Dabo puts yet another Walk-On on Scholarship.
by DrB on Aug 24, 2010 9:42 PM EDT
in FUTBAW
Email
Print
Yesterday Clemson announced that CB Mansa Joseph would be put on scholarship for the fall, bringing the total number of walk-ons currently on scholarship to 11.
Yes thats ELEVEN. Eleven guys on scholarship and how many get snaps aside from Special Teams? 3? 4? Eleven guys, 2 kickers, a punter, and a long snapper who doesn't play at all aside from long-snapping.
Don't worry about playing well enough in High School to get into Clemson! Come on and we'll put you on scholarship in a year anyway because we DONT KNOW HOW TO SIGN ENOUGH recruits to fill the open spots we have each year. We went and signed only 12 a couple years ago, so we could sign more later, and yet we still don't sign enough to fill the open spots?
Some teams play with 85 scholarship players, and have to cut good ones to make room for new recruits. At Clemson we play with 74 (73 if McKelvey doesn't qualify, and it looks like this is the case) and invite guys to walk-on and give them a scholarship place holder instead of signing good players up out of High/Prep Schools. Is it any wonder we continue to have depth issues?
Its a self-imposed NCAA probation. The Trojans will play with 71 (in any given year) under their probation.
I don't have a problem giving a scholarship to a guy as a senior who has worked his way through school or one that has cracked the depth chart enough to get meaningful snaps, 3 or 4 is fine, but 11 of them is taking it too far.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll give a pass this year...
Since we have had a shit load of attrition from all number of ways over the past year (two years) – transfers, giving up football, injuries, and several total BS procedural issues with the NCAA clearinghouse on several players. All that combined with the low total from a couple years ago during Tommy Bowden’s Bitch Mentality Melt Down has put us in this position. And I’d rather not just fill open spots with warm bodies as true freshman scholarship players because they will likely have more than a slightly better chance to crack any meaningful playing time than walk-ons and will be even more dead weight as its normally expected these players will be around for multiple years – walk-ons only expect a one year deal.
All that being said, we should have anticipated some of these losses much better – even if I’m not sure who we have really passed on who might have been an impact player because of number issues. Dabo and Co. better get a big chunk of this corrected with this signing class and add in 2012.
Problem is
most of these guys on scholarship will be on scholarship more than 1 year.
Only half of these 11, and I’m still checking their status to be sure, are seniors.
Agree 100%
I totally agree with everything you wrote. No doubt we have been hit by some attrition, but that always needs to be accounted for ahead of time. I was willing to give a pass on the first class of 12, but there is no excuse for not signing more guys last year. It is beyond me why we could not find more players, especially at needs like linebacker. There is a reason the NCAA uses scholly cuts as punishment – cuz it hurts.
By my checking
RB Daniel Barnes
TE Kasey Nobles
WR Terrance Ashe
RT Phil Price
C Ben Ramsey
OL Tyler Fowler
DL John Wright
DL Chris Richardson
LB Brock Henderson
CB Mansa Joseph
DB Kantrell Brown
Plus Richard Jackson, Dawson Zimmerman, and Matt Skinner all on dedicated ST duty.
Benton and Skinner were offered a scholarships while in high school, they committed to CU but Benton had to wait because Harper filled up the class and there was not a scholarship available. I am not sure what happened with Skinner.
Even more disturbing that these walk-ons are seeing the field
Which means they are doing better than the supposedly better recruited athletes who should be filling those spots.
There must be some reason for this. Ever think of writing Dabo a letter, or asking him on his call in show, assuming you can control your rage?
I doubt I could control it
and if he brings up having two K’s and a damn long snapper on scholarship i’ll lose it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can't the coaches take a player off of scholarship?
Seems to me that if you had 85 scholarships to give, and you had ones left over at this time of the year, then you may as well put these guys on scholarship. If we sign a bunch of people this year and need extra spaces, then take them off for next season. If they are a walk-on, then they were never promised a full ride for multiple years, and if Clemson puts them on scholarship for any length of time, then that is just gravy for them.
