New rules and the 08s

U of SC coach Ray Tanner's take: The State Paper

Rules of money game will change
Tanner: ‘Grossly unfair’
By SETH EMERSON - semerson@thestate.com

Ray Tanner has faced plenty of high-pressure situations, but the biggest might have come years ago when he walked into the home of prospective recruit Drew Meyer. Tanner badly wanted the star shortstop to come to South Carolina, but because of the peculiar economics of college baseball, he only could offer a partial scholarship.

“I had to sit down with his family and tell them that as great as your son is, we’d like to give him a half of a scholarship,” Tanner said, “because we want a right fielder who’s really good, and we want to get a guy in the bullpen who can get people out.”

Meyer signed with USC anyway and went on to become a first-round draft pick in 2002. The money game worked out to everyone’s benefit.

But in recounting that story Tuesday, Tanner was using it as an example of how much harder his job was about to become, because of new NCAA legislation.

The Gamecocks figure to be affected in a major way by the new rules, along with other schools that place a big emphasis on baseball. Roster flexibility will disappear, Tanner said, and players who are on scholarship might have to be cut as soon as this summer.

“It’s going to really hurt our game,” Tanner said.

The rules package, passed by the NCAA board of directors last week, was spurred by baseball’s low Academic Progress Rate. The APR measures academic performance.

Part of the legislation requires college baseball players who transfer to sit out a year, bringing it in line with other NCAA sports. Tanner said he agreed with that revision, as well as forcing players to be academically eligible for the fall semester rather than the spring semester, a move aimed at junior-college transfers.

But when it came to the so-called “27-8” rule, Tanner called it “grossly unfair.”

Under the new rules, teams can have a maximum of 27 players on scholarship and eight walk-ons who can receive academic scholarship help. Currently, there is no limit on how many players can be on scholarship, and Tanner estimated he has about 40 players receiving money.

Because the NCAA scholarship limit of 11.7 per program is not being increased, Tanner said the change would necessitate harsh, unfair decisions on his part. The Gamecocks are due to have between 38-42 players on scholarship this fall. They would have to get down to 30 for the 2008-09 academic year and to 27 for the 2009-10 academic year.

“We have six or seven commitments for the ’08 class. Do we continue, or do we just stop?” he said. “You look at your current roster. Does the exodus start this summer, or do you wait until next summer? There’s going to be an exodus, we have no choice.”

The new rules also stipulate that a player must receive at least 33 percent of what a full scholarship would pay out. There had been no minimum amount, and Tanner said 33 percent was too subjective an amount.

Tanner also said he believes the 27-scholarship-player limit would hamstring coaches because of the many unknown events in baseball: the draft, arm injuries and others.

Tanner said he believes a fair compromise would be to increase the scholarship limit. He said it was “ridiculous” to keep the limit at 11.7 for baseball, pointing out that basketball has a limit of 13.

“They play five guys. I’m OK with that,” Tanner said. “We play nine. Well, maybe we should have at least 18, maybe 20 (scholarships).”

The rules were decided by a 24-person committee. Tanner took note that only three were coaches, adding that he and most other coaches he has spoken to had no input.

But the NCAA will hear the coaches now, Tanner vowed.

Jack Leggett's atke on the new rules: The State Paper

Leggett: ‘You’ve got a mess’
By PAUL STRELOW - pstrelow@thestate.com
CLEMSON — Had the new NCAA legislation been in place at that time, the outfield wall bearing Khalil Greene’s likeness probably still would be plain green.

Clemson coach Jack Leggett said he could not have waited until April for a marginal prospect to make his college decision.

And forget about Tyler Colvin, last year’s first-round pick. Too much of a developmental project to risk a scholarship.

Leggett’s list goes on and on, from former fan-favorite Casey Stone to slugger Jeff Baker to last year’s postseason hero, Sean Clark, and back to current starting catcher Doug Hogan.

All received their chance with the Tigers because they accepted athletics financial aid (partial scholarships) worth less than 33 percent of the value of a single scholarship, the new minimum that can be given as set by the NCAA — along with a scholarship roster limit of 27 players. The rules are designed to force programs to improve their player retention and graduation rates.

“We have to get everybody together and try to have them take a common-sense approach to take a look at this another time and understand there are some real problems in this,” Leggett said. “As limited as we are, then we have to have flexibility with how we use our scholarship money.”

