NCAA Approves F*COA Scholarships, other changes

Submitted by JeepinBen on October 27th, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Surprised this isn't up yet, but here goes:

NCAA Will allow conferences to give Student athletes an additional $2,000 stipend to help cover the "full cost of attendance"

APR cutoff will move up to 900, then 930 - failure here means no bowl game

Schools will have the option to offer multi-year scholarships or keep giving them out on a year by year basis

Incoming athletes' GPA requirements went up some

Bball "evaluation days and dead periods" changed a bit

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7156548/ncaa-panel-approves-major-scholarship-rules-changes

Hooray FCOA! Hooray kids being able to afford to go home for the holidays!

Note: I put the * in the title because estimates have "FULL" cost of attendance closer to $2950/year

Also, recently 300+ student athletes signed a petition asking for FCOA in addition to other things that make sense (like sports related medical expenses). Read about that petition here:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7148175/ncaa-student-athletes-ask-cut-television-revenue-cover-school-costs

Comments

hart20

October 27th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/october/di+board+of+directors+adopt+changes+to+academic+and+student-athlete+welfare

 

This part made me laugh: 

"The enforcement working group is examining new violation and penalty structures, more efficient investigation and adjudication processes and a new approach to public communication of enforcement and infraction issues. This group begin making recommendations to the Board in January 2012 and will finalize its legislative recommendations by October 2012."

JohnnyBlue

October 27th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^

"Schools will have the option to offer multi-year scholarships or keep giving them out on a year by year basis"

this is interesting and i'm curious to see 3 or 4 years down the road how this pans out.

BostonWolverine

October 27th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^

I think it's a positive. So what if they don't pan out? If they're healthy and can play, they were given a full ride, so they're a scholarship player. I would watch the number of transfers and medicals go up, though...

That said, it can be a HUGE recruiting tool for lesser programs and big ones alike, but some mid-level recruits could start going to smaller schools because they're willing to offer full four-year schollies and the big guys might not be as forthcoming.

JohnnyBlue

October 27th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^

now what do you guys think about offering 1 year scholies to kids that may be a sleeper to get them on campus for a year and see what they have and if they pan out fine i'm sure they would stay, but if its obvious they aren't going to pan out being straight up with the kid and parting ways.  Could be a straight up way to give kids who normally woudln't have a shot at a big program a chance to prove themselfs without having to walk on. (kinda a step up from preferd walkon)

Myself I"m not sure how I feel about this.  but as long as there straight up with the kid I don't think I would think any less of the program.

BlueNote

October 27th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

The game theorist in me says that the main effect is to increase the importance of scouting.

If every school scouts equally as well, the net effect is zero.  If EMU offers a kid a one-year schollie, UM can beat EMU for that kid by offering a one-year.  If EMU offers a kid a four-year, UM can beat that by offering it's own four-year.  

Yes, EMU will on occasion beat out UM by offering a 4-year to our 1-year.  But by the same token, UM will on occasion beat out Alabama/LSU by offering a 4-year to their 1-year.

That being said, recruiting is all about odds, and even more so under the new rule.  If we steal a recruit from Alabama by offering a four-year, and we "hit" on that recruit (he pans out massively), then it's a huge success.  If he doesn't pan out, well then it's that much worse. 

So this rule seems to favor those with superior scouting. 

* This analysis does not consider that some schools are already operating under an unwritten rule to renew the scholarship for all four years, while some schools truly treat them as one-year schollies.  Obviously, this new rule favors the "unwritten rule" schools and hurts the one-year factories like Alabama and LSU.  The "unwritten rule" schools are basically already following the new rule.  Alabama and LSU will have to adjust their practices and will be constrained and damaged by it.

 

MGoViso

October 27th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^

I wonder if we will now see coverage from scouting services of the length of scholarships promised by various schools. E.g., maybe next year one accesses a 5* prospect's page, which lists "1-year offer from Alabama" and "4-year offer from Michigan." Then Michigan gets every recruit they want and wins all the national titles. All of them.

Two Hearted Ale

October 27th, 2011 at 8:29 PM ^

There are only a handfull of schools that currently abuse the one year scholarship rule.  Not coincidentally they are all in the SEC.

To me this rule looks like the NCAA's attempt to end oversigning.  All schools will have to offer four year scholarships.  A four year scholarship is leaps and bounds better than an one year scholarship.  

 

Imagine Nick Saban sitting in some kid's living...

