Four-Year Guarantees Approved by NCAA

This is a joke, either make it mandatory or don't even bring it up.

I don't see any baseball coach using this option, with so few to divide up to begin with in D1 and D2, why would I want to tie up money for 4 years?

Top prospects usually don't leave or their scholarship reduced.

Should be interesting to hear responses.

On the surface, it sounds good for the recruit. Still, I'm not so sure it 'guarantees' anything.

Let's be honest here. Football is pretty much a four-year scholarship sport. But... football 'has ways' to make players quit.

My question is 'will the money, itself, be committed for four years?' In other words, using baseball as an example, if a player is signed for four years of athletic aid at 25%, what happens to that money if the player leaves the team (for whatever reason)? Does the money go right back into the 11.7 pool, or is it un-usable (non-transferable) until those four years have elapsed?

We need to see the fulland complete NCAA resolution

As I stated in another thread a major D1 school here in Nor Cal thinks it has the potential to change the landscape of recruiting a lot. In their opinion the days of schools bringing in 20 kids might be over.

I am not cynical by nature.

Unfortunately, the most cynical interpretations have sometimes seemed to be the most accurate explanations of decisions by the NCAA, an organization some cynics have dubbed the National Conspiracy Against Athletes.

A cynic might say that giving individual institutions the option of granting multi-year scholarships is primarily intended to protect the NCAA in its legal battles over its transfer rules and the price-fixing, restraint-of-trade implications of the NCAA's former prohibition of multi-year scholarships.

A cynic might also express confidence that the recommendation would not have been approved if it was at all likely to change competitive balance or strengthen the athlete's hand in dealing with member institutions.

But then again, I'm not a cynic.

p.s. warningtrack, please let us know which school takes the view you describe and then keep us posted on a) whether they actually start granting multi-year scholarships, b) whether it affects the actual attrition rate of its athletes, and c) how the team's competitive fortunes fare.

Hopefully when I said in the other thread it was a top D1 school (academics) included) in Nor Cal you can figure it out.

I claim no personal knowledge, but I have always heard Duke commits to its athletes for four years.

quote:

Originally posted by warningtrack:
Hopefully when I said in the other thread it was a top D1 school (academics) included) in Nor Cal you can figure it out.

What's the big secret? Is it Stanford? Is it Cal? Is it someone else?

There are other schools that already say they have a policy of requiring their coaches to live with their recruiting decisions. One coach told us that was their policy; however, he was also careful to qualify that statement by saying he was not allowed to promise a four-year scholarship.

One test will be whether schools make the leap from an unenforceable policy to a written guarantee. Another test will be what that guarantee says about the circumstances that would permit the school to get out of the deal. The final tests will be how it affects recruiting and team success.

There may very well be some teams that recruit from such a position of strength (perhaps including warningtrack's well disguised NorCal school ) that they already have very low attrition and are willing to formalize what's already happening.

I've already explained why I doubt it will change the landscape in another thread.

I hope this thread eventually fulfills Midlo's purpose and becomes a place where people explain how the new rule actually gets implemented across the country.

I could only image the potential abuse by a HC trying to get his "money's worth" out of a pitcher under a 4 year guarantee.

The text of the approved proposal can be found here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi

Click on the "Search" tab, then on "Division I Proposals". Then, in the window for "Proposal Number", type in 2011-97 and hit your ENTER key.

I offer this because, good luck finding it by navigating the NCAA site. I telephoned today and was put on hold a few times before actually finding someone who could direct me to it. In fact, the initial response I got was that such information was for member institutions only and not for the general public. (I wore them down for you!)

What the NCAA rep told me is, the proposal was approved and is now in a 60-day period when colleges can object if they wish. There is some threshold number of objections which would force the matter to have to be voted on at the next NCAA convention. However, if the number of objections falls short of the threshold number, then the proposal would take effect as of December 26, and would immediately become effective.

Which raises one question: If you have a son who signed his NLI in November, should he ask to have the paperwork redone in April?

BTW, I am told that a revised NLI form document is not yet available.

