Multi-year scholarship option approved by NCAA

[Carl Spackler]

The next evolution in affecting the intercollegiate athletics landscape around football scholarships.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...r-scholarships-survives-close-vote/53137194/1

207 out 300 votes from D-1 universities were required to repeal the multi-year scholly option that was put into effect in October. 205 votes came in.

Boy - I'd love to see the list of yea's vs. nay's in this one.

So, universities now have the option of offering single year or 2, 3 or 4 year scholaships to athletes.

That should make the recruiting world a little more interesting.

 

[businesslawyer]

The next evolution in affecting the intercollegiate athletics landscape around football scholarships.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...r-scholarships-survives-close-vote/53137194/1

207 out 300 votes from D-1 universities were required to repeal the multi-year scholly option that was put into effect in October. 205 votes came in.

Boy - I'd love to see the list of yea's vs. nay's in this one.

So, universities now have the option of offering single year or 2, 3 or 4 year scholaships to athletes.

That should make the recruiting world a little more interesting.

I don't think it's going to matter much. Most everyone will be offered 4 year schollies. If it's clear that a player isn't ever going to make an impact, most of them will still leave of their own accord. I think most who leave now aren't told "we won't renew", but are just told they're never going to see meaningful snaps and then they want to leave.

 

[cu73etr]

I think this will have more of an impact down south!!
Did they re approve the $2000 stipend??

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't see it that way at all. Having 1 year scholarship terms, and only 1 year terms, is about as close as you can get to "free agency" on a yearly basis, in the so called "amateur" world of NCAA athletics, and I think it's been a hidden problem all along. I think having the option to offer 2, 3, 4 or 5 years of scholarship on a single scholarship contract can be, and should be, hugely powerful in recruiting and very much opens up the opportunities out there for athletes, and helps level out the recruiting field.

If a school is going to choose to diminish it's own value in education, and as an institution, by handing these things out like candy on Halloween, let them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. College football can be a very dirty business. Big time recruiting, whether it be ncaa basketball, football, or in the fortune 500 business world for a hotshot, is a dirty business.

All you've got is your reputation. It's all you've got. How those multiple year scholarship options are handled, is quickly going to establish reputations out there.

I would love to see the voting breakdown on this thing. The list of approving institutions vs. disapproving. I have no idea where we stand on this thing, or if we were a vote or an abstention.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think this will have more of an impact down south!!
Did they re approve the $2000 stipend??

Pretty sure it's up for appeal, re-vote, whatever stage it's at the next set of meetings in April. The stipend was approved, then repealed and denied and is up for re-write and then a new vote.

I think the stipend is a bad idea. Terrible precedent to set.

But the multiple year scholarships are in effect, and some schools have arleady put them into effect retroactively to the NLI's signed for 2012.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This is what I"m talking about. I agree with the Virginia coach. I hope that we at UConn are of the same mindset.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-scholarships/2012/02/02/gIQA1IFwkQ_blog.html

The problems with the 1 year scholarship term, and yearly renewals, arose when football programs begin using athletes like free-agents, rather than students. Those football programs are going to have trouble in this new system, after learning to manipulate the system for their own benefit at the cost of the student in the system which has existed since 1973, up until now in 2012.

If a school is going to make the choice, to go to offering all scholarships, as four year terms.......I find that very risky business. I think that having the option of giving a multiple year scholarship is a very powerful thing though, and that student-athletes that are being highly pursued and pressured in the recruiting process, now have something to really work with to turn the cards in their favor.

 

[J187Money]

I think the stipend is a bad idea. Terrible precedent to set.

When you don't really allow the kids to work, not having a stipend pretty much assures that kids that don't have any money will break rules in order to have cash for spending / tattoos / cell phone bills. I actually think that a stipend takes away some of the incentives to misbehave. The NCAA just has to be smart and keep the stipend cap at a low level so it doesn't become a bidding process.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The stipend. Very intersting times we live in folks. It's so damn confusing. Amateurism, yet a stipend is clearly pay to play. I'm against the stipend. Very much so. There are other ways to handle this. There's no reason why student athletes can't get paid for work they do, and assign them jobs at a university to do, that won't interfere with academics or athletics, and then pay them for working. Doing that, though, takes a lot of effort and brain power from people in charge. Much easier to just cut a check........

I'm not against the multi-year scholarships, and I'm relieved to find out that my alma mater appears to hold my same kind of beliefs.

override to 2011-97 section in the link below is the multi-year scholly issue that went before the NCAA in october and was just approved in a re-vote.

