Originally Posted by bucksfan2
Is the "one-year-renewal scholarship" really a good argument. To my knowledge I can't really think of anyone who had his scholarship revoked for a performance issue. Some coaches may operate that way but IMO it is few and far between. I think it would be a more legit agrument if Ryan had specifically not renewed a scholarship to a particular player during his tenure as a head coach.
The one year scholarship was actually created as a way to protect the student athletes. Back in the bad old days, when a player had a four year scholarship "guaranteed" football factories like Nebraska and Oklahoma were apparently notorious for having the bottom 20 guys on the roster essentially kill each other in practice in an effort to make them want to transfer.
While it is a one year contract, the coaches do their best to guide a player into a transfer because out and out pulling a scholarship would lead to some serious negative recruiting. The fact that it's a one year contract comes in more when it's used to reward a former walk on in a one year lull in number of scholarship players.
In all honesty, I have no problem with this. However, if you're not going to find room for a player in your program, there should be no restriction on where he goes. There's already a huge disincentive in having to wait for a full year.
Were I the czar of sports, I'd tell coaches you have one or the other. Either you can make them wait a year but then they can go to whatever school will have them, or you can restrict the number of schools they can transfer to, but they can play right away.