You must have gotten that poor NCAA person in trouble, Midlo Dad.

Here's what I got when I clicked on the link:

Unexpected Error Detected:

Do I have to log in?

No, you don't have to log, but you do need to know how to navigate the somewhat eccentric NCAA.org site.

Go to NCAA.org, click on Resources, click on "SEARCH NCAA LEGISLATION & MAJOR INFRACTIONS CASES", hover over Search, and click on Division 1 Proposals.

At the search form, you can do a lot of things. But to see this particular proposal, enter in 2011-97. [I found this number by selecting search on 2011, and specifying Article 15 (Financial Aid), which gave me a list of 10 or so proposals.]

Now, a note of caution. Frequently proposals become modified during the proposal process, including override periods. Please do not assume that the final rule will be identical to the proposal. For example, we all know about the minimum 25% for D1 baseball scholarships. That went well into the override process at 33%, and with the possibility to incorporate academic money to get to 33%. The final version of the proposal, marked as adopted and final, had 25%, but still allowed using academic money to make up the 33%. The actual rule as printed in the manual, doesn't allow using academic money as part of the now 25%.

Under no circumstances should you decide to take the easy way out and just read the final press release from the NCAA. More often than not, the releases are factually incorrect, often in a major way.

Thanks for your help. I got it.

I think swampboy has touched on the crux of the matter given that there has been some congressman that may be looking for headlines.

Not sure what went haywire with the link. I've tried to provide a path by editing my post above, but here is a copy of the text, with some other portions of the proposal that don't deal with the multi-year guarantee issue left out just to save space here. (Language stricken through represents the portions of the current rule proposed to be deleted; language in italics represents the new language of the proposal.)

2011-97
FINANCIAL AID -- ELIGIBILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AID -- FORMER STUDENT-ATHLETES; PERIOD OF INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AID AWARD -- MULTIYEAR GRANTS-IN-AID
Status: Adopted, 60-Day Override Period Process Diagram

Intent: To specify that if a student's athletics ability is considered in any degree in awarding financial aid, such aid shall neither be awarded for a period less than one academic year nor for a period that would exceed the student's five-year period of eligibility; further, to specify that institutional financial aid may be awarded to a former student-athlete for any term during which he or she is enrolled (full time or part time).

….

B. Bylaws: Amend 15.02.7, as follows:

15.02.7 Period of Award. The period of award begins when the student-athlete receives any benefits as a part of the student's grant-in-aid on the first day of classes for a particular academic term, or the first day of practice, whichever is earlier, until the conclusion of the period set forth in the financial aid agreement. An athletics grant-in-aid shall not be awarded in excess of one academic year the student-athlete's five-year period of eligibility.

….

E. Bylaws: Amend 15.3.3, as follows:

15.3.3 Period of Institutional Financial Aid Award.

15.3.3.1 One-Year Period of Award. If a student's athletics ability is considered in any degree in awarding financial aid, such aid shall neither be awarded for a period in excess of one academic year nor for a period less than one academic year nor for a period that would exceed the student's five-year period of eligibility (see Bylaw Bylaws 14.2 and 15.01.5). One year grants-in-aid shall be awarded (as set forth in the written statement per Bylaw 15.3.2.3) in equal amounts for each term of the academic year.

[15.3.3.1.1 unchanged.]

15.3.3.1.2 Financial Aid Authority Precedent. A staff member may inform a prospective student-athlete that the athletics department will recommend to the financial aid authority that the prospective student-athlete's financial aid be renewed each year for a period of four years and may indicate that the authority always has followed the athletics department's recommendations in the past. However, the prospective student-athlete must be informed that the renewal will not be automatic.

15.3.3.1.3 Injury or Illness Policy. It is not permissible for an institution to assure the prospective student-athlete that it automatically will continue a grant-in-aid past the one-year period if the recipient sustains an injury that prevents him or her from competing in intercollegiate athletics, but an institutional representative may inform the prospective student-athlete of the regular institutional policy related to renewal or continuation of aid past the one-year period for recipients who become ill or injured during their participation.