I will say that if they have 11 walk-ons on scholarship, then I see no reason why we would not sign 25 in this next class, especially considering the quality of the players left on our board.
There is something in these Hills!
Yes
you can always give them out when you have them because of guys not getting into school in august, that is fine.
The problem is we already had 7 or 8 on scholarship coming into this year, and those wont play either. So why wouldnt you sign 25+ last Feb and tell the walk-ons who were already on scholarship that they arent guaranteed one this August?
If we dont sign 25 this year I’m going to rail on the coaches about it too.
Fair enough.
I don’t think you should sign guys just to fill a spot, but at the same time, if we are having depth issues on the offensive line and at LB, then we obviously should have gone after more of those guys. My guess is that the coaches would rather have a walkon fill the spot (who they could take off scholarship without too much backlash) than sign a guy in February who they think will never be a major contributor, who they would have a much harder time taking off of scholarship.
If we have a good season, then they will be able to sign 25 guys off of their primary recruiting board and will not have to resort to signing the fall-back guys. If not, then the coaches will have to re-evaluate the quality of players they will be able to sign, because they will not be able to get 25 blue-chippers. IMO, the issue is not if they can sign 25 guys, but if they can sign 25 guys who can actually contribute and help you win an ACC Title.
There is something in these Hills!
by Tigerplowboy on Aug 25, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
They can
we turn guys away at the last minute saying we’re full, but we’re only full because we give out scholarships to all the walk-ons.
For example, Ben Ramsey has been on scholly for at least 2 years now, and has yet to be in on meaningful snaps. Why dont you take him off and sign another Center? Might as well have a freshman on 3rd team who doesnt play and can in the future as compared to a RS Sr (now) who doesnt play at all and wont ever play.
Kasey Nobles is a similar story, put on last year. Why wouldnt you sign another TE who was interested? Yet we turned one away. Chris Richardson, same deal, been on 2 years now. Why not sign another DE last year? But we turn them away saying “we’re full”.
Its bullshit.
I see your point, but some of the guys they signed might as well be walk-ons.
My point is that if you give a walk-on a scholarship for a year, then that is a one year committment. If you recruit a guy and sign him, then that is at least a four-year committment. Maybe not technically, but if you recruit a player, sign him, and then pull his scholarship, then you end up making a bad name for yourself with HS coaches, which is not a good thing.
I will also say that I doubt that they would turn players away who they thought were good enough to be major contributors. Basically, they might be “full” when joe blow who they project as a roll player wants in, but they are not full when the stud 4 or 5 star player wants in….really just a question of whether they want to make a 4 year committment to a guy they project as a roll player just to fill a spot.
The other part of this equation is that if they sign people just to fill a scholarship, then the fans get all worked up wondering why we are giving a scholarship to a 2-star player, or a player no one has ever heard of. Fact is they would sign 25 4 or 5 star players if they could, but it is not that simple.
There is something in these Hills!
by Tigerplowboy on Aug 25, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
We do turn away 3 and 4-star players
Thats the issue here. I’m not talking about 1/2-star wannabes that might as well go to Furman.
We just told RB Isaiah Crowell to take a hike because “we’re full”. He wanted to visit with his mother a month ago and show her the facilities. Clemson said no.
We backed away from 2 4-star WRs already in this class because “we’re full”. Yet we still have issues with WRs.
Clemson has backed off all the other OL (Giorgio Newberry for one) that were interested because “we’re full” except for Brandon Shell, who they will find a spot for, yet they give 2 scholarships to OL that won’t ever see the field? We wouldn’t get Shell today anyway, and we’re losing Hairston this year, and possibly Cloy and David Smith because they are hinting that they may not play football in 2011. Why would you not recruit and sign more for a need position?
Why would Smith not return?
We would be in major trouble if both Cloy and Smith did not play next year.
Just got married this summer
graduates in December, and knows the NFL is not in his future.
I think if he starts or is projected to then he stays, otherwise he may go.
