Reply to a comment

in response to Munsterlander:

Couldn't disagree with you more, DEMDHC. I have no problem whatsoever with CDD being the final arbiter with whatever criteria he chooses. Kids are given a scholarship TO PLAY FOOTBALL, with an expectation of effort and performance. The fact that they get a tremendous benefit (a largely free college education) is not a right, it IS the quid pro quo. A football scholarship isn't their only path to a successful life and the univerity/coach shouldn't be obligated with no in-turn obligation on the players part. We expect the coaches to win (no matter what) - they have to make the right choices on a million things, so I have no problem whatsoever with them making this choice. It is revealing (and insulting, as Saban said) that people like you always come at this from the negative side - the coach is arbitrary and evil and doesn't have the best interests of the kid at heart - which is total BS.

You give kids a guaranteed 4 year scholarship no matter what, they meet an Al Wilson over the middle and decide the game is to tough for them at that level, back it off a notch, never really competitive again - so you expect the hands of the coach to be tied and that scholarship is just sunk for 4 years? 5 star (Chris Donald) never contributes - guaranteed 4 years? I suppose that is the "fair" thing to do? Good grief.

(Slive, btw, seems to be on an SEC deathwish. Reducing number of recruits relative to other conferences and requiring 4 year scholarships is a guaranteed way to reduce the competitiveness of the SEC versus other conferences.)

Never ceases to amaze me how reflexively vicious so many of you are toward CDD. I can only hope you all wind up in similarly difficult circumstances.