Four Year Scholarships

[DFW HOYA]

The Big Ten now supports a guaranteed four year scholarship.

How many schools in this subdivision are willing (or able) to do the same?

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/24/big-ten-advocates-year-scholarships-student-athletes/11335035/

[PAllen]

Honestly, I have no problem with a four year scholarship. A kid commits to play at a school for four years and is penalized if he decides to transfer. Why shouldn't the school have to commit to four years as well? Just sayin'.

[CFBfan]

The Big Ten now supports a guaranteed four year scholarship.

How many schools in this subdivision are willing (or able) to do the same?

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/24/big-ten-advocates-year-scholarships-student-athletes/11335035/

by willing or able what are you referring to? financialy? I don't see how it would make a difference?

[Bill]

Good topic - I don't find the financial thing that difficult...but the guaranteed 4 year scholarship could result in a few other issues, like:

1. A kid decides to quit ball, but stay in school
2. A kid fails out/doesn't meet academic progress standards
3. kid leaves early for pros
4. kid gets hurt/can no longer physically compete

It would be interesting to see how (if at all) the scholarship numbers are tweaked for any of these occurrences. I do completely support the 4 year scholarship, though. We have to understand it's for more than just football!

[CrazyCat]

I'm sure the small print at the bottom of the 4 year guarantee will be quite long.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Do partial scholarships count?

Do non-revenue sports?

Do any equivalency sports count?

If they don't, what about Title IX?

Yeah, this seems like it was well thought-out. xrolleyesx

[Sammy94]

That is crazy.

The hard part isn't getting the initial scholarship, its the keeping it. A guaranteed 4 year would hurt the football program and take away competition for positions. What motivation would a kid have to get better? That I don't have to because i'm on scholarship attitude wouldn't cut it in most programs.

[MplsBison]

Good topic - I don't find the financial thing that difficult...but the guaranteed 4 year scholarship could result in a few other issues, like:

1. A kid decides to quit ball, but stay in school
2. A kid fails out/doesn't meet academic progress standards
3. kid leaves early for pros
4. kid gets hurt/can no longer physically compete

It would be interesting to see how (if at all) the scholarship numbers are tweaked for any of these occurrences. I do completely support the 4 year scholarship, though. We have to understand it's for more than just football!

What's being proposed here is not in any way, shape or form equivalent to guaranteed money that professional player contracts define.

The scholarship is only guaranteed if the player remains on the team, in good standing and is academically eligible for the upcoming season.

If the player leaves the team early to play professional, quits the team for any personal reason, is no longer in good standing on the team due to violating team or university conduct rules or breaking laws or becomes ineligible academically - then the school is no longer obligated to honor the guarantee. It can, of course, choose to honor it given the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.


On the other hand, your #4 is exactly the main point of implementing this. If a player gets hurt and can no longer perform for the team, his scholarship must still be honored.


Given those criteria, I can't see a single reason why any Division I scholarship - period - shouldn't be for the length of the eligibility of the student-athlete.

It won't cost the schools any additional money except in cases where a student athlete can no longer perform but chooses to remain in school. And in those cases it's the right thing to do anyway. And that scholarship won't be counted against the maximum number either, since the player will no longer be participating on the team.

[Bill]

Yes, I agree!

Of course, this does make recruiting the "right" kid even more important. In smaller roster sports (and non-revenue ones), it will be interesting to see what/how schools deal if there are a few kids who are disgruntled for one reason or another, and continue to keep those precious scholarships tied up!

[DFW HOYA]

Do partial scholarships count?
Do non-revenue sports?
Do any equivalency sports count?


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes, I agree!

Of course, this does make recruiting the "right" kid even more important. In smaller roster sports (and non-revenue ones), it will be interesting to see what/how schools deal if there are a few kids who are disgruntled for one reason or another, and continue to keep those precious scholarships tied up!

An Iowa wrestler decides he wants to study theology, so he transfers to go to Princeton. He's on 1/2 scholarship at Iowa. Does Iowa have to honor that 1/2 scholarship for four years (or most likely five) even though he's gone? He's not going to school for wrestling, he's going to school for theology. Why should Iowa be on the hook for anything?

[DFW HOYA]

An Iowa wrestler decides he wants to study theology, so he transfers to go to Princeton. He's on 1/2 scholarship at Iowa. Does Iowa have to honor that 1/2 scholarship for four years (or most likely five) even though he's gone? He's not going to school for wrestling, he's going to school for theology. Why should Iowa be on the hook for anything?

Iowa is not on the hook for a transfer anymore than a kid who transferred from Lehigh to Lafayette would be owed scholarship money from the former school.

Meanwhile, in the Pac-12: "The four-year guarantee ensures that student-athletes cannot have their scholarships revoked at the end of each year due to injury, coaching changes or a poor athletic performance, which might provide peace of mind to many young players."

http://dailytrojan.com/2014/06/24/haden-announces-four-year-scholarships-for-athletes/

[Bisonator]

I can see if a kid gets hurt he should still keep his scholarship which I believe happens at most schools but this is going to open a can of worms that will be hard to contain IMO.

[BEAR]

Radio guy said all division I schools should be at 99 scholarships...I think he even mentioned they were before...but not sure if I understood him right. Can you imagine the drain on d2 if that happened?

[DFW HOYA]

Radio guy said all division I schools should be at 99 scholarships...I think he even mentioned they were before...but not sure if I understood him right. Can you imagine the drain on d2 if that happened?

Division I football scholarships were unlimited before 1975, then to 105, then 95, then 85.

[CrazyCat]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes


Iowa is not on the hook for a transfer anymore than a kid who transferred from Lehigh to Lafayette would be owed scholarship money from the former school.

Meanwhile, in the Pac-12: "The four-year guarantee ensures that student-athletes cannot have their scholarships revoked at the end of each year due to injury, coaching changes or a poor athletic performance, which might provide peace of mind to many young players."

http://dailytrojan.com/2014/06/24/haden-announces-four-year-scholarships-for-athletes/

This link disagrees with your previous comment on partial,non-revenue, and equivalency sports also getting 4 year guarantees.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This link disagrees with your previous comment on partial,non-revenue, and equivalency sports also getting 4 year guarantees.

Again, this was decided with ZERO thought about how this would apply to Title IX.

[MplsBison]

Yes, I agree!

Of course, this does make recruiting the "right" kid even more important. In smaller roster sports (and non-revenue ones), it will be interesting to see what/how schools deal if there are a few kids who are disgruntled for one reason or another, and continue to keep those precious scholarships tied up!

But actually, what you're suggesting can't happen.

The only way the school is obligated to honor the scholarship of the student-athlete is if A) he's still a participating member of the team or B) he can no longer participate due to injury. And in the case of B, it won't "tie up" a scholarship, as you said above (ie, it won't count against the number of scholarships being provided).

Then if the case is A, I don't understand what context could possibly be valid in suggesting that the student-athlete has unfairly "tied up" the scholarship. Such a context would imply that coaches today have the right to terminate scholarships of student-athletes who are participating members of the team for reasons unrelated to their standing or academic eligibility. I hope you're not suggesting that is the case. Because if that actually were the case (though I don't think it is), then this new policy is all the more correct.