Well, Dabo better do his CJ/Parker/MCDaniel sales pitch for those guys
because losing them will not bode well at all. Or better yet do your darn job and get back on the trail and recruit G. Newberry and others on his level.
Turning away Crowell was a definite mistake
Whose to say Bellamy and Lane will come here when there is no LOI signed until February. I agree with you; I can see having 3 to five walk-ons on scholarship. The attrition due to academics, transfers, etc would pretty much allow for that. The less talent you have on hand leaves you vulnerable to injuries, and affects the depth eventually. Look at the situations Tom OBrien and Ralph Freidgen have faced the last few years when all they had left was walk-ons.
I would rather have 80 or more recruits rated three stars or better competing for playing time and far too many at all positions. The players that don’t make the cut would more than likely be facing the same situation at another quality BCS program, get better or trade down and transfer to a lesser program (no offense to the FCS or lower half of the FBS).
I know Dabo is a former walk-on and he has a soft spot for walk ons but it isn’t the 90’s, and unless all these guys are the next coming of Rob Bodine there are probably plenty of better 3 stars recruits that would come to play at Clemson. Plus, we have a fair amount of 2 star kids now on campus and on the 2011 commitment list. You can’t have too many of either … . Come on Dabo, numbers (of talented bodies) do matter, and this is your livelyhood
I see your point.
I don’t pay for the information they put on Rivals or Scout, so this is all new to me. I will say that the deal with Crowell is probably designed to give assurance to Bellamy and Lane more than anything. The lack of recruiting of offensive linemen is very troubling to say the least…they ought to sign five in this class given what we are getting ready to lose.
There is something in these Hills!
by Tigerplowboy on Aug 25, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Coaches would say
that if you can’t bring in a guy better than you have; don’t offer. I know that Alabama had a couple of walk-ons on scholarship last year who helped; one who started at DB. I don’t think Nobles was ever a walk on. His Dad was CJ Spiller’s coach in HS. Ashe, Price and Ramsey are D 1 level players, and I think they had offers from other schools. I am not in favor of putting kickers on scholarship; except for the rare exception. I also know that AU put 3 walk-ons on scholly last week, including a long snapper and a junior LB who will never crack the 2 deep.
Nobles is a preferred walk-on
he was not signed to a scholarship out of HS.
Ashe should get one, he starts. Price should if he’s on the two-deep. Ramsey is as well, but he wont play. Mason Cloy will move to Center before you see Ramsey get meaningful snaps.
As i said, if you end up losing 3-4 guys because of academics from your signing class, taking the load off a walk-on is something i can stand, but you shouldnt end up with 11. Thats bullshit and shows you didnt sign enough players in the previous years.
Nobles transferred to Clemson and
was on scholly. Year after we got Spiller.
You forgot about Cantazarro.
He is presumably leading to be our starting kicker. So there would be another scholly.
It would be interesting to know the truth about all of this, which may very well be different from the answer given if Dabo were ever asked. Is it possible it has to do with skewing the overall team GPA upward to keep the Academic Review Nazis away? I would assume that our walk-on’s GPAs are typically higher.
I agree, that's how I look at it as well.
But it is 2010, not 1992, and on that championship team he played on, the playmakers were the scholly guys. No offense to him, but there are some recruits that can fill the holes the walk-ons occupy now.
Dabo, I ain't mad at cha
I think you guys are way overreacting to this.
Isn’t this all because of the 12 man recruiting class we had two years ago? Also, often, walk-ons are success stories, not a failure by the coaching staff. Ask yourself what kind of guy walks on at Clemson….a pretty tough SOB would think he could run over DeAndre McDaniel in practice or block a Jarvis Jenkins.
To take it a step further though, look at the math or recruiting in general.
Out of 25 scholarship players in a class, only 7-12 “pan out.”
I think we’ve seen star rating isn’t an exact science. Look at the overlooked players on the FCS level in our own area that could have helped us. I mean, Andre Roberts or Armanti Edwards wouldn’t have played for us? (excuse me…wouldn’t have started for us?)
