PAC-12 to guarantee 4 year scholarships for all conf. sports

Does anyone know if this will in any way be retro-active?  And if it's not, by the letter of the agreement, do you think it opens room for negotiation?

Well IMO this will deffinitly open the door. Choose a 1 year SEC or ACC scholarship or a 4 year PAC 12. Seams like a no brainer. Plus being able to transfer without penalty.

I think this is fantastic news and I hope other conferences follow.  Makes me wonder what other implications this could have to recruiting.  For example, it's becoming increasingly common for high school freshman and sophomores to receive scholarship offers.  As has been discussed on this board many times, early commitments are high risk for the recruit but low risk for the coach - if the player doesn't develop or a better player comes along, the kid gets his one year and then the scholarship is gone.  With this new rule, the coach has to be much more careful giving out scholarships, right?  After all, he could be stuck with the kid for 4 years.  Maybe this will shift the risk equation sufficiently to slow down or reverse this trend.

With this new rule, the coach has to be much more careful giving out scholarships, right After all, he could be stuck with the kid for 4 years.

 

Most kids will leave if they don't get a chance to play. Kids who stay and aren't wanted will be run off by the coach by making their life difficult.

Smitty28 - That was my first thought.  Coaches are going to take their time recruiting before committing a large chunk of their wallet.  Quite possibly the "recruiting from the womb" trend we've seen the last bunch of years will reverse itself, and give these kids more time to develop, and grow up.  

 

So, this 4 year scholly is happening at the top of the food chain.  What is going to be the net effect to those other conferences and Divisions (D2, D3, JUCO) not at the top of the food chain (which is essentially everyone else)?    That is $64M question.

Good move. Others will follow.

As with anything the devil is in the details. Do scholarships follow from their home schools, do the NCAA contact rules still stay in place, etc, etc? For fully funded programs the issues are probably easier to manage, but for partially funded programs like baseball it could become messy. Note the article says the vote is in January. 

That would be great for the kids that get a four year scholarship.  But there will then be less scholarships available in future years.  And if your scholarship is guaranteed, less motivation to get better (in some cases). 

I think that none of these kids is going to get rich only from playing college ball in any sport. 

 

The big prize in most of the sports talked about here is the professional contract, So IMO worrying about a kid laying down because he achieved that college scholarship - too many of which are wasted anyway - is not a major concern. They are still dreaming of the pro deal and will bust it to try to get it.

 

I do think that player migration over playing time, problems with the coach or other off field stuff which is a growing trend will become an even bigger factor if financial concerns are mostly or totally eliminated by the revolution taking place on player compensation in college.

I wonder if the 4 year commitment for baseball will lead to a reduction in the practice of overrecruiting.

I think you will see more scholarship players on the bench and more walk on's playing.  Possibly a more level playing field amongst D1's.  I'm not questioning whether 4 year guarantee is right (or wrong), just that the recruiting field will change.  Why does a coach not renew scholarship players?  Because he wants the scholarships to give to the next big thing.  More coaching turnover? (once a series of kids that don't work out as planned "clog" up a roster and the coach sees it before anyone else and moves on, or the team has several losing seasons b/c kids don't work out).

 

I don't know, just looking at the unintended consequences of what at first sounds like a really good thing.

 

 

While there may be unintended consequenses, this seems like such a great move in the right direction.  Too bad my 2015 won't be able to benefit as other conferences surely will be pressured to do the same.

I think i am wrong in thinking this but I am going to say it anyways as pure impulse and not much thought , I am looking at this another way and think this is a bad thing, Here is 2 points

 

1) if I am a coach now in the pac 12 if this goes through, i am looking for Juco players now over HS players, because then i only have to guarantee 2 yrs instead of 4 and i am more sure of my product.

 

2) If i get a hs kid, and a 4 year guarantee then less people i think are going to be given money because it has to be as close to a sure thing as you can get (which is already impossible). And unless all conferences are going to do this, I can't see waiting for a pac 12 offer (as i assume coaches will wait longer to offer) if i can get an offer from a UVA, Texas, UC Irvine, UNC,Cal St Fullerton as a soph or jr, i am not waiting and i would commit (most schools give a timeline), and those are the same kids that pac 12 is recruiting which i just think it would create a disadvantage or alot of coaching turnover ("winning")

 

I dont know for sure, but i am not seeing this as a good thing, yes all is great with a four yr guarantee from a school as a player and sounds great, but as a coach how much pressure am i going to put on a mediocre kid who has money and isnt devolping like i was hoping And i don't think it will change the recruiting now, unless this happens across the board for all conferences.

 

The only thing i think should change is once a school offers and the player commits, that school should have to have that player sign a NLI right then and there, i think that would stop the recruiting storm and would be beneficial for all.  

Or will the athlete still have to sit a year (not play or practice ) at the new institution, but still be on scholly that first year? Or will their still be a sit year with no scholly and the scholly picks up again when athlete is eligible to play. Like others have said devil is in the details.

 

Edit: Did not notice the without restriction. That part will be interesting. 

I like the direction they are going, and I am encouraged that part of the motivation appears to come from a sincere desire to treat athletes more fairly.

 

It remains to be seen whether these changes will reduce baseball's high attrition rate.

 

Baseball's status as the non-revenue sport with the most players aspiring to go pro in something other than sports may mean players will abandon guaranteed scholarships as soon as they discern a low probability of earning playing time where they are.

And if they cannot earn playing time at one PAC - 12 School, who to say another PAC-12 coach would even be interested in that athlete taking up a scholarship at their school. . 

Zeus, I don't think you're too far off base with that philosophy.  The kids coming out of HS will probably be PO's, and high quality at that, with position players coming out of JUCO.

 

I think this will put a lot of emphasis on the main recruiter for each institute.  Maybe a little more money for someone who is very good at projecting players.  Should be fun to watch it unfold.

BLD: A lot would depend on the impact at a specific position. Catcher for example, pretty much there is a number 1 and the number 2 may or may not play much. SS also, only one plays. I could easily see a position player wanting to move on if his position is taken. Pitchers maybe not so much, but who knows.

 

This is going to be interesting to watch. The NCAA is loosening some of the rules to keep the conferences in line, with the PAC-12 and some of the other bigger conferences swimming in money, can they offer more slots? Lots more questions than answers at this point in time. 

 

 

I could be wrong, but I believe this may only apply to fully funded programs:  Football and Basketball.  It still doesn't change the 11.7 level either...

 

Way out of my depth here, but I wonder if one effect might be that the less expensive schools in the league, specifically ASU and OSU, will  tend to dominate.  A kid at USC or Stanford who is getting significant money but isn't getting much playing time might be more inclined to try to hang in there, while a spot at OSU and ASU is worth much less money so the roster might be more fluid.  And if ASU and OSU did dominate, their cheaper cost of attendance might mean they have an easier time convincing top talent to join them even when they had little or no money to offer. 

JCG:

 

One thing is, Oregon State is already one of the dominant teams currently in the PAC (at least in terms of rankings, conference standings, etc)  although it's been a few years since the back-to-back CWS victories for OSU.