A coach should not be able to pull the rug out from under a student-athlete simply because he isn't performing up to the level that the coach was hoping for when he was recruited. You recruited him, you live with him. If you don't want to play him, fine. But you can't just pull his scholarship and throw him out the door. That's ridiculous.

Or if he was the previous coach's recruit and the new coach comes in and doesn't like him or doesn't think he plays well within his "system", again that's too bad. That's what you inherit and you have to deal with it as a new coach. You can't just pull his scholarship because he doesn't fit your system or he was the previous coach's recruit.

[Gater]

It allows a player who doesn't want to be on the team to quit and not cost himself his (academic) future. Seems like you want guys who actually want to play football on your team as opposed to the ones who are doing just it to keep their scholarship. Not sure how much this will cost schools but I think you would end up with a better locker room--and more kids graduating. If you can afford it, it seems like a win/win.

[Bisonoline]

It allows a player who doesn't want to be on the team to quit and not cost himself his (academic) future. Seems like you want guys who actually want to play football on your team as opposed to the ones who are doing just it to keep their scholarship. Not sure how much this will cost schools but I think you would end up with a better locker room--and more kids graduating. If you can afford it, it seems like a win/win.

If the kid quits then he shouldnt have a scholarship. He still has to put in his time. He can be on the scout team and do a host of others things with the team to keep his schollie. You dont just quit and expect to still get paid.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It allows a player who doesn't want to be on the team to quit and not cost himself his (academic) future. Seems like you want guys who actually want to play football on your team as opposed to the ones who are doing just it to keep their scholarship. Not sure how much this will cost schools but I think you would end up with a better locker room--and more kids graduating. If you can afford it, it seems like a win/win.

A kid gets a scholarship to Bucknell, goes through camp in August, then decides he'd rather spend all his time in Poli Sci. Does Bucknell have to honor the scholarship?

But was the kid using the football scholarship to get a guaranteed paid four-year education? Had he applied through the admissions office, he 1) might not have been admitted without the ability to play football, or 2) his family might not have been available to afford it. By getting recruited then reneging, now the school is on the hook for his education for free yet he doesn't even play on the team.

Want to tie it to something like, say, playing time, or the number of times he suited up on the sidelines? Well, now you're in a situation that it's pay-for-play!

[Bisonoline]

I can see if a kid gets hurt he should still keep his scholarship which I believe happens at most schools but this is going to open a can of worms that will be hard to contain IMO.

Shouldnt be hard at all. Thats the way it was for years.

[Bisonoline]

A kid gets a scholarship to Bucknell, goes through camp in August, then decides he'd rather spend all his time in Poli Sci. Does Bucknell have to honor the scholarship?

But was the kid using the football scholarship to get a guaranteed paid four-year education? Had he applied through the admissions office, he 1) might not have been admitted without the ability to play football, or 2) his family might not have been available to afford it. By getting recruited then reneging, now the school is on the hook for his education for free yet he doesn't even play on the team.

Want to tie it to something like, say, playing time, or the number of times he suited up on the sidelines? Well, now you're in a situation that it's pay-for-play!

No. The kid is quitting.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No. The kid is quitting.

But at some point a contract is signed saying "I am going to have a scholarship for four years." What is stopping a kid from signing the paper, going to the bathroom, coming back and saying, "You know what... I need to think about my degree... I want to be a Poli Sci major without the onerous demands of football."

And remember, it can't be tied to things like starting, or suiting up, because then it becomes pay-for-play.

[Bisonoline]

But at some point a contract is signed saying "I am going to have a scholarship for four years." What is stopping a kid from signing the paper, going to the bathroom, coming back and saying, "You know what... I need to think about my degree... I want to be a Poli Sci major without the onerous demands of football."

And remember, it can't be tied to things like starting, or suiting up, because then it becomes pay-for-play.

He is quitting the team. His scholly is tied to that fact. If you quit you have voided the contract.

[Model Citizen]

From the mid-1950s until about 1967, the NCAA actually allowed kids to accept four-year athletic scholarships, then quit the team without losing their scholarship.

The final years of the four-year scholarship allowed schools to pull the aid if the recipient was unwilling to participate. Not unable. Unwilling. I imagine the Big Ten is proposing a return to this model, with more generous payments than ever before.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

From the mid-1950s until about 1967, the NCAA actually allowed kids to accept four-year athletic scholarships, then quit the team without losing their scholarship.

The final years of the four-year scholarship allowed schools to pull the aid if the recipient was unwilling to participate. Not unable. Unwilling. I imagine the Big Ten is proposing a return to this model, with more generous payments than ever before.

The pre-Title IX world, you mean.

[Gater]

If you quit the team, then you have voided the contract? So a quitter would lose the scholarship? That would keep a lot of guys playing who don't want to be there (which is the opposite of my argument). At this point it makes sense for big schools to cut scholarship players who are under-performing while allowing them to keep a non-football-related scholarship. For a school (team) like Florida State nothing is more important than getting the best players there (offering a four year scholarship would only help recruiting) and making sure the scholarships go towards people who want to play--the player getting a football scholarship to Florida State is part of a machine that generates tens of millions of dollars a year for a school and the most important thing for a football powerhouse is to get the most out of that scholarship. A player having the freedom to quit, and thereby freeing up a scholarship, should be encourage by that type of a school.

[RichH2]

Plan gives bigs almost unlimited schollies. Player cut keeps his aid but it no longer counts vs max. OK, so every yr coach cuts any number of kids in order to rotate those schollies back in play. Have a bad recruiting year ,no problem just cut them loose and try again this yr.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Plan gives bigs almost unlimited schollies. Player cut keeps his aid but it no longer counts vs max. OK, so every yr coach cuts any number of kids in order to rotate those schollies back in play. Have a bad recruiting year ,no problem just cut them loose and try again this yr.

Imagine the expense line at a private institution for this type of thing, like Stanford.

[JayJ79]

wouldn't teams still be limited as far as the number of players allowed on scholarship, just as it is now?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

wouldn't teams still be limited as far as the number of players allowed on scholarship, just as it is now?

Maybe, but they will be meaningless. 85 players might be on "active scholarship", but X number of kids could have been cut, quit, injured, scout team... Hard not to see Alabama with 85 active roster players and more than 15 getting full educations but not playing.

[RichH2]

Maybe, but they will be meaningless. 85 players might be on "active scholarship", but X number of kids could have been cut, quit, injured, scout team... Hard not to see Alabama with 85 active roster players and more than 15 getting full educations but not playing.

Or 23. or 31. Killer for small and private schools. SEC bigs will love it.

[Gater]

Really smart way for the biggest schools with the deepest pockets to dominate without being ripped for taking away a kid's chance to get an education. Winning at the highest level has nothing to do with these kids going to college and everything to do with creating a college experience that is valued. A big part of that is having winning teams. Is it any worse than Harvard sitting on a billion dollar endowment to ensure its top ranking when so much good could be done with that money? You hear all sorts of things about schools in the US, but rarely do you hear about how well they educate people.

[Bisonoline]

You DO NOT want unlimited scollies. Back when that was allowed schools would offer a schollie just to pull a recruit away from another school with no intention of him ever seeing the playing field.

