Credit: Brian Spurlock/USA TODAY Sports
Last Friday, Notre Dame received the expected news that KeiVarae Russell was back with the Irish. Yesterday, another one of the Frozen Five had their fate become a little clearer:
Ishaq Williams has been formally re-admitted to Notre Dame by the Committee on Readmission.
— Pete Sampson (@PeteSampson_) June 1, 2015
The important thing to note here is that Ishaq is back only academically at this point. His status on the football team is up in the air.
The reason? It’s one that we’ve mentioned several times this offseason. Scholarship numbers are tight and a fifth year isn’t a guaranteed thing, even for a former five-star recruit (NB: Russell is entering his senior season. ND unofficially guarantees scholarships for athletes for four years, thus why Russell is a definite while Ishaq is up in the air).
As of right now, without Ishaq, the Irish stand at 86 scholarships, one more than the 85 maximum. Of those 86, Chase Hounshell is the likely fifth year candidate to be first on the chopping block. Hounshell swapped to TE from DE, but based on reports from spring ball, it doesn’t appear that he has done enough to solidify his spot on the roster.
The remaining fifth years (minus Williams and transfer Avery Sebastian) are the following:
- Amir Carlisle
- Nick Martin
- Jarrett Grace
- Joe Schmidt
- Matthias Farley
Yeah, have fun figuring out which one of those gents that you’d like to ask to not come back.
Of course, the one eternal truth of the Notre Dame offseason is that strange things happen to this roster. Already we’ve had Everett Golson deciding to transfer, but we’ve also seen incoming freshman Bo Wallace announcing, seemingly out of nowhere, that he wouldn’t be attending Notre Dame.
There’s a reason why Brian Kelly has mostly dodged the question about what to do about the roster until the zero hour. He’s been through this dance too many times and knows all too well that he may not even have to make such a tough decision by the time fall camp breaks.
So for now, the Irish and Ishaq will remain in a holding pattern. Remain buckled, Irish fans, the offseason ain’t over yet.
Ryan Ritter
Texan by birth, Irish by choice.
Born and raised in the great state of Texas, Tex is a first-generation Domer and a former student manager. After graduation, he left the cold winters of South Bend behind and returned back to his home state with a computer engineering degree in tow. Missing the daily grind of working football practices and talking football with fellow Irish fans every day, he took to blogging, a path which eventually led him to Her Loyal Sons. Continuously diving into stats and game film, Tex strives to break down every aspect of Fighting Irish football--even though it's determined to kill him.
Latest posts by Ryan Ritter (see all)
- Friday Roundup: The Hard Seltzer Edition - August 23, 2019
- HLS Podcast: 2019 Futures and Week 0 Picks - August 22, 2019
- (Re)Introducing Spreads & Degeneracy - August 21, 2019
Why couldn’t David Robinson pay his son’s tuition and free up that scholly?
Are you asking why an individual would pay for something s/he can get for free?
Sounds like socialism.
I am merely asking why David Robinson can’t pay his son’s tuition, which would free up a scholarship.
That’s all.
By that rationale, should Cris Collinsworth have paid for Austin?
Hi Terry and Taddmike. Thanks for reading and for commenting. Wouldn’t the act of paying for an otherwise-scholarship player be construed by future fortunate fathers as the University getting by on the cheap? Isn’t that how it would be used by our competitors on the recruiting trail? Imagine the scene, Les Miles in a living room. He looks at Mr. and Mrs. Lucky Long-Snapper. “Between you and me, folks, I’d put that new model Ford behind the fence when Brian Kelly comes a-visitin’. Did you know that Notre Dame gets your tax records and makes you pay for your son’s tuition if you make over $100,000 a year?! Hand to God, folks, hand to God.”
If a father can pay the tuition at Notre Dame without taking too much of a hit, as is (I assume) the case with either Collinsworth or Robinson it would be a good idea because it would free up another scholarship for a kid whose parents cannot afford it. That’s ALL I said.
(Insert ass-u-me here)
It could be interpreted as an act of generosity for someone less fortunate, and wouldn’t that be very Notre Dame-like and wouldn’t that look good?
If Williams can not get a scholarship for his final year his parents have said that they will pay for it out of their own pockets. I have no idea what tuition is at ND per annum but I would imagine it’s around $70k. The kid made a big mistake and he has owned up to it and he’s trying to get back on the right track.
Your imaginary Les Miles scenario – I’m in a really generous mood so I’m going to pretend that you really didn’t say that, because it is rather silly.
Let me end with this – I’m not saying anyone should, I am merely saying that it is a possibility.
You honestly think that a head coach wouldn’t use a “don’t commit as a rich kid to ND because they could pull your scholarship” line? Oh man, ND has been negatively recruited on far less.
