An Amato academic adendum ...
How's that for alliteration?
Rob posted an entry below that is very similar to the one that Dave Glenn of the ACC Sports Journal posted in his blog earlier today.
Chuck's been taking a lot of hits today for his comments - an emailer sent me a link to a Marshall message board where Thundering Herd fans are all over Amato, believing he's really got a case of the sour grapes after losing to a MAC school. But asked again today about his stance on non-qualifiers, he didn't back down.
Q: Can the ability to take non-qualifiers really be that big of a deal?
Amato: It can be.
Q: Should there be a uniform policy about non-qualifiers?
Amato:I think it would be the right thing to do. That’s just my opinion. If I was in a league that let non-qualifiers in, I would be against it.
Q: We've heard you talk about ECU's ability to take non-qualifiers and Tommy Bowden has said similar things about Marshall. Is that something that a lot of ACC coaches don't like?
Amato: It’s a difficulty we live with, there’s absolutely no question. There’s nothing that can be done about it. Those are things we have no control over.
As you can see, Chuck's not really upset that other schools are admitting non-qualifiers. He's just miffed that those schools can take non-qualifiers while his school CAN'T.
Apparently though, some of the schools Chuck mentioned yesterday - Boise State, Fresno State and Louisville - were not thrilled to be painted by Amato's broad brush as havens for non-qualifiers. Boise State said it has no non-qualifiers on its roster, Fresno said it has two and no longer accepts them. Ditto for Louisville.
Which brings us to the final perplexing thing about Amato's comments yesterday: What was Amato referring to when he mentioned a coach who told Amato he'd signed 10 non-qualifiers?
I asked Amato about this - to make sure he was talking about the Akron coach. If so, that number doesn't come close to matching the three non-qualifiers Akron said it has on its roster.
Here's what Amato said:
"I was talking to their head football coach. I believe the number was 10. It may have been eight. But I believe the number was that “we signed 10 last year.” And "50 percent of them we might be able to" … uh … but nothing was said – We were just talking.. I said geez “Do you have any limit on non-qualifiers?”. He said no. Those were his words. I didn’t make them up. Why would I make something up and say something that I didn’t hear with my own ears? That has nothing to do with losses ties or any of that stuff. It’s a way people can, in my opinion, get ahead. It’s a good thing to have on your side."
So we're left with a weird contradiction. There's no reason for Amato to make something like that up, yet Akron strongly disputes those numbers.
Maybe there's a difference in definitions here. Maybe the Akron coach might consider a kid like running back Dennis Kennedy - who originally signed with Ohio State but had paperwork issues and was denied admission there before choosing Akron - as a non-qualifier. Yes, he didn't get in to Ohio State, but Kennedy apparently was a qualifier by NCAA standards.
Two more interesting notes about this before we move on ...
1) When Ohio State refused Dennis Kennedy's admission, he had a list of five schools he wanted to consider. Florida, Pitt, Cincinatti, Akron and ... N.C. State!
2) Also found this little tidbit from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. It's from an article about Kennedy's signing with Akron.
---
Kennedy is not the first South Florida football player to find himself dealing with admission issues at Ohio State this year. Former Suncoast standout Da-Juan Morgan orally committed to OSU last November, but his scholarship offer was rescinded because his grade-point average was not among the top half of his graduating class. In February Morgan signed with North Carolina State.
---