[15.3.3.1.4 renumbered as 15.3.3.1.2, unchanged.]

15.3.3.2 Regular Academic Year vs. Summer Term. An institution may award financial aid to a student-athlete for an one or more academic year years or, pursuant to the exceptions set forth in Bylaw 15.3.3.1.1, part thereof of one academic year. An institution also may award financial aid for a summer term or summer-orientation period, provided the conditions of Bylaw 15.2.8 have been met. Such financial aid shall be awarded (as set forth in the written statement per Bylaw 15.3.2.3) in equal amounts for each term of the academic year.

15.3.3.2.1 Summer Term as Additional Award. It is necessary to make an additional award for a summer term, inasmuch as a member institution is limited to the award of financial aid for a period not in excess of one academic year.

F. Bylaws: Amend 15.3.4, as follows:

15.3.4 Reduction or Cancellation During Period of Award.

15.3.4.1 Increase Permitted. Institutional financial aid may be increased for any reason at any time prior to the commencement of the period of the award. Once the period of the award begins, institutional aid may only be increased if the institution can demonstrate that such an increase is unrelated in any manner to an athletics reason.

Rob Kremer and I were at a camp where a respected D1 coach told us that his scholarships were good for 4 years as long as a player put out the effort because he felt it was his mistake if he did a poor job recruiting. I believed him then and I believe he was telling the truth.

Even so a couple years later they had a wholesale change where several players lost their scholarships.

The moral is that good intentions wrt maintaining scholarships mean little or nothing. Unless it is on a contract it means nothing.

BTW, what happens when there is a coaching change?

If a scholarship guarantee were given as the pending rule change would potentially permit, then a coaching change would not threaten the player with a reduction.

In the current world, a coaching change has everyone on pins and needles.

Even with a four year guarantee, as someone noted above, there are ways to end those things early. I had a 4 year football scholarship back in the 70's when 4 year scholarships were the norm (for football anyway). A highly touted defensive back turned out to have a little attitude problem and was a tad lazy...but he had a 4 year ride. One hot August afternoon, it was determined we'd work on punt returns, live, full speed, and this kid got the job of fielding punt after punt, and getting pounded by rotating punt coverage teams. He must have fielded 10-15 punts before he had enough, walked off swearing, packed up and left. 4 year scholarship or not, it isn't hard to make a player really unwelcome in a hurry...

I'm not sure how many objections it takes to keep this rule change from becoming official -- absent sufficient objections, it has less than 10 days to go -- but there seems to have been a recent spike in "override requests", now totaling 67.

I hope everyone got their looks in before the holidays and that's going to be it. But I'll check back Dec. 27.

MidloDad,
The number of override requests required to cause reconsideration is 75. The actual number of requests is growing rapidly. On Dec 13, an article claimed 105 requests. A NCAA press release on Dec 15 said 125. I checked the LSDbi database later on Dec 15 and it was 130. Today the number of override requests is 145.

There is no way this rule will survive without modification. Lots of schools can't afford it, and probably no school can stand the Title IX implications, because as written the $2K only applies to head count sports or athletes already at 100% in equivalency sports. Edited to give better, but not necessarily complete figures: Men's sport have 98 head count scholarships (football and basketball), and women have 47 (basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, and tennis).

For schools which have limitations on the total athletic budget, this rule will have the effect of distributing athletic money to fewer athletes. Many schools will see that as counter to their overall athletic philosophy.

Wow, apparently the counter on the web page I was looking at was not nearly up to date.

But what you're saying is, we can forget about this taking effect on Dec. 27, right?

It may never happen, and if it does it would likely be in very different form?

It is hard to know the reason for all the override requests, and it may be that colleges simply feel that they need more time to understand the implications. But I guess that the proposed rule works to the disadvantage of most schools.

Now it is a mess, because apparently some colleges actually wrote this $2K into offers during the early NLI period. The NCAA press releases seemed to describe the legislation as a done deal, and I infer that some schools assumed that they were entitled to offer the $2K. According to the above press release, existing commitments will be honored, but perhaps no new ones will be offered.