Walk-ons are out there 5-6 hours a day working, in a lot of cases, harder than scholarship athletes with no financial support and very very little opportunity to make the two-deep. When one does, rest assured, they earned it.
Rewarding a walk-on with a scholarship just sends a message to the entire team that work ethic matters and those players working hard to better themselves will be rewarded. Not to mention that, at almost every program, there are walk-ons that will play over scholarship players and there are walk-ons that are BETTER than scholarship players.
If by doing this, Dabo creates a situation where an Andre Roberts type would rather walk-on at Clemson because he knows he going to get a fair opportunity, I don’t have a problem with it, especially when we currently have the scholarships available.
For Dabo to be able to tell an under the radar one star recruit that he’ll get “a better opportunity at Clemson than any other BCS school in the country” could actually pay dividends later on and help the program.
I don’t mind this at all as long as we’re winning games.
Try winning several ACC titles in a row with 15 players
that shouldnt be on scholarship taking up spots, and see how it works out.
Its not just because of 2009, Clemson hasn’t oversigned since 2004 and hasnt signed a full 25 since 2007. Places like Alabama are signing no less than 25 every year and cutting people loose. Rarely are they cut for looking at the coach wrong, rather they break team rules and are rarely given a 2nd chance. Clemson has done so before and should again.
And while there are always 2-star guys who pan out, the majority never do. Of all 28 2-stars we signed between 2002-2006, only 4 became star players: Nathan Bennett, Aaron Kelly, Tyler Grisham, and Barry Richardson. How much of a “star” those guys were is still debatable. 17 never did squat and only 11 total became real players of varying PT.
On the other hand, of 20 4/5 stars signed in the same period,12 started regularly and 7 didnt pan out at all, one of them left within 1 year of enrolling. Richardson wouldve been a 4-star had he not skipped his last year of HS.
I think Dr B is looking at situations due to recruits not working out
Where you could have recruited and signed guys and you had the scholarships available you chose not to do it. Then when crap hits the fan and because of the lack of depth at a certain position (ala o-line, linebacker, receiving core), all that is left is a walk-on. Take for instance Ramsey at Center. He doesn’t or can’t play any meaningful snaps so his spot as the second team center is a mirage because we all know Cloy is the “second team” center even though he is listed as the back-up left guard. Why not go ahead and recruit and sign the six or seven offensive lineman during the recruiting period that you need instead of praying a guy shows up in August during try-outs and turns out to be Bobby Boucher the “Water Boy” (or in real life, Edwards, Roberts or Bodine). We know Brad Scott needs to luck up and get a Hairston more often times than not because he hasn’t been able to overcome it with coaching.
And I say this not to knock or insult the walk-ons because I know they work hard and give effort. But they also can do the same thing at smaller schools that more than likely offered them scholarships (like a Furman or other FCS schools). But in the end I think these numbers will go down as time goes on, and atleast we can be comforted that Dabo won’t pull a “Les Miles” on a player the day before camp. Bu then again they would have to be a recruited player that signed a LOI for that to happen.
I'm not sure why this applies to kickers
Kicking the ball is extremely important, even if it only occupies a small fraction of the game. Why shouldn’t those players be awarded scholarships?
Presumably you can use scholarships to attract a better caliber player than you will get without offering one. It should be clear that not everyone can be a good kicker – the ones we have who ARE on scholarship, who appeared to have the ability coming out of HS, have just barely gotten the job done. So it does not follow that any kid on campus can be a punter or kicker. Sometimes, yes, but not always.
Otherwise, this practice makes no sense to me. We should be signing 1 and 2 star OL and LB, to at least have a body to put into the game so your retired player coaches don’t have to come back into the lineup.
But all of this can’t be lost on an entire staff of coaches who have been around football for many years. So there must be SOME explanation for why these scholarships are not used for players who might actually see the field, even only if for depth at positions.
I agree
and having the K and P on scholarship doesnt bother me, well unless they miss XPs like Jackson does. Having 2 K’s on scholly when the walk-on is beating them out bothers me too.
