Marquette identified as school voting down multi-year scholarships

[Hoopaloop]

I agree with MU's position.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7392725/schools-object-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan

The list of schools objecting to the multi-year scholarship plan, obtained by Dennie and provided to The Associated Press, includes Boise State, Boston University, Indiana State, Marquette, Marshall, Rutgers, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming.

[Tugg Speedman]

+1
I also agree with MU's position too

More from the article ....


Boise State called the move a "recruiting disaster" that would encourage a "culture of brokering" and pit wealthy schools with larger recruiting budgets against their less well-heeled brethren, while also obligating schools to long-term commitments that may not make competitive sense.

"There is never a guarantee that the incoming student-athlete will be a good fit for the program and the institution," the school wrote in its override request. "If it is a poor fit, the program is put in a difficult situation to continue to keep a student-athlete on scholarship."

Indiana State offered a more blunt assessment, suggesting the change could "create some real nightmares."

The "problem is, many coaches, especially at the (Football Championship Subdivision) level, in all sports, are usually not around for five years and when the coach leaves, the new coach and institution may be `stuck' with a student-athlete they no longer want (conduct issues, grades, etc.) or the new coach may have a completely different style of offense/defense that the student-athlete no longer fits into," the school wrote. "Yet, the institution is `locked in' to a five-year contract potentially with someone that is of no athletic usefulness to the program."

"The current system works. We don't need to get into bidding wars where one school offers a 75 percent (scholarship) for two years and the other school then offers 85 percent for three years, etc., etc. This puts the kid into a situation where they almost need an agent/advisor just to determine the best "deal." Again, if it isn't broke, don't fix it."

[rocky_warrior]

Well, I mostly agree that the one-year renewable rule is fine, except if a school wants to "cut" an athlete, I think they should be forced to at least offer them a full academic scholarship as long as grades meet the NCAA requirements they were admitted with.

I know it's largely a farce, but there should be a focus on academics, and this gives the athlete a choice of either trying to find another school that wants them to play sports, or stay at their current school and get a degree without playing sports.

Just my opinion.

[77ncaachamps]

Why would a coach stupidly do this?!?


Earlier this month, former Missouri women's soccer player Ann Alexandra Charlebois sued coach Brian Blitz and the university's governing board, claiming that she agreed to attend Missouri only after Blitz vowed in writing to provide more than $106,000 in support through 2015, with the player and her family needing to contribute only half of her college costs in her first year.

Charlebois received a 50 percent partial scholarship in 2010 as a freshman. After complaining about receiving a similar amount of financial aid this year, she was kicked off the team in September, her attorney said.


Look at the schools cited alongside MU. mid majors, smaller schools.

Must be the sign of the times: shrinking middle class, even in D1 sports.

#occupyNCAA?

[Lennys Tap]

Why would a coach stupidly do this?!?




Look at the schools cited alongside MU. mid majors, smaller schools.

Must be the sign of the times: shrinking middle class, even in D1 sports.

#occupyNCAA?

Wonder how the People's Republic of Madison feels about being one percenters,

[Tugg Speedman]

Look at the schools cited alongside MU. mid majors, smaller schools.

Must be the sign of the times: shrinking middle class, even in D1 sports.

#occupyNCAA?

The article says at least 75 schools were in agreement but only listed a few names

[martyconlonontherun]

Well, I mostly agree that the one-year renewable rule is fine, except if a school wants to "cut" an athlete, I think they should be forced to at least offer them a full academic scholarship as long as grades meet the NCAA requirements they were admitted with.

I know it's largely a farce, but there should be a focus on academics, and this gives the athlete a choice of either trying to find another school that wants them to play sports, or stay at their current school and get a degree without playing sports.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you, Rocky. Obviously, there should be plenty of exceptions for grades, team violations, legal trouble, etc that could be sent to the NCAA, but I think if you promise a 18 year old a college scholarship for 4 years (I'm sure any recruit thinks its implied that they are being recruited for their whole term.) you should stick to the promise.

At the very least, if a player doesn't have his scholarship renewed the school should lose that scholarship for a year. If a player has to sit out for backing out of the commitment, then the school should be punished when they want out. This would limit "roster cuts/oversignings" and schools would only use it on bad-character players they don't want on their team.

[TJ]

Why would a coach stupidly do this?!?


Earlier this month, former Missouri women's soccer player Ann Alexandra Charlebois sued coach Brian Blitz and the university's governing board, claiming that she agreed to attend Missouri only after Blitz vowed in writing to provide more than $106,000 in support through 2015, with the player and her family needing to contribute only half of her college costs in her first year.

