DeMikel Shankle

[ozfan]

I've always supported our players because they are out there working hard to do their best, but the fact of the matter is that a good number of our players probably should have never been given a scholarship in the first place. Not because they are not good kids or don't work hard, but because they are just not D1 level players. The one thing I have noticed every year over the past years is that the players on the other teams are for the most part always much bigger than our players. When we have been competitive in games, it has been because our kids have played over their heads for which I give them much credit, but in the end it has not been enough. Is it fair to run them off? I don't know and I'm sure it is hard for a coach to have to make that decision, but SMU is paying JJ close to $2 million a year to produce a winning football program...not to run a scholarship charity. I know that sounds harsh and I'm not real comfortable in saying it...BUT 20 years of frustration is just too much. We need to get this program turned around now and dragging it out over another five years is just not acceptable any more.

No reason to feel uncomfortable - If we want to win at DI football, we need to do what is necessary to win.

College football is an exchange - they play ball, school gives them free education. If they cannot play good enough ball because of any reason, including lack of talent or lack of physical attributes, they are not holding up their end of the bargain. They can easily transfer to another school or simply become a normal student.

A school recruits a player in the hope he will develop into a good player - If a player does not develop as hoped is that a reason to pull his scholarship - I think not - HS coaches have long memories and could make it hard to recruit other players from the school they coach at later on if they feel you have treated one of their previous player in a bad way. ( Tyler Lee last year ) Also the coaches have to carry some of the blame on not judging the talent a little better. If a player is slacking then ok, but if he is putting in the effort but does not have the talent or is hurt sorry the school should have to wear it.

[OC Mustang]

Couldn't disagree more. I concede that it makes for untidy diplomacy when dealing with some high school coaches, but based on what I have seen, h.s coaches can be as mercurial as their stud players. Therefore, I take their musings with a grain of salt. I also think that it depends on the college and their alumni network. If I am an SMU alum, and I sit on a school board, and a coach openly (or otherwise) attempts to freeze out SMU, then I will make it known to him that it is unacceptable. Regardless of how the coach feels, the bottom line is that you don't hamstring opportunities for other kids when something doesn't work out. That shows a lack of judgment.

And to be crystal clear, if a h.s coach's ego gets in the way of his intended purpose, he can go to the house. When I serve on boards, I don't play.

[PonySoprano]

We have a term in my business (well, my ligitimate business) that we use when we have someone not performing up to expectations, but we are not going to fire them on the spot.
We call it "counseling out" - which means I sit down with that person and bascially let them know that they are not performing up to expectations and therefore their opportunities will be limited and it might be in their best interest to start to explore other avenues.

I imagine this is what might be going on with some of these guys.

[jtstang]

We call it "counseling out" - which means I sit down with that person and bascially let them know that they are not performing up to expectations and therefore their opportunities will be limited and it might be in their best interest to start to explore other avenues.

No offense, but that seems a little harsh. What happens if the "counseled" employee puts his nose to the grindstone and raises his game?

[PonySoprano]

We call it "counseling out" - which means I sit down with that person and bascially let them know that they are not performing up to expectations and therefore their opportunities will be limited and it might be in their best interest to start to explore other avenues.

No offense, but that seems a little harsh. What happens if the "counseled" employee puts his nose to the grindstone and raises his game?

I did not mention that before we "counsel" someone out, we first put them on an improvement plan to give them an opportunity to raise their game.

[jtstang]

Ahh. I retract the "harsh" in that case.

[Alaric]

Ahh. I retract the "harsh" in that case.

Ahhh...this is how I can rationalize the new attrition program:

Coach: "Son, you ain't gonna make it in D1 football at 180 lbs running a 4.95. I want to see you run a 4.42 in spring ball".

Player: "That's impossible!".

Coach: "It's your choice".

[OC Mustang]

We call it "counseling out" - which means I sit down with that person and bascially let them know that they are not performing up to expectations and therefore their opportunities will be limited and it might be in their best interest to start to explore other avenues.

No offense, but that seems a little harsh. What happens if the "counseled" employee puts his nose to the grindstone and raises his game?

I did not mention that before we "counsel" someone out, we first put them on an improvement plan to give them an opportunity to raise their game.

Even Tony gave guys more than one chance. But being "counseled out" probably wasn't an option, so it behooved him not to be too harse, lest employee turnover get the better of him.

[PoconoPony]

It is an interesting philosophical debate re the renewal of scholarships. It is my experience that coaching staffs generally run into 2 categories of kids. The first category are kids who are really working, trying hard, are positive and will do anything for the sake of the team. These kids may not have the opportunity for a lot of playing time, if any, and may or may not letter for a variety of reasons. This category of kid tends to be the more serious academic student and frequently excels in his life after SMU. Coaching staffs recognize and appreciate this type of kid contributing as best as they can. Coaches are very reluctant and will seldom if ever revoke the scholarship of this type of kid. The second category are those kids who are going through the motions, really do not care much, contribute minimally to the team and are not generally serious about academics or where they are headed after SMU. It is this second category of kid that coaches will try to weed out as necessary and ultimately withdraw the scholarship if necessary. They are simply taking up space, contributing little and wasting the scholarship.

It is important to note that most coaching staffs, particularly in private colleges, fully appreciate and recognize that the first category of kid frequently become the big doners and are the most loyal to the school and the sport. SMU is a perfect example. The bulk of the financial support, loyalty....etc. to the athletic department has come from the people who were not the big stars, unknown/not appreciated starters, barely lettered, were managers....etc.; however, fully appreciated their SMU scholarship and seek to give back. Yes, we get some vocal and financial support from our legends of the past, but the great bulk of the serious donations come from the kids who were just happy to be at SMU and participate to the best of their abilitiy. Hence, the withdrawl of a scholarship involves much more than simply being able to free up a scholarship for another recruit.