Interesting to read the protests by the likes of Rutgers and Boise State regarding these things. Rutgers is a mess and predictably concerned about budgetary issues as they're bleeding money like a stuck pig, and is also concerned about Boise is clear that they do not approve the recruiting situations that will occur when not all institutions are offering the same things with scholarships. Rutgers clearly would have added the issue of coaches leaving......if this thing was done now, instead of in October....as other institutions voice in this document. As for Boise - clearly worried about having to offer their 4 year degree vs. other schools in recruiting.

You're joining the big east now Boise, time to get the whole school cranked up to the same level the football program is at!!!!

http://www.bgsfirm.com/images/stories/2k_overrides.pdf

 

[BlueMAB]

The stipend. Very intersting times we live in folks. It's so damn confusing. Amateurism, yet a stipend is clearly pay to play. I'm against the stipend. Very much so. There are other ways to handle this. There's no reason why student athletes can't get paid for work they do, and assign them jobs at a university to do, that won't interfere with academics or athletics, and then pay them for working. Doing that, though, takes a lot of effort and brain power from people in charge. Much easier to just cut a check........

It takes more than effort and brain power. It takes oversight to make sure the players are showing up, are doing the job, and are being paid properly.

That means money and manpower. It's easier to avoid abuses of the system if you simply give them a stipend. There are also a limited number of jobs for students on campus, and the student athletes on scholarship need that job less than the kids taking out $100-$200k loans. But you know the players are going to get preferential treatment for the jobs they apply for, which isn't fair to other kids who also need that money.

Do you let the kids work off campus? Don't think that will be a nightmare to oversee?

 

[john2153]

A scholarship is already pay for play when you think about it, the stipend is just an extension of the scholarship. If it keeps kids from taking "illegal benefits" I'm alright with it.

 

[noeynox]

A scholarship is already pay for play when you think about it, the stipend is just an extension of the scholarship. If it keeps kids from taking "illegal benefits" I'm alright with it.

I don't see the logic in this type of thinking. Give the kid the stipend because he needs it, not because you think a kid is going to turn down an envelope with 10k cash in it. I know wouldn't have turned down cash money like that between 18-22, if I wasn't being asked to do anything against the law. To be clear I said against the law, not against the rules. You ain't going to jail for accepting an envelope with cash.

 

[Carl Spackler]

All very good questions. I think it's a lot easier to let kids take jobs off campus and unaffiliated with the school, and simply require that they turn in their paystubs and corresponding timesheets (proof of actually working), and W2's to the university, and then let the IRS handle the rest.

There's absolutely no reason why your average non-athlete student can't take a job doing anything they want to help pay for school, only one reason why scholarship athlete recruits should be any different - and it's got nothing to do with the student or athletics part of being a student athlete, and everything to do with a university's alumni and athletic financial support system.

What you run into there, with athletes as students, is the booster problem. Players getting jobs at car dealerships and driving around in new cars for example..........that kind of incentive for a recruit to come to a school, is pretty powerful....and not allowed........how do you oversee that?

No, I think that university jobs, with university paychecks, is the way to go. Every cafeteria needs dishwashers, for example, and every building needs maintenance guys to sweep floors and clean out garbage cans, and there's really more motivating to make your education mean something, than doing jobs like that.

But the issue I'm focused on here, is the multiple year scholarships. I think it's a very good idea, and puts a lot of meaning back into the student part of the student-athlete.

 

[Carl Spackler]

A scholarship is already pay for play when you think about it, the stipend is just an extension of the scholarship. If it keeps kids from taking "illegal benefits" I'm alright with it.

Factoring a cash allowance into a scholarship is a bad idea. If you do that, every student at every university that provides scholarships, needs to have the same cash allowance factored into their time at the university. A stipend, separate from a scholarship, can be selectively provided to students in a student body. But it's a terrible precedent to set. Much better to allow provisions for working.

all of this stuff, is why the Ivy league stopped scholarships in the 1950s.

I think scholarships are a fantastic way for kids to get an education, that otherwise wouldn't be available, and i'm all for them, and the multiple year option. The value of a 4 year education at an institution, just in the past month, has become a real tool in recruiting, that was never an option for the students being recruitied to play sports, had before.

The underlying, fundamental problem to it all - I've pointed out recently around here, was outlined very nicely by Supreme Court Justice Byron White, in his dissent of the Court's decision to uphold Sherman anti-trust in favor of the Oklahoma Board of Regents and University of Georgia lawsuits brought to court, regarding the way that the NCAA had managed college football broadcasting from 1938-1984.