[MplsBison]

From the mid-1950s until about 1967, the NCAA actually allowed kids to accept four-year athletic scholarships, then quit the team without losing their scholarship.

The final years of the four-year scholarship allowed schools to pull the aid if the recipient was unwilling to participate. Not unable. Unwilling. I imagine the Big Ten is proposing a return to this model, with more generous payments than ever before.

Basically yes, but stricter than what you've wrote above.

A school is only going to have to honor a scholarship if the player is participating on the team or if he is injured and can't play anymore (back, concussion syndrome, knee, etc.)

[MplsBison]

Plan gives bigs almost unlimited schollies. Player cut keeps his aid but it no longer counts vs max. OK, so every yr coach cuts any number of kids in order to rotate those schollies back in play. Have a bad recruiting year ,no problem just cut them loose and try again this yr.

It doesn't work like that. The only way a player can keep his scholarship is if he's one of 85 participants on the team or if he is legitimately hurt such that he can no longer participate. All other reasons for not being one of the 85 void the scholarship.

The only way something like what you're suggesting would work is if the team committed fraud. For example, if they tried to "clean out" upperclassmen who aren't starters or contributors on special teams to make extra room for more scholarships to sign new high school players or transfers. But such upperclassmen are usually onesie-twosie at most schools and you'd have to have a major scam going on that included paying off the team doctor to sign the approval for the fake "injury".

One audit and you'd get obliterated in the national media and you'd receive the death penalty from the NCAA. Both of which would be well deserved.


No one is going to take that risk to sign a couple extra players every other class. And if they do, they'll get nailed.

[JayJ79]

I suppose some abuses could occur, just as abuses occur now.
But I'm not sure how much of such "stockpiling" would occur.

Most football players are still going to want to play football, and given the chance, will seek out the opportunity to play football instead of sitting in such a "stockpile".

[Bisonoline]

I suppose some abuses could occur, just as abuses occur now.
But I'm not sure how much of such "stockpiling" would occur.

Most football players are still going to want to play football, and given the chance, will seek out the opportunity to play football instead of sitting in such a "stockpile".

Issue is every team will have stockpiles of players. They would then have to move down a division to get playing time just as they do now.

[RichH2]

It doesn't work like that. The only way a player can keep his scholarship is if he's one of 85 participants on the team or if he is legitimately hurt such that he can no longer participate. All other reasons for not being one of the 85 void the scholarship.

The only way something like what you're suggesting would work is if the team committed fraud. For example, if they tried to "clean out" upperclassmen who aren't starters or contributors on special teams to make extra room for more scholarships to sign new high school players or transfers. But such upperclassmen are usually onesie-twosie at most schools and you'd have to have a major scam going on that included paying off the team doctor to sign the approval for the fake "injury".

One audit and you'd get obliterated in the national media and you'd receive the death penalty from the NCAA. Both of which would be well deserved.


No one is going to take that risk to sign a couple extra players every other class. And if they do, they'll get nailed.

You miss the point mpls. Whether they keep schollie or not ,my point isthe 85 max is effectively negated by revoving door.

[Bisonoline]

You miss the point mpls. Whether they keep schollie or not ,my point isthe 85 max is effectively negated by revoving door.

What you do is have a permanent Do Not Play List for the year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No one is going to take that risk to sign a couple extra players every other class. And if they do, they'll get nailed.

By whom? The NCAA? No, wait, the P5 want autonomy, so they'll pass their own self-serving rule. So, the schools themselves? Yeah, self regulation will work... xrolleyesx

[Bisonoline]

By whom? The NCAA? No, wait, the P5 want autonomy, so they'll pass their own self-serving rule. So, the schools themselves? Yeah, self regulation will work... xrolleyesx

Who really cares what they do? They will set up the rules to their liking anyway. They had it figured out years ago. No need to reinvent the wheel as this isnt rocket science.

[MplsBison]

By whom? The NCAA? No, wait, the P5 want autonomy, so they'll pass their own self-serving rule. So, the schools themselves? Yeah, self regulation will work... xrolleyesx

Autonomy from the rest of DI, not from the NCAA. The NCAA will still act as a rule enforcement authority for the P5. You knew this anyway.

Fraud is fraud. Doesn't matter if it's DIII or P5. They'll get nailed with the death penalty when found to be committing scholarship fraud.


I sense from your post that you didn't have an actual counter argument (hence resorting to red herrings), but now is the time, if you do.

[walliver]

This rule will not have a major impact for most schools. A lot of current FCS schools allow players to remain if they can't play do to injury, although they may be asked to work as trainers or some other athletic department student job. There are also a lot of FCS schools who recruit with the goal of graduating 100% of their athletes, and many do graduate at rates of 80-90%.

The real issue is that current NCAA policy prohibits any scholarship longer than one year. At many schools, upperclassmen who are not 1 or 2 on the depth chart are likely to be "cut" to make room for more promising younger athletes (Steve Spurrier has a reputation for this). Allowing 4 year scholarships would allow these players to stay in school. On the other hand, I suspect that few of these athletes would actually stay, and would likely transfer to a FCS or D-II school, or simply drop out.

I don't see any implications for Title IX. Many olympic sports have high graduation rates as it is. The easy solution is for schools to recruit players they plan to graduate.

My preference is that the NCAA allow (not require) multiple year scholarships.

The only new proposal I don't like is the one where an athlete could leave the school and "go pro" and then return for a free education. I suspect this will simply encourage more players to leave early (although I also doubt many would return). I understand that this is aimed at players who fail in the pros, but it seems to place the colleges in a development league mode.

For UK basketball there would be no difference between a 1 year and 4 year scholarship.:D

[MplsBison]

You miss the point mpls. Whether they keep schollie or not ,my point isthe 85 max is effectively negated by revoving door.

I'm not sure which 85 maximum you're talking about. Though truthfully, your argument doesn't work in either case. So let's do both of them.

- If you're referring to the 85 maximum number of scholarships that can be provided, that is not changing. No matter what, an FBS team can only provide 85 scholarships. No one is talking about increasing that number. If anything, they'll be looking for ways to decrease costs in order to maximize profit - that's what big businesses do. So you could well see the scholarship limit decrease in the future to 65.


- If you're referring to the 85 maximum number of participants who can receive a scholarship, again this is not changing. No matter what, an FBS team can only provide some form of scholarship to 85 participants in a given season.


So you still haven't made your point clear.

Another thing for you to consider is the fact that right now (and it's been this way for quite some time) FBS teams have more than 85 players on their rosters. Simply, those players beyond the 85 don't receive any form of scholarships. They're walk-ons, either of the "preferred" or "traditional" variety. Therefore, I don't see how that's any different than what you're proposing will happen.


I think the easiest way for you to explain what you think will go wrong would be for you to describe a hypothetical example. If you're willing to do that and carefully, thoroughly describe it, then perhaps I can better understand your concern.

[MplsBison]

This rule will not have a major impact for most schools. A lot of current FCS schools allow players to remain if they can't play do to injury, although they may be asked to work as trainers or some other athletic department student job. There are also a lot of FCS schools who recruit with the goal of graduating 100% of their athletes, and many do graduate at rates of 80-90%.

