B1G presidents & chancellors statement on 4 yr scholarships

Apparently there will be a special report on BTN tonight at 7:30.

saw LAKS at Tasty Twist the other day.... should've axed her about this.

I'm a firm believer in the 4-year scholarship. During my graduate schooling, we debated this particular case a couple times and I really think a 4-year scholarship has merit. However, I am going to propose that the second bullet be nixed. I think the scholarship should only apply to 4 consecutive years. If a player decides, voluntarily, to leave school, I do not believe that the player should be given the academic benefits later in life. Take a case like Justin Abdelkader. Love the guy, but he's a perfect example of why I think this is a bad move. He leaves to go to the NHL. Let's assume he had a 4-year scholarship. He decided he wanted to go to summer school and get his degree. Noble, but if he was guaranteed the scholarship, he would have gotten free schooling (at $x,000) on top of a very lucrative (very above average) salary through playing a competitive sport. I understand that athletes are special but the way I see it, if they are making money sufficient to where they can afford to pay for college after leaving early, they should pay.

If an athlete stays for 4 consecutive years, then yes, by all means, award the 4-year schollie.

dubie7006 wrote:I'm a firm believer in the 4-year scholarship. During my graduate schooling, we debated this particular case a couple times and I really think a 4-year scholarship has merit. However, I am going to propose that the second bullet be nixed. I think the scholarship should only apply to 4 consecutive years. If a player decides, voluntarily, to leave school, I do not believe that the player should be given the academic benefits later in life. Take a case like Justin Abdelkader. Love the guy, but he's a perfect example of why I think this is a bad move. He leaves to go to the NHL. Let's assume he had a 4-year scholarship. He decided he wanted to go to summer school and get his degree. Noble, but if he was guaranteed the scholarship, he would have gotten free schooling (at $x,000) on top of a very lucrative (very above average) salary through playing a competitive sport. I understand that athletes are special but the way I see it, if they are making money sufficient to where they can afford to pay for college after leaving early, they should pay.

If an athlete stays for 4 consecutive years, then yes, by all means, award the 4-year schollie.

I agree that if the athlete stays, the scholarship should be honored even in the event of injury. Leaving early for a pro career whether or not it is lucrative is cause for forfeiture.

Some threat in the laguage of eliminating or cutting back on non-revenue sports

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=bigten&id=102796&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FQWzptFY4MT%22%7D

It looks like the Big Ten Presidents just voted for continuing to hand out 50 womens crew and womens soccer scholarships and relegating Football to second-class status. But what is their choice?

Face it, title IX is nothing but welfare that pays for womens sports NO-ONE gives a shit about. Schools comply not because it makes sense, but so that they don't get pounced on by the Justice ( ie Afirmative Action/Intimidation) Department.

I almost welcome the fight between the unions and feminists so they destroy the goose that lays the golden egg- and they end up with NOTHING. Screw them all, the greedy bastards.

Sounds like you couldn't get a date in high school.

I don't think anyone truly thinks those that leave early "deserve" their 4 year scholarship; however, the actual marginal cost of an additional schollie is minimal (if not nil). The good press, and benefit in recruiting, however, is substantial.

RBW Spartan wrote:I don't think anyone truly thinks those that leave early "deserve" their 4 year scholarship; however, the actual marginal cost of an additional schollie is minimal (if not nil). The good press, and benefit in recruiting, however, is substantial.

How are you obtaining that exceptional marginal cost analysis?

Whatever became of Kevin Ware? Guy had to transfer. Why?

dubie7006 wrote:

How are you obtaining that exceptional marginal cost analysis?

I was assuming they would pay for the credit hours, but not the books/room&board.

One extra seat in a classroom has a negligible cost.

RBW Spartan wrote:

I was assuming they would pay for the credit hours, but not the books/room&board.

One extra seat in a classroom has a negligible cost.

Based on what? If that was the case, nobody would get rejected.

RBW Spartan wrote:I don't think anyone truly thinks those that leave early "deserve" their 4 year scholarship; however, the actual marginal cost of an additional schollie is minimal (if not nil). The good press, and benefit in recruiting, however, is substantial.

Not to mention that very few of them will ever be back in a class room once they leave campus. Especially if they have a decent career as an athlete. Not many class rooms don't have at least one empty seat. Throw them some books, a meal pass, and offer a dorm room (which they'll turn down). No biggie.

steveschneider wrote:Whatever became of Kevin Ware? Guy had to transfer. Why?

My guess is they're on year-to-year and wanted to offer a schollie to someone who could actually contribute.

dubie7006 wrote:

My guess is they're on year-to-year and wanted to offer a schollie to someone who could actually contribute.

