The Problem with Oversigning: The Case of Bryce Sherman
by Gamecock Man on Jul 13, 2011 1:55 PM EDT
in South Carolina Gamecocks Football
Email
PrintBy now, most of you probably know that Bryce Sherman is no longer with the football team. What you might not know is that Sherman is apparently the latest victim of oversigning. Sherman has been told that his scholarship, which he earned for the 2010 season after walking on in 2009, would not be renewed. It's too early to know why Sherman was given the boot, considering that we've yet to see an official statement from the University on the matter. Therefore, take some of what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. However, one can only assume that this was done in order to make room for our incoming recruits.
If that's the case, it's a shame, and it illustrates the problems with oversigning. I can see the rationale for cutting Sherman loose. Although some might believe that Sherman would again return kickoffs next year, with Bruce Ellington, Damiere Byrd, and Shon Carson joining the team, Sherman's days were numbered. He never produced as a kickoff returner, and with better prospects on the way, he was expendable.
However, at the same time, Sherman was committed to this football program. After he earned his scholarship and worked hard to retain it, we owed him better than this. Now, after pouring his soul into the program, he'll have to pay out for his final year of college, simply because he wasn't going to get much playing time and because we signed more players than we had room for. Presumably, it's too late for him to find some other school that will give him a scholarship, considering that we waited until this late to cut him. His options are limited.
Continue reading after the jump.
I've seen some people defend the coaches' decision by suggesting that Sherman's case is unique because he's a former walk-on to whom we don't owe a long-term commitment. According to this argument, the case would be different and less excusable if Sherman were a player to whom we had offered a scholarship out of high school. I don't buy this. Sherman wasn't cut because he's a former walk-on; he was cut because we treat football scholarships as one-year commitments. What happened to Sherman could have happened to any scholarship athlete on our team who wasn't slated to be a major contributor next year. Sherman was simply the player our coaches decided they needed least.
There's only one way to solve this problem from a regulations standpoint. The SEC's newly adopted 25-player-per-year limit won't do it, and nor will the Big 10's prohibition of signing more than 85. In both cases, it's possible to can players in order to make room for more; the difference between B10 and SEC regulations is that the B10 programs have to do it before they offer their recruits Letters of Intent, not after. The way to keep this from happenings is to make scholarships a long-term commitment from the school to the player. Football programs currently treat football scholarships like free-agent contracts. They shouldn't; the market isn't always the best arbiter. Avoiding the minor impact keeping Sherman on board would have on USC isn't worth the major impact this will have on Sherman's life. A long-term commitment from the school that assures the player that his education will be paid for as long as he fulfills his obligations to the football program would be more ethically defensible.
(I should note, by the way, that I thought we were already at or under 85 after losing a few upperclassmen like Mike Triglia and learning that several incoming recruits did not qualify, but I'm guessing I'm wrong. I suppose I could go get a roster and do the math, but I'm a bit too busy for that right now. I'm just going to assume that we're not quite at 85, because otherwise I don't see why we would cut Sherman's scholarship.)
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It is a shame
that the ‘cut’ comes late (if Bryce accurately describes what happens) but cuts come all the time. Every player has to “make the grade” every week, every season.
That being said, I would support a reform where there are certain “drop dead” dates.
For example, if you hold are a member of a football team and hold a scholarship on May 15 of each year, then if you’re cut, you hold the scholarship for one more year and it does not go against a team’s 85. This might have to be limited to a certain number each season. It would still leave open dismissals for violation of team rules, felony arrests or convinctions, gross insubordination, etc.
For new prospects, I propose the NCAA hold a database of “offers” and “commitments”. If you hold an offer as of, e.g., December 31 and have made a “commitment” then you get a free ride whether you make the team or not – at least for one year (so long as he was barred from being a walk on – to prevent manipulation of the system). It would have the same exceptions – felonies, immoral behavior, etc. If the recruit signs with someone else, then the he’d be on the other school’s nickel.
Here's a health, Carolina, forever to thee! UNIVERSITAS CAROLIN MERID. 1801 Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros (Ovid)
I agree that players should have to make the cut, week in and week out. However, my standard for making the cut isn't remaining high on the depth chart. Sometimes prospects don't work out; I don't think that should mean they lose their scholarship.
Cutting a player for not putting forth effort, for being involved in a felony conviction, etc., and cutting one because a better prospect comes along are two different things.
That said, I really like this proposal of yours. It takes the potential sting out of cuts by making sure they don’t have a huge adverse affect on a player’s educational and financial well-being. In this case, Bryce Sherman wouldn’t be without a scholarship for the upcoming year. If you cut someone before May 15, that gives the player more time to devise a Plan B. My concern is that situations like what we have with Sherman have such a huge adverse effect on the player that that effect trumps whatever supposed right a coach should have to cutting scholarships whenever he sees fit. Your proposal solves that problem to a great degree.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 13, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks
I still think Bryce will land on his feet. Whether he gets a degree from USC remains to be seen. I hope he would qualify for in-state tuition. Or maybe get a track scholly. I betcha he ends up at an FCS school in the SoCon or MEAC. Just my .02.