I think the implications for Title IX are significant, and it points up the stark difference between men's basketball and football versus any other sport.

NCAA Board approved this measure on January 14, clearing the way for a full vote in February.

I think this is good and makes sense. MLB's new CBA will force more kids go to college then sign a pro contract.

quote:

Rob Kremer and I were at a camp where a respected D1 coach told us that his scholarships were good for 4 years as long as a player put out the effort because he felt it was his mistake if he did a poor job recruiting. I believed him then and I believe he was telling the truth.

Even so a couple years later they had a wholesale change where several players lost their scholarships.

I remember being surprised when I heard him say that. But I didn't know what happened afterward. Interesting. Hard to believe that was four years ago, isn't it CADad?

the 4 year stipulation is a long way from approval as is the 2 thousand dolar stipend

quote:

Originally posted by Sdlefty:
I think this is good and makes sense. MLB's new CBA will force more kids go to college then sign a pro contract.

I don't think MLB owners would have approved the new CBA if they believed it would keep them from signing the high school talent they most covet. They probably believed they could get the same talent for less money. The players union signed on to the deal because it re-allocates pay from non-dues paying amateurs and toward their members. It would have been a classic case of two wolves and one sheep voting democratically to decide what to have for lunch, except in this case the sheep didn't even get to vote.

What I find ironic is that MLB and the NCAA each took actions at the same time that could push high school grads toward the other.

Just when MLB moved to reduce the money paid to draftees, the NCAA tightened academic eligibility rules, which will surely prevent at least some players from competing in the NCAA and could push some potential college players into the pros.

Will reduced bonuses push more players to college or will higher academic standards push more to the pros? I don't know.

Read the proposal from Scott Boras to NCAA Coaches about having MLB fund 25 Baseball scholarships!

His statistics reveal that College baseball players succeed at a higher rate in MLB than do high school players. Thus, it would be in everyones best interest, in most cases, to have prospects play college baseball. It's an interesting proposal!



http://www.baseballnews.com/fe..._25_scholarships.htm

A very interesting proposal. If you have not already done so I recommend you get a copy of the FULL article, not just for this topic, but for everything else he discusses such as psychologists, client management, etc. I've never been a Boras fan, but the guy really does his homework and makes a good argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Prime9:
Read the proposal from Scott Boras to NCAA Coaches about having MLB fund 25 Baseball scholarships!

His statistics reveal that College baseball players succeed at a higher rate in MLB than do high school players. Thus, it would be in everyones best interest, in most cases, to have prospects play college baseball. It's an interesting proposal!



http://www.baseballnews.com/fe..._25_scholarships.htm

First post here (my baseball-playing son is only 9 so I'm a longtime lurker since I don't have much to contribute -- maybe someday), but I just saw this link so I figured I'd share it. Looks like the Big Ten is already using the four-year scholarships on football national signing day:

http://espn.go.com/college-foo...-4-year-scholarships

I saw that and given the info the NCAA is putting out about the rules change not being final I don't know how that is happening.

I'm thinking there must be language in the NLI's that says they will do it if it's approved, but if it's not approved then they cannot and therefore will not give the guarantees. But, the article doesn't say anything about that, so I'm a bit mystefied.

The other thing is that the rules change is supposedly set up to become effective immediately once it's finally approved, that is, it would apply even to 2012 grads (as with the football players signing now).

Which makes me wonder, if a 2012 guy signed his NLI during the early signing period in November, can he have it redone in April if his future coaches are willing to extend the guarantee to him?

My understanding is that the changes made it through and are now in effect.

Apparently the override vote was VERY close, but it made it through.

Perhaps some with kids in the 2012 and later classes can report here on what sort of impact this has in baseball. Do coaches offer it, or not? If you ask for it, do they give it or not?

BUMP....wanted to see if anyone has heard of anyone receiving a multi year offer or if it is dead in the water?