Good. School and adidas made tons of
Money off the #5 shirts and if he can't play then adios. The injury was his 15 minutes of fame.

steveschneider wrote:

Good. School and adidas made tons of
Money off the #5 shirts and if he can't play then adios.  The injury was his 15 minutes of fame.

Harsh, but on point.

dubie7006 wrote:

Based on what? If that was the case, nobody would get rejected.

Come on dude; there's institutional and logistical limitations.

At the end of the day how many kids a year is this going to affect? Who left early this year? IIRC, G. Harris is the only athlete in all of the AD to leave early.

Hell, over the past 10 years I can only name: Harris, Shannon Brown, Showtime, Rock, Worthy, Drew Miller, Abdelkader, and Tim Kennedy. I'm sure I'm missing a few on hockey, and maybe a random olympic athlete here or there, but we're looking at 1 or 2 kids a year on average.

Even if we wanna go crazy, how many kids leave early to turn pro? 1-2 in hoops, 5-10 in FB, 2-3 in hockey, 2-3 in olympics (all very liberal estimates); we're talking about 18 kids MAX a year, and probably much closer to 2 or 3.

steveschneider wrote:

Good. School and adidas made tons of
Money off the #5 shirts and if he can't play then adios.  The injury was his 15 minutes of fame.

He's playing at GA State this year.

The point is it's still affecting someone. And it's probably in the area of a ~$45-50k swing. Sorry, but I think there are much better things that money could be used for than to give it to someone who has no problem paying for tuition from his lucrative professional athlete salary.

dubie7006 wrote:

Harsh, but on point.

If the guy wanted to stay at Louisville well then he shouldn't have got his leg split in two.

dubie7006 wrote:The point is it's still affecting someone.  And it's probably in the area of a ~$45-50k swing.  Sorry, but I think there are much better things that money could be used for than to give it to someone who has no problem paying for tuition from his lucrative professional athlete salary.

I would totally agree with 45-50K if they're paying for insurance, room & board, and books. However, I would assume that they're not; just the cost of class.

That being said, if the person cannot afford to pay for the classes on their own, then their career wasn't too lucrative (see: Cotton, Brandon). It's basically a costless gesture that ensures good will.

Torn on the "second bullet" issue.

On one hand, I understand the argument that if a player leaves early for competitive reasons(I.E., NBA or NFL draft), that's a risk they take. The remainder of the scholarship shouldn't be a "safety net" to fall back on. On the other hand, a 4-year scholarship pretty much IS a safety net.

What I'm most happy about is that a 4-year scholarship should prevent coaches coming into a new school and essentially booting current players.

FWIW, I think it's the right thing to do, but I don't see it as a recruiting advantage. Bama and LSU are notorious for "processing" players that don't perform in favor of new recruits that show promise.

The cycle repeats itself every year. But none of these recruits thinks that they'll be the one who can't play at the next level, so they keep lining up to be the guy that gets an older player booted from the team.

Tom Crean can't be happy about this either, he's one of the worst offenders.

steveschneider wrote:Whatever became of Kevin Ware? Guy had to transfer. Why?

Are you saying Louisville wasn't going to renew his scholarship?

I would find that hard to believe. Although some schools might pull that I always thought MSU and most schools would renew the scholarship so the 4-year would just be a formality they would embrace.

Herbie Green wrote:

Are you saying Louisville wasn't going to renew his scholarship?

I would find that hard to believe.  Although some schools might pull that I always thought MSU and most schools would renew the scholarship so the 4-year would just be a formality they would embrace.

Most schools probably do.  But top tier schools like LU, KU, KU, etc....do you think they really want to waste a schollie on a guy who is not going to contribute at all? Really?

Herbie Green wrote:

Are you saying Louisville wasn't going to renew his scholarship?

I would find that hard to believe. Although some schools might pull that I always thought MSU and most schools would renew the scholarship so the 4-year would just be a formality they would embrace.

Just read up on it he played a little bit this year and he got injured on the same leg against Missouri. Also

"He will seek a medical redshirt and have two seasons of eligibility left for the Panthers.

Look for Ware to also seek a waiver from the NCAA to be able to play immediately since his family lives in Georgia."

Hope he gets it going.

steveschneider wrote:

Just read up on it he played a little bit this year and he got injured on the same leg against Missouri. Also

"He will seek a medical redshirt and have two seasons of eligibility left for the Panthers.

Look for Ware to also seek a waiver from the NCAA to be able to play immediately since his family lives in Georgia."

Hope he gets it going.

That waiver has been granted.

RBW Spartan wrote:

I was assuming they would pay for the credit hours, but not the books/room&board.

One extra seat in a classroom has a negligible cost.

This isn't true. The Athletic department pays the tuition of each Student athlete on scholarship, that can total up to around $80,000 over the course of a four year degree. That's not negligible.

