Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Can some of the posting Illuminati comment what it means if the 25% minimum scholarship and the 27 player cap on scholarships are eliminated?
Go44dad posted:Can some of the posting Illuminati comment what it means if the 25% minimum scholarship and the 27 player cap on scholarships are eliminated?
Didn't I read on here that if you commit to actual money, be it 25% or 100%, and you choose to go to another school there is a massive penalty? Whereas if you have no money (like a preferred walk on) there is no actual commitment papers signed, and no penalty if you choose to go somewhere else?
CaCO3Girl posted:Go44dad posted:Can some of the posting Illuminati comment what it means if the 25% minimum scholarship and the 27 player cap on scholarships are eliminated?
Didn't I read on here that if you commit to actual money, be it 25% or 100%, and you choose to go to another school there is a massive penalty? Whereas if you have no money (like a preferred walk on) there is no actual commitment papers signed, and no penalty if you choose to go somewhere else?
Non-Illuminati reply: The penalty is similar to a transfer; 1 year in residence at the new school before being eligible to play. Only applies when the new school participates in the NLI program (NCAA DI/DII). A school can release you from the NLI, but that would not typically be in their best interest.
One benefit to the coaches of eliminating the 25% minimum would be the opportunity to lock more players into an NLI.
Is t possible that, in the short term, the likelihood that they would initiate a change within the next two years slow down early recruitment?
This would bring back all of the book scholarships, $500 and $1000 scholarships that many schools gave in the past. It would also allow schools to divide the 11.7 total scholarships any way you wanted to. You could have 35 guys receiving fractional scholarships if you want to. May coaches, like Ray Tanner and Jack Leggett, have pushed for this to be changed since 2008.
First of all, don't get too excited. It hasn't been that long since the NCAA dealt with this, and I doubt they feel much desire to wade back into it all. At most, this is the start of a long process that may or may not find success.
Generally, before the 25% rule, players could sign NLI's for less. Sometimes even "book money." This allowed the player to claim he was on scholarship (for those who were into bragging rights), but it also allowed the school to take a player off the market for a small amount, thereby cutting off the risk that he would change his mind and take a higher offer somewhere else. Now, the school has to pony up at least 25%, otherwise the player is just a walk-on, and having not signed an NLI, he's free to change his mind if another suitor comes along. On the flip side, a player who might have gotten 10-20% -- not exactly chump change -- may get left out in the cold under the current rule.
The removal of the cap of 27 players getting any athletic aid would mean that programs would have the flexibility to spread money around more if they chose to go that route. Of course, you can always concentrate the money into fewer hands, both now and under the proposal.
The two proposals combined seem to suggest that many coaches want to spread the money around more. Unfortunately, they would still have no more than 11.7 equivalencies to spread around. So the average scholarship amount might well fall off.
If it were up to me, the rule change I would first want to see rolled back is the imposition of the one-year sit-out rule on transfers. Where players can see their scholarships reduced or eliminated from year to year, imposing this on them is very harsh. The fact that the "power 5" conferences now all give 4-year guarantees helps quite a bit, but that still leaves a lot of mid-majors where the coaches hold all the cards.
Which is to say, don't hold your breath waiting for the ABCA to seek that change. They aren't going to ask for anything that decreases their leverage.
MTH posted:This would bring back all of the book scholarships, $500 and $1000 scholarships that many schools gave in the past. It would also allow schools to divide the 11.7 total scholarships any way you wanted to. You could have 35 guys receiving fractional scholarships if you want to. May coaches, like Ray Tanner and Jack Leggett, have pushed for this to be changed since 2008.
I can also see where the bigger schools could combine this with the COA money they can now give to, de facto, 20+ scholarships of what is, in essence, 25% +.
Good job Midlo Dad
I like the part about the quiet period, this would mean that pitchers and all players can shut down for a longer period of time in winter.
This would also mean less money in the volunteer assistant coaches pocket, so they would have to become paid assistants. Being a paid assistant also means that they would get benefits from the employer, as they do not get that now.
Funny thing is be careful what you wish for, if they eliminate the 25% minimum, your players just might be getting just book money, and if your student athletes don't have a higher GPA, your college costs will increase (no academic money) and there is nothing in the proposal regarding change in transfer rules.
Interesting.
So, the coaches, conferences and NCAA are all negotiating changes which effect the players/students.
No student/athletes at the negotiating table.
What can possibly go wrong for the student/athlete when so many have their very best interests at heart?
Goosegg posted:So, the coaches, conferences and NCAA are all negotiating changes which effect the players/students.
No student/athletes at the negotiating table.
What can possibly go wrong for the student/athlete when so many have their very best interests at heart?
All I see at the table are those who benefit/earn a living from the efforts of the student athlete.
I believe the idea for shorter practice hours is a concern brought up by students. The NCAA meets with team reps and they air their concerns and changes they would like to see. Individual conference do the same.
"No student/athletes at the negotiating table.
What can possibly go wrong for the student/athlete when so many have their very best interests at heart?"
Ha ha! Wait until your son goes through a draft, with rules set by the teams who are trying to cap amounts players can demand, and by players who would just as soon not have more competition for their jobs. The draftees are not invited to the CBA talks, where draft-and-sign rules are set, either.
Again, great point made by Midlo.