[CTcard]

For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This isn't t-ball or Special Olympics; some players are going to get beaten out for jobs, and that's the way it goes. There's nothing wrong with telling somebody, look, if you're just on the team as a way to pay for college and you don't care if you ever play, that's fine, and we'll honor the deal we made. But if you have dreams of dazzling the NFL and getting drafted in the first round, you might want to think about another school, because it's not going to happen here.

For the most part I didn't intend to make a value judgement, just to point out that the part of oversigning associated with the act of "not quite cutting" kids from the team is unlikely to change despite the fact that the four-year guaranteed scholarship would supposedly do so.

However, there is a value judgement expressed in the part of my post that said, "The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate."

The conversation you relate is not only perfectly acceptable, I would say a service to the kids to help them see reality - though it can be a difficult conversation to have. However, a slightly different conversation is not so great,
"Look kid, you're not turning out good enough to play much and we'd rather have your spot for Joe X over at City Juco. Legally, I cannot kick you out, but if you stick around we're going to make your life hell and you certainly won't be treated as a real member of the team. If I were you I'd start thinking seriously about the opportunities over at Southwest State Technical College - they got a competitive team at their level, put a guy into the NFL just 10 years ago, don't have anything to worry about re:entrance requirements, and an excellent program in sports-retail. I'll put in a good word for you."

[CTcard]

For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This isn't t-ball or Special Olympics; some players are going to get beaten out for jobs, and that's the way it goes. There's nothing wrong with telling somebody, look, if you're just on the team as a way to pay for college and you don't care if you ever play, that's fine, and we'll honor the deal we made. But if you have dreams of dazzling the NFL and getting drafted in the first round, you might want to think about another school, because it's not going to happen here.

For the most part I didn't intend to make a value judgement, just to point out that the part of oversigning associated with the act of "not quite cutting" kids from the team is unlikely to change despite the fact that the four-year guaranteed scholarship would supposedly do so.

However, there is a value judgement expressed in the part of my post that said, "The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate."

The conversation you relate is not only perfectly acceptable, I would say a service to the kids to help them see reality - though it can be a difficult conversation to have. However, a slightly different conversation is not so great,
"Look kid, you're not turning out good enough to play much and we'd rather have your spot for Joe X over at City Juco. Legally, I cannot kick you out, but if you stick around we're going to make your life hell and you certainly won't be treated as a real member of the team. If I were you I'd start thinking seriously about the opportunities over at Southwest State Technical College - they got a competitive team at their level, put a guy into the NFL just 10 years ago, don't have anything to worry about re:entrance requirements, and an excellent program in sports-retail. I'll put in a good word for you."