The real issue is that current NCAA policy prohibits any scholarship longer than one year. At many schools, upperclassmen who are not 1 or 2 on the depth chart are likely to be "cut" to make room for more promising younger athletes (Steve Spurrier has a reputation for this). Allowing 4 year scholarships would allow these players to stay in school. On the other hand, I suspect that few of these athletes would actually stay, and would likely transfer to a FCS or D-II school, or simply drop out.

I don't see any implications for Title IX. Many olympic sports have high graduation rates as it is. The easy solution is for schools to recruit players they plan to graduate.

My preference is that the NCAA allow (not require) multiple year scholarships.

The only new proposal I don't like is the one where an athlete could leave the school and "go pro" and then return for a free education. I suspect this will simply encourage more players to leave early (although I also doubt many would return). I understand that this is aimed at players who fail in the pros, but it seems to place the colleges in a development league mode.

For UK basketball there would be no difference between a 1 year and 4 year scholarship.:D

I simply find it hard to believe that a coach would be evil enough to actually pull a scholarship - although in really it's more like not renew the scholarship - of an upperclassmen simply for failing to meet performance expectations.

That should be penalized by the NCAA.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I simply find it hard to believe that a coach would be evil enough to actually pull a scholarship - although in really it's more like not renew the scholarship - of an upperclassmen simply for failing to meet performance expectations.

That should be penalized by the NCAA.

Are you familiar with Steve Spurrier?

[MplsBison]

Are you familiar with Steve Spurrier?

Doesn't matter. Onward and upward with improvements for student-athletes!

It should be mandatory throughout DII and DI of the NCAA that any scholarship award must be honored for any student-athlete throughout the length of their athletic eligibility so long as they remain a participating member on the team in good standing and academically eligible!!

End

[DFW HOYA]

It should be mandatory throughout DII and DI of the NCAA that any scholarship award must be honored for any student-athlete throughout the length of their athletic eligibility so long as they remain a participating member on the team in good standing and academically eligible!!End

Or... any scholarship award must be honored for any student-athlete throughout the length of their eligibility so long as they remain academically eligible. Even they quit the team, they can stay four years. Makes the offer of a scholarship more than a quid pro quo.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Or... any scholarship award must be honored for any student-athlete throughout the length of their eligibility so long as they remain academically eligible. Even they quit the team, they can stay four years. Makes the offer of a scholarship more than a quid pro quo.

But the athlete is getting a better deal/benefit than a regular student. They get a guaranteed free education as long as they're academically eligible. Normal students don't get that.

And the scholarship now becomes a 4-year contractual benefit that occurs as soon as a student matriculates instead of a year-to-year benefit. And if it's a contractual benefit that persists whether part of the scholarship limits or not, isn't it a form of payment...?

A year-to-year contract is much more similar to what regular students enter when they go to college - their tuition checks have to clear, they have to get decent grades, etc. By giving the kids 4-year contracts you now have made them employees, something that nobody is getting.

The original rule was not made out of cruelty or leverage over "poor, poor" scholarship athletes. It was made that way to get scholarships more in line with how regular students attend school.

[MplsBison]

Or... any scholarship award must be honored for any student-athlete throughout the length of their eligibility so long as they remain academically eligible. Even they quit the team, they can stay four years. Makes the offer of a scholarship more than a quid pro quo.

Not only don't I agree with that, but I'm a little surprised that it's not obvious to a Gtown alumni how such a policy would be particularly harmful to a school like Gtown.

Why the heck wouldn't a Gtown recruit quit as soon as he arrived on campus? He uses football to obtain admission and he still gets all the benefits of his scholarship for four/five years without having to put his body at risk for little to no reward and without the huge time and energy drain - time and energy that can be used to study (without being tired from practice) and socialize.


I'd only sign up for allowing them to keep the scholarship, even if they quit the team, if a minimum number of participation years have been met. For example, if they've been on the team for three years, haven't made it on the two deep or special teams and just want to get out of the way of the program. Then I could perhaps agree with that.

And only if that non-participant's scholarship did not count against the number being provided by the team toward the maximum.

[MplsBison]

But the athlete is getting a better deal/benefit than a regular student. They get a guaranteed free education as long as they're academically eligible. Normal students don't get that.

And the scholarship now becomes a 4-year contractual benefit that occurs as soon as a student matriculates instead of a year-to-year benefit. And if it's a contractual benefit that persists whether part of the scholarship limits or not, isn't it a form of payment...?

A year-to-year contract is much more similar to what regular students enter when they go to college - their tuition checks have to clear, they have to get decent grades, etc. By giving the kids 4-year contracts you now have made them employees, something that nobody is getting.

The original rule was not made out of cruelty or leverage over "poor, poor" scholarship athletes. It was made that way to get scholarships more in line with how regular students attend school.

But it's a four/five year contract with a conditional benefit, not an absolute guaranteed benefit.

There might have been good intentions with one year scholarships, but it's not right that a player in good standing on the team and whom is academically eligible should even be in the position where the coach could decide "we're not going to renew your scholarship this year because you aren't performing well enough".

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Basically, honoring a 4-year scholarship even if they're not with the team is just like the stipend issue: it's a way for the P5 to claim they're all-about student-athletes while essentially simply treating them like employees that need to be paid for their services.

By trying to avoid the lawsuits to actually force the schools to treat the kids like employees, the P5's response is to... treat the kids like employees.

I have never been more convinced that the best thing the NCAA could do is to set the P5 loose.

[MplsBison]

Basically, honoring a 4-year scholarship even if they're not with the team is just like the stipend issue: it's a way for the P5 to claim they're all-about student-athletes while essentially simply treating them like employees that need to be paid for their services.

By trying to avoid the lawsuits to actually force the schools to treat the kids like employees, the P5's response is to... treat the kids like employees.

I have never been more convinced that the best thing the NCAA could do is to set the P5 loose.

Not only have you not even come close to making your "four year scholarships = employees" argument hold a drop of water, you're just grasping at straws in whatever way you think will reach a conclusion of putting a hard barrier between the P5 and the G5.

Good thing you don't have an agenda. xrolleyesx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

But it's a four/five year contract with a conditional benefit, not an absolute guaranteed benefit.

There might have been good intentions with one year scholarships, but it's not right that a player in good standing on the team and whom is academically eligible should even be in the position where the coach could decide "we're not going to renew your scholarship this year because you aren't performing well enough".

It's not right that a kid in good academic standing is in the position where he can't attend school anymore because they're no longer eligible for federal aid, or if their finances take a turn for the worse and they can't afford college anymore. Yet this happens a lot more than the scenario you're describing. At schools with partial or non-scholarships, sometimes they're athletes.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Not only have you not even come close to making your "four year scholarships = employees" argument hold a drop of water, you're just grasping at straws in whatever way you think will reach a conclusion of putting a hard barrier between the P5 and the G5.

Good thing you don't have an agenda. xrolleyesx

I never mentioned the G5 anywhere in my original post. They ain't driving the bus.

