I assume from past posts that you (and others) object to 'roster management' as a concept.

While I also object to gray-shirting and other roster management techniques, I certainly don't have a problem with moving players to medical scholarship or telling players with degrees that they are not likely to see playing time so they can pursue other alternatives. In fact, in the latter case, it would seem to be to the benefit of a player that hopes to play and doesn't see the writing on the wall.

In short, as long as we honor their scholarship to allow them to receive an ND degree, I don't have a problem with the activities above. A scholarship has no implied right to play embedded in its promise.

ND makes a commitment to those who come that they will have an opportunity to graduate from ND in four years, with tuition, room, and board covered by ND. That commitment requires that the individuals maintain certain standards. If the individual fails those standards, such as grades, or personal conduct, ND can end it's commitment as well.

I have no problem with ND maintaining similar standards requirements for the football side of things. I would only have a problem with it if ND ever used a failure to meet football requirements to nix ND's academic commitment.

When you refer to "ND maintaining similar standards requirements for the football side of things", the line can easily be crossed from a legitimate medical issue to simply running off a player who fails to rise to the top of the depth chart. Coaches engage in this practice all too frequently to make room for new recruits.

It's fine to tell a marginal player that he will likely never see meaningful playing time and leave it up to him as to whether he wants to remain in the program, but applying undue pressure for him to leave by creating a hostile environment is common practice at this level.

I don't want Notre Dame to cross this line, but it seems we are getting closer to it every year.

That is, I don't have a problem with telling that player -- solely on the basis of where he lies on the depth chart -- that he has a choice of remaining at ND on a full scholarship (but not being a member of the football team), or remaining on the football team, but not on scholarship.

The important part of the commitment ND makes is about providing the individual an opportunity to graduate. Having a paid spot on the team is kind of in the noise.

To make the analogy -- I see failing to be involved somewhere on the depth chart as failing to make grades. There may be no character flaw whatsoever, but if someone doesn't pan out athletically, I see no reason why a continued paid spot on the team is important.

But I have yet to see anyone explain to me why it is important for the welfare and benefit of the player who committed to ND for that player to continue to play on the football team if he isn't meeting performance standards.

We have performance standards in every other aspect -- on all students to make certain grades, regardless of the amount of effort they put in. On coaches to win enough, regardless of how nice of a person they are, or how great they are at developing character.

Why shouldn't a paid spot on the football team also be subject to performance standards?

For an otherwise smart guy, you are really embarrassing yourself here.

We don't just promise him tuition, room and board. We promise him a spot on the football team.

There are all sorts of opportunities for chicanery if we don;t have a bright line rule that honors four year commitments to players who choose to play at Notre Dame.

Remember Kelly's "my guys" delineation? Well, that come from his heart. That's how a lot of low rent coaches operate when they come on board. That's why we say players commit to a school, not to a "program" or a coach. Head coaches play favorites. so do assistants. Or they give up on the current year and start playing for next year, to benefit the coach's own interests.

And players can improve year over year. They can grow, things can click, players in front of them can get hurt, kicked out, transfer. Life happens. There's something to be said for sticking things out and perserverance. And there's something to be said for a school for living up to its side of the bargain.

Rule, a scholarship is considered an annual benefit that must be renewed. And 98% of FBS teams treat scholarships that way.

I do not want ND to stoop to that level. I’m not sure, however, that there is unanimity in South Bend on that point. For now it would appear that “medical scholarships” are being appropriately applied.

We are ND for goodness sakes.

Is that ND was the one of the first, if not the first, schools to develop the medical scholarship. The idea was to honor the scholarship commitment to a player who, through no fault of his own, had suffered a career-ending injury, while at the same time not unilaterally disarming ourselves by giving a football scholarship to a player who would never see the field. At the time, most other schools simply yanked the scholarships of players in similar circumstances.

And for that reason, I think the medical scholarships need to continue. Their application, however, should be limited to players who have suffered career-ending injuries, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

....as a matter of football related performance and absent any health, discipline or academic issues. It's in the noise? Shame on you.

early signing dates, LOI, not being able to leave if a coach leaves, etc.

It's all to make the school and fans happy.

But that it would be transferred to a non-athletic scholarship to fulfill the academic commitment ND made the player. I don't see anything wrong in terms of the school's personal commitment to the player. But it's an obvious bad-faith evasion of NCAA scholarship limitations. And the NCAA should more closely enforce manipulating medical scholarships. Particularly when it is offered to a player who then gets cleared to play elsewhere without much difficulty.

and favor the teams with the most money?

But that's not a concern about player welfare. That's a concern about abiding by NCAA rules. I don't give a flying fuck about NCAA rules as such. They're arbitrary and meaningless.

that prevent playing FB and coaches’ decisions that the New Kid is better so byeee.

For example, Corey Robinson. He decided he liked his brain after having two (three?) concussions. Medical scholarship, finish your degree, go with God.

A licensed medical professional would have to lie, jeopardizing their entire career, in order to enable a school to abuse that rule. The kid blew his knee or he didn’t. He is at risk of paralysis from one more hit (Danny Spond, we will love you forever) or he isn’t.

I'm talking about cutting a healthy player from the team because he didn't turn out to be as good as the coaches thought when they recruited him.

"everybody does it" mentality.

have a career-threatening injury should be prohibited by the NCAA. Because it is a bad-faith way for wealthier athletic departments to game scholarship limitations. Accordingly, Notre Dame shouldn't do it.

This is a player that was buried on the depth chart, and I haven't heard a whiff of injury problems throughout spring ball. While I don't believe this move harms the kid and isn't wrong for any duty the school owes to the kid, it should be viewed as cheating under NCAA rules.

he was having a medical procedure a few weeks ago and it was unlikely that he'd be able to play in the Fall.

Although as noted below, under the circumstances, that doesn't strike me as a career-threatening injury that should implicate a medical hardship scholarship.

Sans permission from the player. So, if he has a broken neck or a broken pinky they have to largely just make a general statement.