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 ^
January 17th, 2015 at 4:56 PM ^
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 ^
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 ^
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 ^
@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 ^
January 17th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^
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 ^
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 ^
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 ^
January 17th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 5:30 PM ^
And in other news, water is wet.
January 17th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
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 ^
January 17th, 2015 at 6:05 PM ^
January 17th, 2015 at 6:33 PM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^