Multiyear Scholarship Legislation Upheld by NCAA
Remember the self-congratulatory moral and ethical grandstanding that a few programs put on display this past National Signing Day by hemming and hawing about their issuance of supposedly guaranteed multiyear scholarships? Due to a narrow vote today by the NCAA member institutions, expect more of that contrived back-patting in the years to come. The press release from NCAA.org:
Multiyear scholarship legislation, one of several measures the Division I Board of Directors adopted in the wake of an August 2011 presidential retreat, was upheld in a membership override vote that concluded Friday.
As such, Division I schools will have the option to offer scholarships guaranteed for more than one year.
Of 330 institutions voting, 62.12% percent voted to override the legislation. A 62.5% majority of those voting was required to override legislation. More than 90% of Division I institutions voted.
As mentioned above, this legislation was originally passed by the Board of Directors six months ago, but there had been a significant backlash since that time and the substantial majority of member institutions voted to override the measure and not allow for multiyear scholarships. The actual vote tally has apparently not been released, but we can deduce from the numbers given that the final vote was roughly 185-112 in favor of ending multiyear scholarships.
That wide margin and high voter turnout should make expressly clear how strong the opposition was to this measure. Had just one of two schools that voted to uphold the current legislation switched their votes this would have gone the other way, as would been the case if two schools that chose not to vote had also voted to override the legislation.
For better or for worse, however, this is now the rule of the land and this will fuel an ever-changing recruiting environment. In the process, this creates potential problems for both the schools that offer multiyear scholarships and the schools that do not.
For the programs that are offering multiyear scholarships, this isn't necessarily a codification of a panacea. Self-congratulation notwithstanding, this could create real problems in enforcing discipline and creating environments where strong work ethics are the norm. Some signees will inevitably take advantage of a long-term guarantee with unwanted conduct knowing that the school is nevertheless required to honor their commitment, and admittedly this will be a problem that schools offering multiyear scholarships will have to find some way to navigate. How will that be done? Only time will tell, but I imagine it will largely be done by well-written contracts that, for all of their high talk and hot air, still grant the school the ultimate discretion to terminate the scholarship on an annual basis in the event that a player steps out of line off the field or fails to adequately perform on it. As marketing gurus are fond of saying, "What the bold print giveth, the fine print taketh away," and it would come as a surprise if the actual contracts lived up to the grand promises.
On the other hand, though, rest assured schools offering multiyear scholarships, whether they are in fact legitimate or not, will use that aggressively as a tool on the recruiting trails, and that could put schools offering single-year scholarships renewable on an annual basis at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Does that mean we'll see a surge in schools offering multiyear scholarships? Perhaps so, and for what it's worth that was the fear from many member institutions.
For Alabama, to date the Crimson Tide has refused the publicly acknowledge one way or the other as to the specifics of its scholarship offers, though most have assumed that 'Bama offers only single-year scholarships. Perhaps that is true and perhaps that remains the case moving forward, but as committed as Nick Saban is to success on the recruiting trails, if he feels that the lack of multiyear scholarship offers is putting Alabama at a competitive disadvantage for the nation's rising college prospects, expect 'Bama to go quickly go the way of the multiyear scholarship offer as well.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't get the blowback against the multi-year schlarships
I really think it will end up a big shock to most of the pompus critics out that when attrition continues as it always has even with schools that offer 4 year deals. The truth of the matter is that the “cuts” most people think are happening are kids either doing things what will still get them removed from the 4 year deals, or kids actually wanting to go somewhere else for playing time or other reasons. Offering 4 year scholarships isn’t going to stop that from happening.
I'm not sure attrition is the main concern for most schools.
Sure, most of the schools touting these things are talking about it as if it will be a solution to the evils of over-signing, etc., but I think that most of these schools simply want to use it as leverage against the big schools like Alabama who are not as likely to offer these deals to kids. I think what they’re going to find out, though, is that a 4 year education is not what the best players are looking for. The hardest working, academically, of the best will finish in 3 years and go pro. The others will go pro in 3 years without a degree. As for the rest of the players, they are going to get 4 years to play if they work hard, and they don’t show up not to work hard, and Alabama has a history of helping those who leave the team for medical reasons get a scholarship and finish school. It really isn’t the advantage people think it is, I don’t think.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 18, 2012 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
No, attrition is not the concern...
but oversigning is. Though most of them will tell you that the reason oversigning is wrong is because it screws over the players. They all think Saban is not renewing scholarships for a bunch of guys every year, so they think going to 4 year deals will put an end to that. Of course, when you look at it, teams that don’t oversign suffer similar attrition rates to those that do, so I doubt they will be satisfied when Saban keeps oversigning and guys with 4 year scholarships are transfering away at the same rate they are now.