Three of the four reforms should have little bearing on Clemson’s program.

Unlike midmajors programs, the Tigers do not rely heavily on Division I transfers, although they have added several noteworthy ones the past couple of years (Lou Santangelo, Adrian Casanova and Steve Richard).

Relative to South Carolina, Clemson places a smaller emphasis on junior-college recruiting, making fall semester certification less of an issue.

While Clemson’s 924 APR score last year was below the cut-off mark, the team will post a 978 score when this year’s figures are released today — a figure that makes Clemson safe from the 10-percent schedule-reduction penalty included in the new rules.

Leggett said he can live with those reforms.

It is the decision to codify how teams use their allotted 11.7 scholarships that has propelled him and other coaches onto their soapboxes.

Teams must get down to 30 scholarship players for the 2008-09 academic year and to 27 for the 2009-10 academic year forward.

Clemson has eight commitments from juniors, six of which are lower-rated prospects who agreed to scholarships of less than 33 percent. If the new legislation stands, Leggett said, the Tigers will have to renege on several commitments because they would have to seek more bang for their buck.

Clemson has 30-31 players on scholarship this year — lower than normal — and figures to lose three seniors and four to six juniors to the draft.

While a handful of its 14 fall signees are likely headed to the pros as well, Leggett said the numbers crunch probably would force him to tell multiple signees they are no longer welcome.

“You’ve got a mess and are having to treat people unfairly,” Leggett said.

Furthermore, the volatility of the draft threatens to leave the best teams out in the cold.

The Tigers have had touted players — Greene and first baseman Andy D’Alessio — who returned for their senior seasons despite being selected in the draft as high as expected. Those decisions often are not made until the fall semester is set to begin.

Coaches already have to get creative to account for such unpredictability — Clemson must fit injured shortstop Stan Widmann back into next year’s equation — but the wiggle room to do so is squeezed when they are required to spread the same amount of money among fewer players.

Leggett said the solution is simple — require baseball teams be at their 11.7 scholarship limit by the fall, not the spring, as rules once allowed.

That would eliminate the system of open fall tryouts some schools employ and force coaches to be pickier about whom they recruit.

“I really feel the APR, if given a chance to work, would take care of most of your problems,” Leggett said. “There have been abuses in college baseball ... I think what’s happened is there has been an overreaction. This may be the most damaging thing I’ve seen student welfare-wise.”

I have always reminded folks of the smaller schools in considering their choices. This is going to become even more important now and I think those smaller schools will benefit tremendously. What does that do though for the marginal kid that only got a chance to go to a smaller school and sit the bench. His spot will be gone and the smaller school will be filled with more talented players.

Gone will be the day that big state U can have a dozen kids sitting who were willing to come there and take a risk for book money. I think some schools began to adjust their roster this year. A school I follow that typically brings in over a 50 man roster every fall had it scaled down this year. So, I think coaches were prepared for this change... not happy, but knew it was coming.

It will have dramatic effects that will trickle down to all levels I believe. For our '08's I think they need to continue to think very broadly about school selection and options.

This is my take. While I am in total agreement that baseball should get more scholarship money, I think this is really going to have more of an impact on the large state supported schools that brought in 16-20 kids a year and sorted through them in the fall for the keepers. They're going to have to be more selective on their offers, just like in basketball. Just imagine what basketball rosters would look like if Kentucky could give book money to the local kids.

I don't really think it is going to have much of an impact on the partially funded private schools as all the private schools that offered my son offered significantly more academic money than baseball money. The partially funded state supported schools will most likely see an increase in the quality of players going there (due to less bench room at the Big State U) and they may tend to have more recruited walk-ons.

As for taking opportunities away from boys want to play baseball, it doesn't impact D2, D3, JC, or NAIA so in reality the number of players not getting a chance to play baseball is not going to be significant because most of the big schools ran off players in the fall and had their rosters down between 35 - 40 anyway.

What it is going to do is level the playing field somewhat and set the stage for more upsets. That is what the Big State U coaches don’t like. Very similar to when there were 20 scholarships in D1 basketball – instead of the current 13. The UCLA’s and Kentucky’s of the world very seldom lost because they had players sitting on the end of the bench that, if given a chance to develop with another team, could have beaten them. This means the State U coaches are going to have to be better evaluators of talent, better coaches, and rely less on the State U name to bring in mass quantities of players to give tryouts to. They’re also going to have to out work some of the smaller schools coaches. Life just got a little tougher for them.

