Started By
Message
NCAA meeting today for sweeping change in FB and BB policy
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:02 am
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:02 am
LINK
Money to address complaints that scholarships don't cover the full cost of attendance? Check. Multi-year scholarships? Check. Changes in summer basketball recruiting and postseason bans for poor classroom performance? Check.
All four issues are on the agenda of the NCAA's Division I board of directors, which is meeting Thursday and is expected to act quickly.
"I fully expect that when you're making as big of changes as we are, that you'll need some fine-tuning and adjustments," NCAA President Mark Emmert told The Associated Press. "But in the past, not getting the fine-tuning right has slowed down the process, and I and the board are committed to moving things along aggressively."
Why not?
Since taking office a little more than a year ago, Emmert has presided over one of the most tumultuous years in NCAA history.
Scandals have rocked programs from Boise State to Miami. The reigning national champions in football (Auburn) and men's basketball (Connecticut) were both investigated by the NCAA, and there have been questions about agents, parents, academic misconduct, improper benefits and even prostitution. The revolving door of conference realignment is still spinning wildly, and the Justice Department is even asking about scholarship rules.
School presidents have had enough, and there is momentum to take drastic action now.
More in the link.
Money to address complaints that scholarships don't cover the full cost of attendance? Check. Multi-year scholarships? Check. Changes in summer basketball recruiting and postseason bans for poor classroom performance? Check.
All four issues are on the agenda of the NCAA's Division I board of directors, which is meeting Thursday and is expected to act quickly.
"I fully expect that when you're making as big of changes as we are, that you'll need some fine-tuning and adjustments," NCAA President Mark Emmert told The Associated Press. "But in the past, not getting the fine-tuning right has slowed down the process, and I and the board are committed to moving things along aggressively."
Why not?
Since taking office a little more than a year ago, Emmert has presided over one of the most tumultuous years in NCAA history.
Scandals have rocked programs from Boise State to Miami. The reigning national champions in football (Auburn) and men's basketball (Connecticut) were both investigated by the NCAA, and there have been questions about agents, parents, academic misconduct, improper benefits and even prostitution. The revolving door of conference realignment is still spinning wildly, and the Justice Department is even asking about scholarship rules.
School presidents have had enough, and there is momentum to take drastic action now.
More in the link.
5
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:04 am to parkjas2001
The hope is with more cash the players are less likely to take outside money, may or may not help.
They want to make a scholarship a 4 year agreement, no try-outs with massive cuts later. They also want to end the current practice of redshirting for hangnails and other minor issues.
They want to make a scholarship a 4 year agreement, no try-outs with massive cuts later. They also want to end the current practice of redshirting for hangnails and other minor issues.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:05 am to rangers911
Also raising the GPAs for qualifications will disqualify some players that may be targeted by street agents.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:07 am to parkjas2001
Bunch of pointy headed, bow tie wearing, elitist are gonna ruin college football. 
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:12 am to rangers911
quote:
They want to make a scholarship a 4 year agreement
This should not happen; it's an attempt to take down the SEC's dominance.
Q? Are academic scholarships a 4 year agreement? Do they have performance clauses?
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:13 am to spacewrangler
quote:
Are academic scholarships a 4 year agreement? Do they have performance clauses?
No and no...scholarships are fine the way they are.
I do like the increase in yearly money and the raise in GPA qualifications though.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:19 am to parkjas2001
quote:
I do like the increase in yearly money and the raise in GPA qualifications though
I agree on the money because they really have no opportunity to work and when they do it seems there is always a problem with over pay.
Raising the GPA? Not sure how I feel on that issue.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:19 am to spacewrangler
quote:
Q? Are academic scholarships a 4 year agreement? Do they have performance clauses?
They should get rid of their policies towards transfering when cut from a team. Then no one could bitch about "the kids"
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:20 am to rangers911
quote:
They want to make a scholarship a 4 year agreement, no try-outs with massive cuts later.
Completely against making them for 4-years, and not just because I'm an Alabama fan. I don't think it is fair to the university to lock them in to a four year commitment, and I think there are other steps they can take to alleviate the unfairness of the system to the kids. If they want to help the kids, they need to (1) change the date at which the grant-in-aids must be renewed; (2) make adjustments to the transfer eligibility rules; and (3) provide a penalty for teams who cut players at will.
The student should be informed by the second-week of January whether or not their scholarship has been renewed for the next year. This gives the student a small window to contact other schools that may be interested in bringing him in as part of their recruiting class this year. To go along with this, any student who does not have their scholarship renewed should be immediately eligible to play for any university.
Finally, if the student is unable to find another school that is willing to take him on by the start of the following fall semester, then the school that wishes to cut him from their roster may do so, but must keep them on scholarship for the full four years (or until they do find another university to attend) and count them as a 0.5 scholarship towards their 85 limit. Any school that exceeds their 85 number as a result of this process, must pay back that number two-fold the next season.