[MplsBison]

It's not right that a kid in good academic standing is in the position where he can't attend school anymore because they're no longer eligible for federal aid, or if their finances take a turn for the worse and they can't afford college anymore. Yet this happens a lot more than the scenario you're describing. At schools with partial or non-scholarships, sometimes they're athletes.

It does happen, unfortunately.

All the more reason why we should implement four year scholarships.

[MplsBison]

I never mentioned the G5 anywhere in my original post. They ain't driving the bus.

"I have never been more convinced that the best thing the NCAA could do is to set the P5 loose."

You contrived this conclusion for the express purpose of creating a hard barrier between the P5 and the G5. Because your goal in life is to separate the two and force the G5 together with FCS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

"I have never been more convinced that the best thing the NCAA could do is to set the P5 loose."

You contrived this conclusion for the express purpose of creating a hard barrier between the P5 and the G5. Because your goal in life is to separate the two and force the G5 together with FCS.

If the G5 would like to follow the P5 off a cliff, I ain't stopping them.

[MplsBison]

If the G5 would like to follow the P5 off a cliff, I ain't stopping them.

Then amend your statement to "I have never been more convinced that the best thing the NCAA could do is to set the P5 & G5 loose."

That would mean you advocate for all the current FBS teams to be independent of the NCAA and for the current FCS and non-football DI teams to remain as the new Division I of the NCAA with championships in DI being amongst only those teams and the current FCS championship simply being the NCAA DI football championship. DII and DIII would be unchanged.

[Bisonoline]

This rule will not have a major impact for most schools. A lot of current FCS schools allow players to remain if they can't play do to injury, although they may be asked to work as trainers or some other athletic department student job. There are also a lot of FCS schools who recruit with the goal of graduating 100% of their athletes, and many do graduate at rates of 80-90%.

The real issue is that current NCAA policy prohibits any scholarship longer than one year. At many schools, upperclassmen who are not 1 or 2 on the depth chart are likely to be "cut" to make room for more promising younger athletes (Steve Spurrier has a reputation for this). Allowing 4 year scholarships would allow these players to stay in school. On the other hand, I suspect that few of these athletes would actually stay, and would likely transfer to a FCS or D-II school, or simply drop out.

I don't see any implications for Title IX. Many olympic sports have high graduation rates as it is. The easy solution is for schools to recruit players they plan to graduate.

My preference is that the NCAA allow (not require) multiple year scholarships.

The only new proposal I don't like is the one where an athlete could leave the school and "go pro" and then return for a free education. I suspect this will simply encourage more players to leave early (although I also doubt many would return). I understand that this is aimed at players who fail in the pros, but it seems to place the colleges in a development league mode.

For UK basketball there would be no difference between a 1 year and 4 year scholarship.:D

I dont care for that as well. But if they are going to break away then they can do what they wish.

[Bisonoline]

I simply find it hard to believe that a coach would be evil enough to actually pull a scholarship - although in really it's more like not renew the scholarship - of an upperclassmen simply for failing to meet performance expectations.

That should be penalized by the NCAA.

Happens all the time. Havent you heard how the SEC teams over recruited then cut the wheat from the chaf? Or they made the their situation unbearable so they left?
I personally know of a up and coming wide receiver in the Big10 who got plenty of playing time but got his scholly pulled for a bad attitude which effected the whole team So if you think they havent been pulling schollies for athletes who arent making the grade you need to think again.

[DFW HOYA]

Not only don't I agree with that, but I'm a little surprised that it's not obvious to a Gtown alumni how such a policy would be particularly harmful to a school like Gtown. Why the heck wouldn't a Gtown recruit quit as soon as he arrived on campus? He uses football to obtain admission and he still gets all the benefits of his scholarship for four/five years without having to put his body at risk for little to no reward and without the huge time and energy drain - time and energy that can be used to study (without being tired from practice) and socialize.

This is the current set up at Georgetown, in that some players can (and do) quit without the loss of need-based aid. Roughly 40 percent of the recruiting class does not end up playing all four years, but nearly all stay to graduate.

Yes, it can be modified for specific scholarship concerns, but no one should be thrown out of school because they can no longer play because of injury, or simply want to focus on their major instead.

[MplsBison]

Happens all the time. Havent you heard how the SEC teams over recruited then cut the wheat from the chaf? Or they made the their situation unbearable so they left?
I personally know of a up and coming wide receiver in the Big10 who got plenty of playing time but got his scholly pulled for a bad attitude which effected the whole team So if you think they havent been pulling schollies for athletes who arent making the grade you need to think again.

I'm not going to deny that it happens, but I think it's a disgusting act if you're doing it to an upperclassman who is in good standing/academically eligible, just because he isn't significantly contributing to the team. That's your fault as the coach who recruited him, you should have to live with that mistake!


Now the two examples you highlight are different situations (not that I'm apologizing for either).

- SEC schools "sign" more than the maximum number of players allowed for a signing class and they do it on purpose. They stash the "other" signed kids away at military schools or junior colleges or just plain at the university as a regular student, until room clears on the 85 team roster for them to join the program at a later time. It's known as "grayshirting".

In such situations I suppose it happens where the kid who was originally offered ends up never being given a spot on the team. And while I fault the coaches who use this practice for taking advantage of young men with dreams, I also have to place a little bit of fault on the young man and his family for being willing to agree to such an arrangement with its inherent shadiness.


- I assume you're talking about former Minnesota wide receiver AJ Barker, their leading receiver in 2012. I can see both sides of that situation. (here's a link for those who don't know: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8650223/minnesota-gophers-aj-barker-quits-alleges-mistreatment-jerry-kill ) While I do think Kill mistreated him, he shouldn't have gone public like that. He could've tried to work it out with the coach rather than trying to publicly humiliate him and cast a shadow on his program. He had a bad attitude and I think Kill was ultimately right in trying to purge that from the program.

Looks like Kill got it right: http://www.twincities.com/gophers/ci_22385746/former-gopher-j-barker-arrested-houston-marijuana-charge

Interesting note: if you go to the Gophers athletic website and look at their roster for the 2012 season, you'll notice that Barker has been removed from the list.

[MplsBison]

This is the current set up at Georgetown, in that some players can (and do) quit without the loss of need-based aid. Roughly 40 percent of the recruiting class does not end up playing all four years, but nearly all stay to graduate.

Yes, it can be modified for specific scholarship concerns, but no one should be thrown out of school because they can no longer play because of injury, or simply want to focus on their major instead.

Don't conflate two entirely separate situations.

Injury: it's unquestionable that a student-athlete who can no longer contribute due to injuries should get to keep his scholarship for the length of his remaining athletic eligibility. That's the point of what's going on here.

Quitting the team for personal reasons: I don't agree that any student-athletes who quits the team for any personal reason should automatically be allowed to keep the scholarship for the length of his remaining athletic eligibility. That makes it too easy for the school to be taken advantage of, especially in cases of very selective schools where athletic ability was the significant factor in admission.

As I've said in the thread, the factors are:

- even though they're not obligated to honor the scholarship when a student-athlete quits the team for personal reasons, the school can still choose to honor it, given circumstances on a case-by-case basis
- if a student-athlete has participated for a minimum number of years (say three), then perhaps that should qualify for allowing him to keep his scholarship for the last (or last two) years
- in all cases, the honored scholarship shall not count against the number of scholarships being provided by the team towards the maximum!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Injury: it's unquestionable that a student-athlete who can no longer contribute due to injuries should get to keep his scholarship for the length of his remaining athletic eligibility. That's the point of what's going on here.

