any pinions on what they are looking to do?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Whatever it takes to keep their jobs and keep the money flowing in?
I would love to hear some thoughts on the 'ability to commit to a 4 year scholarship' rule.
This seems, potentially, to put a dramatic new wrinkle in the recruiting landscape.
This seems, potentially, to put a dramatic new wrinkle in the recruiting landscape.
This is just one man's opinion/guess, but I think the possibility of 4 year scholarships is the least significant part of the new rules. I don't think you will see many high level D1's promising 4 year scholarships on a regular basis. With only 11.7 scholarships to divvy up it's just too much of a gamble. You may see more of it at the smaller, more academically oriented schools, but even then only with can't miss (relatively speaking) type prospects.
To go back to TRHits' question, I think the $2000 supplement is just a preemptive strike to get the public, and perhaps Congress, off their backs. It seems to me that their main agenda is academic reform. (College presidents are driving these reforms, not AD's). I don't think the stuff is going to hit the fan for a couple of years, when the academic reforms start phasing in. Increasing GPA's by a half point is a MAJOR increase. It's the "partial qualifiers" or "academic redshirts" that will have to sit out a year that will change the face of college sports.
I'd love to see how many current players would have been required to take an academic redshirt year if these rules went into effect immediately. I'd be willing to bet that it would be hundreds, if not thousands. Basketball and football will be hit hard, and that's where most of the outcry will come from. But baseball will also be hit hard.
The assumption will be that minority kids will be hit hardest, and that may be true. But non-minority kids in states with lousy education systems will also be hit hard. There are baseball players at every major D1 in SC that would be hit by this rule.
Recruiting will change. With only 35 kids on the roster, how many kids can you afford to recruit knowing they cannot play the first year? Right now D1 colleges have Prized Recruits for 3 years. But suppose Mr. Prized Recruit is a lousy student. (Not uncommon in this part of the country). Under the new rule the college will only have him on the field for 2 years, but they will pay for 3.
And that assumes Prized Recruit decides to go to college. He may decide he doesn't want to be an academic redshirt and take the MLB money and run.
Maybe I'm overreacting. What do you think 3FG?
To go back to TRHits' question, I think the $2000 supplement is just a preemptive strike to get the public, and perhaps Congress, off their backs. It seems to me that their main agenda is academic reform. (College presidents are driving these reforms, not AD's). I don't think the stuff is going to hit the fan for a couple of years, when the academic reforms start phasing in. Increasing GPA's by a half point is a MAJOR increase. It's the "partial qualifiers" or "academic redshirts" that will have to sit out a year that will change the face of college sports.
I'd love to see how many current players would have been required to take an academic redshirt year if these rules went into effect immediately. I'd be willing to bet that it would be hundreds, if not thousands. Basketball and football will be hit hard, and that's where most of the outcry will come from. But baseball will also be hit hard.
The assumption will be that minority kids will be hit hardest, and that may be true. But non-minority kids in states with lousy education systems will also be hit hard. There are baseball players at every major D1 in SC that would be hit by this rule.
Recruiting will change. With only 35 kids on the roster, how many kids can you afford to recruit knowing they cannot play the first year? Right now D1 colleges have Prized Recruits for 3 years. But suppose Mr. Prized Recruit is a lousy student. (Not uncommon in this part of the country). Under the new rule the college will only have him on the field for 2 years, but they will pay for 3.
And that assumes Prized Recruit decides to go to college. He may decide he doesn't want to be an academic redshirt and take the MLB money and run.
Maybe I'm overreacting. What do you think 3FG?
quote:Originally posted by BaseballmomandCEP:
I would love to hear some thoughts on the 'ability to commit to a 4 year scholarship' rule.
This seems, potentially, to put a dramatic new wrinkle in the recruiting landscape.
As MTH says, seems like academic reform is a priority. Just this afternoon I talked to a friend whose son has committed to play for a major D1 school. The parent was telling me about all the tutors, study assistants, resources and special treatment available to the athletes and I commented that no kid has an excuse not to graduate (if not drafted at age 21) with all that support. Parent said NCAA is the reason.
I am a cynic though. A co-worker just left to go the football game in Tuscaloosa this weekend. He said the town will go from 100,000 to 300,000 this weekend. There is a lot of money in college football and basketball and where this is a lot money there is corruption.
I am a cynic though. A co-worker just left to go the football game in Tuscaloosa this weekend. He said the town will go from 100,000 to 300,000 this weekend. There is a lot of money in college football and basketball and where this is a lot money there is corruption.
There will be many more classes "designed for athletes".
Maybe, maybe not. But they won't help with freshman eligibility issues. The GPA that the NCAA uses to determine qualifiers/eligibility is based on core courses only. HS jock classes like "Weight Lifting for Baseball" don't help their GPAs for NCAA purposes.
I guess they might help a little once the kid gets to college. But, as I understand it, whether a kid has a low GPA or a high GPA doesn't affect APR, so long is the GPA is high enough for him to remain eligible.
I guess they might help a little once the kid gets to college. But, as I understand it, whether a kid has a low GPA or a high GPA doesn't affect APR, so long is the GPA is high enough for him to remain eligible.
quote:Originally posted by YesReally:
There will be many more classes "designed for athletes".