My son was a 2012 grad and early-signed with a top DII.  His NLI/FAA was for the 2012-13 year but we were told that it was a 4-year offer barring ineligibility.  As we head into the 2013-14 school year, they kept their word.

My 2013 son's NLI signed in November 14, 2012 states"Type of Scholarship: 4 Academic Years"

"Initial Term: Fall 2013

End Term: Spring 2017"

Maybe 3FG can verify but I would imagine the above means they don't have to renew yearly. 

But that doesn't stop any coach from asking anyone to leave.

The NLI is not an instrument that awards scholarships.  It is an agreement in which the school agrees to offer a scholarship and the student agrees to attend the school for a full academic year.  The NCAA requires the NLI be accompanied by a written offer that explains the terms and conditions of the scholarship.  That written offer, usually on a form managed by the conference, is where you want to look to see the conditions under which it may be changed or revoked. 

Agree. All it means is that they have committed the money. Doesn't guarantee playtime or a rooster spot. HC has the ability to do whatever he wants. Let's hope it all works out for the good. I was just saying it has happened although I'm told it's rare.

 

My 2013 was offered a 4 yr deal from a D1.  But, he chose a different school.

Son signed NLI and ASA (Athletics Scholarship Agreement from the school) on November 14, 2012.  I pulled out our copy of the NLI (Rev. 10/1/12) and paragraph 2, Financial Aid Requirement, stated that the institution must provide a written offer for the entire 2013-14 academic year from the institution named in the NLI. 

 

The ASA had the period of award as One Academic Year, and in a later paragraph stated, "This award is not automatically renewed."

I'm guessing the discussion with a coach on a 4 year guarantee flies like a wet mop. You're probably just opening the door to discussing why you couldn't keep your scholarship if you are playing to the ability they have already seen.

 

I can see how a 4 year guarantee might help a coach too with a kid who is a stud, wanna give him a big offer, and the family hesitates due to not being able to afford anything less than the original large percentage offer. 4 years guaranteed gives him no reason to not play there if he has the money locked up and he wants to be there. Just a matter of how bad the coach wants the player and willingness to accept the risk I guess.

I had parent tell me that 4 yr guarantee is legal per NCAA. I've heard different opinion from others who should be "in the know". It appears it is legal but just not often used. How often is 4 yr guarantee happening now?  Prevalent to one conference? one type of college?

2013 grad year was the first year for DI schools to designate on the NLI that the financial offer was for up to five years. Not sure how often ithappened in 2013, but my sons NLI ha it spelled out.

I know of a kid who is on my son collegiate summer team that was told by the HC at the yer end meeting that they did not want him back and to find another school. tha asked bout is 5 year scholly guarantee and they said that if he stayed that they would honor the financial aid, but would not play.

Just a reminder, just because it's in writing, doesn't mean your guaranteed play time. They can distill make life difficult so you leave. 

RFF, it is definitely true that not many schools have been offering four-year athletic scholarships so far.  Now that universities like Southern Cal and Indiana are coming out with "student-athlete bills of rights", they may become more common, but remains to be seen.  They have mostly been offered by DI schools in football and basketball, where the competition for the top recruits is the most publicized.  Won't change the fact that many coaches will try to convince athletes to leave if it's not working out, and athletes who aren't getting playing time will be looking elsewhere for a better opportunity.

       
       


Exactly.

As guarantees, they don't guarantee much. They don't guarantee a good baseball experience or playing time. They guarantee only that the money will be there if the player sticks it out. I don't think they offer much practical value to incoming freshmen, especially those with small scholarships, for the reasons Rick said.

They can offer value to transfer students who want assurance the new school will remain committed to them through the year-in-residence and who know their five year clock won't permit a second transfer. They have been used in transfer situations involving players leaving major conference schools for smaller D-1's.  A player who feels like he didn't get a fair look at his first school can be very receptive to evidence that the new school values him and will give him time to develop.

They may also have value to big scholarship prospects who don't want to be nudged into the pros after their junior year unless the timing is right for them. However, I haven't heard of them being used in this situation.