Ever since that time, the student part, of student-athlete has been a constant battle to maintain importance, and the concept of amateurism and academics in college athletics has fallen subservient to the market forces of media broadcasting.

 

[BlueMAB]

No, I think that university jobs, with university paychecks, is the way to go. Every cafeteria needs dishwashers, for example, and every building needs maintenance guys to sweep floors and clean out garbage cans, and there's really more motivating to make your education mean something, than doing jobs like that.

And there are adults who need those jobs, as well as other students who are taking out loans to pay for school who need those jobs.

I believe those jobs should go to the kids paying/borrowing their way through school. Not to the guys who have room, board, tuition, and books paid for, and really are looking for discretionary dollars.

Athletes get priority when it comes to scheduling classes, they get free academic support, they get clothes, they get a lot of benefits. At least let the jobs go to the kids who don't get any of those added benefits.

 

[BlueMAB]

A stipend, separate from a scholarship, can be selectively provided to students in a student body.

As with every other benefit selectively provided to scholarship athletes and not the rest of the student body, so can jobs.

 

[Carl Spackler]

And there are adults who need those jobs, as well as other students who are taking out loans to pay for school who need those jobs.

I believe those jobs should go to the kids paying/borrowing their way through school. Not to the guys who have room, board, tuition, and books paid for, and really are looking for discretionary dollars.

Athletes get priority when it comes to scheduling classes, they get free academic support, they get clothes, they get a lot of benefits. At least let the jobs go to the kids who don't get any of those added benefits.

Fair enough. Did you know that UConn was one of the first schools to really put a large focus on building facilities and putting staff in place for academic support systems for athletes - initially around basketball? We were.

I'm not going to disagree that scholarship athletes get a hell of a lot more than your average student in the student body. There's also a lot more expected of them too. You can't feel so strongly about one side of this, and not recognize the other.

Marble mouthed Lou Holtz always says it best, when some kind of topic around this comes up, especially when it comes to performance on the field and giving everything they've got. Playing through injury, etc. etc. Lou always simply responds...that's why they've got the scholarship. Being, essentially the definition of tough - that's why you get a scholarship.

Coach P defines tough - as doing the best you possibly can, at everything you do, all the time.

That's tough, and that's what's required of a scholarship athlete - most definitely at an institution that has expectations of top level success at both the student - and athlete - part of the equation. Students that aren't on scholarship, have no such requirement.

 

[BlueMAB]

Fair enough. Did you know that UConn was one of the first schools to really put a large focus on building facilities and putting staff in place for academic support systems for athletes - initially around basketball? We were.

I'm not going to disagree that scholarship athletes get a hell of a lot more than your average student in the student body. There's also a lot more expected of them too. You can't feel so strongly about one side of this, and not recognize the other.

Marble mouthed Lou Holtz always says it best, when some kind of topic around this comes up, especially when it comes to performance on the field and giving everything they've got. Playing through injury, etc. etc. Lou always simply responds...that's why they've got the scholarship. Being, essentially the definition of tough - that's why you get a scholarship.

Coach P defines tough - as doing the best you possibly can, at everything you do, all the time.

That's tough, and that's what's required of a scholarship athlete - most definitely at an institution that has expectations of top level success at both the student - and athlete - part of the equation. Students that aren't on scholarship, have no such requirement.

Of course more is epected out of the student athletes, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into every one of them. They should have higher expectations and more responsibility.

What does being tough have to do with whether a person with all those added (and deserved) benefits also deserves preferential job treatment (they'll get it) over a person who is $200k in debt for their college education?

Athletes work their way through college on the field and in the classroom. Don't take jobs away from students who work their way through college in the cafeterias, offices, and maintenance buildings so that the athletes can have some pocket change.

I used to prefer allowing athletes to work, but there's too much oversight required and there are too many regular students (who can least afford to lose those jobs) who would suffer. A small stipend is much easier to oversee and regulate. And it doesn't take jobs away from those that tend to need them most.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Of course more is epected out of the student athletes, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into every one of them. They should have higher expectations and more responsibility.

What does being tough have to do with whether a person with all those added (and deserved) benefits also deserves preferential job treatment (they'll get it) over a person who is $200k in debt for their college education?

Athletes work their way through college on the field and in the classroom. Don't take jobs away from students who work their way through college in the cafeterias, offices, and maintenance buildings so that the athletes can have some pocket change.