Classes designed for athletes can only go so far.Remember an athlete has to be making progression towards his degree.They can not take easy classes for three years.There are general ed clsses, and upper division and electives.Once you have taken the electives you have to be taking real classes.Those days of just taking easy classes arent around anymore.My son has to meet with an advisor and athletic counselor each semester to go over classes and stay on track.It is def. going to be tougher.Freshmen struggle as it is many times.Studnet -athlete just is now taking on a even more stringent title.its tough as it is now.
quote:MTH said...I think the $2000 supplement is just a preemptive strike to get the public, and perhaps Congress, off their backs. It seems to me that their main agenda is academic reform. (College presidents are driving these reforms, not AD's). I don't think the stuff is going to hit the fan for a couple of years, when the academic reforms start phasing in. Increasing GPA's by a half point is a MAJOR increase. It's the "partial qualifiers" or "academic redshirts" that will have to sit out a year that will change the face of college sports.
I agree 100% with everything said here. Let's face it $2K per athlete is "couch change" when you look at the big NCAA financial picture. The NCAA wants everyone to see they are doing something and the $2K is there to take our minds off the real problem. So, they are diverting our attention with some spending money. I am encouraged that college presidents are involved in the academic reform. Hopefully, the college presidents are claiming back the power and control that they gave up to the ADs & some coaches (over many, many years) in the big money sports at the big money making schools. We'll see as details become available.
I don't think what the ncaa is up to (example the proposed 2000K for spending) has anything at all to do with any other sport other than the ones they profit from. Extra money will help prevent (what they hope) of taking favors from those they shouldn't. They are targeting a specific group of players that due to economic situations may be more inclined to seek funds needed to live and survive at college. Or take from agents before they should.
College presidents are taking control because it is affecting the programs that make them the most $$$ as well as their reputation. I am not sure they could or could not care less with academic reform.
When was the last time that you heard that a bb program (leave out AZ) or it's players were in trouble because they accepted money, sold their jerseys or memorabilia, accepted dinners, cars or cash?
College presidents are taking control because it is affecting the programs that make them the most $$$ as well as their reputation. I am not sure they could or could not care less with academic reform.
When was the last time that you heard that a bb program (leave out AZ) or it's players were in trouble because they accepted money, sold their jerseys or memorabilia, accepted dinners, cars or cash?
Another thought: it will put pressure back on to the high schools (even back to middle and elementary) to make sure students earn good grades and are not just given them. A lot of kids are studying under Individual Education Plans. You might see a lot more of those too.
As others have pointed out this is only about football and basketball that are generating huge revenues. All they are trying to do is minimize the abuse in these programs. The NCAA could care less about baseball and this has nothing to do with it. I don’t think a single baseball player will see a penny of the $2K.
As far as academics does anyone think for one minute that the Cal football players or Duke basketball players are taking the same classes or competing with those schools general population?
As CADad pointed out they are just trying to keep the gravy train flowing and minimize the criticism.
As far as academics does anyone think for one minute that the Cal football players or Duke basketball players are taking the same classes or competing with those schools general population?
As CADad pointed out they are just trying to keep the gravy train flowing and minimize the criticism.
That's definitely a possibility. The problem with many HS athletes is they tend to **** around for their Fresh, Soph, and even Jr. years. Then all of a sudden they turn into athletic "prospects." But there's a problem. Prospect's GPA is too low, and he has limited time to pull it up. GPA's are difficult to improve significantly after the Sophomore year. They are dang near impossible to bring up significantly after the Jr. year. The Kids, AND/OR the HS coaches and administrators are going to have to start working on this stuff a lot sooner. Otherwise Prospect ain't gonna play his freshman year in college.
quote:Originally posted by 55mom:
Another thought: it will put pressure back on to the high schools (even back to middle and elementary) to make sure students earn good grades and are not just given them. A lot of kids are studying under Individual Education Plans. You might see a lot more of those too.
I don't think there's any question but that problems with basketball and football are the impetus for most of these changes. But the impetus is irrelevant. The $2000 and the higher APR for post season play will make little or no difference as far as baseball as concerned.
But the new academic rules will have a significant impact on ALL sports. Does it really matter who they're targeting when you're caught in the crossfire?
But the new academic rules will have a significant impact on ALL sports. Does it really matter who they're targeting when you're caught in the crossfire?
quote:Originally posted by Shelby:
Just an observation, for what it's worth, in regards to the proposed new NCAA rules. As a parent of sons who were multi sport players AND each being at different accademic levels... As a parent that has had sons on various recruiting sites & familiar with looking at player profiles, in different sports. I couldn't help but notice the sometimes, difference in GPA in the players of different sports. Is it me, and I'd hate to stereotype players of a certain sport(s)...but, baseball players tend to have on average, high HOW's & test scores. And if that's true, then I'd have to agree with some of the others, with whom the NCAA are truly targeting with the changes. JMO...but, it's early & I haven't had my coffee yet!
I find the GPA requirement for JUCO transfers interesting and I am sure I read where they are only allowed to have 2 physical education type coarses?....changes the JUCO transfer playing field as well
quote:changes the JUCO transfer playing field as well
2.0 to 2.5 yes it will.
See the SI article this month on the subject and their model for how the NCAA could compensate ALL athletes without adding fiscal burden.
Pretty interesting.
Pretty interesting.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...MAG1191778/index.htm
Intesting, but unrealistic.
"The second stage of SI's model would eliminate the NCAA's minimums; there are more sensible methods to restrict membership. Once freed of those mandates, athletic departments could demote any men's sport that was unable to break even to club status.
This is the most controversial part of SI's model and for good reason: It could mean the death of every men's sport other than football and basketball."
Intesting, but unrealistic.
"The second stage of SI's model would eliminate the NCAA's minimums; there are more sensible methods to restrict membership. Once freed of those mandates, athletic departments could demote any men's sport that was unable to break even to club status.
This is the most controversial part of SI's model and for good reason: It could mean the death of every men's sport other than football and basketball."
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
See the SI article this month on the subject and their model for how the NCAA could compensate ALL athletes without adding fiscal burden.
Pretty interesting.