Schools have had the ability to do this, but few were. Marquette actually voted against this legislation a few years ago.
USC made the announcement today. Could be a recruiting advantage for them as kids would be guaranteed a spot. Of course, if the kid doesn't work out the coach can still make like very unpleasant, so could be absolutely nothing. Interesting to see what other schools do in response.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2014, 09:18:36 PM
Schools have had the ability to do this, but few were. Marquette actually voted against this legislation a few years ago.
USC made the announcement today. Could be a recruiting advantage for them as kids would be guaranteed a spot. Of course, if the kid doesn't work out the coach can still make like very unpleasant, so could be absolutely nothing. Interesting to see what other schools do in response.
Our of 85 football and 13 basketball scholarships, on average how many kids are actually not renewed among major conferences?
Quote from: Texas Western on June 23, 2014, 09:29:02 PM
Our of 85 football and 13 basketball scholarships, on average how many kids are actually not renewed among major conferences?
Don't know, but certainly some that transfer are because the coach says you will not be able to play any longer here. Buzz Cut, Creaning, etc. Others transfer for their own reasons and the coaches aren't happy. The number isn't 0, its certainly enough that many schools haven't wanted to do this, mostly because they are afraid that they have overvalued a kid out of school who doesn't turn out to be that great.
Let's put it this way, I don't expect TC or Brent to be offering 4 year scholarships anytime soon. Perhaps they will surprise me. This is a pretty big move by USC, even if it is mostly a PR play.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2014, 09:18:36 PM
Schools have had the ability to do this, but few were. Marquette actually voted against this legislation a few years ago.
USC made the announcement today. Could be a recruiting advantage for them as kids would be guaranteed a spot. Of course, if the kid doesn't work out the coach can still make like very unpleasant, so could be absolutely nothing. Interesting to see what other schools do in response.
Interesting, indeed, and you're right. Instead of simply not renewing, now a coach will likely ride a kid unmercifully to try to make him leave "on his own". Unintended consequences may make this a solution worse than the problem.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2014, 09:33:51 PM
Don't know, but certainly some that transfer are because the coach says you will not be able to play any longer here. Buzz Cut, Creaning, etc. Others transfer for their own reasons and the coaches aren't happy. The number isn't 0, its certainly enough that many schools haven't wanted to do this, mostly because they are afraid that they have overvalued a kid out of school who doesn't turn out to be that great.
Let's put it this way, I don't expect TC or Brent to be offering 4 year scholarships anytime soon. Perhaps they will surprise me. This is a pretty big move by USC, even if it is mostly a PR play.
In this ESPN video interview, they mention that Northwestern gives all 19 sports they have four year deals.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/college-sports/story/_/id/11123599/usc-trojans-offer-four-year-scholarships-basketball-football
If we did this for all our sports I think it would give us a leg up on recruiting in the non revenue sports for sure. I imagine most basketball recruits are coming here to with the intention to start and do well not just occupy a scholarship. If they don't they transfer to a better situation. So I am not sure it will make a difference for us. But if enough people do it we probably have to keep up with the Jone's so to speak.
Quote from: Texas Western on June 23, 2014, 09:43:06 PM
In this ESPN video interview, they mention that Northwestern gives all 19 sports they have four year deals.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/college-sports/story/_/id/11123599/usc-trojans-offer-four-year-scholarships-basketball-football
If we did this for all our sports I think it would give us a leg up on recruiting in the non revenue sports for sure. I imagine most basketball recruits are coming here to with the intention to start and do well not just occupy a scholarship. If they don't they transfer to a better situation. So I am not sure it will make a difference for us. But if enough people do it we probably have to keep up with the Jone's so to speak.
I can see both sides of this equation. One thing that likely will happen, a prospective student athlete will say "hey MU, I got a 4 year ride from Notre Dame, are you going to give me a 4 year or one year?" Those discussions will start to come up if more schools go this approach.
Wasn't aware that Northwestern did this, though it doesn't surprise me. I suspect Stanford may as well, but I'd have to look it up.
I recall the legislation barely passing the NCAA membership with MU being one of the institutions against.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7392725/schools-object-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan
I think a school would have more credibility if they said we are offering 4 year scholarships AND we will not over-sign our scholarship situation. Yes, I know, they have knowledge of some kids leaving on their own recognizance and thus should be allowed to over-sign.
That said, I wouldn't trust this supposed 4 year deal unless the school never over-signed.
I have first hand knowledge of a Pac 10 team giving a 5 years scholarship for a non-football. basketball sport.
