ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
74°
Broken Clouds
H 76° L 60°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    74°
    Current Conditions
    Partly Cloudy. H 76° L 60°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    61°
    Morning
    Partly Cloudy. H 76° L 60°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    71°
    Afternoon
    Mostly Cloudy. H 77° L 61°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb news on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb traffic on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb weather on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

College Football
Rodrigo Blankenship's father speaks out on non-scholarship for his son
Close

Rodrigo Blankenship's father speaks out on non-scholarship for his son

Rodrigo Blankenship's father speaks out on non-scholarship for his son

Rodrigo Blankenship's father speaks out on non-scholarship for his son

Rodrigo Blankenship’s parents are speaking out about their son’s situation.

In an email to DawgNation, Ken Blankenship, the father of the Georgia kicker, wrote to defend his son after the player and his family were told that the place-kicker would not be put on scholarship until next school year at the earliest. Even then, as explained in this piece by DawgNation’s Seth Emerson , a scholarship wasn’t guaranteed.

Here’s the complete email, which is signed as a message from both parents:

 

OK—this is for public consumption, and I am writing this only as a parent’s attempt to defend his son’s victimization of an injustice. This has gone beyond the point of money being an issue. The real issue is whether our son deserves to be on scholarship.

In two months, Coach Smart went from “We have a damn good field goal kicker over there” to “I’m not sure if we trust Rodrigo to be the player we want in that position.” That was the excuse/rationale/explanation he employed in our meeting on Jan. 2 after delivering a well-planned and well-conceived litany of deficiencies regarding our son’s practice, injury and emotional “issues.” This would be AFTER he trusted our son enough to kick field goals and extra points for the last 10 games of the season.

At the same time Coach Smart was focusing on negative issues (that we have labeled as flimsy and contrived and weightless compared to all of our son’s positives), he was also discounting, minimizing and ultimately dismissing all of Rodrigo’s on-field contributions and accomplishments, noting that they weren’t good enough to deserve a scholarship and that “somebody else” could have done the same. At no time did Coach Smart mention anything about scholarship numbers, other than to say that he never puts anyone on scholarship mid-year.

Since there will be about a half-dozen brand-new Georgia Bulldogs riding on the scholarship gravy train on Jan. 5, we beg to differ with that statement. Somebody’s going to get the scholarships left behind by Wilson, Briscoe, Choates, McGee, McGraw, McKenzie (they weren’t simply vacated into thin air, were they?), and it is very distressing to us that our son, who has ALREADY made fairly significant, valid and measurable contributions to this program commands a lower priority than those who have yet to provide a single play or single point for that same program. Isn’t Rodrigo a somewhat viable candidate for future contributions? Has he not established a somewhat impressive track record on which to base future projections?

That means the newbies will be cashing those weekly $200 maintenance checks (not to mention the free housing, tuition, books, etc.) while our son uses his debit card for weekend meals and incidentals; back home in Marietta there’s a dad who has to keep his son’s checking account balance on the plus side. Yes, our son is allowed to participate at the training table during the week —a godsend when meal plan costs are computed.

Our only conclusion, based on Coach Smart’s obvious pre-meeting preparation with intent to tear down our son’s case for a scholarship and during the meeting his dismissive categorization of our son’s achievements, is that there has never been a consideration for our son to receive a scholarship. We have to give Coach Smart credit where credit is due: just like a business manager refusing to give a raise to an employee during a sit-down meeting, he was extremely well-prepared with his list of grievances. At least employees receive a salary; our son is an unpaid employee who is actually paying his employer (that would be the University of Georgia) for the privilege of working for it. Aren’t there any alumni out there just a little bit peeved over this scenario, given Rodrigo’s apparent popularity?

The “numbers” situation in actuality is this: starting long snapper on scholarship, starting holder on scholarship, backup holder on scholarship, starting punter on scholarship, backup punter on scholarship, starting kicker walk-on. Is there anything wrong with this snapshot of the specialist group? Why are those deserving lads worthy of a scholarship while our son isn’t? What more did they do this past season that our son did not?

Coach Smart said that practice injuries were a major issue (taking up 16 of the 26 typed lines he printed out on paper to validate his refusal, with quotation marks around the word “sprained” as if to imply that our son was faking an injury), yet Rodrigo somehow managed to play in every game, while the long snapper sustained an injury that limited him to field goal/PAT snaps while someone else had to perform punt snaps for the majority of the season, the starting punter missed the last four games of the season with an injury and the backup punter missed one game with an injury.

