"I love it that Ivy League coaches are coming to our camp and Big Ten coaches are coming to our camp. South Florida is coming. We've got about 70 schools that are coming to our camp."
Samuel Johnson III is believed to be the first player from the State of Michigan to be offered a football scholarship before high school. The offer was from Akron, but still.
The article talks a bit about the general trend of offering younger players. Also, apparently RR hosted a camp for 12 year olds while he was coaching here and some of the attendees ended up playing for Michigan.
Personally, I'm not fond of offering players that young, but what do I know?
Analysis by The Michigan Daily shows that in direct revenues, a player like Gardner can add $5.5 million to the University per year. In free advertising alone, Gardner generating more than $8 million through media exposure over one month.
The current NCAA system, which prohibits monetary compensation to student athletes, makes it impossible to precisely evaluate a player’s market value. But as the debate over player compensation continues, the question is as important as ever.
We've had the "pay the players" topic of conversation here quite a few times, but this article from the Michigan Daily puts some dollar amounts on just how much some of those top tier student athletes really make for the university, and it's staggering. Michigan spends about $275K on each football player every year - but that includes the almost $9M spent on coaches' salaries. I'm all for a stipend, or an Olympic model. Still the best line I read (elsewhere, Bacon?) was how the NCAA spends millions employing people just to make sure that the students don't get a dime.
So, this story just came up today and I thought I'd get MGoBlog's opinion on it.
Ole Miss Head Coach Hugh Freeze has pulled a scholarship offer to a 2013 LB from Georgia due to an ACL tear. Big deal, right? Happens all the time. A coach can't be signing injured players.
Here's the thing. Freeze and his staff were completely aware of the ACL tear at the time that the offer was made, and they never indicated that the offer was condidtional on the knee healing in a certain time or way. Furthermore, team doctors indicated that it was healing properly and on schedule, and were not concerned. It's not like it appeared to be going bad. The kid played last season on it because he was mistakenly told it was just a sprain, and he was able to show enough to earn an offer even with the tear. Now Freeze is getting cold feet.
What's your feeling on this? I don't have a problem with a coach pulling an offer if a kid gets hurt, but making the offer when you know he's hurt and then pulling it later when you suddenly get cold feet puts me off.
Apparently Coach Saban will be offering 4-year scholarships at Alabama... Surprising and interesting...
At the end of an article defending the Alabama Medical Scholarships, there's the following line:
The report does not mention the fact that football scholarships are good for one year and then are renewable. It is a common misconception that scholarships are four-year deals between schools and student-athletes.
Is this true? As far as I can tell, per NCAA regulations it is, but there must be more to it. Can someone shed some light on this, otherwise I don't see the need to offer medical scholarships or make players transfer, you could just "cut" them. Obviously I'm missing something.
So correct me if any of this information is wrong:
The BIG TEN not the NCAA put in the rule to eliminate over signing or back-counting early enrollees.
Assuming this is accurate and the reasoning is to prevent the forced attrition of Saban et. al. why would they do this to schools that don't have full scholarship classes? Couldn't they have achieved the same effect by putting in a scholarship threshold that you can't back-sign if you're over? (i.e. if you have 80 or more scholarships you're not allowed to back-sign anyone, etc.) It seems to be a pretty moronic rule anyway...I guess it serves the purpose but I think its punishment before a crime is committed. Any school in the Big Ten now is hurt doubly by any and all attrition. This affects Michigan obviously as we're severely below the scholarship max and would need several years of full classes and no attrition aside from graduation/NFL. What about the Sparties? Didn't they just kick 10 players off their team? Now they're down 10 scholarships and there's nothing they can do to recover them until the incoming classes start out numbering the attrition by leaps and bounds.
I know there's nothing we can really do about it because the Big Ten (or NCAA whomever set the rule) can and will do whatever they want but its just something that boggles my mind as nonsensical by whatever body that created this rule.