Also,
I heard it was the smaller schools that were against it. They were complaining that it was too expensive, and that the larger schools could easily afford it. Thus my confusion as to why they are against it – I don’t understand how a 4 year schollie is any more expensive than a one-year one renewed four times.
I believe it is beacuse the 4 yr scholarship stays with the kid even if he is no longer on the team but in school
That is a very common occurrence at smaller schools as opposed to big ones.
by ApothecaryMark on Feb 19, 2012 10:17 AM CST up reply actions
I wish they would make kids
who sign a 4 year deal and then go pro after 3 years, pay the university back for all 4 years of their scholly…probably about 100K. A deal is a deal, right?
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Why?
I have nothing against a kid taking one of these things, and if he plays that well (and especially if he gets his degree in 3 years), why would we begrudge him the extra year?
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 18, 2012 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Because if we go to a 4 year deal
then University is committed for the full four years even if the kid never plays. If the University is committed so should the student.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Meh.
There’s a difference between committing for for years and paying for four. They only pay for the years the student is there. The university is out zero money if the student doesn’t come back for a fourth year, and frankly, the more players we put in the pros after three years, the better it is for the football program, the incoming funds, and the university. It seems to me that a player going pro after 3 years is a pretty decent return on investment.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 18, 2012 8:51 PM CST up reply actions
But...I would still contend
we have made an investment in the guy and he should live up to what he has signed. If he wants to turn pro early he should not sign a 4 year deal or else he should be ready to pay the school back. Often times we will only reap the true rewards of a player in his 4th year.
Let me give you an example. Since I live in a somewhat rural area kids from here can get college scholarships if they will agree to return to the area as teachers and teach for 2 years. Now, when a kid graduates they have the freedom to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. But, if they don’t come back to the area and teach then we expect them to repay the scholarship…it was part of the agreement.
All I’m saying is we should make that part of the 4 year agreement. You want 4 years guaranteed—fine we want you to promise us you will be here for 4 years.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I get your point,
but I just think that Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, et. al. are doing more for the university by going pro than they are by staying. It’s opening up space for more big time recruits to come in, and we’re getting those big recruits precisely because we’re putting guys in the NFL in three years. Also, don’t you think that the rich NFL guys are some of the first people on the fundraiser’s call list when it comes time to donate? I imagine we’re getting our money back from some of them. I guess this is beating a dead horse, but I don’t think the repayment idea will happen, nor do I think it really should – commitments don’t have to be completely two-way, and to make this one that way ends up hurting Alabama in the end.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 19, 2012 3:25 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe...and with Nick Saban I think we lose less to the NFL early.
But didn’t Coffee go early and I’m not so sure he was that ready?
But, my main point is a 1 year renewable scholly is really what it should be because the players can line up a 4 year deal and then leave early and for example if they thought you had plenty of corners and didn’t recruit any and then they left and left you in trouble.
And, academic scholarships have to be renewed every year. If a student does not keep up his grades he loses it. That is incentive and accountability.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
and with Nick Saban I think we lose less to the NFL early.
What? I’m not sure what you mean, but with Nick Saban we will lose more juniors basically every year to the NFL than any other program in the country. And I’m OK with that because that means we have guys on our team that are that good.
God bless our Dark Lord.
But...we don't lose players that are under drafted or go undrafted.
I see other teams losing guys that should not go pro. I want guys that leave early to be in the 1st round.
Saban has helped guys see that they need to stay if they really need to stay. Classic examples are Upshaw and Cody.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Players like Coffee are precisely the reason
we shouldn’t do the “pay-it-back plan.” Everyone could see he was about to be eclipsed by his backup in Ingram, and it just made sense for him to use his incredible Junior showing to see where he could go in the draft. He left at the best time to make the most money. In the NFL he had a very decent start – better than a lot of backs who have gone on to have decent careers, but he just dropped out for who knows what reason (the “my heart was never in football” excuse is a bit dubious to me). Why hinder a guy like that from going a year early? He’s not a first rounder, so the huge money isn’t guaranteed. It’s complete luck of the draw to see where he ends up as to whether he’s going to get paid well, or even see significant playing time. If now, all of a sudden he’s got $100,000 to pay back, he’s gonna stay put at Alabama, but it could well cost him big money in the NFL.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 20, 2012 9:35 AM CST up reply actions
Uh....so the dude could get a degree and figure out what he was going to do with his life.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Yeah, because all players
who go pro their junior year don’t know what they want to do with their life. I guess Ingram, Julio, Trent, and a thousand other players should stay for their senior year so they can mature a little bit more. All I’m saying is that doing what you are suggesting seriously limits the potential of some players by forcing them to enter the draft later than they should to capitalize on making the most money. It also puts every player that takes it at risk of injury their senior year, and it is more likely to lose a school recruits in the process. I just doesn’t make any sense.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 21, 2012 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
I would fully expect Saban to start offering multi-year schollies,
and I fully expect the critics to continue hammering away at him when attrition still occurs as it always has.
