input and confirmation of the rules.

I wasn't trying to argue, but my understanding was similar to what MKALAW4UA9195 has said with regard to this topic. I new that there was a stipulation, but didn't know it only lasted for a 2 year period, which explains my thinking.

In any event, I attended the Jefferson County Alumni Chapter's Kick-Off party last night and this entire point seems moot now. According to Eli, it appears that AC will dress for the games, but likely would only play in a very, very minor role this year as his leg is just not where it needs to be to play on a consistent basis.

I still believe that this may all be a rue and hope I'm right. I am hopeful that AC will play the entire year and show the world what he did as a freshman...unfortunately I am likely dreaming here.

Anyway, once again thanks for everyones input and clarification.
 
Jess:

I think I know who your contact was in T-town last night and if it is who I'm thinking about, it can be taken to the bank. The only thing that I didn't realize was that the annual limits did not apply more than 2 years retroactively. I still don't understand why we don't give those scholarships to someone who has been a walk-on for more than 2 years, as they are only 1 year schollys anyway. Do they have a policy of once a scholly is given it is automatically renewed the following years if still eligible? That may explain why they don't want to award those open schollys. Thanks for the research.

Alan: Please realize that even under my thinking of retroactivity beyond 2 years, I still, along with Jess and Bayoutider, maintain, as I have throughout this thread, that AC isn't costing us a thing. By the way, we are both in Hoover, and my office is in Riverchase. Maybe we'll run into each other somewhere.

Roll Tide! ! !
 
MK - We should definitely have lunch sometime!

My point MK was that "if" we were not able to use AC's scholarship anywhere except to a walk-on that it was wasted. Wasted is actually the wrong word to use, but my point was that if AC couldn't use it and somebody else had earned a scholarship and they simply hadn't gotten one because there wasn't one available that it didn't seem fair when we could easily put AC on as a Grad Asst and still pay his way. That way (in my thinking) it would have freed up a "wasted" scholarship for that person.

By the way, as for not giving one to Bo Freeland I seem to remember Shula and others saying that they were not giving scholarships to kickers because it hasn't proven to be a benefit over the past several years.

Also, while scholarships are for 1 year, there is an unwritten rule that you don't take them away from a player. If you screw up and give one to a kid who doens't pan out, too bad for you, but he still deserves the scholarship. My personal opinion is that coaches and schools should make it blatantly clear that they are year to year. But, I do see both sides.
 
All scholarships are one year in length and are renewed yearly for all athletes.

Here's the NCAA bylaw on the 2-year retroactive rule:
"15.5.5.3.6 Divisions I-A and I-AA Football -- Aid First Awarded Subsequent to Second Year (I-A/I-AA) -- A student-athlete who has been in residence at the certifying institution for at least two academic years may receive athletically related financial aid for the first time without such aid counting as an initial award, provided the aid falls within the overall grant limitation. (Adopted: 1/11/89, Revised: 1/10/90 effective 8/1/90)"

I suspect Matt Miller will eventually get one. I'd kind of be surprised if Freelend doesn't get one, honestly.

Incidentally, if it is ever proven that A.C. absolutely can't contribute, we can place him on medical hardship scholarship. His schooling will be paid for, but he won't be able to dress -- although he would no longer count against our 80 count of scholarships.

If he dresses, he has to remain on athletic scholarship and he counts against the SEC dress-out limit for intraconference games. That's when you can start the debate as to whether we should be dressing out or not if he can't play. Because of the way the current players look up to him, though, I think it's very useful to have him there. He's more valuable than dressing out a third punter.
 
The free schollies could be a good thing...

..if the staff can't figure out which walk-ons to give them to. Maybe they have more than five or six in mind, as far as awarding scholarships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back