I am sure that during the next year or so there is going to be an adjustment period and that some 08’s are not going to be happy. But if they could play ball at Big State U, they will find a home. In fact they just might come out better financially. As an example, my son is friends with two position players who start at UNC-Chapel Hill. They both basically got book money to go there and see if they could make the team. They had opportunities to go to other state supported schools for significantly more athletic money with better chances to play. They chose not to and both succeeded. Based on the new rules, they both would likely end up going to another school. In that case two things happen, UNC-Chapel Hill gets slightly weaker and the other school gets slightly better. Multiply that happening several times a year and you can see why the Big State U coaches are not happy.

What I see happening is that coaches may do more pulling of scholarship from one player to give it to another. While I know a scholly isn't guarenteed for 4 years, I see baseball becoming a pure 1 year deal.

quote:

Originally posted by obrady:
What I see happening is that coaches may do more pulling of scholarship from one player to give it to another. While I know a scholly isn't guarenteed for 4 years, I see baseball becoming a pure 1 year deal.

It just doesn't affect BIG State U, it will affect everyone. What about the smaller schools that have very little $$$ and have to now fund 33% each player? This essentially means, if your son gets an opportunity, and he doesn't produce or gets hurt, he's GONE the following year. And then you have to SIT out a year if you transfer? Though some applaud the raising of $$, I would rather my son get less and know he will be able to finish school where he began.

I do beleive FBBmom raised a good point in another post, NCAA has a right to raise academic standards in any sport, but where does it have the right to tell schools how to spend their money?

Raise the scholarship limit.

A couple of other points:

The summary on the NCAA website states the following: "Encouraging a student-athlete who is one of the 27 counters to transfer would cost the institution APR points, and the program would not be allowed to replace that student-athlete until the following year." I am not sure how the NCAA would determine if the school "encouraged" the athlete to transfer but if they require “baseball programs with a four-year average APR under 900 to be subject to baseball-specific penalties in addition to penalties already stipulated in the Academic Performance Program (such as scholarship reductions). Examples of baseball-specific penalties would be a reduction in a team’s number of contests to 50 and limiting the playing and practice season to 119 days”, they probably will not want to indiscriminately run players off.

Also, based on the following: “Research from 2004-05 showed that more than two-thirds of all transfers in baseball are junior college student-athletes moving to a four-year program. Those student-athletes lost retention points in the APR 21.8 percent of the time and eligibility points 22.2 percent of the time. Nine percent were “0-for-2s.” Working-group members say the proposal will eliminate the instances of two-year college student-athletes transferring into a Division I program at mid-year to compete in the spring term without making a serious academic commitment and then depart the institution (for a professional baseball opportunity, for example) as an 0-for-2.” the new rules will most likely reduce the number of transfers into D1 from JC and D2/D3.

quote:

Originally posted by btbballfannumber1:
i'm confused and have questions.....how does the new 33 percent rule affect players who receive merit aid $$$'s based on academic merit or receive need based financial aid only and who don't receive any athletic scholarship $$$'s? will there still be any opportunities for these kids? any continued opportunities for "invited" or "recruited" walkons?

is the new 33 percent rule only impacting D1 programs or other divisions as well?

I believe it is D1 only at this time.

Academic (merit) 'ships do not count as athletic aid provided certain stipulations are met (there are some criteria related to SAT's, GPA's ,etc.). In these cases, the 33% has no effect since it only applies to athletic 'ships. But if those academic aid criteria are not met, then the academic aid counts as athletic. That is true now & will not change as far as I know. Under the new criteria academic aid to a student who doesn't qualify by NCAA criteria would be subject to the 33%.

This should not affect invited walkons, I wouldn't think.

I beleive some of the changes are good.

Interesting, Ray Tanner and Jack Leggett have different recruting philosophies, one under recruits, one over recruits, yet they both feel the new scholarship rules are unfair.

As stated, I am very glad my son will not have to face this issue. He had two very good scholarship opportunities to choose from, one was a full and one was a bit less than full. The full scholarship was possible because he had earned 100% tuition from the state of Florida, the other was a lure to get him away from the full scholarship and not be drafted. He chose the place where he liked best, regardless of the money, not only the program but the school. Under these new rules, he would have to chose the school where we could afford, even though it was not to his preference. I think that is sad. Some recruits work very hard all of their lives to get a chance to make that choice. I am not against the 33%.