Personally, I don't like 4 year scholarships. It puts too much risk on the school. Like it or not, scholarships are earned, not given. Academic scholarships require a certain level of performance in the classroom, athletic scholarship require a certain level of performance on the court/field/rink/etc. Schools should have the right to remove a scholarship if certain expectations aren't being met.
It might not be pretty, but it's more in line with what these kids will experience in the real world.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 24, 2014, 12:28:08 AM
Personally, I don't like 4 year scholarships. It puts too much risk on the school. Like it or not, scholarships are earned, not given. Academic scholarships require a certain level of performance in the classroom, athletic scholarship require a certain level of performance on the court/field/rink/etc. Schools should have the right to remove a scholarship if certain expectations aren't being met.
It might not be pretty, but it's more in line with what these kids will experience in the real world.
Supply and Demand should govern this.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 24, 2014, 12:28:08 AM
Personally, I don't like 4 year scholarships. It puts too much risk on the school. Like it or not, scholarships are earned, not given. Academic scholarships require a certain level of performance in the classroom, athletic scholarship require a certain level of performance on the court/field/rink/etc. Schools should have the right to remove a scholarship if certain expectations aren't being met.
It might not be pretty, but it's more in line with what these kids will experience in the real world.
Depends, maybe they will be tenured or in a union or are under contract. Lots of people in the real world have that "exposure" as well.
I can see both sides of the argument. I have no doubt some schools will use this to positively leverage themselves to recruit some kids. They would be fools not too. It could also backfired on them.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 24, 2014, 12:28:08 AM
Personally, I don't like 4 year scholarships. It puts too much risk on the school. Like it or not, scholarships are earned, not given. Academic scholarships require a certain level of performance in the classroom, athletic scholarship require a certain level of performance on the court/field/rink/etc. Schools should have the right to remove a scholarship if certain expectations aren't being met.
It might not be pretty, but it's more in line with what these kids will experience in the real world.
1) If the scholarships are 1 year renewable then if a player's scholarship is not renewed by the coach/university then he should be able to transfer without penalty (i.e. play right away).
2) I might be ok with what you said if they made it a 2 way street. Universities should be held to a certain standard as well and if they are not living up to their end of the bargain then kids should be able to transfer without penalty. I realize the difficulty of implementing and enforcing, not to mention that the universities themselves would have to create a rule that they wouldn't want created, will mean this never happens.
3) Why do you care if 4 year scholarships exist? Schools aren't being forced to give them out. If individual schools want to take on the risk you described that is their decision. It allows a player to weigh his options as well... "School A is better but riskier; School B offered me a 4 year so I have stability." Let the market do what it wants, right?
Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 01:43:56 AM
1) If the scholarships are 1 year renewable then if a player's scholarship is not renewed by the coach/university then he should be able to transfer without penalty (i.e. play right away).
I really, really like that idea. Much more like the "real world."
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 24, 2014, 08:24:46 AM
I really, really like that idea. Much more like the "real world."
If I may, let me offer a counter point to you and TJ on this.
On the surface, sounds like a decent idea. Suppose this happens. Player agrees to 1 year scholarship as outlined in #1 by TJ. Midway through the year the kid isn't putting the work that needs to be done and the coach is riding him hard, but coach feels there is potential. Typical high school kid that didn't need to work that hard to be good in high school adjustment period.
Kid doesn't get it, however, and he's mad at the world. He's decided he's going to force coach's hand, because kid knows he has a free transfer with no penalty at the end of the year under this scenario you guys like. So he decides to be a cancer on the team, because the only way to get that free transfer is if the SCHOOL releases him, not if he chooses. So he does everything in his power to disrupt, destroy chemistry, come late to practices, bad mouth the staff, etc. And he is rewarded for this behavior by not having to sit out a year while potentially screwing up his current team's chances.
Thoughts?
Sounds a lot like what a certain coach we all know executed last year. Just replace coach with administration and you are golden.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
If I may, let me offer a counter point to you and TJ on this.
On the surface, sounds like a decent idea. Suppose this happens. Player agrees to 1 year scholarship as outlined in #1 by TJ. Midway through the year the kid isn't putting the work that needs to be done and the coach is riding him hard, but coach feels there is potential. Typical high school kid that didn't need to work that hard to be good in high school adjustment period.
