SEC votes against 4-year scholarships
This may throw a monkey wrench into certain schools who essentially cut players in the SEC, no wonder they voted against it.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:51 PM ^
Goons
January 17th, 2015 at 5:35 PM ^
But I lost it when I saw this
January 17th, 2015 at 5:37 PM ^
Hard for the SEC to over sign when they need to adhere to the 4 year rule.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^
This will provide a great opportunity for schools to remind recruits who voted for it and who didn't.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^
Top level recruits don't even consider the possibility that they'd ever need a policy like this. They no doubt envision themselves earning their scholarship 10x over every year. A guy like Saban would spin it so as to argue that all the inferior players are mooching off of all the elite guys.
January 17th, 2015 at 6:29 PM ^
If the SEC and Big XII didn't and everyone else voted for it. It would definitely be an advantage to having them while the SEC didn't.
But the rule is for everyone, so it really won't matter.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^
And appalled.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^
I would be interested to hear the rationale from SEC institutions as to why they voted no. The cynic in me wonders if it's fear of a more level playing field.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:56 PM ^
They don't care about the kids who make a commitment to them when it is deemed they aren't as good of a player as they once thought
January 17th, 2015 at 5:11 PM ^
all their resources to bear in an effort to report how the SEC voted against this.
Unbiased info should be forthcoming...
January 17th, 2015 at 7:16 PM ^
They say that since the scholarship is for athletics, the student-athletes should have to achieve athletically. If they don't have any pressure to perform, then they can slack off once they get there. They point to academic scholarships where you lose your scholarship if your GPA falls below a certain level. I think it works the same way for music scholarships (can anyone confirm that?).
The problem with that is there is a fairly objective way to measure academic performance, not so much with athletics. And even if coaches have a UFR-type substance to measure player performance (I'm sure they do), coaches don't really have to justify their actions.
January 17th, 2015 at 8:18 PM ^
Also, you don't lose your academic scholarship if you maintain your necessary GPA but other students enroll and have even better GPA's than you.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^
Do we know how each school voted?
January 17th, 2015 at 4:59 PM ^
but I would assume one of the SEC schools in favor would be Vanderbilt just based on Academics. I have heard South Carolina already offers 4 years scholarships.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
I figured Vandy was one of them, too. My next guess was Georgia but maybe not if USC already offers four-year schollies.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:45 PM ^
I'm not so sure. Vandy was a major oversigner under Franklin. Georgia and Florida were the only two schools in the SEC that specifically stated they were against oversigning and wouldn't engage in it. My guess is they are the two yes votes.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:56 PM ^
Glad the Cost of Full Attendance was approved
January 17th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
is part of many SEC schools' "business model."
One thing I'm confused on: how could the vote by 59-29-1? That's 89 votes, and 89 is a lot more than the total number schools in the B1G (14), ACC (15, counting ND), Big XII (10), SEC (14) and Pac-12 (12). (89 vs. 65) Did the AAC or C-USA or some of those conferences vote too?
January 17th, 2015 at 5:03 PM ^
But that is what was tweeted out by the AP;
@benjstrauss: Power 5 vote to prevent colleges from cutting players for athletic reasons. 50-29-1 is the vote. SEC voted against 11-2, I believe.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
Based in the USA Today article.
January 17th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
they don't have the cap space to pay all the guys they recruit for 4 years
January 17th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
This could be a terrific selling point for B1G schools. I realize most recruits think they are invincible and won't need to worry about their scholarships not being renewed. But maybe some of their parents and coaches will feel more comfortable with the four-year guarantee, and those people can obviously be very influential.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^
as opposed to a bag full of cash/jobs/houses for family members?
January 17th, 2015 at 6:18 PM ^
I guess when you put it that way, 4-year scholarships don't sound that great after all.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
Of course they did. They gotta keep up that:
ESS
EEE
SEE
SPEED
January 17th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
I am still surprised that over signing and encouraging older players to move on never really made it to the main stream news.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^
College sports don't get the national attention most of us think they do. If non-sports fans ever have a reason to care it has to be pro sports related.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:03 PM ^
I wonder what the fine print is for the 4 year deal. What if a player is hurt, does it still count against total scholarships? What if a player gets in trouble? What if they stay out of legal trouble but are a cancer to the team, for instance missing team meetings, bad attitude, etc?
January 17th, 2015 at 5:13 PM ^
Medical redshirts are already a thing. Scholarships have behavioral/legal stipulations as it is.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:08 PM ^
They do not want to give more money to their athletes/recruits than they already are.... Drops mic
January 17th, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^
Is there actually a difference when you offer 4 year scholarships? Can't you still have your scholarship revoked for "violation of team rules" or be encouraged to move on to where you will get more playing time by people who are successful because they are very convincing with young adults?
January 17th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
Yes, but a coach can't say "You're moving on to another team." end of story like many SEC and Big 12 coaches do now.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
not cool SEC.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
Don't know why they'd be against 4 year schollys. That's not gonna help them catch up with our B1G Speeeeeeed!
January 17th, 2015 at 5:30 PM ^
And in other news, water is wet.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
will still find a way around it.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
Ten career ending sprained ankles per year.
January 18th, 2015 at 6:17 PM ^
NO explanation for two people no longer being at the program.. Just showswhy 4 year sholly will prevent Alabama from getting their max of 5 star recruits while purging those they feel are not going to productive for the team..
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/18/report-alabama-rb-t…
January 17th, 2015 at 5:37 PM ^
The USA Today story has some of the quotes from players who made some rather impassioned statements both for and against the 4-yar scholarships - LINK
One of the more compelling ones to me was from Northwestern soccer player Nandi Mehta -
And Nandi Mehta, a soccer player from Northwestern, said if scholarships could be taken away from players for underperformance, "how then is a scholarship any different than a salary? I think that's the road voting 'no' to this proposal takes us down."
There was a Pac-12 athlete who asked a good question as well which I am sure no school would directly answer to the effect of why would one take away an opportunity such as the one they get via a scholarship simply based on on-field performance.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
Big shocker, the primary voice against four year scholarships from the players side was from the SEC. I'm assuming they threatened to pull his scholarship if he didn't vote against it.
January 17th, 2015 at 6:05 PM ^
The ESS eee cee!
January 17th, 2015 at 6:33 PM ^
Totally shocked by this.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^
so whats to stop kids from voluntarily relinquishing their scholarship? They sign a kid then the kid is told in the summer he doesn't fit into the plans and its in his best interest to go elsewhere. Seems to me its just another rule that will be worked around by certain schools-leagues to gain an advantage. With the major dollars for bowl games and wildly successful ratings for the playoff games this year the stakes are just that much higher.