If you are making reforms across the board (for all athletic programs) don't force schools to give more percent without raising the scholarship limit. Baseball gets short changed because they do not produce income. But at some schools, their baseball programs are more important than other sports.

When I read that the committee had also tried to propose an increase in the total scholarship level but had been told that baseball had to first "get it's house in order" before that would ever be considered I thought that they missed the connection between one of the drivers of transfers and the overall goal of raising academic achievement.

It seems to me that transfers are driven by several factors: kids that underachieved academically in HS and had to go the JC route to rebuild their academic standing before transfering to a four year; kids that got little or no scholarship money wanting to transfer to a school where they can get some financial assistance; kids that have little prospect playing time that want to transfer somewhere they can play; and, kids that want to transfer into a program that will better prepare them and showcase them for a run at the pro draft. If the NCAA board wants to improve academic achievement, they need to address all the issues that drive transfers, including the financial ones.

Obviously baseball has a higher transfer rate than football or basketball, but imagine the transfer pressures football or basketball would experience if only 1/3 of their rosters were scholarshipped? Any kid riding the pine on his/her own nickel would be highly motivated to go somewhere they could either A) play, or B) at least get their education paid for while they sit the bench. If burdened with the same scholarship framework as baseball, football and basketball would face many of the same transfer problems and the academic issues that follow.

OK - as a parent of an entering freshman player, I must admit I am officially confused - perhaps someone can address these questions and clear up my ignorance of the situation. What are the possible scenarios for an incoming freshman (in the Fall) with a partial scholarship to a D1 program under the new rules?

Play this year and then get cut for an incoming 08 required to get 33%?

Transfer and sit out a year after playing one year?

Fail to qualify academically and get cut?

Stay at the school and play at the same partial scholarship amount unaffected by the new rules?

Will the school put pressure on a kid not to leave for the draft after his Junior year or the reverse?

And although I understand that scholarships are year to year, most of them are automatically renewed if the student has made grades and performed, right? If not, can't the student appeal? So how can a scholarship be cut to make way for another player?

And what about the possibility of getting more money based on performance (already promised)? Is that now out the window?

I heard that the schools most hurt by this are the high tuition private schools, but posters here have suggested the big D1's that stockpile players are the most hurt - which is it?

Are there any other scenarios I've left out?


Please no sarcasm - I just want to know.

One scenario that WILL happen is that there are currently players on rosters who get <33% who will either get cut or read the writing on the wall and leave on their own. Will they have to sit out a year?

EDIT: Brod - I guess my question is the same as one of yours but apparently I was typing when you posted.

I wish I knew the answers to your questions, you might contact the coach who recruited your son.

But I don't think they have the answers either.

The only one I can answer is that most schools already expect their large scholarship players to leave junior year for the draft.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
OK - as a parent of an entering freshman player, I must admit I am officially confused - perhaps someone can address these questions and clear up my ignorance of the situation. What are the possible scenarios for an incoming freshman (in the Fall) with a partial scholarship to a D1 program under the new rules?

Play this year and then get cut for an incoming 08 required to get 33%?

You bring up good questions. From what I have read, I'm under the impression that these new regs are across the board beginning Fall '08 (e.g., no phase in for '05-'07 players). If so, this could happen. Or maybe not get cut, but get told that the 'ship won't be renewed for his soph year.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
Transfer and sit out a year after playing one year?

Yep.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
Fail to qualify academically and get cut?

Could happen if they don't keep their grades and hours up during the spring.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
Stay at the school and play at the same partial scholarship amount unaffected by the new rules?

I don't think that can happen beginning Fall '08. From what I have read, beginning Fall '08 every player either has a 33% min. 'ship or no 'ship.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
Will the school put pressure on a kid not to leave for the draft after his Junior year or the reverse?

They probably will put even more pressure on the player to make his mind up one way or the other. Some coaches will risk the return. Others may say so long.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
And although I understand that scholarships are year to year, most of them are automatically renewed if the student has made grades and performed, right? If not, can't the student appeal? So how can a scholarship be cut to make way for another player?