Our son played high school games with a broken bone; our son is in the treatment room taking care of his body EVERY SINGLE DAY, injured or not, because he knows he has to be healthy so the team can depend on him; our son has never shirked his duties on or off the field. Coach Smart does not yet know our son.

Rodrigo’s accomplishments on the field — All-SEC Freshman team selection, SEC Special Teams Player of the Week, the team’s special teams player of the week four times, leading the team in scoring, providing the winning points in the games that made Georgia bowl-eligible (Kentucky, Auburn) and then providing the game-deciding points in the bowl game itself (putting the Dawgs ahead 24-23 with a fourth-quarter field goal) – as well as his accomplishments off the field – community service, seemingly significant popularity with the fan base, academic success (3.74 GPA, athletic director’s Dean’s list every full semester he’s been at UGA, straight As fall semester) — more than qualify him for an athletic scholarship. He was chosen by the coaching staff as most improved special teams player, but he did not improve enough to qualify for a scholarship? How many other walk-ons in the SEC led their teams in scoring this past season?

Why is he remaining at a school where the head coach refuses to acknowledge that his contributions are more than worthy of being on scholarship? We cannot answer the second part of that inquiry. The first part is not that complicated to address: Rodrigo loves UGA, he loves Dawg Nation, he loves his teammates, he loves being a starting player in the SEC, he loves his major field of study and this father cannot break his son’s heart by asking him to transfer to a school that will appreciate his talents enough to pay for his education although with his accrued resume’ I don’t think it would take long to find one.

I have known my son for almost 20 years, and I can assure anyone (and many members of Dawg Nation can confirm) that this is an incredible young man, imbued with a fantastic personality whose strengths are humility, humor, intelligence, work ethic, athleticism, competitiveness, respect for authority, courtesy, caring nature, love for animals and the list goes on. As my wife and I have said several times, we hit the kid lottery.

He must have signed a dozen autographs for UGA athletic department personnel and their family members on the game field following the bowl game; regular fans had to stay in the stands. That doesn’t happen accidentally or without good reason.

Our son being refused a scholarship is an injustice to him as well as a crushing hardship for his family. Coach Smart suggested we take out some student loans since he did not have a scholarship available. That was a half-truth; there are scholarships available, just not one for our son, and we do not accept his justification for withholding one.

Coach Smart said he came to Georgia as a walk-on and had to earn a scholarship, so he knows what our son is feeling. Our son has been a walk-on for two years and still doesn’t have a scholarship, and has made All-SEC and still does not have a scholarship. Does Coach Smart know how that feels? Did Coach Smart make All-SEC as a walk-on his freshman season?

By denying a scholarship, Coach Smart is telling us that Rodrigo’s value to the program is exactly the same as any non-playing walk-on – realistically that would be zero, equivalent to the amount of money the program has invested in any walk-on. Would Coach Smart Like to inform Dawg Nation that Rodrigo “Respect the Specs” Blankenship currently has zero value to his program? Can Coach Smart deny that his appreciation level of our son is currently zero?

Many observers would argue, of course, that Rodrigo had just as much to do with UGA’s success as any offensive, defensive or special teams teammates who are on scholarship – and certainly more to do with that success than the numerous scholarship players who do not play at all. Isn’t it difficult to rationalize having scholarship players sitting on the bench every game and a starter actually helping to win games on the field remaining a walk-on? And yet here Rodrigo is, an All-SEC performer who just triggered his tuition payment for spring semester.

If Coach Smart had simply said, whether truthfully or not, that it was a numbers issue, it would have been much better than the tearing-down tactic with our son sitting there beside us. For us, there exist no acceptable rationalizations or explanations for denying our son what he has deservedly earned: an athletic scholarship to continue playing football at the University of Georgia.

Sincerely,

Kicker’s Dad and Kicker’s Mom

 

Later in the day, Rodrigo himself took to Twitter to respond to the situation:

 

Dear Bulldog Nation, It is of the opinion of many of you that my performance this season has justified that I be placed on scholarship. It is of the opinion of many of you that my performance this season failed to justify a scholarship. My opinion of whether or not I feel a scholarship is warranted is rather irrelevant, therefore I will not voice my opinion on the matter. Georgia deserves the best players it can possibly find at every position and in order for this program to regain the national notoriety and respect that it so rightfully deserves, the program demands production short of impeccable. It is evident Georgia deserved better than what I was able to offer this season, and I would like to apologize for my clearly-defined deficiencies. I would also like to apologize for my father’s interactions with the media this season. He acted without my knowledge each time, and each incident was uncalled for.