Kid doesn't get it, however, and he's mad at the world. He's decided he's going to force coach's hand, because kid knows he has a free transfer with no penalty at the end of the year under this scenario you guys like. So he decides to be a cancer on the team, because the only way to get that free transfer is if the SCHOOL releases him, not if he chooses. So he does everything in his power to disrupt, destroy chemistry, come late to practices, bad mouth the staff, etc. And he is rewarded for this behavior by not having to sit out a year while potentially screwing up his current team's chances.
Thoughts?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
If I may, let me offer a counter point to you and TJ on this.
On the surface, sounds like a decent idea. Suppose this happens. Player agrees to 1 year scholarship as outlined in #1 by TJ. Midway through the year the kid isn't putting the work that needs to be done and the coach is riding him hard, but coach feels there is potential. Typical high school kid that didn't need to work that hard to be good in high school adjustment period.
Kid doesn't get it, however, and he's mad at the world. He's decided he's going to force coach's hand, because kid knows he has a free transfer with no penalty at the end of the year under this scenario you guys like. So he decides to be a cancer on the team, because the only way to get that free transfer is if the SCHOOL releases him, not if he chooses. So he does everything in his power to disrupt, destroy chemistry, come late to practices, bad mouth the staff, etc. And he is rewarded for this behavior by not having to sit out a year while potentially screwing up his current team's chances.
I would support that the school doesn't need to release him. It's entirely up to the student athlete.
So if the student athlete accepts a four year scholarship, they can still transfer but only with the current restrictions in place. (ie, they would have to wait a year.) If they only offer a one year scholarship, they are essentially a free agent after that year.
Can't support free agency in any form and thankfully the NCAA isn't going to either.
Thanks for thoughts
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 10:27:24 AM
Can't support free agency in any form and thankfully the NCAA isn't going to either.
Clearly they aren't...that's part of the problem. We hear all about how the school is going to develop the player and that they are in it for the long term. That's great! Give them the four year scholarship to prove it. If the school is only willing to make a one year commitment, the student athlete should get the same benefits from that transaction.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 24, 2014, 10:30:43 AM
Clearly they aren't...that's part of the problem. We hear all about how the school is going to develop the player and that they are in it for the long term. That's great! Give them the four year scholarship to prove it. If the school is only willing to make a one year commitment, the student athlete should get the same benefits from that transaction.
I believe Tom Izzo stated it best. These kids have been pampered their whole lives, the going gets tough for one semester and they want to quit. That's not the real world either. I agree with him.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 11:09:33 AM
I believe Tom Izzo stated it best. These kids have been pampered their whole lives, the going gets tough for one semester and they want to quit. That's not the real world either. I agree with him.
Quitting is part of the real world too. Let them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
If I may, let me offer a counter point to you and TJ on this.
On the surface, sounds like a decent idea. Suppose this happens. Player agrees to 1 year scholarship as outlined in #1 by TJ. Midway through the year the kid isn't putting the work that needs to be done and the coach is riding him hard, but coach feels there is potential. Typical high school kid that didn't need to work that hard to be good in high school adjustment period.
Kid doesn't get it, however, and he's mad at the world. He's decided he's going to force coach's hand, because kid knows he has a free transfer with no penalty at the end of the year under this scenario you guys like. So he decides to be a cancer on the team, because the only way to get that free transfer is if the SCHOOL releases him, not if he chooses. So he does everything in his power to disrupt, destroy chemistry, come late to practices, bad mouth the staff, etc. And he is rewarded for this behavior by not having to sit out a year while potentially screwing up his current team's chances.
Thoughts?
In this situation why wouldn't a school want a kid to have
every incentive to leave? Including immediate eligibility elsewhere? Do you really think that such a kid will transfer elsewhere and transform into a model citizen?
Huge institutions that have banded together through agreements that are not subject to antitrust restrictions being victimized by individual 19 year olds. Really???
And why would such a kid find a landing place? Greed over honor, baby. By another fellow school.
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 24, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
In this situation why wouldn't a school want a kid to have every incentive to leave? Including immediate eligibility elsewhere? Do you really think that such a kid will transfer elsewhere and transform into a model citizen?
Huge institutions that have banded together through agreements that are not subject to antitrust restrictions being victimized by individual 19 year olds. Really???
And why would such a kid find a landing place? Greed over honor, baby. By another fellow school.
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior. Part of the point of having to sit out a year is to have a ramification or consequence in doing so. Teaching someone you don't just get to run for the hills every time you don't get your way. In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not. There are ramifications for quitting.
