Surely not, right?

The NCAA didn't have a problem when QB2 at Georgia transferred to OSU.

Slicer97 said:

---

The NCAA didn't have a problem when QB2 at Georgia transferred to OSU.

---

Yeah. I'm still scratching my head about that one too.

No rhyme or reason.

It seems likely to me that his plan at this point is to graduate and then transfer somewhere.

If that's not his plan now I bet it will be when he gets his draft grade back. Kid needs a senior season on tape, and a good one.

Slicer97 said:

---

I don't think they have a choice. This was an NCAA decision.

---

This is the correct answer. Like it or hate it doesn't change a thing

Why shouldn't they? Imagine how much revenue and funding they received because of him.

That's crazy you mention that aeon-ag because If a scholarship athlete signs a letter of intent, they should be made to fullfill that agreement! If they "opt" out then it should be out all the way! I'm so sick and tired of these spoiled rotten children given every opportunity there is, free room to lay up and sleep in, free board to stuff their faces with good food,then a free education which few take advatage of to play a game five months out of the year and not to mention all the under the table perks we don't know about, then crying about how mistreated they are. POOOOOOOR BABIES!!!!!

True, but stating the obvious... this is starting to change because now an individual athlete can directly make millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars for their university. TAMU cost of an undergrad education is less than $100k. There wasn't always so much money in the sport. I hope we don't eventually lose the concept of student athlete but those are just facts...

Sparkie said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

and yet here you are bashing a student because your favorite college football team may win one less game this season because there was a loophole to exploit. Who really is the baby here?

---

These players are here to entertain the alumni. They agreed to exchange performing athletically for an education. The alumni have a skin in the game due to donations. The alumni have a right to expect a return on investment.

---

The alumni have a right to nothing. Yes we all know the football team is funded by alumni donations so that we can say our school is better than someone elses school. However, as part of the charade that is modern college football thee programs are funded by donations. Not purchases. You gifted the athletic department the money for them to do with it as they please. You dont get any say in what the student-athlete does. You may not like the athletes and can choose to not continue to donate, but don't misconstrue your donation as having a right to a "return on investment."

aeon-ag said:

---

If a scholarship athlete signs a letter of intent, they should be made to fullfill that agreement! If they "opt" out then it should be out all the way! I'm so sick and tired of these spoiled rotten children given every opportunity there is, free room to lay up and sleep in, free board to stuff their faces with good food,then a free education which few take advatage of to play a game five months out of the year and not to mention all the under the table perks we don't know about, then crying about how mistreated they are. POOOOOOOR BABIES!!!!!

---

I'd agree as long as schools are required to honor the scholarship for all 5 years.

the schools got caught in a trap for the 2020-21 academic year. The athletes are getting a heck of a deal.

they will fix this going forward. There are hundreds of athletes taking advantage of this ---- getting a free education without the injury risk and so forth. Especially the ones that are unlikely to be major contributors on the field or have a pro sports career afterwards

slyfox07 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

The NCAA didn't have a problem when QB2 at Georgia transferred to OSU.

---

Yeah. I'm still scratching my head about that one too.

No rhyme or reason.

---

Justin Fields makes people want to watch CFB. That's why they let him do it

To the OPs question - the answer is "it depends". Someone like Ausbon wasn't going to be on campus this spring anyway, so the point is moot.

But all scholarships are year to year. If a marginal producer sits out a year, he may get trap doored to make room for another signee. If it's someone the coaches wanna keep, they'll keep him. But as long as a scholarship athlete started classes this fall. He will be on scholarship through next summer (at a minimum).

put the social justice and covid stuff aside, all you advocating for pulling scholarships of those who opt out aren't looking at the big picture. Pulling scholarships, regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, would be a horrible move for recruiting purposes.

Staying on scholarship after opting out to prep for the NFL draft? Give me a break. Real COVID concerns are one thing; deciding to call it quits to prep for NFL draft is another. And this at a time when budgets are being cut and some TAMU employees are losing their jobs. Huh? Nothing personal about this...if for any reason a player does not want to play, so be it. The point is staying on paid scholarship.

strbrst777 said:

---

Staying on scholarship after opting out to prep for the NFL draft? Give me a break. Real COVID concerns are one thing; deciding to call it quits to prep for NFL draft is another. And this at a time when budgets are being cut and some TAMU employees are losing their jobs. Huh? Nothing personal about this...if for any reason a player does not want to play, so be it. The point is staying on paid scholarship.

---

Again the NCAA said if a kid opts out this year they can stay on scholarship. Nothing A&M can do this year.

strbrst777 said:

---

Staying on scholarship after opting out to prep for the NFL draft? Give me a break. Real COVID concerns are one thing; deciding to call it quits to prep for NFL draft is another. And this at a time when budgets are being cut and some TAMU employees are losing their jobs. Huh? Nothing personal about this...if for any reason a player does not want to play, so be it. The point is staying on paid scholarship.

---

I'm sure it was contemplated and expected when they made the rule that some athletes would opt out who intended to leave for the pros.

Do players who opt-out to prep for NFL draft keep full-ride status (housing, meals at nutrition center, access to weight facility, stipend, etc? If so by NCAA rule what's rationale for the rule?

Alpha Texan said:

---

slyfox07 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

The NCAA didn't have a problem when QB2 at Georgia transferred to OSU.

---

Yeah. I'm still scratching my head about that one too.

No rhyme or reason.

---

Justin Fields makes people want to watch CFB. That's why they let him do it

---

Plus OhSt wields more power than you think

Slicer97 said:

---

I don't think they have a choice. This was an NCAA decision.