For instance, if State U does not renew 5 scholarships at the end of a season, those 5 kids are free to go to whatever school they wish to without having to sit out. However, if 3 of the kids are not able to find a school to put them on scholarship, then they may stay at State U for the duration of their 4 year scholarship. If State U's signing class brings them up to an even 85 scholarship players, then they would end up being 1.5 scholarships over (0.5 x 3) as a result of cutting those 5 players. Accordingly, next year, they will be penalized by having their 85 scholarship limitation reduced to 82 (1.5 x 2).
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:21 am to NYCAuburn
Interesting.
Mark Emmert is in Houston today to give a speech at a conference of some sort. I forget which.
My boss was invited and is going. He tried to get me a seat but pretty exclusive.
Mark Emmert is in Houston today to give a speech at a conference of some sort. I forget which.
My boss was invited and is going. He tried to get me a seat but pretty exclusive.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:21 am to NYCAuburn
quote:Exactly. Instead of four year deals, allow kids to transfer freely if the school fails to renew the scholarship and give the school a deadline in the spring to either renew or not renew the scholarship.
They should get rid of their policies towards transfering when cut from a team. Then no one could bitch about "the kids"
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:23 am to rangers911
quote:
They also want to end the current practice of redshirting for hangnails and other minor issues.
This would not be in the best interest of the student-athlete. If a player just isn't ready to play yet physically and the coach is willing to keep him around for 6 years until he is ready, what benefit does the student-athlete get from not being able to get a medical redshirt?
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:24 am to mre
The other problem is they limit contact prior to actually enrolling(recruitment, etc..), that sometimes it is not a good fit for either the recruit or the coaches, and this is not found out till enrolled and on campus. The NCAA created the scholly issue with some of their stupid rules, not the schools
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:31 am to spacewrangler
quote:
they really have no opportunity to work
This is a real problem.
Cool story time.
I am a recruiter by profession and interviewed a former WR from Mich St about 5 years ago for a very low level position. He played when Charles Rogers did but i dont remember his name.
He had basically zero experience and most of his qualities were those that would have to be translated from his time on the team. Needless to say, i couldnt hire him because he nothing on his resume.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:34 am to mre
quote:
Completely against making them for 4-years, and not just because I'm an Alabama fan. I don't think it is fair to the university to lock them in to a four year commitment, and I think there are other steps they can take to alleviate the unfairness of the system to the kids. If they want to help the kids, they need to (1) change the date at which the grant-in-aids must be renewed; (2) make adjustments to the transfer eligibility rules; and (3) provide a penalty for teams who cut players at will.
The student should be informed by the second-week of January whether or not their scholarship has been renewed for the next year. This gives the student a small window to contact other schools that may be interested in bringing him in as part of their recruiting class this year. To go along with this, any student who does not have their scholarship renewed should be immediately eligible to play for any university.
Finally, if the student is unable to find another school that is willing to take him on by the start of the following fall semester, then the school that wishes to cut him from their roster may do so, but must keep them on scholarship for the full four years (or until they do find another university to attend) and count them as a 0.5 scholarship towards their 85 limit. Any school that exceeds their 85 number as a result of this process, must pay back that number two-fold the next season.
For instance, if State U does not renew 5 scholarships at the end of a season, those 5 kids are free to go to whatever school they wish to without having to sit out. However, if 3 of the kids are not able to find a school to put them on scholarship, then they may stay at State U for the duration of their 4 year scholarship. If State U's signing class brings them up to an even 85 scholarship players, then they would end up being 1.5 scholarships over (0.5 x 3) as a result of cutting those 5 players. Accordingly, next year, they will be penalized by having their 85 scholarship limitation reduced to 82 (1.5 x 2).
Cogent proposal! You've obviously given some significant thought to this process. I like it.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:40 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
They should get rid of their policies towards transfering when cut from a team
I agree that the transferring rules should be changed to some extent but what constitutes being "CUT" from a team?
If they fail out of school?
Break Teams Rules?
What if they transfer to get early playing time? They were not cut so Should they be allowed to go play right away?
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:43 am to spacewrangler
Good thread!
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:46 am to spacewrangler
quote:
If they fail out of school?
They should be able to go anywhere they can gain access to.
quote:
Break Teams Rules?
Same...but the kids history would be a bigger obstacle than anything the NCA would say or do.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:49 am to spacewrangler
quote:
I agree that the transferring rules should be changed to some extent but what constitutes being "CUT" from a team?
Performance based, should be the rule.
quote:
If they fail out of school? Break Teams Rules?
Similar to regular scholarships, if you fail because of grades, you can't just enroll into any other school
quote:
What if they transfer to get early playing time? They were not cut so Should they be allowed to go play right away?
def. not. I like the current rules as it applies to this scenario.
This post was edited on 10/27/11 at 9:50 am
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:50 am to spacewrangler
quote:No. IMO, it should be freely allowed where the school failed to renew the scholarship. If the kid chooses to leave with a written scholarship offer from the school on the table, then the kid sits out a year.
What if they transfer to get early playing time? They were not cut so Should they be allowed to go play right away?
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News