Started By
Message
re: NCAA meeting today for sweeping change in FB and BB policy
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:44 am to DrSEC
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:44 am to DrSEC
quote:
The NCAA is supposed to serve to protect the student athlete and keep a fair playing ground but right now they players are just numbers.
I agree completely, which is why I posted this in my last post:
quote:
There are other ways to look after the kids without locking the University into a 4-year commitment with them, such as the plan that I posted on the first page. Tell me how that plan doesn't address any concerns about looking out for the players while at the same time not locking the University into a 4-year commitment to keeping the kids on the team.
I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but why not move to a system that protects both parties, the students and the universities?
1
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:46 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Who they have limited contact with and who could have numbers and stats highly skewed because of numerous factors
My experience has been that coaches give very little credence to high school stats. I worked for an agency that went out and put together recruiting packages for 50+ colleges.
Stats might be mentioned but they were just a small part of the report. Our agency would get our report and then make video breakdowns of all of their fundamentals and strengths.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:57 am to mre
quote:
I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but why not move to a system that protects both parties, the students and the universities?
While your plan might be better than the current system it still does not touch the true issue. The true issue is that the players are still just being used and thrown out.
A. If you tell a player he is good enough to be at your school and he does his best....that should be honored.
Under your plan he would be forced to leave his school, his friends, and probably some school work that naturally happens when you transfer.
B. The school and coach should never be seen as the victim. They are making millions in most cases. The kid is the one thrown out. The school and the coach can bully you out while they get mulligans.
C. If the player is cut and cannot find a school he now has had his dream ripped from him. Had he known in the first place he could had gone to a school that he was good enough to be on the team for. The problem is....now that he has years on him..many schools would rather get a player they can work with for four seasons.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 12:27 pm to DrSEC
quote:
A. If you tell a player he is good enough to be at your school and he does his best....that should be honored.
Under your plan he would be forced to leave his school, his friends, and probably some school work that naturally happens when you transfer.
B. The school and coach should never be seen as the victim. They are making millions in most cases. The kid is the one thrown out. The school and the coach can bully you out while they get mulligans.
I agree that we should err on the side of protecting the kids over the side of the University, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the interests of the University, especially if that can be achieved while also looking after the interests of the kids.
You put forth a best effort standard for an athlete to maintain his scholarship, but the problem with that is that it is entirely subjective. Who decides what an individual's best effort is and where do we draw that line? Is "best effort" merely showing up for practice and team meetings or are we going to require the athlete to push himself to his limits to become the best player that he can be? It's not like with an academic scholarship that has an objective standard where the student has to maintain a 3.0.
quote:
C. If the player is cut and cannot find a school he now has had his dream ripped from him. Had he known in the first place he could had gone to a school that he was good enough to be on the team for. The problem is....now that he has years on him..many schools would rather get a player they can work with for four seasons
I'm not trying to be mean here, and I respect the work you did as a scout, but this seems a tad bit naive. Even if the kid stays at the original school for 4-years, if the coach doesn't want him, he's not going to play even if he is still technically on scholarship. His dream will be just as dead in this situation, only he'd have no option to leave the school and potentially play somewhere the next season. Even though many schools would rather get a player they can work with for four seasons, many schools don't have that hang-up. I mean, look at the influx of juco players. This at least gives them a chance to find a new home where they can play, and it doesn't penalize the university that picks them up by having a player on their roster that has to sit for a year.
This post was edited on 10/27/11 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 10/27/11 at 12:58 pm to Hawgon
quote:is not going to affect
It means an extra 2k for ALL athletes
quote:at the cost to the school of
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
quote:
That will mean around $800k a year at least in more scholarship money.
In addition to the other programs that the school will lose. Cal almost lost their baseball program because of funding only to have a donor step in at the last minute to bail them out. This certainly isn't going to help...
And seriously...$160/month extra is going to fix anything?
This post was edited on 10/27/11 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 10/27/11 at 1:11 pm to GeauxTigersLee
I would be alright with making the scholarship a 4 year commitment, but if the person does not meet certain (on field) performance criteria they should be cut and still be on "academic" scholarship on campus. Allowing coaches to do what they need to keep a quality product on the field and removing the huge hit or miss potential of recruiting classes.
If this rule was in place right now Tennessee would have even worse players on their squad then they do now and it would be filled with upper classmen that don't belong on an SEC field.
