USC to begin offering four-year scholarships in revenue sports
Starting next week, USC will begin to offer four year scholarships in revenue sports, as opposed to the current one year renewable scholarships almost all schools offer.
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/usc-trojans-four-year-s…
"In taking this action, USC hopes to help lead the effort to refocus on student-athlete welfare on and off the field," - athletic director Pat Haden
Definitely not the first school I expected to see leading the way on this, but props to them for starting the process. Many Big Ten schools, including Michigan, began giving out four year scholarships in 2012, but it's nice to see it branching out beyond the Midwest. Maybe, just MAYBE, it'll make its way down to SEC country soon.
I thought MSU gave out 4 year schollys, but Michigan did not. Am I misinformationed?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7528614/some-big-ten-off…
Found that while researching
A quote from the above link:
"Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois confirmed to ESPN.com that they have given out four-year scholarships to this class."
Wish I had read your comment before clicking that link. That was the only part of the story I was looking for. One MGoPoint for you kind sir.
"Maybe, just MAYBE, it'll make its way down to SEC country soon." 
I really do think more schools should get on this particular bandwagon because you're not only helping the program but you are giving kids who are more interested in the degree than an NFL career a chance to have some stability and still do something they enjoy and to excel at it.
I know USC encourages athletes that leave for the pros to return to get their degree, even offering them a chance to do it tuition free, so this is really a great offshoot of that policy in a way, basically guaranteeing a recruit / player a chance to graduate with a degree from a well-respected school and/or - possibly - a chance at a pro career if that's what they want to attempt first.
If an athlete is injured and can't play, or leaves a particular sports program for any other reason, is it a safe assumption that while the school is obligated to the former player for the academic side of life for four years, another recruit can be added once the former player's participation in athletics is concluded?
I don't believe the scholarship is there if you are no longer a part of the team by your choosing. Like if you decide after two years that you don't want to play football anymore, I don't think they're obligated to continue your scholarship.
And in the case of a career ending injury, a medical hardship scholarship has always existed that does not count against the 85.
And I am totally cool with that.
Is there any actual difference between 1 year and 4 year scholarships? Coaches rarely if ever just cut a player, instead they convince them to quit or transfer. Coaches are extremely persuasive, they need to be in order to recruit, so they shouldn't have a hard time convincing a player that they'd be better off elsewhere or to take a medical redshirt. The 4 year scholarship just seems like fluff for a problem that never really existed. But hey, it sounds good to recruits so why not offer it.
Yeah, I completely agree with this. It's a distinction without a difference, or however that saying goes. Very rarely did you ever hear of a coach straight up cutting a player for anything other than behavioral issues (which I'm sure will still apply with 4 year scholarships).
Now, it's possible that when someone like Thomas Rawls says he's transferring to CMU it's because the coaches told him they weren't going to renew his scholarship, so he found a place to transfer. I doubt that's the case, only because it would have come out by now from some disgruntled player.
U. MF'er. M. could enlighten us.
The first SEC team to do this deserves a freaking medal and 5 more scholarships. I think all schools should offer this option, but from a competitive balance perspective it doesn't make much sense unless you also plan on opening a new wing at the nearby hospital for guys in Alabama and Mississippi coming down with "career-ending" injuries as they fall down the depth chart.
What I dont get is why players continue to commit to schools that do this year in and year out to players who underperform expectations. Seems like that would be a pretty effective counter-arguement to any coach recruiting against an SEC school but for some reasons it doesnt seem to resonate with the decision maker.
I'll tell you this - as a parent I would absolute stop my son from going to a school offering a one year renewable instead of a four year guarentee if he had a choice between the two.
USC is getting a ton of mileage out of this. Even a lot of obsessive fans (like me) didn't know if their schools did this or not. I thought the B1G did this a little while ago, but not certain. If they have, they should put something out syaing so (and they're glad other schools are following suit).
Ace mentioned someone in the recruiting round-up said this was a "game-changer".
Alabama's whole recruiting philosophy is recruit the best talent and oversign. Then take the best of the best talent from the already great talent they have and cut the worst of them.
This won't really do much. Players have never been cut from their teams except for SEC teams.