I have received unwavering encouragement as well s my fair share of “constructive criticism from all of you this season and I hope that I will be fortunate enough to continue to receive support from the best fan base in the nation as we progress into the offseason and on into the next season. I hope that through this offseason I will develop into the kicker that Georgia expects of me. I love the University of Georgia with everything that I have to offer, and I will continue to grind and work to become the athlete that the team deserves in order to be as successful as possible. I appreciate the love and affection that I have come across throughout the course of this past season, and I hope that I can continue to earn everybody’s trust and patronage as we move forward. Sincerely, The Kicker.

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

News

  • Russia's opposition, often written off by critics as a small and irrelevant coterie of privileged urbanites, put on an impressive nationwide show of strength Sunday with scores of protest rallies spanning the vast country. Hundreds were arrested, including Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption campaigner who is President Vladimir Putin's most prominent critic. It was the biggest show of defiance since the 2011-2012 wave of demonstrations that rattled the Kremlin and led to harsh new laws aimed at suppressing dissent. Almost all of Sunday's rallies were unsanctioned, but thousands braved the prospect of arrests to gather in cities from the Far East port of Vladivostok to the 'window on the West' of St. Petersburg. An organization that monitors Russian political repression, OVD-Info, said it counted more than 800 people arrested in the Moscow demonstrations alone. That number could not be confirmed and state news agency Tass cited Moscow police as saying there were about 500 arrests. Navalny, who was arrested while walking from a nearby subway station to the demonstration at Moscow's iconic Pushkin Square, was the driving force of the demonstrations. He called for them after his Foundation for Fighting Corruption released a report contending that Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has amassed a collection of mansions, yachts and vineyards. Navalny is a persistent thorn in the Kremlin's side. He has served several short jail terms after arrests in previous protests and has twice been convicted in a fraud case, but given a suspended sentence. He intends to run for president in 2018 — an election in which Putin is widely expected to run for another term — even though the conviction technically disqualifies him. Putin has dominated Russian political life, as president or prime minister, since 2000. No overall figures on arrests or protest attendance were available. Some Russian state news media gave relatively cursory reports on the demonstrations; the state news TV channel Rossiya-24 ignored them altogether in evening broadcasts. Police estimated the Moscow crowd at about 7,000, but it could have been larger. The one-hectare (2.5-acre) Pushkin Square was densely crowded as were sidewalks on the adjacent Tverskaya Street. In St. Petersburg, about 5,000 protesters assembled in the Mars Field park, shouting slogans including 'Putin resign!' and 'Down with the thieves in the Kremlin!' Russia's beleaguered opposition is often seen as primarily a phenomenon of a Westernized urban elite, but Sunday's protests included gatherings in places far from cosmopolitan centers, such as Siberia's Chita and Barnaul. 'Navalny has united people who think the same; that people don't agree with the authorities is obvious from what is going on in the country today,' Anna Ivanova, 19, said at the Moscow demonstration. 'I am a bit scared.' Scuffles with police erupted sporadically and the arrested demonstrators included a gray-haired man whom police dragged along the pavement. Police cleared the square after about three hours and began herding demonstrators down side streets. 'It's scary, but if everyone is afraid, no one would come out onto the streets,' 19-year-old protester Yana Aksyonova said. The luxuries amassed by Medvedev include a house for raising ducks, so many placards in Sunday's protests featured mocking images of yellow duck toys. Some demonstrators carried running shoes — a reference to Navalny's assertion that tracking shipments of running shoes for Medvedev helped reveal his real-estate portfolio. Others showed up with their faces painted green, a reminder of a recent attack on Navalny in which an assailant threw a green antiseptic liquid onto his face. 'People are unhappy with the fact that there's been no investigation' of the corruption allegations, said Moscow protester Ivan Gronstein. There were no comments reported from Putin, Medvedev or other top Russian politicians, leaving in doubt what the Kremlin's strategy may be for countering the protests. Previous waves of demonstrations have dissipated through inertia or the intimidation of increasingly punitive measures; under a 2014 law, holding an unauthorized protest is punishable by 15 days in jail, or five years imprisonment for a third offense. In Vladivostok, police forcefully detained some demonstrators near the city's railway terminal, in one case falling down a small grassy slope as they wrestled with a detainee. News reports and social media reported demonstrations in large cities throughout the country, including Novosibirsk, Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk. At least 25 people were reported arrested in Vladivostok and 12 in Khabarovsk. About 40 people were detained in a small protest in the capital of Dagestan, a restive republic in the Russian Caucasus, according to Tass, ___= Irina Titova in St. Petersburg contributed to this report.
