SEC votes against 4-year scholarships

Submitted by DFW_Michigan_Man on
Saw on Twitter from the NCAA / Power 5 meetings. Noteworthy; SEC votes against 4-year scholarships 11-2, but it passes 50-29-1 (Big 12 schools also voted against it); Cost of Full Attendance passed 78-1.

This may throw a monkey wrench into certain schools who essentially cut players in the SEC, no wonder they voted against it.

bo_lives

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.

Roy G. Biv

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.

cm2010

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.

NittanyFan

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?

EGD

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.

Jaxpo

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?

Farnn

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?

LSAClassOf2000

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. 

west2

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.