I used to prefer allowing athletes to work, but there's too much oversight required and there are too many regular students (who can least afford to lose those jobs) who would suffer. A small stipend is much easier to oversee and regulate. And it doesn't take jobs away from those that tend to need them most.

Hold on. Are you saying that there are jobs on campus that a student can earn enough money to pay for a significant chunk of their own education? The cafeteria jobs when I was there - well that's a joke. If you can earn enough to help significantly pay, or pay for entirely your education by working as a dishwasher on campus? or doing filing / answering phones in somebody's office? Well that's pretty shocking. Why go to school at all?

I'm not in any way suggesting that a scholarship athlete get preferential treatment in job hiring for campus jobs. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they would get priority. That's where the brain power and effort needs to come in. A football player, can most definitely take a job breaking down and organizing game films, and get paid for it. Back in my day, putting together a game tape was a ducking nightmare. Talk about literally cut and paste. It's all digital these days, and you can see anything you want with a click of the button, it's a matter of actually looking at stuff that matters now, rather than having anythign to look at all. But I digress,

Are there enough sport specific things to create spending money jobs for 200+ athletes? maybe, maybe not. How many times does the pool need to be vacuumed and cleaned every week?

But - are you really suggesting that a scholarship athlete shouldn't have access to the same work opportunities at a university that exist for regular students? Why?

It seems to me, that the opportunities to work OFF campus, would certainly override that, and I'm saying that it's a bad idea to let scholarship athletes work for a paycheck off campus during the school year, even what's allowed now - they need to be monitored very closely, in the off season when they do work off campus.

 

[cu73etr]

I always thought if athletes worked off campus as a waiter or waitress and someone gave them a 10,000 tip, would that be against the rules for outstanding service???

They are monitored tightly and to reduce the temptation to deviate form these rules (trading or selling things, etc) the small stipend should help this. Also I believe income earned from the kids goes against the financial aid correct??? The scholarship amount gets lessened.

 

[J187Money]

Carl--when they are at meetings at 6am, in class all day, in the gym and practicing in the afternoon and studying and watching game film till 10pm, when are they supposed to do these jobs?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl--when they are at meetings at 6am, in class all day, in the gym and practicing in the afternoon and studying and watching game film till 10pm, when are they supposed to do these jobs?

That's why I'd do the best I could to figure out a way to get players paid, in each sport, for things they can be doing during those times. It would have been easy, not that long ago. Digital video isn't that old in the grand scheme of things, and with strip film and then video cassette, you could put an entire roster of 85 scholarship players together for a few hours a week, cutting and pasting together actual film, or dubbing video tapes, and have a scouting library that would be absolutely phenomenal. I'm not sure where you'd find weekly work for 85 guys these days, but I"m sure it could be done in the athletic facilities.

As for the other sports, I think there are plenty of ways that you can put those athletes to work., during those hours of the day that they tend to nap, or watch TV, or play video games or cards instead of studying.

Spades was a game that would be played for hours among basketball and football players in the dorms when I was there, and after - well after, into the Calhoun years of the 1990s.

Don't try to tell me they don't have an hour or two a day that they can be doing something other than watching TV or games and earn some coin instead.

I'll grant you, that going off campus to do it, would be very difficult. THis is what I"ve been saying.

Yes, they work hard, but if you're a parent, and your kid is telling you otherwise, you've been snowed. The ones that actually are non-stop from morning to night, are pretty rare, and if you can put together just a copule of them on a team, you're well ahead of the game.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Let me put it this way. I don't know what the undergraduate coursework minimum standards are to graduate these days, but I highly doubt that being in class from 8 am - 4pm every day with a lunch break M/W/F is what's required to graduate in 4 years.

If a student is motivated enough to take a full daily schedule of classes, most of the time, you're going to finish your "4 year" bachelors degree in under 3 years. That's pretty much the case at any university. UConn has had many athletes, in all of our sports programs come through, and take advantage of the fact that they don't pay for those courses, and do load up the schedules and finish early. Emeka Okafor. Outstanding. An example for all scholarship athletes.

Part of the university experience though, the life experience, is the stuff that happens outside of classes though.

Having good academic advisors, that can guage the interests and capabilities of students is essential to any univeristy, whether it be the mathematics department, or athletics.

I don't believe for a second, that the kids out there, that are on scholarship, that need, and want extra spending money, can't find the time to do paid work on campus.

 

[SAMCRO]

bat--crazy.