No. 'Ships are year to year. No appeal. Some coaches are good about renewing. Others don't hesitate to cut or eliminate returning 'ships.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
And what about the possibility of getting more money based on performance (already promised)? Is that now out the window?

Wouldn't count on it.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
I heard that the schools most hurt by this are the high tuition private schools, but posters here have suggested the big D1's that stockpile players are the most hurt - which is it?

I'm not sure that is accurate.

.
Would the advice now be to stay in state?...

Semms like there will be a big increase in the possibility of cutting $ or losing a roster spot...

All other things being equal....In either case you would not suddenly want to pay full out of state tuition...and as a result have to transfer and lose a year...and...

44
.

O44, I guess you could say the same thing about the high priced in-state schools as well.

quote:

Just imagine what basketball rosters would look like if Kentucky could give book money to the local kids.

ummmm.... like UK baseball rosters! However, UK is one of the schools I referred to earlier that has already began to slim down their numbers.

I actually think JUCO transfers may have more opportunity... but this is assuming their grades are EXCELLENT. Schools will not be able to afford to bring in younger kids and sit them for two years while giving them book money and hoping they develop. They're going to have to go after more players to get their bang for their bucks. The young "stud" draft prospect that they would have brought in anyway with a 50% or more will still come.

As I said earlier, I think many smaller schools in other divisions will be able to capitalize on this change. However, having a son at a NAIA, I have to wonder if changes will come for other levels down the road to follow suit.

Interesting thoughts in this thread. The complexion of college recruiting will obviously change. Parents of HS players need to give alot more thought to options I think.

Am I the only one who is reading about this new rule and feeling like I'm looking at a calculus problem? Does this new rule mean that there will be no walk-ons anymore? If you are a walk-on in 07 and get a roster spot then in 08 either you get money or you go away? So all players have to get 33%...sorry for questions.

Newcomer,

The rule states that there will be a MAXIMUM of 27 scholarships, and a MAXIMUM roster of 35. That means under maximum scenarios, there could be 27 scholarships and 8 non-scholarships (walk-ons). However, there is no requirement that there be 27 on scholarship, it could be less which would mean more room for walk-ons.

.
Good point Lafmom...

With small rosters, and many kids on 33% minimum $, they will have to be kids that produce wins...NOW. A great deal less development time will be available...to coaches or players.

DI will end up predominently high grade JC transfers, and only Freshmen who most certainly can play now.

Much little margin for risk, or development, or patience.

44.
.

At least I'm not the only one confused -

So based on the responses, does this mean that scholarship players below 33% now who perform to the satisfaction of the coaching staff and maintain grades will "have" to get their scholarship pushed up to 33% as of the start of the 08 season?
Inotherwords, there is no "grandfather" status for players who came in under the prior rules?

And if an athlete does not have their scholarship renewed, does the NCAA still impose a 1-year waiting period to play if he transfers to another D1 school? How is that fair? What about a D2?

It does not appear there is any grandfathering.

There will be a one year wait period under any circumstances for a D1 to D1 transfer. Not certain about D1 to D2.

Has anyone found the exact, full text for the change? All I have found are articles about the change and references thereto. Looked on the NCAA website, and if it is there they have hidden it well.

quote:

Originally posted by brod:
And if an athlete does not have their scholarship renewed, does the NCAA still impose a 1-year waiting period to play if he transfers to another D1 school? How is that fair? What about a D2?

That's my question brod. It seems those kids, and I would imagine there will be a substantial number of them, will get royally scr*wed!!!

The NCAA website does say full details of the changes will be in their May 7 NCCA News post (I know there is a more specific term, I just can't remember it right now).

This seems like a raw deal for players in another way to me.

My son is in the last group of DFE's. That means that last year AND this year he has multiple choices.

Having been drafted last year out of HS, he can now (1) sign; OR (2) he could reenter the draft this year; OR (3) go back to JUCO for a second year; OR move on to the D1 where he signed a NLI last fall. All with no kind of penalty that I can see.

Compare that with a lad being drafted out of high school this June who will need to: (1) hurry up and choose his school and make sure he plans to stay put because he won't have many choices down the line.

This just doesn't seem fair for kids graduating HS 2007 and forward.

Thanks, JBB. That was also all that I could find. Guess we'll have to wait another week.

Personally I think we will still see changes to what is now on the table---doesn't look like theyconsulted the right people before formulating this.