It's not a matter of the kid transforming into a model citizen. The kid might have been a decent citizen from the start, but is rewarded by forcing a coach's hand. It happens already in some situations. Hell, it happens in the real world. A guy wants to quit, but can't because he won't get unemployment benefits. Boss says too bad, don't like it, quit. Employee basically works the system until he is let go so he can get those benefits, forces their hand. It happens. Obviously the employee can't just stop doing the work, then again neither will the student athlete. Don't think this happens?
http://finance.youngmoney.com/careers/get-fired-and-still-qualify-for-unemployment/comment-page-1/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior. Part of the point of having to sit out a year is to have a ramification or consequence in doing so. Teaching someone you don't just get to run for the hills every time you don't get your way. In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not. There are ramifications for quitting.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but the issue is that the transaction isn't equal. Even if the player comes in and is a model citizen, but simply not very good at basketball, the college can dump the player after one year and turn around and use that scholarship on someone else immediately.
If a player makes a bad choice, his consequences are greater than if a school does.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
Kid doesn't get it, however, and he's mad at the world. He's decided he's going to force coach's hand, because kid knows he has a free transfer with no penalty at the end of the year under this scenario you guys like. So he decides to be a cancer on the team, because the only way to get that free transfer is if the SCHOOL releases him, not if he chooses. So he does everything in his power to disrupt, destroy chemistry, come late to practices, bad mouth the staff, etc. And he is rewarded for this behavior by not having to sit out a year while potentially screwing up his current team's chances.
Thoughts?
I think the answer is that if/when it becomes clear the kid isn't putting in the work, the coach just kicks the kid off the team and out of the team dorms. No team meetings, no practices...no opportunity to be a cancer on the team. You can finish the school year off, but you're no more part of the team than any of the other 10,000 students.
One year scholarship should be renewable by either party. Want a 4 year schollie? Fine, you can't play for another school for the length of the scholarship and it counts against the school for all 4 years whether you play or not. Have two and three year scholarships with the same restrictions. Have an appeal process where the kid gets to stay on scholarship but not count against the team to cover career ending injuries. More choice and everyone plays by the same fair rules.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior.
If this happens I would fire the coach - still sounding very familiar to a recent situation.
It is in the best interest of the kids to play often and play well correct - they have a max amount of years to make a name? Burning bridges is a reality in business, but there is a reason very few do it. People willing to be malcontents have proven that they are just malcontents - not cunning self-interested stars.
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 24, 2014, 01:02:45 PM
If this happens I would fire the coach - still sounding very familiar to a recent situation.
It is in the best interest of the kids to play often and play well correct - they have a max amount of years to make a name? Burning bridges is a reality in business, but there is a reason very few do it. People willing to be malcontents have proven that they are just malcontents - not cunning self-interested stars.
In the business world, yes. In the sports world, not as clear cut. Teams and organizations bend over backwards to get a talented player, often regardless of his past because he's a stud player. The examples are endless. Attitude problem...big deal. Poor teammate...we can make him change. Selfish...in my program he will learn not to be. Etc, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 24, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Because if you reward that behavior, you could have 2, 3, 4, 5 kids on any give team destroying your current team knowing they are going to be rewarded for their behavior. Part of the point of having to sit out a year is to have a ramification or consequence in doing so. Teaching someone you don't just get to run for the hills every time you don't get your way. In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not. There are ramifications for quitting.
It's not a matter of the kid transforming into a model citizen. The kid might have been a decent citizen from the start, but is rewarded by forcing a coach's hand. It happens already in some situations. Hell, it happens in the real world. A guy wants to quit, but can't because he won't get unemployment benefits. Boss says too bad, don't like it, quit. Employee basically works the system until he is let go so he can get those benefits, forces their hand. It happens. Obviously the employee can't just stop doing the work, then again neither will the student athlete. Don't think this happens?
http://finance.youngmoney.com/careers/get-fired-and-still-qualify-for-unemployment/comment-page-1/
First of all, I never said the kid can quit. I said IF the school/coach decides not to renew his scholarship the player should not be punished by having to sit out a year. This is not free agency - the kid does not have the option to cancel the scholarship himself. That pipe dream was item 2 in my first post and it will NEVER happen.
Second, "In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not. There are ramifications for quitting." -- this is the real world and that kid might not get another gig either. No one is forcing the other member institutions to offer the kid a scholarship... if the behavior is that bad then there is a chance that they won't. Either way it'll be rare that a kid leaves under this rule for a
better school. The world will know that he was cut from his team.
Third, you're creating an extreme hypothetical and I agree with LittleMurs response:
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 24, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
Huge institutions that have banded together through agreements that are not subject to antitrust restrictions being victimized by individual 19 year olds. Really???