Quitting the team for personal reasons: I don't agree that any student-athletes who quits the team for any personal reason should automatically be allowed to keep his scholarship for the length of his athletic eligibility! Too easy to take advantage of the school.

So you're saying that a scholarship is a four-year contract for employment by the university. If a kid is dismissed from the team, now a lawyer can be procured to sue his former coach. If a kid is hurt or "hurt", now schools can sue each other for violating scholarship contracts. If a kid's not getting compensated enough, now he can sue his school, the conference, and the NCAA.

Big winners: Lawyers. Big losers: Everyone else.

[MplsBison]

So you're saying that a scholarship is a four-year contract for employment by the university. If a kid is dismissed from the team, now a lawyer can be procured to sue his former coach. If a kid is hurt or "hurt", now schools can sue each other for violating scholarship contracts. If a kid's not getting compensated enough, now he can sue his school, the conference, and the NCAA.

Big winners: Lawyers. Big losers: Everyone else.

I'm not saying that and neither is anyone else. You're conjuring it out of thin air.

You haven't even attempted to explain the rationale for how a four year scholarship can be construed as an employment contract. If a one year scholarship isn't, then neither is a four year (or five year, or six year) scholarship.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'm not saying that and neither is anyone else. You're conjuring it out of thin air.

You haven't even attempted to explain the rationale for how a four year scholarship can be construed as an employment contract. If a one year scholarship isn't, then neither is a four year (or five year, or six year) scholarship.

A scholarship now becomes a contract where the employer, i.e. the university, provides benefits that are non-rescindable if the student does certain things while he's a student. If a kid now loses these benefits, now he can sue, because the scholarship is a four-year guaranteed contract.

Before, the scholarship only encompassed certain things that were at least within the realm of the costs that regular students had to pay for. Now it's being asked to be a compensation package for athletes that regular students cannot enjoy. That's payment. This is now a contract.

[Nova09]

Why are people just making up applications of NCAA rule again?

1. NCAA already allows multi-year schollies

2. Many at the FCS level already offer multi-year schollies. FBS has been averse to it bc they want to be able to cut people loose when they are intrigued by the next recruiting class.

3. Doesn't matter if scholarship is full or partial, it can still be offered for more than one year

4. NCAA doesn't care if student-athlete quit the team, if that individual is still receiving scholarship from athletics they still count against team maximum

5. Because of (4), teams cannot play games with the numbers unless, as MPLS suggested, they fake career ending injuries

6. Because of (4) and (5), it is pretty standard that a school will cut scholarship if athlete quits team

7. It makes no sense that a shcolarship would still be honored after kid transfers away, don't know why LFN is suggesting that

[Nova09]

A scholarship now becomes a contract where the employer, i.e. the university, provides benefits that are non-rescindable if the student does certain things while he's a student. If a kid now loses these benefits, now he can sue, because the scholarship is a four-year guaranteed contract.

Before, the scholarship only encompassed certain things that were at least within the realm of the costs that regular students had to pay for. Now it's being asked to be a compensation package for athletes that regular students cannot enjoy. That's payment. This is now a contract.

It already was a contract. It was just a one year contract. Now it can be up to a four year contract. Same terms must be satisfied by the student-athlete either way. If student-athlete meets those terms, cannot be rescinded within the time frame. If student-athlete does not, can be rescinded.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It already was a contract. It was just a one year contract. Now it can be up to a four year contract. Same terms must be satisfied by the student-athlete either way.

But now the package is much, much more significant that just tuition - it's now a guarantee of a future education, extra money thrown in for a stipend, future medical care. Again, something that regular students do not get.


If student-athlete meets those terms, cannot be rescinded within the time frame. If student-athlete does not, can be rescinded.

What you've just described is a contract of employment.

[Bisonator]

Am I wrong in thinking that athletes who are injured and can no longer play still have their tuition covered for the 4 years already?

[Nova09]

Am I wrong in thinking that athletes who are injured and can no longer play still have their tuition covered for the 4 years already?

You are correct that they already can. Whether they do or not is a school by school decision.

[Nova09]

But now the package is much, much more significant that just tuition - it's now a guarantee of a future education, extra money thrown in for a stipend, future medical care. Again, something that regular students do not get.



What you've just described is a contract of employment.

To your first point: now you're arguing something completely different from this thread. The guarantee of future ed, stipend, future med care are all different proposals than the 4 year "guaranteed" scholarship. The 4 year schollie is already allowed and utilized by some schools, and certain conferences are now trying to mandate it across their conference bc some of the schools want to do it but they dont want to feel it puts them at a recruiting advantage against their conference mates if those other schools are bringing in larger classes and cutting upperclassmen.

To your second point, that's exactly what is being discussed in courts. I don't consider it employment, the Chicago LRB does, Judge Wilken will surely chime in, and many other courts will hear about it in the coming years. The point is not if it is employment or not, the point in this thread is if there is any difference in the contract for one year or multi-year.

[MplsBison]

Nova09, thanks for your input to this discussion. It's very helpful.

One thing I'd like for you clarify is your points 4 and 5 in post #70.

Are you saying then that a team can in fact continue to provide a scholarship to a student-athlete who has a career ending injury without it being counted against the scholarship count?

I hate to be this guy .... but I would really love it if you knew off the top your head where the exact language could be found in the rule books regarding all this stuff.


I actually was unaware that multi-year scholarships were already allowed. My understanding was that all scholarships were current one year only per NCAA rules and that's one of the aspects that the P5 are (hurriedly) trying to get changed as part of the "autonomy package".

[MplsBison]

A scholarship now becomes a contract where the employer, i.e. the university, provides benefits that are non-rescindable if the student does certain things while he's a student. If a kid now loses these benefits, now he can sue, because the scholarship is a four-year guaranteed contract.

Before, the scholarship only encompassed certain things that were at least within the realm of the costs that regular students had to pay for. Now it's being asked to be a compensation package for athletes that regular students cannot enjoy. That's payment. This is now a contract.

In addition to what Nova09 has already stated, I'd like to point out the following.

Single year scholarships are currently also providing non-rescindable benefits over that year long period. A coach can't decide to cut a true freshman's scholarship midway through his first fall because he isn't performing well on the scout team or in the middle of his first winter workouts because he wasn't lifting as well as others.

Yet you don't consider them to be employment contracts because they're "only" a year long.

[Nova09]

Nova09, thanks for your input to this discussion. It's very helpful.

One thing I'd like for you clarify is your points 4 and 5 in post #70.

Are you saying then that a team can in fact continue to provide a scholarship to a student-athlete who has a career ending injury without it being counted against the scholarship count?

I hate to be this guy .... but I would really love it if you knew off the top your head where the exact language could be found in the rule books regarding all this stuff.


I actually was unaware that multi-year scholarships were already allowed. My understanding was that all scholarships were current one year only per NCAA rules and that's one of the aspects that the P5 are (hurriedly) trying to get changed as part of the "autonomy package".

