4-Year Scholarship Offer

So the NCAA is pushing for the signing of student-athletes to mandatory 4-year scholarships rather than the typical year-year scholarships that they have in place right now.

I'm wondering if this is truly put in place to be in the best interest of the student athlete or if this is a way to put into place more of a balancing between teams.  My thought would be the latter but who knows. 

I would also think however that if this is to be the contractual norm for student athletes, that they in turn must honor the same level of commitment and stay for their entire 4-years without leaving early for the draft.  JMO...

I think it's a way to combat oversigning.  When people have a problem with oversigning, it seems to typically be because the "offending" (for lack of a better word) coaches appear to "cut" players who underperform.  They do it a number of ways.  They find a way to make a "minor" injury appear to be more serious and get the player a medical hardship,  They kick kids off of teams for rules infractions when the "star" players would get the benefit of the doubt.  They "force" a kid into transferring.  If a coach screws up in evaluating how well a kid will perform, the coach who oversigns can find a way to get rid of that kid and bring in a "more talented" player to replace him.  If the oversigning coach can bring in 5 recruiting classes worth of kids in a 4 year period, that's a competitive advantage.  I understand normal attrition - grades, transfers, early draft entries, injuries, rule violations - but some schools seem to have more turnover than others.  

By making schools offer 4 year scholarships, you would be attempting to  limit a coach's ability to "cut" an underperforming recruit.  This would put the onus on the coaches to recruit and evaluate talent better.  When coaches oversign, they don't have to work as hard as non-oversigners.  If an oversigning coach can "cut" the dead weight, he can make more mistakes in recruiting because he doesn't pay the price for his misevaluations.  In other words, the kid who gets "cut" is paying for the coach's recruiting mistakes.

I don't see any way around "forcing" a kid to stay all four years when he's talented enough to declare for the NFL draft.  What I do see as a possibility, however, is redshirting a kid and then cutting him loose after four years if he never pans out.  I think you'd see a bunch of kids who only use up 3 years of eligibility (in four years) not getting their 5th year like so many do nowadays.

Under the four year scholarship deal, I think there have to be certain stipulations.  If the kid flunks out or gets into a certain level of legal trouble, the scholarship can be revoked.  If the kid suffers a career-ending injury (meaning he can't play football at ANY level), he is transferred off the roster but remains on scholarship through at least 4 years (he wouldn't count against the 85 limit).  If a kid declares for the draft, he can leave.

It is ment to do both. This would severly hurt teams that oversign regularly and run off players they no longer want. Those players getting run off aren't even being allowed to finish their degree. It is a horrible practice and should be stopped at all costs.

I really like the idea of the four yr scholarship.  It will strengthen the level of commitment a school has to a kid and his family.  As far as keeping them from leaving early for NFL, well I just don't see that as feasible.  Essentially the kid is dropping out of school to get a job.  Any player can drop out of school any time they want.  They just can't transfer very easily.

This is all about the kids.  This obviously does not benefit the school.  This is a great move to protect the kids who make these guys their millions.

Honestly I think that mandating 4-year scholarship offers is a mistake.  And I say that in terms of how the rule is being presented.  There are probably ways where a happy medium could be found but alternatives haven't been presented.  The 4-year mandated scholarship completely takes away accountability of the players.  It gives them the freedom (if they choose to not necessarily saying that they will) to work only as hard as they want.  It takes away the ability of the coaches to push them for that little bit extra.  Essentially, it's the NFL version of a college football program (I know that other sports are included but in reality we are talking football here). 

How many times have you seen professional players work an infinite amount harder when they are in their contract year?  Just look at the pro-bowl.  That was a perfect example of players playing for a paycheck and not the love of the game.

Year-year scholarships for student athletes mean that every year they play is their contract year.  It means they work hard every day to get better and get stronger.  They don't take weeks off.  They are constantly working for everything they have.

But what about a player who works his arse off but just doesn't perform?  What if the coaches were just plain wrong about the guy's talent level?  Yeah, maybe SOME coaches might keep the kid around as an example, but some, if the kid can't perform, would try to cut him.

I kind of see your point about the "contract year" stuff, but the way some coaches just throw kids away needs to be curbed as well.  A coach should not be able to throw a kid away just because the kid doesn't perform to the talent level that the coach thought he would.

How do you measure "effort"?  How can you tell if a kid is progressing?  That's a very difficult thing to measure sometimes and there's no easy answers.

I agree completely. They should give these guys a 4 year scholarship because that's fair. Then we should get it handled so that all the students who are on academic scholarship don't get booted if their GPA drops below a certain average because they're just kids and that's not fair. When we get that done we should also pass a law that any "kid" under the age of 22 can't be let go from any job they happen to get in the private sector. Once hired, the government should force the employer to give the child a full 4 years to prove they can do the job. I mean it's only right because they are just kids and that's the only fair way to do it.

This favortism towards the student-athlete over the student is getting out of hand if you perceive this as fair.

Imagine if you get in for an academic scholarship... only now that you're in, you're promised a 4 year scholarship no matter what your grades are.

UNLESS - you fail to run a lap around the track. 

So the NCAA is pushing for the signing of student-athletes to mandatory 4-year scholarships rather than the typical year-year scholarships that they have in place right now.

I'm wondering if this is truly put in place to be in the best interest of the student athlete or if this is a way to put into place more of a balancing between teams.  My thought would be the latter but who knows. 

I would also think however that if this is to be the contractual norm for student athletes, that they in turn must honor the same level of commitment and stay for their entire 4-years without leaving early for the draft.  JMO...

Well, here is your reality.

The student-athlete, when he signs a NLOI is already giving himself to 4 years to that particular school.  It is already written into the NLOI contract that a high school kid signs.  PERIOD.