The point is that 4 guys on scholarship already don’t play every down and cannot, not that a kicker per se, is on scholarship.
Having a K and P that perform on scholarship doesnt bother me
Scholarship kickers who routinely miss XPs and 35 yard field goals does. A kick off specialist that cannot kick the ball in the endzone is troubling.
Jackson and Benton missed three extra points and two field goals in last year’s FSU game.
Inexcusable and it will cost you games.
I question our staff’s evaluation and player development with regards to kickers.
I agree with both of those
If the walkon is beating both scholarship Ks what the hell are they getting a scholarship for?
If you have a separate kicker for kickoffs, he should be putting the ball deep. Otherwise use the scholarship for LBs and OL.
I can't argue with your logic Dr. B...
I agree with what you wrote.
Except, I don’t think we’re going to see any more 12-15 man recruiting classes. Do you?
Also, I choose to give Dabo a “pass for that class” (yep that rhymes like a Johnnie Cochran excuse) considering the horrid start to the season, the defections, and interim coach status he dealt with.
The 12 man recruiting class in 2009 happened and that’s Clemson’s current situation. I’m just saying, I’m ok (not overjoyed) with a walk-on getting a scholarship over, as Dabo said, “a fallback option” they don’t really believe in.
I would like to see full classes of 25. I would like those 25 players to be mostly 4 and 5 star guys. Who wouldn’t?
I would also like to have not gotten destroyed by the Alabama team you just mentioned and I would like to have my money back for traveling to Atlanta to witness it first hand. Both are not likely to happen any time soon.
The cupboard is not bare here. We are building a program that has to be considered “on the way up” after last season’s ACCCG appearance and I’m happy with the overall progress of the program after his first full season. Dabo has until 2011 and 2012 before the 12 man class will be upperclassmen. If the quality on the field slides backwards, I will be the first to complain. But, I want to see that actually happen first before I complain that it already has.
by TheKraken on Aug 25, 2010 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Actually had we not had the attrition we've had this year
the next class wouldve ended up around 18 scholarships, and they likely wouldve pocketed the last couple, so a 16 man class wouldve been possible.
Ok, you're starting to convine me, although...
I think it all really comes down to how many of the 11 walk-ons will travel.
If they’re not traveling with the team (in the 2 deep or a special teams demon), then yes, I’m with you, but otherwise, I still give Dabo the benefit of the doubt because of the 12 man class.
If the player is that good at his job on special teams to where a young scholarship player is not determined to be worth traveling over him, he is valuable enough to be on scholarship IMO. The same thing happens with roster spots in the NFL.
I know of non-scholarship walk-ons threatening to quit when they are traveling over or better than the scholarship player. That could have happened too (again, likely because of the increased opportunity surrounding the 12 man class. There isn’t a younger guy taking that spot from the upperclassmen walk-on).
Hey, Mansa Joseph, I’m watching you on the opening kickoff against North Texas. You better drop the hammer :)
This is rediculous…there is no reason to have almost a dozen walk on players on an 85 man scholly limit roster. Unless you have Rob Bodine on your team, the walk on schollies should be around 5 a year. Here is our list (I believe I found them all last season) with 8.
Terrance Ashe WR Cheraw, SC
Kantrell Brown SS St. Matthews, SC
Phillip Price OT Dillon, SC
Ben Ramsey C Greensboro, NC
Chris Richardson DE Litha Springs, GA
Caleb Simmons OL Lake City, SC
Ronald Watson RB Mauldin, SC
John Wright DT Anderson, SC
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
My post was poorly worded, the above list is a list of walk ons as of the ’09 MTSU game, and just here for comparison to where we are to start the year in ’10.
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
Although Simmons is listed on the last depth chart that I saw and on the university’s spring depth chart. maybe these are not reflective of the true data…I really don’t know.
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
Ask Vandy about how
important walk ons are. They only have a couple and struggle putting a scout team together. The 3s and 4s are very important for practice. The scholarship situation is a concern, but I don’t blame Dabo for giving them out under these circumstances. can’t compare Bama to Clemson, but AU is similar this year due to Tommy Tub’s last couple of years. they are under #s too.