Make the scholarships 4 year Academic commitments but keep it at a year by year basis for football concerns. Scholarships offers would be much more cautious at most schools, while other bigger schools could get away with the financial risk.
If this rule was in place right now Tennessee would have even worse players on their squad then they do now and it would be filled with upper classmen that don't belong on an SEC field.
Make the scholarships 4 year Academic commitments but keep it at a year by year basis for football concerns. Scholarships offers would be much more cautious at most schools, while other bigger schools could get away with the financial risk.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 1:54 pm to parkjas2001
Posted on 10/27/11 at 2:08 pm to eric4UA08
Well, this is a weird compromise:
quote:
The Board also approved multi-year grants up to the full term of eligibility, though one-year grants will remain the minimum. A prescribed minimum award value should apply to all scholarships (percentage amount to be decided in the coming months), and institutions could increase the allotted aid during the period of the award.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 2:39 pm to mre
The Board approved an increase in the transferrable grade-point average from 2.0 to 2.5 and limited the number of physical education activity courses to two. Also, two-year college transfers who didn’t qualify academically out of high school will be required to complete a core curriculum that includes English, math and science courses.
The new transfer requirements will apply to any student-athlete enrolling full-time in college for the first time in August 2012 or later.
The Board also adopted new initial eligibility standards. The presidents support a model that creates a higher academic standard for incoming freshman to compete than to receive aid and practice, creating an academic red shirt year.
Student-athletes who achieve the current minimum initial eligibility standard on the test score-grade-point average sliding scale with at least a minimum 2.0 core-course GPA would continue to be eligible for athletically related financial aid during the first year of enrollment and practice during the first regular academic term of enrollment. Student-athletes could earn the second term of enrollment for practice by passing nine semester or eight quarter hours.
The proposal increases the standard for immediate access to competition to at least a 2.3 GPA and an increased sliding scale. Specifically, incoming student-athletes would need to earn a half-point higher GPA for a given test score compared to the current standard. For example, an SAT score of 1,000 would require a 2.5 high school core-course GPA for competition and a 2.0 high school core-course GPA for aid and practice.
The new transfer requirements will apply to any student-athlete enrolling full-time in college for the first time in August 2012 or later.
The Board also adopted new initial eligibility standards. The presidents support a model that creates a higher academic standard for incoming freshman to compete than to receive aid and practice, creating an academic red shirt year.
Student-athletes who achieve the current minimum initial eligibility standard on the test score-grade-point average sliding scale with at least a minimum 2.0 core-course GPA would continue to be eligible for athletically related financial aid during the first year of enrollment and practice during the first regular academic term of enrollment. Student-athletes could earn the second term of enrollment for practice by passing nine semester or eight quarter hours.
The proposal increases the standard for immediate access to competition to at least a 2.3 GPA and an increased sliding scale. Specifically, incoming student-athletes would need to earn a half-point higher GPA for a given test score compared to the current standard. For example, an SAT score of 1,000 would require a 2.5 high school core-course GPA for competition and a 2.0 high school core-course GPA for aid and practice.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 2:45 pm to parkjas2001
Just saw the policy "upgrades" on CFL... While I like the $2000 xtra money for scholarships I am worried about the post season penalties regarding gpa qualifications... seems like a recipe for disaster
Posted on 10/27/11 at 2:52 pm to GeAuXbAdGeR
quote:
I am worried about the post season penalties regarding gpa qualifications... seems like a recipe for disaster
it puts more ownership on the "student" part of student athlete.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 3:05 pm to parkjas2001
I saw where they may allow $2k in spending money with the scholarships. I agree with this but how will this affect recruiting for smaller colleges who can't afford it?
Posted on 10/27/11 at 3:08 pm to jmarto1
It wont affect recruiting. The smaller schools will most likely allocate those funds from another part of their budget.
The 2k funs are coming from the school, not the athletic budget.
The 2k funs are coming from the school, not the athletic budget.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 3:14 pm to parkjas2001
Pay for pay will barely take a dent with this. It's all about bidding for a signature, not covering their costs.
Look at the shite these kids spend their money on. It's not groceries, for the most part.
Look at the shite these kids spend their money on. It's not groceries, for the most part.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 3:14 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
it puts more ownership on the "student" part of student athlete
I agree with this until some 19 yr old effs up my season... and that could be from any school but I understand the reasoning (more mulah more responsiblity)
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News