Within that contract that they sign, the NLOI has verbiage that if they decide to not honor that contract they will have to sit out an entire year of athletic participation if they choose to go to another school of their choice.  (That is of course unless they switch divisions.)

The 4-year scholarship push is more towards a meeting of the parties so to speak.

If the high school kid signs a NLOI that locks him in for 4 years, then the University itself must lock him in for 4 years as well.

That is basically the 4 year scholarship rule that many are looking to enforce.

Under the current laws, any player that signs a NLOI is binded to that school for 4 years.  IF he chooses to leave that school he loses an entire year of athletic eligibility.

Under the current laws, any school that accepts a NLOI is NOT binded by a 4 year agreement.  The NLOI is only a preface to the terms of the Athletic Scholarship.  Most Athletic Scholarships are 1 year renewable 'contracts'.  I don't know of a single FBS school that does not have anything but single year renewable athletic scholarships. 

That means, while a high school kid (signs and) pledges his 4 years to an individual school, the school is not contractually deemed to be abiding by the same terms.  Essentially, the school owes him nothing until an Athletic Sholarship is granted. 

This is where oversigning can come into play.  Yes, we accepted his NLOI, but we never offered him a scholarship, much less renewed the one he had last year.

It is like Airline reservations.  Yes, we'll confirm your reservation, but that doesn't guarantee you a spot on the plane.  Even if you already paid for it.

It's perfectly fair as long as they're held to reasonable academic standards as well. 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Just make those that leave early for the NFL pay back all costs of their years at the school.

Why?  The amount of money that schools make off of the players is ludicrious.  I don't support paying players (that's a who different debate) but I also don't think they should be held hostage and be forced to stay if they instead can leave and make the big bucks.

I like the idea, however I wouldn't make it a requirement.  Give the school the option, and let the athlete decide what's best for him.

It is not like the kid will not have any responsibilities like an academic scholarship.  He will have to follow  his guildlines and stay within all the rules.  If he doesnt he loses it, but if he does he cannot lose it because someone came in that is faster.  But he can still lose any playing time he has.

I would change it up some to somewhat satisfy all.   I'd suggest a two year scholarship for recruits.  Then the school would have the option to use a year-to-year for their jr and Sr seasons or go ahead and offer another 2 year or none at all.

This lets kids know the school is actually serious about having them on the team, and not just an extra body (or keeping one away from another school). 

considering a lot of kids RS, once they come out of that, they have 1 year left of scholarship.  At this point, the player is now essentially on a year-to-year scholarship.   Perform, keep your scholly.  don't and lose it.

I don't agree with the 4 year scholarship.   As I saw with the "experts" show, the former coaches on the panel talked about how hard it is to actually get rid of a scholarship kid (unless they do illegal/criminal stuff).    
      
 So,  I think all should get a 2 year scholarship to start which then becomes a year-to-year after completion of their second year.  win-win. 

As I saw with the "experts" show, the former coaches on the panel talked about how hard it is to actually get rid of a scholarship kid

Therein lies the problem.  The coaches are the ones who evaluated the kids and offered them the scholarships to begin with.  Now if a kid doesn't turn out to be good enough, all of a sudden it's the kid's fault?  The coach needs to check with the kid's high school coaches, the teachers, guidance counselor and so on to get an idea of the kid's work ethic.

Why should a coach be able to "get rid of" a kid simply because the kid isn't as good as the coach thought he would be or doesn't work as hard as the coach though he would?  Isn't a lot of that on the coach?  Shouldn't he evaluate players better?

Recruiting is a crap shoot.  To be able to cut a kid loose because a coach mis-evaluated him doesn't seem right. 

Therein lies the problem.  The coaches are the ones who evaluated the kids and offered them the scholarships to begin with.  Now if a kid doesn't turn out to be good enough, all of a sudden it's the kid's fault?  The coach needs to check with the kid's high school coaches, the teachers, guidance counselor and so on to get an idea of the kid's work ethic.

Why should a coach be able to "get rid of" a kid simply because the kid isn't as good as the coach thought he would be or doesn't work as hard as the coach though he would?  Isn't a lot of that on the coach?  Shouldn't he evaluate players better?

Recruiting is a crap shoot.  To be able to cut a kid loose because a coach mis-evaluated him doesn't seem right.      

I agree, however it's not that simple.   If the kid is trying, working hard and just doesn't live up to expectations, then it's not his fault.   If a kid is just riding the scholly and not putting in the effort...

Can that be manipulated?  most certainly.   I think giving a kid a two year scholly to start is much better than a four year.  It puts that kid on notice he'll have to earn additional years.  it also allows the coach some flexibility to motivate players/cut dead weight after a fair amount of time/evaluation. 

Can that be manipulated?  most certainly.   I think giving a kid a two year scholly to start is much better than a four year.  It puts that kid on notice he'll have to earn additional years.  it also allows the coach some flexibility to motivate players/cut dead weight after a fair amount of time/evaluation. 

Good point Chief. I admit I hadn't thought of that point.... I was in favor of the four year scholly myself, but it does turn the tables a bit too far towards the athlete..

The biggest problem with a 4 year scholarship is that every other sport, womens' and mens', would be wondering why they don't get the same treatment. Why are football players so special? If the NCAA goes through with this then we'll see lawsuits from the other sports' players. Non-revenue producing sports have a lot more kids kicked off of the team due to poor performance. Where is the outrage for those kids. Nowhere, no outcry. Normal students that are on a academic 'ship have to maintain a certain gpa, or they don't get it renewed. People are placing football players on a pedestal. They aren't all angels being cast out of heaven.