Possible answer to over recruiting
After reading the forum and diary posts on over recruiting I thought I'd put an idea out there that's been forming in my head:
What if schools were required to guarantee a 4 year scholarship to every player they recruited?
They would still be allowed to cut a player from the team, however that player (now just a student) would still maintain his scholarship, but it wouldn't count against the limit.
That would reduce the douchey aspect of cutting the kid, because he'd still be able to get his education. There would also be a financial incentive (although a small one) to not cut players because you'd still have to pay for them.
Thoughts?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^
I think this is a good idea, although paying for a year of tuition probably pales in comparison to what a good football program brings in each year. In other words, the financial penalty might not be heavy enough to deter schools from making such decisions. But your system sounds better than what's currently in place (which is...uhh...nothing).
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
Financially, it would probably put some extra pressure on coaches because they'd have to justify the fact that they're essentially giving an extra scholarship for every kid they cut, and the money has to come from somewhere.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
Okay idea, but then you get legal issues. If the player goes out and rapes somebody, violating university policy, you'd have legal issues with kicking them out of school.
And if you write in a provision for such issues, then schools put in a bind by it will just find a way that you violated their rules.
Not to mention most schools wouldn't care a bit if they had to carry half a dozen kids a year. Wouldn't matter at ALL.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
I agree the financial penalty isn't much, but it's something.
Also, this wouldn't prevent kids from being cut, but it would make it easier to take. That way they can still get an education instead of being kicked out on their ass.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
If you take the attitude that there's no point implementing such and such a rule because people will find ways around it, you might as well not implement any rules at all.
I agree with the "better than nothing" crowd - there aren't a lot of teeth to the rule but there aren't any fundamental problems that I can see. You'd just have to make sure schools aren't on the hook for guys that transfer or guys that leave after three years.
My problem with this is that it will have a negligible effect on the big school while potentially hamstringing the small schools. So what is Texas has to pay an extra 10 scholarships, but it would kill smaller programs. We have scholarship limits to prevent the rich schools from having that level of competitive advantage. This gets rid of the original reason for the limits.
The financial burden would be pocket change to the big schools whose athletic departments rake in $50M+ each year. If anything, it would encourage oversigning - right now, the main pressure against it is that the parents of anyone signed by Alabama would be nervous about the possibility of him losing his scholarship, but that's no longer an issue if the scholarship is guaranteed whether they're on the team or not.
I agree it wouldn't prevent larger schools from oversigning, but I think it would prevent smaller schools (I think Troy is one of the biggest offenders). And it may make the playing field more uneven (though in reality it already is, and always will be uneven).
My thought was that this would help the athletes/students, so they're not screwed when it does happen.
First of all, let me say that i'm in favor of over-recruiting, but only if it is done sensibly within reason. But anyway, per the OP's idea, why should we GUARANTEE every recruit a 4 year paid education??? This makes no sense to me. Just because you were an excellent athlete in high school, this should not guarantee you a free education for 4 years.
If I am on an academic scholarship and I get awarded a full ride scholarship to UM, I still have to "prove" myself everyday in classes and such. If I don't maintain the high standards that the program expects, guess what...my scholarship will be revoked and I will have to pay for school myself using other means (Financial Aid, family, get a job, etc). This is the same if a student were enrolled at the school of music or business or law and given a scholarship, but were later found to not be able to meet the high performance requirements of the program. They would not be asked to leave the university, but their scholarship would not be honored for 4 years. There is no way we should ever guarantee a 4 year scholarship to someone just because they can run fast or throw a football in HS. The scholarship standards should be the same across the board, athletic, academic, or otherwise.
you argued this to death in the other thread and no one is buying your poorly conceived idea.
My idea is the polar opposite to the OP's. He stated his opinion and asked what everyone else thought and I just responded with my own reasons. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't be an a-hole.