---

Asked then answered definitively by the 2nd post. This should've been in the running for the most precise thread of TexAgs. Should've

MechTechAg said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

I don't think they have a choice. This was an NCAA decision.

---

Asked then answered definitively by the 2nd post. This should've been in the running for the most precise thread of TexAgs. Should've

---

why capitulate to reason when they came here to troll???

strbrst777 said:

---

Do players who opt-out to prep for NFL draft keep full-ride status (housing, meals at nutrition center, access to weight facility, stipend, etc? If so by NCAA rule what's rationale for the rule?

---

They could always do like Robert Ferguson did for us in 2000 and enroll for classes but never attend a single one and post a 0.00 GPA.

slyfox07 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

I don't think they have a choice. This was an NCAA decision.

---

Does anybody believe that Ausbon is opting out because of Covid? If that's his claim then I think he's exploiting a loophole.

That's not why he's opting out.

---

Too much competition !

RBarrRB35 said:

---

True, but stating the obvious... this is starting to change because now an individual athlete can directly make millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars for their university. TAMU cost of an undergrad education is less than $100k. There wasn't always so much money in the sport. I hope we don't eventually lose the concept of student athlete but those are just facts...

---

The college takes a risk of recruiting a player who has never played a snap of college football.

Players are like salary employees. Their compensation is fixed and does not depend on the revenue they generate. Professional contracts do not include incentives based upon league revenue. In 2018, the Cowboys generated $864 million dollars. Dac Prescott made $630,000.

Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. For an unskilled worker, that's a nice payoff for four years of work. Averaging $250k a year means the college player made 40% of Prescott's salary in 2018.

Sparkie said:

---

RBarrRB35 said:

---

True, but stating the obvious... this is starting to change because now an individual athlete can directly make millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars for their university. TAMU cost of an undergrad education is less than $100k. There wasn't always so much money in the sport. I hope we don't eventually lose the concept of student athlete but those are just facts...

---

The college takes a risk of recruiting a player who has never played a snap of college football.

Players are like salary employees. Their compensation is fixed and does not depend on the revenue they generate. Professional contracts do not include incentives based upon league revenue. In 2018, the Cowboys generated $864 million dollars. Dac Prescott made $630,000.

Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. For an unskilled worker, that's a nice payoff for four years of work. Averaging $250k a year means the college player made 40% of Prescott's salary in 2018.

---

The NCAA has explicitly said they are not and the courts have ruled in the NCAA's favor on this. The NCAA was happy about this because it means that the players are still students first. They just happen to generate tons of cash and can have their scholarship to attend school (ya know, because they are students first right?) stripped for not being as good on the field as the next guy being recruited.

In general I think any player in a position to even consider skipping their senior year or sitting out a bowl game or whatever to prepare for the NFL has been a good return on the school's investment. If you're upset that you don't have them anymore, then they were contributing much more than most scholarship players while you had them. Trying to punish them in some way is so counterproductive. As a program, you very much want to continue attracting the kind of player who is talented enough to view your school as a stepping stone on their way to the NFL.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Sparkie said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

and yet here you are bashing a student because your favorite college football team may win one less game this season because there was a loophole to exploit. Who really is the baby here?

---

These players are here to entertain the alumni. They agreed to exchange performing athletically for an education. The alumni have a skin in the game due to donations. The alumni have a right to expect a return on investment.

---

The alumni have a right to nothing. Yes we all know the football team is funded by alumni donations so that we can say our school is better than someone elses school. However, as part of the charade that is modern college football thee programs are funded by donations. Not purchases. You gifted the athletic department the money for them to do with it as they please. You dont get any say in what the student-athlete does. You may not like the athletes and can choose to not continue to donate, but don't misconstrue your donation as having a right to a "return on investment."

---

Again, a donor has a every right to expect a return on investment for their "gift". It's an expectation the athlete fulfills the agreement.

I am curious too. Surely not, right? Anyone know the rule or actual common practice?

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Sparkie said:

---

RBarrRB35 said:

---

True, but stating the obvious... this is starting to change because now an individual athlete can directly make millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars for their university. TAMU cost of an undergrad education is less than $100k. There wasn't always so much money in the sport. I hope we don't eventually lose the concept of student athlete but those are just facts...

---

The college takes a risk of recruiting a player who has never played a snap of college football.

Players are like salary employees. Their compensation is fixed and does not depend on the revenue they generate. Professional contracts do not include incentives based upon league revenue. In 2018, the Cowboys generated $864 million dollars. Dac Prescott made $630,000.

Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. For an unskilled worker, that's a nice payoff for four years of work. Averaging $250k a year means the college player made 40% of Prescott's salary in 2018.

---

The NCAA has explicitly said they are not and the courts have ruled in the NCAA's favor on this. The NCAA was happy about this because it means that the players are still students first. They just happen to generate tons of cash and can have their scholarship to attend school (ya know, because they are students first right?) stripped for not being as good on the field as the next guy being recruited.

---

Don't confuse playing football as being a right, it's a privilege.

So they generate revenue. whoopty doo

Plenty of people generate revenue. And if they under perform, there is a chance they get replaced. It's life...

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

In general I think any player in a position to even consider skipping their senior year or sitting out a bowl game or whatever to prepare for the NFL has been a good return on the school's investment. If you're upset that you don't have them anymore, then they were contributing much more than most scholarship players while you had them. Trying to punish them in some way is so counterproductive. As a program, you very much want to continue attracting the kind of player who is talented enough to view your school as a stepping stone on their way to the NFL.

---

Players under scholarship should play. If they want to sit out, free the spot for someone who does.