 

[BlueMAB]

Hold on. Are you saying that there are jobs on campus that a student can earn enough money to pay for a significant chunk of their own education? The cafeteria jobs when I was there - well that's a joke. If you can earn enough to help significantly pay, or pay for entirely your education by working as a dishwasher on campus? or doing filing / answering phones in somebody's office? Well that's pretty shocking. Why go to school at all?

I'm not in any way suggesting that a scholarship athlete get preferential treatment in job hiring for campus jobs. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they would get priority. That's where the brain power and effort needs to come in. A football player, can most definitely take a job breaking down and organizing game films, and get paid for it. Back in my day, putting together a game tape was a ducking nightmare. Talk about literally cut and paste. It's all digital these days, and you can see anything you want with a click of the button, it's a matter of actually looking at stuff that matters now, rather than having anythign to look at all. But I digress,

Are there enough sport specific things to create spending money jobs for 200+ athletes? maybe, maybe not. How many times does the pool need to be vacuumed and cleaned every week?

But - are you really suggesting that a scholarship athlete shouldn't have access to the same work opportunities at a university that exist for regular students? Why?

It seems to me, that the opportunities to work OFF campus, would certainly override that, and I'm saying that it's a bad idea to let scholarship athletes work for a paycheck off campus during the school year, even what's allowed now - they need to be monitored very closely, in the off season when they do work off campus.

1) Where --- did I suggest someone could pay off their hundred thousand dollar loans working in a cafeteria???? I said the kids working those jobs, need them because most (if not all) are financing a good portion of their college debt and they need the money from that job for expenses. Expenses that scholarship athletes don't have.

2) The players are only allowed so much time by the NCAA (20 hours I think). The "film work" you suggest they get paid to do, could actually be considered an NCAA violation of too much time. Not only would they be going over the alloted time, they'd get paid to do it? You think the NCAA is going to approve that?

3) Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that scholarship athletes shouldn't have access to the same work opportunities. I've been explaining why over and over again. The regular student body is in greater need of those jobs. The vast majority of the regular student body doesn't have (virtually) all expenses paid for them while at school. The majority of the student body will leave school with over six figures worth of debt. And the school doesn't need to create a department (at the very least a team) of compliance people to try and prevent NCAA violations.

You're really suggesting the athletes essentially work for their coaches? You don't think that's a recipe for disaster? Suggesting a $2000/year stipend eliminates amatuerism, but allowing John Calipari, Jim Tressel, and others to hire their star players isn't going to result in a clusterduck of NCAA violations?

 

[J187Money]

Let me put it this way. I don't know what the undergraduate coursework minimum standards are to graduate these days, but I highly doubt that being in class from 8 am - 4pm every day with a lunch break M/W/F is what's required to graduate in 4 years.

If a student is motivated enough to take a full daily schedule of classes, most of the time, you're going to finish your "4 year" bachelors degree in under 3 years. That's pretty much the case at any university. UConn has had many athletes, in all of our sports programs come through, and take advantage of the fact that they don't pay for those courses, and do load up the schedules and finish early. Emeka Okafor. Outstanding. An example for all scholarship athletes.

Part of the university experience though, the life experience, is the stuff that happens outside of classes though.

Having good academic advisors, that can guage the interests and capabilities of students is essential to any univeristy, whether it be the mathematics department, or athletics.

I don't believe for a second, that the kids out there, that are on scholarship, that need, and want extra spending money, can't find the time to do paid work on campus.

During the season, they absolutely don't have the time. I had two players complain to me this year that there wasn't enough time to watch (enough) game film during the season. There is NOTHING to do on campus over the summer, so paying them to sweep floors on an empty campus just seems stupid to me. So can they work during spring semester? Sure. But WingU is 1000% correct on this. I worked in the Buckley mailroom while I was at school, and I'd have gone ape$hit if I lost my job to a scholarship athlete.

The reality is this: the school gives a LOT to these players, and in return ASKS a lot. Some of these kids have spending money, and some get NO help from home. What is being proposed with the stipend will merely help the kids with the routine expenses that all college kids have. The kid that is going to "take" thousands from a booster is going to do it anyway, but there is no question that this will help at the margins.

Of course you COULD devise a system where they "worked" for it...but then it needs to be optional because not everyone needs the money. And then, as with "all" jobs, it might make more sense just to take money from somebody rather than work for it. I want the student-athlete to focus on two things: their sport and their academics. Of course they have lives as well, but I'd prefer that we don't try to overcomplicate it.

A stipend isn't a perfect idea, but from where things stand today, it is clearly IMO the best first step to improving life for the student athlete and will have a real impact in people breaking rules at the margins.