The CardBoard
Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies (/thread-8148.html)


Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - Farm93 - 10-27-2014

They are up and about for those that have not seen them yet, but will provide link to the Pac-12 press release.
Things we hoped the conference would announce once it was clear the Power 5 would go this direction.

http://pac-12.com/article/2014/10/27/pac-12-universities-adopt-sweeping-reforms-student-athletes-guaranteeing

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - stupac2 - 10-27-2014

All very sensible and long overdue. I wonder about the transfer rules, though, in the past transferring between conference teams was a bit of a no-no, I wonder if it'll really be that easy.

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - BobK - 10-27-2014

That's the distance past on conference transfers, they made it easier maybe 6 years ago.  One year sitting out. 

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - stupac2 - 10-27-2014

(10-27-2014, 04:43 PM)BobK link Wrote:That's the distance past on conference transfers, they made it easier maybe 6 years ago.  One year sitting out.

Yeah, de jure, but de facto the school could block the transfer and places often did. It was a big deal when ND "allowed" Vanderdoes to go to UCLA.

Maybe this wasn't true in the PAC, I can't remember hearing a case of a blocked transfer, but I've definitely heard that schools have official-but-not-official "no transferring inside the conference" rules.

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - OutsiderFan - 10-27-2014

And U$C thought it was somehow special by announcing four-year scholarships?  Makes them look a little silly when every conference school is doing the same thing.

I wonder if the PAC-12's reforms will help recruiting.  One of the main reasons the SEC has been able to stay on top in football is because they basically cut players who aren't developing and recruit over them.  Will guaranteed scholarships stop the over signing practice?  Or does it actually just allow business as usual, only without the part about athletes having scholarships taken away and having to pay for school themselves if they get cut from the team for not developing as players?

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - stupac2 - 10-27-2014

(10-27-2014, 07:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I wonder if the PAC-12's reforms will help recruiting.  One of the main reasons the SEC has been able to stay on top in football is because they basically cut players who aren't developing and recruit over them.  Will guaranteed scholarships stop the over signing practice?  Or does it actually just allow business as usual, only without the part about athletes having scholarships taken away and having to pay for school themselves if they get cut from the team for not developing as players?

Who knows what will happen with that? Depends on the conference officials, I expect. If they want to police it they can, if they don't, the less scrupulous coaches will still pull that crap.

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - 81alum - 10-27-2014

So far as I understand them, these all look like reasonable reforms.  Thank goodness for the 4 year scholarships, and the improved medical coverage.

I do wonder what motivated the new transfer rules, and what their effect will be.  For example, what if Nottingham had transferred to a Pac 12 school rather than Columbia?


Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - CTcard - 10-28-2014

(10-27-2014, 07:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Will guaranteed scholarships stop the over signing practice? 

The answer is mostly no, but in some cases it might give the athlete a little more power.

A ton of the oversigning problem happens before athletes get on scholarship.
Team SEC-State1 signs 32 players expecting 7 of about 14 possibilities won't actually become eligible. Somehow 9 make it. Then we hear that 1 of those guys really didn't want to start school until spring semester and another got confused and really wanted to go to "Southwest SEC-State1 Technical College" and he is graciously allowed to do so. Four year guaranteed scholarships are irrelevant here.

For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer. Especially when that announcement comes along with a bunch of brochures for the local Div. 1-AA school. The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate.

Finally, much comes down to the phrase "... provided the student-athlete remains in good standing and meets his/her terms of the agreement."
One of the midwest schools that ostentatiously announced they would offer four year guaranteed scholarships also released fine print that used the phrase "complying with team rules" or something like that. I often suspect that one of the team rules is effectively "you must be good enough". 

But for the kid who wants to stick around despite being not wanted by the coach, this might give them a little more leverage.

------
In reading the list of reforms, I was appalled to remember that for in-conference transfers athletic-aid was not allowed in the year of waiting. Getting rid of that in/out of conference disparity is long overdue. Do other conferences have that rule?

Otherwise, the only item that looks like a big deal is the four years of medical coverage post-school for "documented athletically related injuries".
I wonder how long it will be until we read about disputes as to whether particular injuries were "athletically related" or not.


****
I seem to be feeling cynical this morning.

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - ca245 - 10-28-2014

How will be new 4-year scholarship rules through apply to be following situations, which I understand can happen under the old rules:
1. Coach promises a student athlete in a counter sport, "Walk on for the first two years and I will give you a scholarship for the next two."
2. In a partial scholarship sport, Coach promises a student athlete: "The first two years you get a 25% scholarship; but next two you get a 50% scholarship." (Or vice-versa; would that be reducing the level of support?)

Also, if a FB walk on earns a scholarship in his sophomore year, will he also be guaranteed a scholarship for his junior and senior years?

Lastly, I believe TVD has done this in WBB. She has one unused scholarship for a season, so she gives it to a walk on as a "bonus", with the understanding that it is a one-year deal. Can she still do this, or will she be stuck with a 4-year scholarship to the walk-on if she tries to do this? (Seems like there should be an exception for such a situation)

Re: Pac-12's New Scholarship Policies - CTcard - 10-28-2014

(10-28-2014, 11:51 AM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This isn't t-ball or Special Olympics; some players are going to get beaten out for jobs, and that's the way it goes. There's nothing wrong with telling somebody, look, if you're just on the team as a way to pay for college and you don't care if you ever play, that's fine, and we'll honor the deal we made. But if you have dreams of dazzling the NFL and getting drafted in the first round, you might want to think about another school, because it's not going to happen here.

For the most part I didn't intend to make a value judgement, just to point out that the part of oversigning associated with the act of "not quite cutting" kids from the team is unlikely to change despite the fact that the four-year guaranteed scholarship would supposedly do so.

However, there is a value judgement expressed in the part of my post that said, "The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate."

The conversation you relate is not only perfectly acceptable, I would say a service to the kids to help them see reality - though it can be a difficult conversation to have. However, a slightly different conversation is not so great,
"Look kid, you're not turning out good enough to play much and we'd rather have your spot for Joe X over at City Juco. Legally, I cannot kick you out, but if you stick around we're going to make your life hell and you certainly won't be treated as a real member of the team. If I were you I'd start thinking seriously about the opportunities over at Southwest State Technical College - they got a competitive team at their level, put a guy into the NFL just 10 years ago, don't have anything to worry about re:entrance requirements, and an excellent program in sports-retail. I'll put in a good word for you."