I think encouraging walk-ons is a good idea.
By my checking
RB Daniel Barnes Gr
FB Kasey Nobles 2 *Sr
WR Terrance Ashe costarter Gr
RT Phil Price 2 *Jr
C Ben Ramsey 2 *Sr
OL Tyler Fowler *Fr
DL John Wright *Sr
DL Chris Richardson *Jr
LB Brock Henderson *Sr
CB Mansa Joseph *Jr
DB Kantrell Brown *jr
PK CHANDLER CATANZARO starter
I see 11 scholarships with 2 starters 3 more in the 2 deep, to me that looks like 50% and some of the others may be on ST. I would rather have walk-ons go to Clemson for 2 years than go the juco route like some other schools do. Clemson coaches get to evaluate these guys for 2 or 3 years before they get a scholarship. Ashe was promised a scholarship for a year before he got one.
6 of the 11 are Sr or Gr and will be gone, but likely some of the red shirt juniors will be as well. The only 2 of the 11 that I expect will be back is Price and Fowler. I expect them both to be in the 2 deep or starting before they leave Clemson.
I wonder how many walk-ons are at practice and on the team. I think we have ~104 on the roster and 75 scholarship players not counting walk ons. so about 30 walk ons. I think if we get one or 2 starters a season then it is worth the investment. I think 2 years ago our leading special teams tackler was a walk on.
I would rather go get a JUCO that can play
and fill an immediate need than give a scholarship to someone who wont ever contribute.
Ramsey wont play. Price wont get 100 snaps.
Clemson wont go get JUCOs because of the guys in Sikes.
I'm happy to see 11 hard-working dedicated young men awarded scholarships.
This isn’t the most spectacular of times in the economy, if you haven’t noticed. By my count that’s 11 families that aren’t having to pay tuition, room, or board to Clemson U this year, and it aint’ exactly getting any cheaper.
They show up every practice and in between and make our starters stronger. Maybe one or two will go down in the annals. Maybe all of them if we win the ACC Championship this year. But they’ve obviously got heart, or a cause, and they show up every day ready to strap it on for the Tigers.
Also, as well as a powerful motivator and mover of words, Dabo also has business sense, and these scholarships, that would be funded this year yet go unused and otherwise go to waste, are renewable on a year to year basis, unlike a commitment. As a poster noted above, 6 of 11 are in their senior or grad year. This team needs leaders, and hard working young men saving $25,000 a year out of pocket to block and tackle and push the team forward are as worthy as anyone.
We’ll recruit ‘em alright. There’s always plenty of room up in these hills.
Price will get way more
than 100 snaps. He will have 50 by game 3, and that is without an injury. Again, Price is a D 1 athlete. His re shirt year he won the power hour award (forget what they call it). That class had quality red shirts including Walker, Cloy and Branch. I don’t think the coaches would be talking about him as much as they are unless he was legit.
Ard's response
Here are the underclassmen walk-ons on scholarship:
Kantrell Brown (jr)
Tyler Fowler (fr)
Mansa Joseph (jr)
Phillip Price (jr)
Chris Richardson (jr)
Caleb Simmons (jr)
- Fowler is a kid they think can be a depth guy in the future. He has a child, a wife and works hard. Believe me, he’s not coming off scholarship.
- I give Brown’s chances to move off scholarship less than 50-percent. I suspect he’ll be on scholly next year.
- Price is a depth guy. He isn’t going anywhere.
- Richardson’s father played here. He’s a hard worker and is currently their No. 3 weak-side end. I suspect he’ll be on scholly next year.
- Greater than 50-percent chance Simmons, an instate kid, will be on scholarship next year, as well as Joseph, if the two choose to play football in 2011.
- Catman will surely go on scholarship in 2011.
- Possibly one or two more could be added in 2011.
Players coming off scholarship due to graduation:
John Wright
Terrance Ashe
Ben Ramsey
Brock Henderson
Daniel Barnes
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