Here's a health, Carolina, forever to thee! UNIVERSITAS CAROLIN MERID. 1801 Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros (Ovid)
Such is the life of a walk-on
Sherman was a walk-on. Granted, he was a solid contributor and a personal favorite of mine; but he was not originally offered a scholarship. He was not “cut”, he decided not to play because his scholarship was not renewed.
By the author’s reasoning; if a scholarship is available to reward a walk-on; it should not be granted unless there is intent and ability for the coaching staff to renew it for his remaining years of eligibility. I disagree, I hope that if a scholarship “opens up”, the coaching staff will use it to reward those unappreciated walk-ons. I also realize that ideally we will not have any unused scholarships for those players.
At the end of the day, this has very little to do with “oversigning” since this does not involve a player who ever officially “signed” with USC. It is simply the case of a walk-on being rewarded, and the reward not being available this year because the coaching staff signed players to fill all their scholarships.
When this happens to a player who was signed by a USC football coaching staff out of high-school, I will join your moral outrage, but until then I will leave the pitchfork in the garage.
I agree with Biscuit
This isn’t the same thing that has been discussed with ‘oversigning’. I don’t have a lot to add to the points above other than to say that I agree. As much as I appreciate Bryce and I was just as happy to see him on the field as any other Gamecock fan, he choose to play football without a scholarship when he walked on. He can choose or not choose now. His hard work was rewarded last season because there was a scholarship available. There isn’t one available now.
by Charlestowne on Jul 13, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I fail to see why you guys attach such importance to his walk-on status.
Both players who commit out of high school and players who are awarded scholarships after walking on are in the same boat, IMO. Both deserve long-term commitments from the school, or at least, as tryptic suggests above, safety from having the scholarship taken away shortly before the season begins. However, both are only being given one-year commitments from the school. The program may renege on that commitment if it believes it can find a better player. It’s not uncommon for the same thing that’s happening to Sherman here to happen to guys who signed out of high school. It’s the same situation. What matters isn’t his walk-on status; it’s that the program doesn’t feel it needs him anymore.
I respect your opinions on this, but, frankly, I think you’re trying to explain away what’s happening here.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 13, 2011 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
That said, I'm all ears if you have further thoughts.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 13, 2011 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
From my viewpoint,
under Coach Spurrier USC has treated scholarships to recruited athletes as de facto four-year commitments. Sure, we’ve let guys know that if they want playing time they should probably look into transferring, but to my knowledge we have never “yanked” a kid’s scholarship who is in good standing. Bryce Sherman came into his scholarship due to the fact that we had an extra to give.
There is a distinction to be made here, since the coaches never planned on having Sherman on scholarship for four years. If they had wanted to give him a four-year commitment, they would have recruited him to play football at the University of South Carolina. Frankly, after getting kicked off the track team he was extremely lucky to receive it in the first place. By your argument, coaches that want to maintain flexibility in scholarships should sit on an unused scholarship rather than give it to a player in Sherman’s position with the understanding that circumstances might change in the future. If the coaches would have had to commit to giving Sherman a scholarship for the remainder of his collegiate career a year ago, I don’t think he ever would have been on scholarship in the first place.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jul 13, 2011 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, maybe there is a distinction to be made here, at least in terms of how the coaches are treating. I just don't think there should be. I think the coaches should have shown more commitment to Sherman.
That said, I think you make a good argument here:
By your argument, coaches that want to maintain flexibility in scholarships should sit on an unused scholarship rather than give it to a player in Sherman’s position with the understanding that circumstances might change in the future. If the coaches would have had to commit to giving Sherman a scholarship for the remainder of his collegiate career a year ago, I don’t think he ever would have been on scholarship in the first place.
There’s a good bit of truth in that, much like there is in the claims that players with poor academics get chances because of lax oversigning rules that they wouldn’t otherwise.
As usual, oversigning / roster management are complex situations.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 14, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Complex
No doubt. Frankly, Darrin Horn – who I have harped on for months – has done pretty much the same thing. He brought in Spinella and Galloway (and if you believe what was reported/quoted from both) reached the decision that they weren’t working out.
In other words, Horn decoded he would rather have their scholarships to give to future players rather than keep them on the team.
With Galloway I think it was a critical mistake by Coach Horn – we lost a player with valuable experience on a squad that is devoid of upper-classmen; I feel he should have coached Galloway to be better, and obviously should have had a better handle on the pulse of the team to realize Bruce Ellington and Murphy Holloway were not committed for the long-haul.
No one really argued that Spinella should stay. Maybe that’s a shame. On the other hand, Coach Horn gave him the maximum amount of time possible to find another situation.
Regardless of whether it made sense or not, those are two young men who probably thought they’d graduate from USC and now have to find new schools, new housing, new friends, new advisors, new coaches, new teammates. Or to figure out if they should stay and pay their own way by incurring debt, or going to family members for help.