A nuance to be considered:  The coaches at schools whose general endowment funds allow for generous levels of need-based scholarship aid will sometimes dangle the prospect of need-based funds out there for 4 years rather than their much more precious athletic-based scholarships, which count against their limit of 11.7 (DI). I've seen instances of players and their families learning well after they're committed that the coaches were talking about need-based scholarships, making the player a recruited walk-on instead of one of the 27 on the roster receiving athletic scholarship assistance.

As a parent, i guess I don't care where the money came from. Money that was offered was money that did not come out of my son's (later) or my pocket. It has been said many times here that academic money is much more easily available. My son got a combination but the important thing for me was the total package.

I get the "money is money" point; but, if no athletic money is provided, that creates a much more precarious position for the player when the roster-thinning process takes place in many programs.

Exactly.  Anyone getting athletic aid is counted towards the roster limit (35), so it does the program no good, if they have to get down from, say, 40 to 35 at the end of the fall, to consider cutting a guy who's getting baseball money.  All the cuts are going to happen from among the guys who get no athletic aid.  Some might even be guys who would, but for this factor, have beaten out another player.

 

I would think any family sending their son to one of the pricier private universities, in particular, would want to at least ask for a four-year guarantee.  If your son is on a 40% ride at a $55,000/year school and you're shelling out $33,000/year net already, think how it would affect your budget to find out in late June that next year is going to cost you another $22,000 of your after-tax earnings.  (The same thing can happen at a public university, of course, but the dollar figures are not as severe.)  Many in that situation end up having to transfer, sit out a year, and hope to get re-recruited.

Thanks very much. I think I was able to glean what I need out of the replies!!!

Midlo,

 

That is a great point with regards to pricier private D1 schools and 4 year guarantees.  You are exactly right.  If a recruit has a some leverage that is a question that has to be asked.  The money is too significant not to ask. 

Prepster you make a very good point. Earlier this spring my son was scheduled to be a guaranteed walk on. He had academic money but no athletic. He had a remarkable 10 days, opened up his recruiting since he had other offers come his way and in the end, decided to stay at same school with very nice athletic money as well as academic. For me it was the additional money but, also, the fact that he was being recognitized as an athlete financially. My wife was very worried about "retaliation" from HC since he felt that my son had committed then reopened up, but in the end HC found athletic money for my son. My response to my wife was if they were that mad, they simply would have walked away. The fact that they came up with athletic money solidified his roster spot.So indeed you are absolutely correct.

 

Of course, it is now up to him to do well enough to get on teh field and to prove in years beyond that he deserves to keep that athletic money

Today's paper included a report that the University of Maryland is going to include 4-year guarantees in all of its scholarships in all sports from now on.

 

With any luck, this will be the first of many to follow, perhaps an indication that even in major conferences, there is a need to compete for players and to have concern for their security.

Just talked about this at a D1 camp this weekend with their recruiter.

The downfall is there will be less changeover and scholarships available from year to year. They haven't done it yet, as he mentioned the data of success or non-success is not there. Could change the ballgame.

Thoughts of going Juco and transferring later may need to be changed.

I really don't think JuCo transfers will be all that affected.

 

Most JuCo transfers are either treated as part of the incoming recruiting class of freshmen (just with less eligibility remaining), or are replacing guys who quit or transfer of their own volition.  I don't think their opportunities are that much a function of coaches handing other players their walking papers.

 

I realize it could happen here or there, it just doesn't strike me as statistically significant.

Note that Maryland's policy would still permit dismissal/revocation for instances of misconduct, coming up short academically, etc.  The player gets protection from the coach deciding he isn't worth as much money (or any money at all), from wholesale bloodlettings that sometimes accompany changes in coaches, and from upperclassmen getting reduced just because the program over-recruited in its incoming freshman class.  (Some of the higher profile programs bank on some of their signees going pro, then cover if they don't by reducing upper classmen's money at the last minute.)

Midlo dad, 2016 and I were explained basically the same thing fron HC at IU 3 weeks ago.Could be where the big ten is either going all around.

