USC announced today they are offering 4 year scholarships for bball, football

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Texas Western]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Texas Western]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

I have first hand knowledge of a Pac 10 team giving  a 5 years scholarship for a non-football. basketball sport.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[keefe]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[TJ]

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?

[GGGG]

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."

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Sounds a lot like what a certain coach we all know executed last year.  Just replace coach with administration and you are golden.

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Can't support free agency in any form and thankfully the NCAA isn't going to either.

Thanks for thoughts

[GGGG]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[GGGG]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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/

[GGGG]

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. 

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.