David Robinson and I have virtually nothing in common, but were I him in your hypothetical scenario, here’s what I’d do:
“Sure Coach…here’s $70k to free up a scholarship. But I want my son in on every offensive play. And I want at least 15 passes per game thrown his direction. This is not a gift, it’s an investment in his NFL draft stock.”
In the end, it is not a possibility, because the coaching staff needs to coach, not juggle parent demands akin to a youth soccer team.
I assume you graduated from ND, so I hesitate to correct your english, but I must: “Were I him in your hypothetical scenario”
WRONG
Were I HE.
You have three independent clauses separated by commas.
WRONG
“I assume you graduated from ND, so I hesitate to correct your English. But I must.”
You should have also capitalized English as it’s a proper noun. Now that this is over, can we go back to making substantive arguments instead of getting into a pissing contest about spelling, punctuation and grammar? Thanks.
There were substantive arguments? Where?!
NO OXFORD COMMA IN THAT PENULTIMATE SENTENCE HOW DARE YOU SIR
He could have. He could afford the tuition and it would have freed up a scholarship for another kid whose parents could never afford the tuition to ND. I’m not saying he should have, but he could have if he wanted to.
Robinson – same thing. If he paid his son’s tuition that would free up a scholarship for someone whose parents would never be able to afford the tuition at Notre Dame.
Should probably tell Schmidt tough luck first. After all, ND has a long track record of committing to their student-athlete’s for four years regardless of any situation so that shouldn’t stop. Fifth years aren’t guaranteed and Schmidt proved he could pay for ND before when he was a walk on.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I walked into the grocery store the last month and was offered free milk. So I accepted it. Because getting something for free is better than paying for it.
Don’t answer a question with a question !
I seem to have incurred the righteous anger of (undoubtedly the cream of) the HLS staff – Irish Elvis, Ryan Ritter and Bayou Irish.
Lucky me.
Let me put it in terms you might be able to understand.
You walk into a clothing store to get some summer duds and you run up a tab of $2k without blinking an eye.
Then you notice a single mother with 3 kids and it’s obvious that they are having hard times and some hard choices will have to be made, and no matter what they do some will suffer.
or
You walk into a grocery store to get some grub for a feast and you run up a tab for $500 and it’s not a problem, then you notice a single mother. …….
In either case – Would you help? Would it even occur to you to help?
Now
Let me repeat my ORIGINAL question.
Why couldn’t David Robinson pay his son’s tuition and free up that scholly?
Get it?
Comparing apples and oranges must be fun.
But if you want to be serious in this dumb argument, Robinson probably could pay for his son’s scholarship. However, I say that not being sure if there are additional compliance issues that I’m not aware of for terminating a scholarship agreement (it’s a contract after all) in such a manner.
However, I *do* know that doing something so stupid creates a potential slippery slope that ND should want zero part of. Here is what at risk and what will happen in such a scenario:
1) When Notre Dame commits to a scholarship, they do so for four years. The only exception is giving an extra scholarship to a walk-on if they are able. They’ve done this through career ending injuries and busts. The recruiting pitch is that if you sign to ND, ND is going to stick with you no matter what happens so you get your degree. That’s what makes ND different.
2) Corey Robinson will transfer. Notre Dame just told Corey that he, as an underclassmen, isn’t important enough as a guy that got kicked out of school. The reason is simply because he has a rich dad. Robinson earned his scholarship and other schools will be more than happy to pick up the tab.
3) Schools will cry foul on ND. Notre Dame simply tries to lure the rich and famous to their schools because they can afford it. They did it for Bon Jovi’s kid and now they are doing it for Robinson. I can imagine the term “whiteshirting” being a thing: rich white-collar families pay for the chance to be on the roster.
4) Those that don’t cry foul take advantage of the loophole. It’s now a family “pay-for-play” or schools that love looking the other way when bagmen get involved start having their boosters subsidize their roster to increase scholarship limits.
Now, if you can see that, I’m not sure what else to tell you. Plus, where do you want it to end? Should ND put an end to all merit scholarships and switch to only need? Who cares if a kid is really smart and would be a great asset to the university? They aren’t poor and are taking the spot of someone that is.
3 hours ago I asked the question – “Why couldn’t David Robinson pay his son’s tuition and free up that scholly?”
This was in response to the article about Ishaq Williams in which it was stated that owing to the scholarship crunch at ND Ishaq might not be able to get a scholarship at ND for his senior year.
If David Robinson were to pay his son’s tuition @ ND, which he can certainly afford, then a scholarship would be freed up and PERHAPS Ishaq Williams would be able get a scholarship for his senior year. In ANY case his parents indicated their willingness to see their son through this – he WOULD graduate from Notre Dame.
(At this point we come to the ’40 year’ argument – 4 years @Florida State as opposed to 40 years at Notre Dame.)
My simple question seems to have stirred up a veritable hornet’s nest, which both delights me and depresses me, so let me just exit with this – Ryan, you and I do seem to rub each other the wrong way, and this is your site, so I’m outta here.