Charlebois received a 50 percent partial scholarship in 2010 as a freshman. After complaining about receiving a similar amount of financial aid this year, she was kicked off the team in September, her attorney said.


Look at the schools cited alongside MU. mid majors, smaller schools.

Must be the sign of the times: shrinking middle class, even in D1 sports.

#occupyNCAA?

Shrinking middle class ESPECIALLY in D1 sports.  It's becoming more and more of a haves vs. have nots every year with all the changes taking place.

[TJ]

I agree with you, Rocky. Obviously, there should be plenty of exceptions for grades, team violations, legal trouble, etc that could be sent to the NCAA, but I think if you promise a 18 year old a college scholarship for 4 years (I'm sure any recruit thinks its implied that they are being recruited for their whole term.) you should stick to the promise.

At the very least, if a player doesn't have his scholarship renewed the school should lose that scholarship for a year. If a player has to sit out for backing out of the commitment, then the school should be punished when they want out. This would limit "roster cuts/oversignings" and schools would only use it on bad-character players they don't want on their team.

I agree as well and I like this idea a lot.

My two cents is that the player shouldn't be forced to sit out a year with his "transfer" when he is cut - which is currently what happens.  It's ridiculous and the only reason I can think of is to prevent "embarrassment" to the player since there's no need to be public with the fact that the player is cut right now since it makes no difference in the player's "punishment" for transferring.

[Brewtown Andy]

Why would a coach stupidly do this?!?


Earlier this month, former Missouri women's soccer player Ann Alexandra Charlebois sued coach Brian Blitz and the university's governing board, claiming that she agreed to attend Missouri only after Blitz vowed in writing to provide more than $106,000 in support through 2015, with the player and her family needing to contribute only half of her college costs in her first year.

Charlebois received a 50 percent partial scholarship in 2010 as a freshman. After complaining about receiving a similar amount of financial aid this year, she was kicked off the team in September, her attorney said.

Remember that women's soccer isn't a headcount sport. They only get something like 12 scholarships to spread across the entire team.

[NCAARules]

Remember that women's soccer isn't a headcount sport. They only get something like 12 scholarships to spread across the entire team.

I think it's more likely that 77 is asking why would you promise this, and the answer is, you wouldn't.

I've seen coaches frequently lay out partial scholarships over the potential academic career of a recruit to help bolster the numbers. They do this in a document using a year-by-year breakdown, and have sufficient disclaimers on the page to make sure they haven't crossed the line of offering a multi-year scholarship (plus that page is typically never signed by anyone).

Also - note that the promise and numbers the family is using are for a five-year plan: 2010-2015. Which could probably be reached by being a .5 in the first two years and a 1.0 the rest of the way.

[77ncaachamps]

I think it's more likely that 77 is asking why would you promise this, and the answer is, you wouldn't.

I've seen coaches frequently lay out partial scholarships over the potential academic career of a recruit to help bolster the numbers. They do this in a document using a year-by-year breakdown, and have sufficient disclaimers on the page to make sure they haven't crossed the line of offering a multi-year scholarship (plus that page is typically never signed by anyone).

Also - note that the promise and numbers the family is using are for a five-year plan: 2010-2015. Which could probably be reached by being a .5 in the first two years and a 1.0 the rest of the way.

Thank you for the info. Didn't know that.

[Dawson Rental]

I agree with MU's position.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7392725/schools-object-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan

The list of schools objecting to the multi-year scholarship plan, obtained by Dennie and provided to The Associated Press, includes Boise State, Boston University, Indiana State, Marquette, Marshall, Rutgers, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming.

I recognize that MU's position is in the best interests of NCAA member schools.  By protecting the schools, it's, pretty much by definition, screwing the "scholar-athletes" the NCAA is so proud of talking about.  Adopting this rule would likely lead to the NCAA having to expand the number of scholarships schools would be allowed to give since schools would be forced to carry "dead weight" they would have cut from the team in the past.  multi-year scholarships would also also certainly lead to NCAA embarrassment when stories got out of how creative schools would get at discouraging unwanted multi-year scholarship players from returning to the school.

[Hoopaloop]

Looks like Marquette lost out on this.  We were one of the schools that objected to multi-year scholarships but the legislation passed the NCAA narrowly yesterday by two votes.

Schools can now give multi-year scholarships.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-02-17/multiyear-scholarships-survives-close-vote/53137194/1

[Tugg Speedman]

If I'm reading this correctly, a majority of schools are against it (205 of 330).  But 5/8s voting no was needed to stop it (207).

This issue is not over if that many are against it.