Don't have time right now to look it up, but I believe the NCAA term is "medical non-counter" so if you run a search for that you should find it

Ok I did take the time to look it up and that term is not used, but the bylaw is 15.5.1.3

[Nova09]

I actually was unaware that multi-year scholarships were already allowed. My understanding was that all scholarships were current one year only per NCAA rules and that's one of the aspects that the P5 are (hurriedly) trying to get changed as part of the "autonomy package".

They only became allowed a few years ago, and since the big boys didn't utilize the new rule it mostly stayed out of headlines

[MplsBison]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nova09 again. Thank you sir!

Some great stuff in this section! http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D114.pdf



15.5.1 Counters.

A student-athlete shall be a counter and included in the maximum awards limitations set
forth in this bylaw under the following conditions: (Revised: 6/10/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)


(a) Athletics Aid. A student-athlete who receives financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability shall become
a counter for the year during which the student-athlete receives the financial aid; or


15.5.1.2 Football or Basketball, Varsity Competition.

In football or basketball, a student-athlete who
was recruited (see Bylaw 15.02.8) by the awarding institution and who receives institutional financial aid (as set
forth in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) granted without regard in any degree to athletics ability does not have to be counted
until the student-athlete engages in varsity intercollegiate competition (as opposed to freshman, B-team, subvarsity,
intramural or club competition) in those sports. For this provision to be applicable, there shall be on file
in the office of the athletics director certification by the faculty athletics representative, the admissions officer
and the chair of the financial aid committee that the student’s admission and financial aid were granted without
regard in any degree to athletics ability. (Revised: 1/16/93 effective 8/1/93, 1/11/94, 6/20/04, 1/15/11 effective
8/1/11)


15.5.1.2.1 Exception—Receipt of Institutional Academic Aid Only.

In football or basketball, a
student-athlete who was recruited (see Bylaw 15.02.8) by the awarding institution and whose only source
of institutional financial aid is academic aid based solely on the recipient’s academic record at the certifying
institution, awarded independently of athletics interests and in amounts consistent with the pattern of all
such awards made by the institution, may compete without counting in the institution’s financial aid team
limits, provided he or she has completed at least one academic year of full-time enrollment at the certifying
institution and has achieved a cumulative grade-point average of at least 3.000 (on a 4.000 scale) at the
certifying institution. (Adopted: 10/27/05 effective 8/1/06, Revised: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

15.5.1.3 Counter Who Becomes Injured or Ill.

A counter who becomes injured or ill to the point that
he or she apparently never again will be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics shall not be considered a
counter beginning with the academic year following the incapacitating injury or illness.


15.5.1.3.1 Incapacitating Injury or Illness.

If an incapacitating injury or illness occurs prior to a prospective
student-athlete’s or a student-athlete’s participation in athletically related activities and results in
the student-athlete’s inability to compete ever again, the student-athlete shall not be counted within the
institution’s maximum financial aid award limitations for the current, as well as later, academic years. However,
if the incapacitating injury or illness occurs on or after the student-athlete’s participation in countable
athletically related activities in the sport, the student-athlete shall be counted in the institution’s maximum
financial aid limitations for the current academic year but need not be counted in later academic years.
(Adopted: 1/10/91, Revised: 3/26/04, 9/18/07)

15.5.1.8 Aid After Student-Athlete Becomes Permanently Ineligible.

A student-athlete receiving institutional
financial aid after becoming permanently ineligible due to a violation of NCAA regulations (e.g.,
amateurism legislation) may receive athletics aid during later academic years without counting in the institution’s
financial aid limitations, provided the student-athlete is otherwise eligible for the aid and does not practice or
compete in intercollegiate athletics again. If circumstances change and the student-athlete practices or competes,
the institution is required to count the financial aid received by the student-athlete during each academic year in
which the aid was received (see Bylaw 15.3.1.4). (Adopted: 1/11/94)

15.5.6.1 Bowl Subdivision Football. [FBS]

There shall be an annual limit of 25 on the number of initial
counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1) and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial
counters) in football at each institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)


15.5.6.2 Championship Subdivision Football. [FCS]

There shall be an annual limit of 30 on the number
of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1), an annual limit of 63 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies)
to counters, and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial counters) in
football at each Football Championship Subdivision institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)

15.5.6.2.1 Exception—Championship Subdivision. [FCS]

Championship subdivision football programs
that meet the following criteria are exempt from the championship subdivision football counter and
initial-counter requirements of Bylaws 15.5.1 and 15.5.6, regardless of multi-sport student-athletes who
receive athletics aid in a sport(s) other than football: (Adopted: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, Revised: 1/10/95,
12/15/06)


(a) In football, the institution awards financial aid only to student-athletes who demonstrate financial
need, except loans, academic honor awards, nonathletics achievement awards, or certain aid from
outside sources may be provided without regard to financial need; (Revised: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/03)
(b) The institution uses methodologies for analyzing need that conform to federal, state and written
institutional guidelines. The methodologies used to determine the need of a student-athlete must be
consistent with the methodologies used by the institution’s financial aid office for all students; and
(Revised: 1/10/95)
(c) The composition of the financial aid package offered to football student-athletes is consistent with
the policy established for offering financial assistance to all students. The financial aid packages for
football student-athletes also shall meet the following criteria:
(1) The institution shall not consider athletics ability as a criterion in the formulation of any football
student-athlete’s financial aid package; and
(2) The procedures used to award financial aid to football student-athletes must be the same as the
existing financial aid procedures used for all students at the institution.

[MplsBison]

They only became allowed a few years ago, and since the big boys didn't utilize the new rule it mostly stayed out of headlines

Thoughts:

- All scholarships should have to be guaranteed for the student-athletes entire athletic eligibility so long as the student is participating on the team. This is to prevent a coach from "not renewing" a scholarship for another year even though the player is in good standing on the team, academically eligible and wants to keep participating on the team.

Once the player is no longer participating on the team, the school is no longer obligated to honor the scholarship for the remaining athletic eligibility.


- However, I do think there needs to be something like a "Goodwill Exception" added that allows a school to continue providing the scholarship for the remaining athletic eligibility without it counting towards the limit on a case-by-case basis where there are reasonable circumstances warranting such a decision. Note: it would only be applicable for the student to continue his education at that institution. If he transfers, the school is off the hook.

Without a clause like this added, then if the school wanted to keep providing the scholarship and the circumstances didn't meet one of the already existing exceptions (like for incapacitating injury/illness) then that scholarship would continue to count towards the limit, which then may unfairly influence the school to decide to not keep providing the scholarship even though the circumstances might warrant that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In addition to what Nova09 has already stated, I'd like to point out the following.

Single year scholarships are currently also providing non-rescindable benefits over that year long period. A coach can't decide to cut a true freshman's scholarship midway through his first fall because he isn't performing well on the scout team or in the middle of his first winter workouts because he wasn't lifting as well as others.

Yet you don't consider them to be employment contracts because they're "only" a year long.

They are less like employment contracts than a four-year scholarship. A year-long scholarship is an imperfect simulation of what regular students go through in regards to paying for tuition and getting good grades. When a regular student matriculates, he or she is entering a quasi-contract that they can afford the tuition and they can get good grades for that semester. If the check doesn't clear second semester, they don't continue to go to that school.