  • Knoxville Zoo officials are investigating why 33 reptiles, including three endangered species, died Wednesday.  Herpetologists came to work that morning to find a majority of the 52 animals housed in one of the reptile buildings dead. They immediately evacuated the snakes and lizards, giving them oxygen and checking their heartbeats with an ultrasound device. “This is a devastating and catastrophic loss to our zoo,” Lisa New, president at the zoo, told the Knoxville News Sentinel Saturday. “These animals were important ambassadors who helped so many people understand the role snakes and lizards play in the balance of nature.” >> Read more trending news Veterinarians from the zoo as well as from the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine are investigating the cause of death. “We also lost breeding programs for several endangered and threatened species,” she added. “It is especially difficult for our herpetologists who have dedicated their careers to caring for and advocating for these animals.” Three critically endangered species died; the Louisiana pine snake, the Catalina Island rattlesnake and the Aruba Island rattlesnake. The zoo’s forest cobra and albino Eastern diamondback rattlesnake also died. “We don't know exactly what occurred to cause this terrible event, but we do know it was isolated to a single building,” the zoo said in a post on Facebook. “We are continuing to investigate all the physical systems and conducting necropsies to see if we can gain any insight.”
  • The pilot of a single-engine plane that crashed into a Marietta house has been identified, officials say. Robert George Westlake, 78, of Atlanta, was killed Friday evening, when a Cessna Citation I aircraft went down near a home in the 100 block of Vistawood Drive in Marietta, Cobb County police spokesman Sgt. Dana Pierce said. No one else was on board. This was the third time in less than six weeks that federal officials investigated a deadly plane crash in or near metro Atlanta. The 1976 plane was en route to Fulton County Airport from Cincinnati, Ohio, Pierce said. Westlake radioed that he was having mechanical troubles moments before the crash, Pierce said. RELATED: Pilot killed after plane crashes near Cobb County house Flames from the crash spread to the home, setting it on fire, Channel 2 Action News reported. The residents, Norm and Barbara Keller, were at church at the time of the crash. No injuries were reported from the fire. 'From what it looks like at this point, it came over from the top of the house and landed in the front yard,' Danell Boyd of the Cobb County fire department told Channel 2. The crash site is near Kennesaw State University’s Fifth Third Bank Stadium and Town Center at Cobb. Smoke was visible from the stadium. Witnesses said the plane nose-dived to the ground, Channel 2 reported.  'I heard a swoosh and then a clap and an explosion and I pretty much knew before I looked outside that it was a plane crash,' said Joe Thomas, a resident in the area. The neighborhood will be blocked off while National Transportation Safety Board investigators look into the crash. On Feb. 16, a plane crash at the Barrow County airport killed two people on board. On March 4, the pilot was killed when a plane went down near the Cherokee County airport.
  • Alanna Smith's jumper with 23 seconds left capped Stanford's rally from a 16-point deficit in the second half, Erica McCall blocked a last-second shot and the Cardinal edged top-seeded Notre Dame 76-75 Sunday to reach its first Final Four since 2014. Brittany McPhee scored 27 as the second-seeded Cardinal (32-5) won its eighth in a row overall. This was the third straight year Stanford and Notre Dame have met in the NCAA Tournament, with the Cardinal winning twice. Down 47-31 in the third quarter, Stanford surged to end Notre Dame's 17-game winning streak. The Irish (33-4) had a final shot, but McCall blocked Arike Ogunbowale's drive near the basket. The win in the Lexington Regional gives Stanford a chance to pursue its third national championship under coach Tara VanDerveer. Among those in the crowd at Rupp Arena was Jon Samuelson, whose daughter, Karlie, scored 15 for Stanford. A day earlier, he was at the Bridgeport Regional to see another daughter, UConn star Katie Lou Samuelson, help the Huskies win their 110th straight game. Smith finished with 15 points. Ogunbowale had 25 and Marina Mabrey 20 for Notre Dame, which had sought its sixth Final Four in seven seasons. After driving for a basket with 51 seconds left, Smith added her biggest shot for the go-ahead score. Stanford then denied Notre Dame's Lindsay Allen and Ogunbowale on successive attempts in the final 15 seconds to spark a wild celebration. THE BIG PICTURE Stanford once again proved no deficit was too big to overcome. The Cardinal shot 12 of 26 on 3-pointers, Samuelson and McPhee each making five. Not bad, considering Stanford shot 2 of 15 overall in the second quarter while getting outscored 23-7. ... McCall had 15 rebounds. Notre Dame seemed to do everything right for most of the game but couldn't stop Stanford's perimeter game in the second half. The Irish also made just 11 of 31 shots after halftime and were topped 33-32 on the boards. UP NEXT Stanford faces the South Carolina-Florida State winner in the Final Four in Dallas next weekend.