The NCAA passed measures today changing scholarship rules. The one getting the most media attention is the one which passed 79-1 providing that student-athletes can now recover additional benefits under the COST OF ATTENDANCE method. But of more significance is the new rule making scholarships multi-year. Schools can no longer pull scholarships for "athletic reasons." That measure barely passed. 3 of the "Power Five" conferences voted for the rule while the SEC and Big 12 voted against it. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/cost-of-attendance-multi-year-scholarships-approved/
I'm all for anything that makes the bargain a good one for the kids. I've never been exactly sure what the "full" cost of attendance means but as long as it's school related then I'm for it. As far as the scholarships thing that certainly has been a trend, with a lot of schools already doing that and some even going as far as to say that even if they leave for the Pro's that they can come back and finish their degree's under the scholarship. Not a big deal for the kids who make it big of course, but those kids who don't make it at all are the ones it will help. One thing I would like them to do is to go ahead and make it a 5 year scholarship and let the kids play. Eliminate the whole "red shirt" deal. It's so stupid that towards the end of their freshman year that they can't get in a game no matter what or even play in a bowl game. Let'em play and not be penalized.
So is the scholarship like a contract now? If it can't be terminated because of athletic reasons by the school, is it in effect for 4 years? Does that mean the student/athlete is bound by the scholarship for the full 4 years? No more transfers because they are not getting enough playing time? :?
I'm just wondering if a school has any recourse when a player decides that since he isn't in the 2 deep, he doesn't have to participate in conditioning and go 100% in practice. If he's not living up to his part of the bargain does he still get a free ride?
8) It means that all of the schools will have to recruit real students or run the risk of deadheads squatting on their rosters. I like it.
Simple. The same faculty members who have been giving grades to maintain eligibility can now give the school a reason to toss a guy.
Well lets face kids know when they aren't wanted anymore, and they either quit the team and finish at that school or they leave. It happens all the time, it happened at Texas this past fall, I'm sure private meetings with kids who left went like this... I doubt if you'll ever get in another game here son, if you want to play you should transfer. If they stay practice probably becomes a death march for them with the coaches on their butt the whole time till they just quit. The new rules won't change that, kids will still be run off. It's just that with the current rules the school could refuse to renew their scholarship so that won't happen but kids will still get the message and leave.
Terry, You're assuming that the players are being run off. Tenpenny doesn't sound like he is being run off. He just wants to go somewhere so he can start sooner.
Now Tenpenny did say lots of other stuff that was nice about Alabama, the team, his coaches, etc. But still he's leaving, sure to get to play earlier and it's entirely possible that his coach told him he wasn't likely to play anytime soon and that he should consider transferring. Nothing really wrong about that and it's done all over college football. So new rules don't change much, except that right now the Coach could tell him that his scholarship is not going to be renewed, that he's been recruited over and he'll need to move on without a scholarship. In the future the coach can't tell him that. Now there is nothing in the rule that says coaches can't make his life on the team very uncomfortable so that he voluntarily leaves. That's the way it's always been.
And it is also entirely possible that he was told that he would have to compete for a position and he didn't want to do that. Tenpenny was a top recruit that would have had a great chance at playing time this year with Yeldon and Fowler leaving. Alabama uses 3 sometimes 4 running backs and there is always the possibility of more playing time because of injuries. Tennessee has one of our guys (Kamara) also and Colorado State had another (Hart). We could have used those guys, why would we want to get rid of them? :?
You certainly could be right, but also it could be that the coaching staff isn't that high on him inspite of once thinking he was really great. He wouldn't be the first highly recruited kid to be less in college than he was in HS. But we are getting off course here. I don't want to focus on one kid at Alabama, I think that in general that the new rule is more cosmetic than anything. I'll bet that most schools rarely if ever have failed to renew a scholarship due to the player not producing as expected. Most kids either leave on their own for various reasons, including disagreements with coaches and being encouraged to go elesewhere or injury's.
Like a lot of NCAA Rules, they are best understood with the old saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' They come up with a rule designed to protect kids from the over-signing shuffle, but the coaches will just find a way around it. Those who sign and dump will continue to do so, and those who don't simply live with their recruiting mistakes.