Many clarifications are required at the present time---all of our discussion here is nothing but conjecture

I came across this in another thread a year ago and wrote it down.Can't remember who the author was but it really helped to clear up the scholly picture in my mind.

TYPICAL COLLEGE ROSTER : 30 players,11.7 scholarships

Pitchers:
3-80%
2-60%
4-50%
5-28%
total=7 scholarships
Catchers:
1-80%
1-50%
2-35%
total= 2 scholarships
Position Players:
2-40%
2-35%
4-20%
4-10%
total= 2.7 scholarships
On this team there are 13 players that are under 33%.One would assume that $$ would be shifted away from some higher % players and some of the lower % players would be gone in order to comply.On this 30 man roster 1/2 - 2/3 of the team would be affected!

TR, these were not proposals. As it stands now, the measures that will take effect in August 2008.

The NCAA will have to take formal action to modify or reverse them. Possible, but not likely.

quote:

Originally posted by 3up-3down:
On this team there are 13 players that are under 33%.One would assume that $$ would be shifted away from some higher % players and some of the lower % players would be gone in order to comply.On this 30 man roster 1/2 - 2/3 of the team would be affected!

Re: the scenario.

I would predict that many coaches would discontinue the four 10% position player 'ships and one 20% position player 'ship. These dollars would be redistributed to get the remaining players who were below 33% up to the minimum. This still leaves him the "big bucks" to go after pitchers and a catcher or two.

So five kids are now walkons.

That JUCO route is not quite as easy as it seems for some. The NCAA has tightened requirements for JUCO players coming into D1. Academically, a fair percentage of JUCO players may have problems coming in.

I would recommend looking at the NCAA website for the JUCO requirements. My recall on the newly tightened rules may not be perfect.

So in other words the "average" position player would be the ones most likely to be affected.The short end of the stick just got shorter. Position players had better hit and hit and hit if they want some $$.IMO
A question. Do JUCOs transfering in have to sit a year as well?

The scholarship dollars will remain where the coach usually spends money. If it's built on pitching, the pitchers will still receive what would normally be given, if built on hitting, the top hitting prospects will get scholarships.
The ones most affected will be the player not yet ready to make contributions, they will become walk ons.
These players most likely will get a promise of a scholarship if they produce.
Texan is pretty much right on, for now, but I am thinking things will change, especially since the new APR has shown much improvement. Coaches feelings at this point, they knew what they had to do to improve academics, stop transfer, improve fall GPA, which are the largest parts of the issue, and feel rules on how to spend their money has become the issue and nothing to do with academic scores.

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
The scholarship dollars will remain where the coach usually spends money.

Exactly, TPM.

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
... but I am thinking things will change, ...

Hope you're right.

A thought occurred to me so I checked out the Rice Univ. website. Roster listed 38 players this year. The season is near an end so I checked out the Season Statistics to see how many were really playing. Noticed 15 position players and 13 pitchers ( 3 position players also pitched ) for a total of 28 players seeing any action at all. Six of the players either pitched less than 10 innings or had less than 20 ab's. Tentative conclusion is 22 players out of 38 make a significant contribution. How will the new rule affect this situation?

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
The scholarship dollars will remain where the coach usually spends money. If it's built on pitching, the pitchers will still receive what would normally be given, if built on hitting, the top hitting prospects will get scholarships.
The ones most affected will be the player not yet ready to make contributions, they will become walk ons.

I agree with the part about teams who focus on pitchers will continue to do so. But the question is whether they will continue to focus on the same geographical areas. Some schools recruit heavily out of state. In fact some spend the vast majority of their scholarship money on out of state kids because they know they can still get a fair number of quality in state kids for token sums. Will they now give more in state kids 1/3, or ask them to be invited walkons? If they give more of them 1/3 that leaves less money for out of state recruiting. If they ask the in state kids to come for nothing they will loose some of them. And they will risk political repercussions for not giving scholarships to in state kids.

I think you will see a significant shift in recruiting strategies at a lot of schools, especially the ones that recruit heavily out of state.

TEXAN


I know full well what they are---I still think there will be enough "uproar" to get things amended

I truly hope you are right, TR.

Having worked in, with & around bureaucracies, I just know that once that big ship gets moving in one direction it is very difficult to overcome the organizational inertia and change course.