Link to Andy Katz's podcast on the subject and whether or not congress should get involved, with guests Rick Klein of ABC News, Jim Delaney and Larry Scott (PAC-10 Commish).

Capital Games

Link to ABC article:
‘Capital Games’: NCAA Overhaul Moves Closer as Congress Mounts Pressure

My only problem with this is that it enables the Marcus Taylor types and that is definitely not good

Blanch32 wrote:My only problem with this is that it enables the Marcus Taylor types and that is definitely not good

Funny, but I have been thinking about exactly his situation since yesterday afternoon. Here's a case when where the player left early, and it didn't work out for him, but he essentially left on the basis of extremely bad advice from his handler(s). So, do you punish a 20 year-old kid by not upholding his scholarship for taking bad advice? This is a really tough one for me, but I still think you have to tell the kid "tough luck", otherwise there's no risk.

My only problem with this is that it enables the Marcus Taylor types and that is definitely not good

Rodeo Burger wrote:FWIW, I think it's the right thing to do, but I don't see it as a recruiting advantage. Bama and LSU are notorious for "processing" players that don't perform in favor of new recruits that show promise.

The cycle repeats itself every year. But none of these recruits thinks that they'll be the one who can't play at the next level, so they keep lining up to be the guy that gets an older player booted from the team.

Tom Crean can't be happy about this either, he's one of the worst offenders.

But is there anything wrong with that? I'm sorry but you are here for athletic reasons only and if you're not holding your weight on the team, I'm sorry you should be booted. See both guana and Byrd for examples

...and I'm not talking about medical issues since those dudes do not count against scholarship limits

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Funny, but I have been thinking about exactly his situation since yesterday afternoon. Here's a case when where the player left early, and it didn't work out for him, but he essentially left on the basis of extremely bad advice from his handler(s). So, do you punish a 20 year-old kid by not upholding his scholarship for taking bad advice? This is a really tough one for me, but I still think you have to tell the kid "tough luck", otherwise there's no risk.

Not tough at all. Otherwise all fresmen ballers should declar after yr one since they still have 3 yes of college classes to fall back on if their bball career fails. I don't support this

Is it true that Marcus came back to MSU and got a degree?

I really think it impacts non-revenue sports more.

Basically by guaranteeing a 4 year scholarship, you take away any need to perform, to improve or even to practice.

I am not suggesting that we will see a bunch of non-revenue athletes just mail it in purposefully, but the reality is all college athletes face serious time constraints. When prioritizing and given the guarantee of four years regardless, I know what I would make a lesser priority.

Why are they overthinking this so much? Keep scholarships on a year-to-year basis based on academic and athletic performance. If a math student was on a scholarship for math and suddenly sucked at math, then he would lose his scholarship the next year just as a basketball player who sucks at basketball should lose his.

But, also, in this scenario you have to allow an athlete to earn outside money from his skill just as you allow that math student to earn outside money from tutoring people at math.

MSU addict wrote:I really think it impacts non-revenue sports more.

Basically by guaranteeing a 4 year scholarship, you take away any need to perform, to improve or even to practice.  

I am not suggesting that we will see a bunch of non-revenue athletes just mail it in purposefully, but the reality is all college athletes face serious time constraints.  When prioritizing and given the guarantee of four years regardless, I know what I would make a lesser priority.  

That is a very good point.  I would assume when a student gave up the sport that the scholarship would no longer count against the total limits.  Otherwise you could end up having trouble fielding full teams not to mention the school is paying for extra scholarships.

It also could have an effect on revenue sports as well though.  If a football player realizes when he is a junior he is never going to see the field he might be staying on the team just to finish the degree for free.
Which means this could also lead to more cuts.  I am sure Alabama football would have no problem paying for an extra 30 scholarships to replace all the players that don't pan out to improve their chances of a $20 million playoff payday. But now they are doing right with the "student athlete" by honoring their commitment to their education, which is what is really important right.

Herbie Green wrote:

That is a very good point.  I would assume when a student gave up the sport that the scholarship would no longer count against the total limits.  Otherwise you could end up having trouble fielding full teams not to mention the school is paying for extra scholarships.

It also could have an effect on revenue sports as well though.  If a football player realizes when he is a junior he is never going to see the field he might be staying on the team just to finish the degree for free.
Which means this could also lead to more cuts.  I am sure Alabama football would have no problem paying for an extra 30 scholarships to replace all the players that don't pan out to improve their chances of a $20 million playoff payday.  But now they are doing right with the "student athlete" by honoring their commitment to their education, which is what is really important right.  

It will be a weird world if former athletes who simply gave up the sport no longer count against scholarship limits. Given the opportunity every college football coach would love the opportunity to replace a player that just didn't pan out. The money is there when it comes to football and basketball for any major program. They may need to lower the 25/year limit.