I'm sure that some kids will take advantage of the loophole, but not many. Very few (none) are going to be released and then go to a
better school. Most (all) will have to play the following year at a
lesser institution. I'm not as worried about the few potential problems as I am about the many potential benefactors.
Why are you always so concerned that the big bad 19 year olds might do something to hurt the poor giant institutions with all the power?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 24, 2014, 10:30:43 AM
Clearly they aren't...that's part of the problem. We hear all about how the school is going to develop the player and that they are in it for the long term. That's great! Give them the four year scholarship to prove it. If the school is only willing to make a one year commitment, the student athlete should get the same benefits from that transaction.
This is not to support of condemn your comments, but I was not suggesting that the player be allowed to terminate the scholarship. Only that the player not be punished by having to sit out a year if the school/coach terminates the scholarship.
Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 03:48:25 PM
This is not to support of condemn your comments, but I was not suggesting that the player be allowed to terminate the scholarship. Only that the player not be punished by having to sit out a year if the school/coach terminates the scholarship.
Actually I agree with you 100%. View the scholarship term like a contract term. Once it is done, the player can go where they want.
Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 03:41:24 PM
First of all, I never said the kid can quit. I said IF the school/coach decides not to renew his scholarship the player should not be punished by having to sit out a year. This is not free agency - the kid does not have the option to cancel the scholarship himself. That pipe dream was item 2 in my first post and it will NEVER happen.
Second, "In the real world, you can quit and IF you are lucky you might have another gig lined up that is comparable, but you might not. There are ramifications for quitting." -- this is the real world and that kid might not get another gig either. No one is forcing the other member institutions to offer the kid a scholarship... if the behavior is that bad then there is a chance that they won't. Either way it'll be rare that a kid leaves under this rule for a better school. The world will know that he was cut from his team.
Third, you're creating an extreme hypothetical and I agree with LittleMurs response: I'm sure that some kids will take advantage of the loophole, but not many. Very few (none) are going to be released and then go to a better school. Most (all) will have to play the following year at a lesser institution. I'm not as worried about the few potential problems as I am about the many potential benefactors.
Why are you always so concerned that the big bad 19 year olds might do something to hurt the poor giant institutions with all the power?
I don't think it's an extreme hypothetical at all. If the loophole is there, one will exploit it. That's what people do.
As for others offering the kid, it doesn't have to be "that bad" of behavior, only enough to make it unpleasant to the coach. Hell, he could go to the coach and not behave badly at all and just imply that he will. "Hey coach, I want out but the only way I can transfer without having to sit a year is if you give me a release. Either you give me that release or I'm going to make life unpleasant for this team. Your call". Merely the threat and you've put the coach in a tough spot.
Those poor giant institutions are the ones providing the $$$, the scholarship, the room and board, the training, etc...they are the one taking a risk and investment on these student athletes. That's why.
The idea that they will go to a lesser school is completely turned upside down in free agency. You now provide reason for kids to switch immediately and for schools to take those kids, when if a kid transfers and sits, they may not be willing to wait. Plus, on what grounds are you saying they usually go to a lesser school? Certainly a number of them do, that's typically because they were not as good as they thought they were, but plenty go to an equal or greater school. MU has benefited from this in the last few years alone in a true "free agency" type approach with the graduate transfer rules.
Quote from: TJ on June 24, 2014, 01:43:56 AM
1) If the scholarships are 1 year renewable then if a player's scholarship is not renewed by the coach/university then he should be able to transfer without penalty (i.e. play right away).
2) I might be ok with what you said if they made it a 2 way street. Universities should be held to a certain standard as well and if they are not living up to their end of the bargain then kids should be able to transfer without penalty. I realize the difficulty of implementing and enforcing, not to mention that the universities themselves would have to create a rule that they wouldn't want created, will mean this never happens.
3) Why do you care if 4 year scholarships exist? Schools aren't being forced to give them out. If individual schools want to take on the risk you described that is their decision. It allows a player to weigh his options as well... "School A is better but riskier; School B offered me a 4 year so I have stability." Let the market do what it wants, right?
I actually agree with everything you just said. I think players should be able to transfer without penalty. I think an argument can be made for not letting them transfer in conference or to a rival. But other than that I think they should be able to transfer instantly
I also don't care that 4 year scholarships exist. I just don't think I would ever utilize one if I was a coach. Unless I was at a mid major and I was going after a top 50 kid.