Should Players Get a 4 Year Scholarship?

[Ace Dad]

An earlier thread evolved into a discussion of coaches "running off" players. Some views said that a player signed should be kept on scholarship, even if he does not work out. Other views said that if a player does not meet the coaching staff's expectations, the scholarship should be revoked, similar to academic scholarships when a student is not meeting the standard.


http://www.cbssports.com/print/collegef ... holarships


With NCAA legislation pending approval, some schools gave their newest classes of incoming football recruits four-year scholarships on Wednesday.

Among the schools that confirmed on national signing day they would be giving out scholarships that no longer have to be renewed annually were Ohio State, Auburn, Michigan, Michigan State, Florida and Nebraska.

During the NCAA convention last month, 82 schools asked the board to reconsider the rule, but it’s unlikely to go away.

The board voted unanimously to back the original proposal, sending the legislation to the full membership for an up-or-down online vote in February.

Under the pending legislation, athletes would not be in danger of losing their scholarships based solely on athletic performance.

“I felt, if we recruit a young man and we put our trust in him as an individual, that he deserves the opportunity to come here and play for four years,” Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio. “We’ve never cut anybody off a scholarship here for not playing well enough.”

[Snaggletooth]

There are no free rides. Those who have academic scholarships in college have to meet certain expectations to keep/renew them each year. Athletes shouldn't be any different. Of course, I do think coaches should be honorable - if a player is doing everything expected you should show some loyalty. I do realize in today world there is very little loyalty (by both employees and employers).

[Aargh]

I think this is one of the worst things the NCAA has done. "You get a 4-year ride" is a powerful recruiting tool. If one school offers it and another doesn't, the school offering it has a recruiting advantage.

There is no coach who will not run the player, if the player doesn't work out. The player will have the option of sitting on the bench his entire career and being the tackling dummy in practices. Add in coaches' verbal abuse of underachievers and it will be a miserable 3 or 4 years for a player who signed a 4-year deal and the coach changed his mind.

From the players' perspective - he's guaranteed 4 years. He can't be cut. Why bust butt? That's a real easy trap for an 18-year-old to fall into. The last thing a college coach wants to do is to make it easier for a prima donna to feel even more special. I can see where the graduation rate for 4-year scholarship players could be lower than those who have year-to-year schollies.

[TylerDurden]

The implication of four-year deals in football is a different one than it is in basketball. 85 scholarships vs. 13 scholarships is a huge difference when you're locked in for four years (among the full-ride men's sports).

You can miss during player evaluation much more in football and still maintain an elite program. Not so much in hoops, especially a a mid-major level.

It wouldn't work well in other sports where only partial scholarships are awarded.

Of course from a player's perspective (and their family's) it's a great thing. However, I doubt "running off" players would stop, even if four-year scholarships are awarded.

[pafan]

When Ben Jacobson shows up at some high school gym in Ames to personally watch the signing of an NLI, what exactly is that 17-year-old kid committing to?

Is he pledging to play for UNI until Jake gets his Gonzaga money?
Is he pledging to play for UNI until Daddy comes along with a better offer?
Is he pledging to play for UNI until the Panthers are no longer a first-tier mid-major squad?

I'm pretty sure its none of these.

If Jake quits tomorrow and UNI decides Chris Lowery would be the proper replacement, the players are mostly stuck because of the NCAA's transfer rules.

So how about this rule: If a coach decides to not renew a scholarship, the school must continue to provide that student-athlete with the same level of free services for 12 months if (s)he chooses to remain enrolled at the school, although (s)he will not be counted against the scholarship limit and would not be permitted to participate in the team (s)he had been a member of in any official capacity.

[Khan4Cats]

How is offering a 4-year scholarship any more of an advantage than offering an additional cash stipend above scholarship costs for "extra costs." I think both changes are good as it allows schools to decide which way they want to operate. Obviously, some schools will be able to do both, but will they want to lock themselves in to 4 years and extra money? I know a school like UNI won't be able to afford the extra cash, but I think we could and would offer the 4-year option. Yes, there is a risk that the player doesn't pan out, but we have to do that now anyways. We are taking chances on kids with skill sets and hoping we can develop them into more with 4-5 years in the program.

I think there is a much greater problem of oversigning going on in college athletics (often to deny a competitor a recruit) and then cutting players after you have had them in and often used their redshirt year that they could use to transfer without losing game eligibility. If a player isn't going to cut it and knows they are going to be sitting on the bench in their junior and senior years, I think more will decide to leave if they are really more concerned with PT. If they are concerned about getting the free ride, then there will still be expectations (academic, practice, team conduct, etc.) that they will have to abide by or face being cut for disciplinary reasons.

[Khan4Cats]

When Ben Jacobson shows up at some high school gym in Ames to personally watch the signing of an NLI, what exactly is that 17-year-old kid committing to?

Is he pledging to play for UNI until Jake gets his Gonzaga money?
Is he pledging to play for UNI until Daddy comes along with a better offer?
Is he pledging to play for UNI until the Panthers are no longer a first-tier mid-major squad?

I'm pretty sure its none of these.

If Jake quits tomorrow and UNI decides Chris Lowery would be the proper replacement, the players are mostly stuck because of the NCAA's transfer rules.

So how about this rule: If a coach decides to not renew a scholarship, the school must continue to provide that student-athlete with the same level of free services for 12 months if (s)he chooses to remain enrolled at the school, although (s)he will not be counted against the scholarship limit and would not be permitted to participate in the team (s)he had been a member of in any official capacity.

I don't have a problem with loosening up transfer rules for athletes if a coach leaves.

We have already seen a precedent established for players to get out of their NLI and transfer within the conference without ramifications. It will be interesting to see who might try and challenge it next and what the response will be.