Horn wasn’t forced to the decision by “oversigning”. Does it make it any better that he wasn’t? Of the four guys we lost this spring, we only “replaced” one (PG Brenton Williams for Bruce Ellington; by my reckoning GIll and Leonard were already coming). We’re played with only 12 scholarship players last year and, now that spring signing period is over, we’ll enter 2011-2012 with two vacancies.
So – who is arguably doing a “better” job serving the needs and fans of the University of South Carolina? Spurrier – who believes scholarships are year to year and will release a veteran because he has a better player already committed and immediately available to step on the field now (2011 season)in the hyper-competitive SEC East?
Or Horn – who believes scholarships are year to year and will release a veteran because he’d rather have a better player – in two years.(2012-2013 season) in the hyper competitive SEC East [- well maybe “hyper” is a stretch but then five of six did make the NCAA field last year. ]
Here's a health, Carolina, forever to thee! UNIVERSITAS CAROLIN MERID. 1801 Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros (Ovid)
But I do agree with your point that scholarships should be long-term committments.
Make athletic scholarships like academic scholarships: Renewable for four years based upon the satisfactory completion of objective criteria (grades, courseload, etc).
I personally think the whole thing has been blown WAY out of proportion
Bryce isnt really losing anything here, he has no future in football, and he will almost certainly be able to get a track scholarship back so its not even hurting him academically… now if the player was being revoked of his scholarship which lead to him having to leave school, that is one thing, but that certainly doesn’t seem like the case here.
Will I miss “Sherm the Worm”??? Sure, no question… but if it is so we can get someone like Damiere Byrd in on the act who has a real upside, I can live with it, as long as its for the good of the team. And in this case, I am positive it is.
Im not sure he automatically gets his track scholarship back
If he doesn’t, then he really has lost something – i.e., the chance to graduate from the school where he has three years invested into his major. Perhaps you’ve heard something that I have not.
Even if he “lands on his feet” (like I think he will) and gets a grant-in-aid from a SoCon or MEAC school, that is still a big transition very late in the summer. New professors. New housing. New friends. Uncertainty.
If he does earn (back) as USC track scholly, then that will be a happy ending. And I agree with you that he doesn’t have a NFL career.
Here's a health, Carolina, forever to thee! UNIVERSITAS CAROLIN MERID. 1801 Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros (Ovid)
Like I said, obviously if he doesnt get it, it becomes something semi-major
but he is a great track athlete, and the word circulating is that he is a virtual lock to get it back. It would be very surprising if he doesn’t get it back IMO.
by Gamecockrock on Jul 13, 2011 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, he lost his track scholarship in the first place due to some kind of misunderstanding with the track coaches.
So I wouldn’t be sure he’s getting it back, regardless of his skills. Hope he does, though.
On Twitter, Sherm says he’s planning to stick around so he can graduate in May. I’m assuming that either means he’s getting a track scholarship or that he’s prepared to pay his own way. I’m guessing the latter, because he didn’t say anything about track. Either way, sounds like it will work out.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 14, 2011 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Missing The Point
Coach Spurrier has always said that the guys have to earn it each year. Nobody has a 4-year scholarship anymore. Sherman had promise but he has not produced. I give my all but I will never get a scholarship. He had 11 rushes for 55 yards and 1 reception for 48 yards in his career at USC. Do you know what Marcus calls that? The first quarter.
I get that nobody has a four-year scholarship anymore. I know what the reality is. I just don't like that reality.
I had a four-year scholarship, and I was able to keep it by maintaining a certain GPA. I didn’t have to be a superstar to maintain it, even if I was. :-) I think athletics scholarships should be much the same. If the player works hard and contributes, he should keep his scholarship.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 14, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this.
I would prefer if all scholarships offered to incoming freshmen were of the four year variety, provided they maintain a certain GPA and show a reasonable commitment to the team.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jul 14, 2011 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions
you mean 3 year
cant expect players to stick around for their 4th year if they are likely to get drafted.
by Gamecockrock on Jul 14, 2011 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I mean a four year commitment from the school.
Even if the player’s commitment is only 3 years.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jul 14, 2011 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I dont see why the school should have to commit to the player for 4
if the player is only going to commit 3… its gotta go both ways IMO
by Gamecockrock on Jul 14, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Because a University's obligation is to educate the community.
A student-athlete’s obligation is to look out for his best interests. The two interests are not equal in mission, nor resources.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jul 14, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Walk-ons are WIDELY understood to be one year offers
Across the country, walk-ons move on and off scholarship throughout their careers, depending on the scholarship numbers crunch from year to year. Aside from needlessly providing ammunition to those who use “oversigning” as a smokescreen to attack the SEC*, the only sure result of a movement to treat walk-ons the same as recruited scholarship players is a dramatic decrease in the number of walk-ons offered scholarship opportunities.
*I do not mean to dismiss all oversigning critics, but many of them have an agenda beyond “justice”.
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Jul 14, 2011 2:17 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Garnet And Black Attack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