I do not doubt for a second that Saban will pick up on this as a recruiting advantage. And a multi-year schollie will not stop the need to manage the roster the same as he always has; it won’t stop injured players from being put on medical scholarship, it won’t stop him from strongly encouraging a player to transfer somewhere else, and it won’t stop him from kicking off players that break laws or team rules.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I get the medical schollys and the kicking lawbreakers off the team part.
What I’m not sure about is how persuasive any coach can be in encouraging a kid to transfer who has a four year scholarship. Some kids will want the playing time, but there will be others who will be just fine telling a coach in that position that they’ll just complete their classes and graduate. At that point, there is zero leverage because you can’t just threaten to pull their scholarship for the next year. The risk isn’t as great as some want to make it, but there is a risk.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 18, 2012 8:55 PM CST up reply actions
You can still pull it...
if they aren’t abiding by the team rules. I really don’t see what the difference is. As it is now, they are one-year scholarships that are renewed annually. If any are not, the school must provide a reason for non-renewal, and lack of performance is not acceptable. Players have the opportunity to appeal any reduction or non-renewal of scholarships per NCAA rules – in fact if a player redshirts, graduates in four years, then walks in to quit the team, he still must be offered the opportunity to appeal the cancellation of his scholarship. Therefore, players cannot be “cut” from their scholarship as many accuse. Of course they can be encouraged to transfer, but if they don’t want to, you can’t make them. I really don’t see this being a negative factor and would expect Saban to begin using them this year, at least for the higher rated prospects.
I'm not really talking about kids who break rules.
I’m talking about kids who aren’t playing the way the team needs them to play and are encouraged to transfer.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 19, 2012 3:27 PM CST up reply actions
If Saban ever encourages a kid to transfer, I doubt the kid says no and stays
The 4th quarter program is very difficult as it was designed. Can you imagine how difficult life would be for a player to stay on a team where he is not wanted?
by ApothecaryMark on Feb 19, 2012 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe.
I’m not an athlete, but I can imagine that would be insanely difficult. However, if putting up with that keeps me from having to put extra time in school at another university, I might be tempted to just stick around. However, I haven’t gone through the fourth quarter program, so I may not know what I’m talking about. :)
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 19, 2012 3:34 PM CST up reply actions
But we maintain that we haven't threatened to cancel anyone's scholly, right?
So what’s the difference?
God bless our Dark Lord.
That's right.
We let them play out their year, and then encourage them to transfer. We keep our end of the deal. Making it a four year deal changes that, though.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Feb 19, 2012 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
How is it different? If we only encourage them to transfer and do not threaten to cancel their scholly,
that would still work exactly the same with a 4 year scholly.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Right
In fact I doubt that players that don’t transfer get treated any differently. I believe that Saban just lets the guys know where they stand, and given the driven nature of many of these guys, some of the guys that get buried opt to transfer. I doubt his encouragement goes much further than “you won’t be playing much here as things look. If you want meaningful playing time, your best option is to transfer.” We have several upperclassmen who have never player a meaningful snap so I find it dubious that he just cuts guys that aren’t performing.
by Catch 5 on Feb 19, 2012 7:26 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
More hot air
All this means is the schools that offer four year scholarships will pay more money to lawyers to write an even more iron clad contract. They can’t afford to leave themselves vulnerable to kids who won’t do the required work.
by RexBama13 on Feb 18, 2012 5:34 PM CST via mobile reply actions
If these are four year deals, no redshirting?
"The same things win today that have always won, and they will win years from now. The only difference is the losers have a whole new bunch of excuses why they don’t win or can’t win."-Bear Bryant
(12-4)+2=12 hoping for a +1
Robot Chicken Star Wars should be canon.
by the thin red line on Feb 18, 2012 6:08 PM CST reply actions
Auburn could be considered the "deciding vote" on this issue
I found the fact that one flipped vote could have made the difference between this passing and failing…. and if Auburn had voted as Alabama then this would not have gone into effect….
Have you seen the list
of how all the schools voted? or are you assuming that Bama voted against it?

by 