Furthermore, the benefit used to only be "tutiton". Now, it's "tuition plus a whole lot of other things not available to other students".

[MplsBison]

They are less like employment contracts than a four-year scholarship. A year-long scholarship is an imperfect simulation of what regular students go through in regards to paying for tuition and getting good grades. When a regular student matriculates, he or she is entering a quasi-contract that they can afford the tuition and they can get good grades for that semester. If the check doesn't clear second semester, they don't continue to go to that school.

So then actually, only a scholarship of one semester in length is valid.

Thus a scholarship of two semesters long is really no different than a scholarship of eight semesters long. They're both multi-semester scholarships.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So then actually, only a scholarship of one semester in length is valid.

Thus a scholarship of two semesters long is really no different than a scholarship of eight semesters long. They're both multi-semester scholarships.

Hence the term "imperfect simulation."

[MplsBison]

Hence the term "imperfect simulation."

If a two semester long scholarship is an imperfect simulation, then so is an eight semester long scholarship.

[2ram]

If a two semester long scholarship is an imperfect simulation, then so is an eight semester long scholarship.

lol wronger makes righter.

[Bisonoline]

To your first point: now you're arguing something completely different from this thread. The guarantee of future ed, stipend, future med care are all different proposals than the 4 year "guaranteed" scholarship. The 4 year schollie is already allowed and utilized by some schools, and certain conferences are now trying to mandate it across their conference bc some of the schools want to do it but they dont want to feel it puts them at a recruiting advantage against their conference mates if those other schools are bringing in larger classes and cutting upperclassmen.

To your second point, that's exactly what is being discussed in courts. I don't consider it employment, the Chicago LRB does, Judge Wilken will surely chime in, and many other courts will hear about it in the coming years. The point is not if it is employment or not, the point in this thread is if there is any difference in the contract for one year or multi-year.

If they change it then they will be setting a precedent. 4 years schollies were the norm at one time and the athletes werent considered employees.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If they change it then they will be setting a precedent. 4 years schollies were the norm at one time and the athletes werent considered employees.

That's because "scholarships" only included money to be used for tuition. Now "scholarships" are attempted to be expanded to be something much more, including stuff that looks like a job benefit, such as health care.

[Bisonoline]

That's because "scholarships" only included money to be used for tuition. Now "scholarships" are attempted to be expanded to be something much more, including stuff that looks like a job benefit, such as health care.

AAAHHHhhhhh no. Tuition, room and board and medical was taken care of. Books were also taken care of depending on the conference. Injured players kept their schollies. What it looks like and what it is are two different things. The IRS has determined that those benefits arent taxable therefore they arent employees or contract employees .

[MplsBison]

That's because "scholarships" only included money to be used for tuition. Now "scholarships" are attempted to be expanded to be something much more, including stuff that looks like a job benefit, such as health care.

It's not "much more". It's money for incidental costs, relevant to any college student.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's not "much more". It's money for incidental costs, relevant to any college student.

Money that regular students don't get, hence a benefit.

[Bisonoline]

Money that regular students don't get, hence a benefit.

So now you are narrowing it down to the stipend? Its called---the full cost of attendance. Since medical isnt given to the reg students and isnt taxed why do you think the stipend will be categorized anything different?

[RichH2]

If they change it then they will be setting a precedent. 4 years schollies were the norm at one time and the athletes werent considered employees.
If they now can unionize as employees, then the benefits they receive as employees are taxable income. The next question is whether NCAA will keep its antitrust exemption.

[Bisonoline]

If they now can unionize as employees, then the benefits they receive as employees are taxable income. The next question is whether NCAA will keep its antitrust exemption.

But they havent Unionized. If and when they do will be a different can or worms all together.

[RichH2]

It already is a new can if worms.The ruling itself not the fact of an actual union is the operative fact. If you are entitled to unionize you are an employee already. Therefore payments to you are income.

[Bisonoline]

It already is a new can if worms.The ruling itself not the fact of an actual union is the operative fact. If you are entitled to unionize you are an employee already. Therefore payments to you are income.

Only if the IRS deems it so.

[RichH2]

IRS has very little option absent a court reversal .

[Bisonoline]

IRS has very little option absent a court reversal .

Watch. There is no way the bigs are going to get involved with paying SS taxes etc and all the crap that goes with being an employer. They have the best lawyers on top of this. They wont make this move unless its in their favor. Have you not seen how they operate?

[RichH2]

Dont disagree. I would be surprised if they dont. Getting around ruling will not be easy .

[MplsBison]

Rich, keep in mind that the only ruling that has been made was by the Chicago Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board.

The NCAA of course appealled that ruling to the national office of the NLRB in Washington DC. Once they rule, then it will be appealled by whoever loses to ... not sure. The US Supreme Court? Someone with more knowledge of how NLRB ruling appeals works could fill in.

But in any case, the final ruling is far from being made.


And that would only cover private schools. Public employees (state run universities) have agencies similar to the NLRB in each state. So it would go on a state by state basis.

[MplsBison]

Money that regular students don't get, hence a benefit.

Define "get", and from what?

Regular students have an opportunity to work at a job to earn extra money, an opportunity that student-athletes don't have since they spend so much time on tasks related to their sport.

[RichH2]

Agreed. Most of our conversation academic for now. Still fun to bust chops a bit. Actually,dont think ruling will survive unscathed. The ultimate decision years away.😄

[MplsBison]

The ultimate decision may not even need to be made, if some of the lawsuits go against the NCAA. Of course, they'll be appealed too. We're years away from any landmark changes.

NFL should just start invest in a D-League now. Of course they won't if they don't have to. NCAA is a very convenient way for them to get free development of talent and the NCAA loves keeping all the money to themselves and not given players a drop.

[Sandlapper Spike]

Don't have time right now to look it up, but I believe the NCAA term is "medical non-counter" so if you run a search for that you should find it

Ok I did take the time to look it up and that term is not used, but the bylaw is 15.5.1.3


The school most publicly identified with "medical scholarships" is Alabama. It seems every year 2-3 players in a given class are deemed unable to play, but continue to receive a scholarship without it counting against the 85-man limit.

Nick Saban has received some criticism (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21733077) for this:


Injured players may be asked to accept a medical hardship, which allows them to remain on scholarship without counting against the cap but effectively ends their career, even if the injury is not necessarily career-ending. (Saban has been criticized in the past for using the hardship more than any other coach, and by players who said they felt pressured to accept a hardship (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509901468451306.html). At least one player who was released for medical reasons has gone on to play at another school (http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports/2010/04/ex-tide_linebacker_ezekial_kni.html), albeit on a much lower level.)

[MplsBison]

The school most publicly identified with "medical scholarships" is Alabama. It seems every year 2-3 players in a given class are deemed unable to play, but continue to receive a scholarship without it counting against the 85-man limit.

Nick Saban has received some criticism (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21733077) for this:

But if the scholarship was guaranteed, then the player wouldn't have to cave to the coach's fraud. He can refuse the request and not have to worry about the coach pulling his scholarship in retaliation.