|
Replies: 19
| visibility 2951
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 46506
Joined: 2012
|
TNET: No more walk-ons? Swinney passionate in defense of non-scholarship players
3
Jul 26, 2024, 7:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Tiger [33394]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 14225
Joined: 2014
|
Queue
2
Jul 26, 2024, 7:50 AM
|
|
The Dabo bashing and he can’t adapt comments in 3, 2, 1,….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50646]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36960
Joined: 2003
|
I dont think anyone doubts that Dabo can adapt.
1
1
Jul 26, 2024, 8:38 AM
|
|
It’s more a question of his willingness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2182]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: I dont think anyone doubts that Dabo can adapt.
Jul 26, 2024, 9:28 AM
|
|
Dabo is hands down by far the best football coach you’ve ever had and how could anyone ever question that and yet there’s still some like you. Texas fans once wanted Darrell Royal gone and they got their wish and it was over 20 years before anyone else came along and that was Mack Brown who was half the coach DKR was.
Then they wanted Mack out and we were rewarded with Charlie Strong and Tommy Boy Herman, a couple of clowns. So, careful what you wish for. Hiring Dabo was probably an accident which resulted with 2 national titles. Can you get lucky again? The odds say nah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11587]
TigerPulse: 86%
46
Posts: 14639
Joined: 2004
|
what are you talking about??
Jul 26, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
who and where did somebody say Dabo needs to go?
who said Dabo wasn't the best coach Clemson has had?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1777]
TigerPulse: 88%
31
|
Hyperbolic strawman: that's the SOP to shut down anything...
Jul 26, 2024, 3:53 PM
|
|
resembling a critique of either ¹the devotion to self-imposed handicaps or ²the tone deafness towards any strategy change in our original TP or NIL philosophy—
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1777]
TigerPulse: 88%
31
|
Hyperbolic strawman: that's the SOP to shut down anything...
Jul 26, 2024, 3:56 PM
[ in reply to what are you talking about?? ] |
|
resembling a critique of either ¹the devotion to self-imposed handicaps or ²the tone deafness towards any strategy change in our original TP or NIL philosophy—
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33394]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 14225
Joined: 2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8395]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Queue
Jul 26, 2024, 8:52 AM
[ in reply to Queue ] |
|
His concerns are certainly valid. The NCAA is effectively making the roster smaller.
But he’s only highlighting the negatives. He can give some of these guys scholarships that he wasn’t able to before and they can effectively play the same role as the walkons while going to school for free. He can use those scholarships on guys that want to contribute and aren’t “Me” guys so I would think that would lessen the portal impact. He can have better quality players from 86 - 105 now that he can put them on scholarship.
There are also a lot of pros to this. I’d say more pros than cons, considering how many guys end up in the portal with no place to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [519]
TigerPulse: 94%
19
|
Re: Queue
1
Jul 26, 2024, 9:28 AM
|
|
I was thinking the exact same thing….use the walk-ons as you always have but now you can reward them for busting their butts and making out Team better……free tuition!!!!!!!
They may perform at a higher level actually due to being appreciated for “their service”…….most walk-ons have that mindset and attitude.
Go Tigers!!!!! 🏈🏈🏈
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6571]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Queue
Jul 26, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
How many “walk on” type players does the team need to continue scout team duties?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8395]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Queue
1
Jul 26, 2024, 9:55 AM
|
|
Good question. I assume it’s more than 105 or Dabo wouldn’t be this concerned. Are 15 less walkon players that big of an impact? He seems to think so. I still think there’s more benefits to 20 more scholarship guys who would have had to pay their way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7635]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Missing the points
3
Jul 26, 2024, 10:04 AM
[ in reply to Re: Queue ] |
|
The problem is that they are thinking that the settlement will mean no walkons...no players may participate in team activities without being on scholarship...That means that the Clemson roster of 120 (85 scholarships) will be CUT to 105 (105 scholarships). That is the point of what Dabo is saying. Those 15 extra players are needed for practice activities.
The second point being missed is that it will result in higher numbers of transfers...you have 105 on scholarship, but the travel roster is still 80, so instead of 5 players on scholarship (mostly injured ones) not playing in away games, it will be 25! Once you give them scholarships, then they think they should be playing in all games, right? Those 25 players are more likely to transfer now.
And the third point that has not been mentioned, there is a good chance that you will have more injuries. Since the practices will no longer have 120 available bodies, you only have 105, which means more reps per player, more practice injuries per player.
Yes, you have more scholarship players, but you have a harder time keeping them "happy".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6571]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Missing the points
1
Jul 26, 2024, 10:54 AM
|
|
I am thinking back to last season. The long snapper, running back, and QB were the three walkons that were scholarship worthy. Are there any that I am missing? Would it work to designate scholarships 91-105 as scout team players that would have been walk ons before the change? Those last 15 players would not be antsy riding the bench because they know why they are part of the team. If Clemson did this, would those last 15 players be ok playing in garbage time at a home game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7635]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Missing the points
Jul 26, 2024, 4:49 PM
|
|
I really don't think you can go from 120 players with 85 scholarships to 105 players, all scholarships, and have any of the players that don't make the 80 team travel squad happy. That means that 25 players have scholarships, but do not make the travel team. In the past, the 80 who travel usually meant that some non-scholarships still traveled due to injury/sickness of the scholarshipped players. Now, you would be asking the coaches to rank scholarshpped players as travel/no travel. That will create ill will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2182]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: TNET: No more walk-ons? Swinney passionate in defense of non-scholarship players
2
Jul 26, 2024, 8:03 AM
|
|
As a late bloomer myself, I agree about walk ons. We have former walk ons making AA and even winning the Heisman. Guys like Hunter Renfrow are out
Brandon Burlsworth was one of the more technically sound OL I have ever seen. He was a fat kid that wanted to play big time football. I don’t mind more scholarships because that would keep coaches from running off some kids, but they need to keep the walk ons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10143]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: TNET: No more walk-ons? Swinney passionate in defense of non-scholarship players
1
Jul 26, 2024, 8:37 AM
|
|
The NCAA only seems to excel at gutting the game as we knew it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [65]
TigerPulse: 39%
7
|
Re: TNET: No more walk-ons? Swinney passionate in defense of non-scholarship players
2
Jul 26, 2024, 12:44 PM
|
|
#### you people have your head in the sand. His concerns are personal. It's going to affect bringing in friend's kids as walk-ons. You know, his other business of "making dreams come true".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [101]
TigerPulse: 48%
11
|
Re: TNET: No more walk-ons? Swinney passionate in defense of non-scholarship players
Jul 26, 2024, 3:24 PM
|
|
#### you people have your head in the sand. His concerns are personal. It's going to affect bringing in friend's kids as walk-ons. You know, his other business of "making dreams come true".
EXACTLY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7635]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 2951
|
|
|
50