It would seem to me that the bar really has NOT been raised with this new ruling unless every other big name school follows UM's lead. I will believe it when I see it.

 

 

When my son was being recruited by St Mary's, coach Jedd Soto said his commitment lasted 4 years essentially for the same reason. He went on to tell us a story about one of his recruits who was scholarshiped in large part because of his speed. During this recruits freshman fall season he tore his ACL and was never as fast again. His movement was diminished to the point of never having played a single inning for the team, yet his scholarship was honored. He went on to say that the kid needed a 5th year to graduate, and it was covered as well.

 

As we were to find out from experience, a scholarship offer and/or guaranteed roster spot is only as good as a coaches word. Some coaches live up to their agreements even at the expense of the overall program, and others treat kids like a commodity by dumping them even if the kid gets hurt/ill.

My son was recruited by a top D1 last year as a transfer student with a guaranteed spring roster spot. He came down with strep throat in the beginning of fall ball, and the HC is famous/infamous for physically demanding conditioning. So right off the bat he was in the coaches doghouse. Then to make matters much worse, my son developed pneumonia and went from 217lbs to 185 lbs in short order. This coach called me up and said something I will never forget. He said "your son went from being projected to be in the middle of their rotation to the end of it. While he may still be able to make it back to where we originally projected him, I like winning too much to take a chance on that happening".

So needless to say that coach not only lack integrity, but had no empathy for what had happened to my son despite it being beyond his control. Yet I would note that this coach had his own kid get into serious trouble with the law, and as one might suspect, he did what he could to salvage his kids athletic college career. It just goes to show the opposite ends of the scale that reside within the college coaching ranks.

 

Sure it is a tough job for the coach who must balance winning (which equates to job security) to his own integrity as a man. Yet the Jedd Soto's of the world will always be respected for their integrity as men regardless of their success or failure on the field.

 

As to the main point of this thread, my son only has two years of eligibility left, but the coach at the school he transferred to guaranteed him two years of baseball scholarship money. I have no reason to doubt him, but you never know.

 

`

Was your son a transfer with a bb scholarship or a walk on. 

Why did the coach have to call you and tell you those things?   Or did he cut your son and you had to call and ask why?

 

And finally, why did you have to give the info about the coaches son, not sure what that has to do with your son being cut.  

 

Seems to me as a transfer your son would have had plenty of opportunity to find out more info about this coach but it seems to have taken you by surprise.

 

 

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/s...-193905280--spt.html

 

South Carolina, not baseball yet, but supposedly working on baseball in the future

From the article above:

"......are classified as ''equivalency'' sports where coaches divide up a set number of scholarships among their roster, such as baseball having to spread 11.7 scholarships between up to three dozen players."

 

It would have been nice if the reporter knew that it was up to 27 players that the 11.7 needed to be spread, although 35 can be on the roster.  

 

Also, I found it interesting about the "weighted voting" among the 5 conferences for the 305 Div 1 schools.  

Can a coach with only 11.7 scholarships afford to be wrong handing out four year scholarships? I would imagine a kid not getting an opportunity to play would leave. But a four year guarantee could lend itself to coaching staffs doing whatever necessary to make an athlete's life miserable in order to drive him to quit. I can see where a guarantee would be appealing. Producing is a scholarship guarantee. Otherwise, does a player really want to be there?

No, not with DI baseball's restrictions on scholarships, he can't. Under the current structure, show me a coach who grants unvarying 4-year scholarships to every scholarship student, and I'll show you a coach whose program is losing too many games for him to keep his job about 3 years into the practice.

 

Too many players fall by the wayside and/or don't play up to original expectations to continue to fund their unproductive presence and have enough remaining in the 11.7-scholarship pool to continue to attract quality players into the program.

 

I wish it were otherwise, but, the combination of the requirements (11.7/27/35) is too limiting. Four-year guarantees may make more sense when every player receives a full scholarship and there are enough total scholarships to field a competitive team with high-performing players.