Before the advent of the transfer portal I was vehemently against 'annual' scholarships.
However, the landscape has changed.
What do you think about various tiers of scholarships tied to the length of commitment a recruit wants to make to a school? (Ignoring the fact that you really don't want someone in the team who doesn't want to be here.)
Contracts aka scholarships would be up for renewal based on the term of the signing.
A few Examples: (length of scholarship aka risk accepted by team / athlete optionality aka length of commitment before transfer is allowed)
Current (up to 5 years, open)
'Try us out' (1 year / 1 year)
'We believe in you, please believe in us' (4 / 2)
'Old School' (5 / na)
'The numbers always work out' (1 / na)
I'm not endorsing these , so please don't @ me. Just thinking through how the pendulum might swing back now that we're in year 3+ Of the player's rights movement.
Redshirts, paying players, injuries, coaching changes could all affect this sort of model.
Comments
I don't see where it would make a difference as long as NCAA allows the transfer and the next school is willing to pick up the scholarship.
The NCAA has already proven that the rules they already have are arbitrary if you're the right school, so why bother putting more rules in place for them to pick and choose when to follow? The NCAA needs to start treating athletes like people rather than livestock.
So multiple-year scholarships with the wrinkle that a player makes a multi-year commitment as well. So you offer a 5 star stud the 5/0 offer, which would mean the school will guarantee a 5 year scholly no matter what, but the player can leave whenever. Then you might have some 4 stars that will have to wait on the depth chart so you offer them a 5/3 meaning the school guarantees 5 years and the player agrees not to transfer or go pro for 3 years. Or you offer a low 3 star kid that may not pan out a 1/1 and basically tell him he is flyer. I like it
I think anything that makes the process more transparent and gives the players more control is an improvement. It also helps prevent the concern of the traditionally average team from becoming farms for the blue bloods by making the players commit. I also like the coaches having to come clean about how much they value a player by putting a number of scholarship years on paper rather than the used car/snake oil salesman's promises they currently get away with.
This. If you're a blueblood, why would you even offer a three-star? Shoot for ten 4/5-star players each season, then just recruit another 10-15 kids from other schools.
I've come to the conclusion that college (revenue) sports are going to change drastically in my life time. It will be slow, but in 50 years, I expect the NCAA to look completely different. There is mounting pressure from the public to give players more 'power.' Right now, their compensation (a college education) is decreasing in value (at least, the majors that athletes are funneled towards are decreasing in value) - there's just a huge imbalance in the market. Combine that with public pressure around athlete rights, and other issues in profitability for higher-ed institutions... something's gotta give soon.
Edited for clairty
At first blush this seems like a contract and not a scholarship. I don't know how i feel about that. Makes me feel uneasy even though CFB is a multi-hundred-million (billion?) dollar industry. Schools have so much power already that I don't see how this would give any power back to the players. Maybe this does but I don't completely see it.
And if you're offering kids contracts rather than scholarships, it's probably time to start paying them (legally).
a scholarship is a contract, no? don't both parties have to agree and sign?
But the signee gets, in principal, 4 years free college. This approach seems to be more of a way for a school to cut a player / not offer them a full ride. In this day and age of the balance being completely in the schools favor, I don't think this is a fair approach.
My preferences for change:
1. All schollies are 4 year schollies (obviously player has grade and participation requirements)
2. Change to 5 years to play 5 (eliminate redshirt), but 5th year is a mutual option (neither player nor school can exercise it independently)
3. 1st time transfers include immediate eligibility, subsequent transfers would require sitting a year with no waivers (unless it is for 5th and final year of eligibility)
it's not bullet proof, it could be abused, but I think it covers most real world cases. And for those who think smaller market schools will just become development proving grounds for players to transfer into blue bloods, the 4 year schollie requirement should minimize the amount of room those bluebloods have to bring transfers in.
False. Blue bloods will kick kids to the curb under the guise of their transferring for more playing time and free up all the scholarships they need.
I like this idea a lot. I might go as far as to say that both sides can agree with each other for up to 5 years, but I think there will always be reasons to want to change the terms part way through from both sides. It would be a tough thing to figure out but I think you're onto something.
How is this not a proposal to eat redshirts in order to free up scholarships for future 4 & 5 star recruits?
Like most other reforms related to football and men's basketball this would require the NCAA to publicly acknowledge the "student athlete" sham.
The party line is that these guys are on campus to be college students like everyone else with a little football on the side. Turning them into athletics contractors would make them look even less like the rest of the student body.
They need to just break the dam and pay the players. They can be like every other student with a part time job. My wife worked at Newman when she was a student....the players can be employees of the athletic department just the same.
You're right that the current movement is more rights towards players. With that in mind, I don't see a future in any scholarship other than the most player-friendly scholarship, which is the scholarship they already have. Why would a recruit accept less than that?
Now, if schools were to begin paying players directly, then I could see 1 year scholarships being the norm for your "reach" recruits.