Crimson Red Sports

from the ESPN site:

....."Under the current model, those scholarships are renewed annually and can be revoked for any reason. If adopted, schools could guarantee scholarships for the player's entire career and would be unable to revoke it based solely on athletic performance. Scholarships could still be pulled for reasons such as poor grades, academic misconduct or other forms of improper behavior."


So...A coach, who is the ultimate authority, now cannot send a player packing because he dies not measure up "performance.. wise"..D!@#$%!  A recruit is recruited to play..and if he can't measure up, you still gotta keep him?


If a student who has a scholastic scholarship makes poor grade, does he/she not lose the scholarship?

The ncaa pukes can't get anything right!

The NCAA is like the Federal Government. Their decisions more times than not adversely affect those it means to help. A coach must retain the right to rescind a scholly if the player does not perform to the standards the coach has set. To me, this decision smells of more political correctness.

^^^THIS^^^

The college players are getting a union. Once they sign their scholarship they can become lazy and have a bad attitude and there is nothing the coach can do about it.

:lol:

All this provision does is gives schools the option to offer multi-year scholarships.  They are not required.  Also, creative schools schould be able to structure their schollys so that, if athletic performance does not measure up, the 4-year scholly does not count against athletic scholarship limits.  I am in favor of this because it seems harsh to cut a kid just because that kid cannot perform as expected.  Also, schools are in a much better financial and bargaining position than a recruit (who has the lawyers?), and generate a good bit of revenue through their football programs, so it does not seem like a huge burden for a university to allow a very, very small percentage of its student population (those 5 or so students who are uncompetitive) to attend classes that already exist anyway, it is just the cost of doing business in the football world.

It may stipulate it's the schools choice to offer the multi year or not but you can bet these recruits will be demanding it. The recruiting wars just got bigger.

You think it "harsh" to expel a recruit who does not perform as expected? 

What color is the sky in your world? 

Would you expect your company to keep you if you do not "perform as expected"? I think not..the real world does not work that way.

Next thing you know, we will quit keeping score..it might infringe on someone's sensibilities..outlaw passing plays that go for more than 10 yards..just to keep things "fair"...goodlordallmighty!

67, I want you on my side for the next political debate.  :D

This one is on me al67.  What the &$%@!!! >:(

This smells like the same idiots that want to ruin collegiate athletics by paying kids "a little something". Just a hop skip and a jump from AAA Baseball. That "little something" will turn into something substantial before the ink is dry on the first paychecks. Everyone thinks they are the enlightened ones that are going to save the world from ALL inequities. But they are the whiney FAGGOTS that will not only ruin college sports, but eventually ruin any chance these kids have of actually getting an education. One could further argue that by destroying college ball, these simpletons will also ruin pro ball by sending athletes unprepared. #@!%!!!

 >:( >:( >:(

We are just now learning what a firestorm this is gonna be..mark my words, this is going to end up being the dumbest thing ncca pukes have done since they outlawed the athletic dorms.

Too much money is involved to expect ncaa pukes to do anything sane (Scam?)

Our schools are being run by liberals with liberal agendas, both public and private. These same liberals run the NCAA. I do not trust them. We are to blame for ALL the injustices in the world, but the liberals will save us. They will ruin college football, so they feel better about themselves. They TRIED to correct a perceived injustice, even if it ruins it all for everyone. At least they FEEL better, knowing they tried.

so ? how about those Cardinals      ;D

Good on the Cards!  I was pulling for the Rangers 'cause I was always a fan of Nolan Ryan.

Dude, I'm just saying that it costs very little to the university for a student or two to continue their education, relative to the benefit the university receives for the opportunity to recruit these kids and profit from their play.

What if the university fires a coach and the kid doesn't fit the new scheme?  Should the kid lose the scholly?  How about a RB who is good and does his best, but the school just recruited the next Barry Sanders and the kid is no longer needed.

It is easier for the school to replace the kid than it is for the kid to replace the university.  There are rules against the kid moving schools, etc., but there are no rules against a school replacing a kid.    So when a kid commits to a school, that usually is a 4-year commitment by the kid, or going through the hassle of changing schools or going to a lower tier school.  

So this is not a free market economy, there are rules.  And your analysis based strictly on free market economy principles fails to consider a relative cost benefit analysis.

I think when you institute restraints on trade you have to move to a cost benefits analysis.
 

Any business has the right to replace personnel that doesn't meet certain standards of performance, why should college football players be any different. JMO

The closest analogy is the professional athlete.  If he doesn't pan out, he doesn't play, but the team still has to pay his salary.  Alabama also still pays Mike Shula's salary, and he didn't pan out.

One thing the professional agent and Mike Shula have in common is a professional sports agent.

The H.S. kid doesn't have an agent -- he isn't ALLOWED to have one.  So you have a huge disparity in sophistication when comparing a H.S. kid versus a professional athlete.  You also have additional rules (restraints on trade) that prevent a H.S. kid from bargaining for his services.  The kid cannot say he will play for $300,000, at least not publically and in the open market.  So it isn't a negotiated agreement.  This isn't a free market economy.  The school makes millions of dollars every year on these kids, the least they can do is allow the kid to complete his education, even if he doesn't make the grade athletically.

 I am, honestly, surprised at the number of people who feel so strongly that a kid who commits to play sports at a college might be offered the chance to complete his college education, as part of the scholarship offer, even if he does not possess the athletic skill set needed or as initially evaluated.  All the rule is seeking to do is put the "student" back student athlete.

Have you not watched these young guys changing hats at their big "signing day" announcement. Now multiply that by all the players times all the days of the calendar. BTW, I missed that you were on the other side of this argument Catch. Sorry about calling you a FAGGOT.  :-[

Yeah, they can change hats all they want, until they sign on the bottom line.

No sense in even having a NSD. Just have the players run around the country, stadium to stadium, until the music stops... Everytime someone gets left out of the Sunday headlines, it will be off to another school. I know some may believe it will only be some isolated incidences, but that will quickly turn into a new school everytime a player isn't getting as much attention as he and his posse thinks he should. I hate to use the "slippery slope" cliche but...