Kid's Dad:  "Tell me again why a one year scholarship at Alabama doesn't mean Billy might get cut after a season or two."

Saban:  "If your kid performs well he won't get cut."

Kid's Dad:  "Coach Hoke is offering a four year scholarship."

Saban:  "Well...we want to keep our options open."

Kid's Dad:  "Well...we want Billy to get an education."

Zone Left

October 27th, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^

I think you're being a little optimistic. It'll be a sliding scale depending on who's offering and who's being recruited. The really elite players will be able to demand four years from anyone, but a middling recruit won't be able to demand that from top schools.

Also, players can't be removed for athletic reasons, but "undisclosed violations of team rules" will still work just fine. Anyone can find a big enough fault to force an underperformer off the team if they want to--and if it's too hard, they can make one up.

Spontaneous Co…

October 27th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

Seems like it might have a couple of different effects. Either all highly competitive sports like football all have to go to 4 year committed schollies or if not, it could add parity by creating a hierarchy of scholarship worth where a really good player won't go to LSU or Bama because they won't give him a 4 year scholly. So he goes to Tulane.
<br>
<br>I'm probably overstating the significance of this, but conceptually it is very interesting to think about.

JohnnyBlue

October 27th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^

I like that is allows schools that generally won't play the SEC game of not renewing scholorships to show that up front.  Say a team such as Purdue or Iowa offers a 3 star kid a 4 year scholie, and that kid has only a 1 year offer from St Saban, that kid has incentive to choose the Iowa or Purdue Offer over the Bama offer

MGoViso

October 27th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^

You're right, of course. I wonder if that strategy will be unsustainable in the long term. Perhaps each kid that is forced out under the cover of some other excuse represents a relationship damaged with a high school coach, program, or group of friends. Maybe in a few years, the accumulation of damaged relationships will start to hurt.

grand river fi…

October 27th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^

I think they should get a bit more the 2k, but I'm very happy about schools being allowed to offer multi-year scholarships.  Hopefully recruting competition forces every school to offer every recruit multi-year scholarships.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 27th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

It seems like a nice feel good thing to do, the $2000, but will it really solve anything?  Guys who are inclined to complain that they're not getting enough of a cut of the money they're being "exploited" for will still do so, and guys who are inclined to get free tats and stripper parties will still do so.

yeahrice

October 27th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

Along with that, what happens next year? Do players get more money? What about in 5 years --> $2000 in 2011 will not equal $2000 in 2011. This idea is a slippery slope that will only get worse. If the NCAA thinks it will eliminate problems they are terribly mistaken. As MaizeAndBlueWahoo said, athletes and boosters will still act the same way. If they want free tats/cars/ w/e they will get them.

Feat of Clay

October 28th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

Sure, there will always be the bad apples.  And they'll still be bad apples no matter how sweet their NCAA-approved offer.  But the good thing is that the straight-arrows, some of whom are currently living pretty lean, will have some breathing room.  

If this also makes it less likely that some kids on the margins choose to do the right thing, then that's gravy.  But to me this is more about being realistic and fair, less about influencing the the frequency of non-compliant behavior.

turtleboy

October 27th, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^

Even though the $2000 bit is the tag, the multi-year non-revokable scholarship will help to clearly define the honorable programs from the bad and many of the oversigned prospects will stop hitching their wagons to schools that won't commit to them up front (ie: the SEC) when they only get a 1 year offer instead of a full ride.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 27th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^

I should add, by the way, that I'm not a complete cynic.  I'm really intrigued by the idea of multi-year scholarships but not extending the minimum.  It could really revolutionize recruiting.  My only qualm - if coaches see this as an excuse to cut players after two years for poor performance (instead of using the "medical" excuse), will they be able to transfer without penalty?  I think they should.

Zone Left

October 27th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^

I'd prefer to see all scholarships be five year commitments and give everyone a fixed number of scholarships they can give out each year (no more 85 person limit). It would incentivize coaches to keep and develop players rather than incentivize them to cut underperforming players.

*I see the other side of the slippery slope here, but it seems a lot better than the alternative.

JeepinBen

October 28th, 2011 at 8:57 AM ^

There is 1 great silver lining with the 85 man limit though - walk ons. When we start fall camp with 82 (or whatever) scholarship players, Hoke gets to call in 3 guys who have been paying their own way, working just as hard as everybody else, and he gets to reward them for their hard work with a scholarship for the year.

I know this year Marell Evans came back, was going to pay his own way,a nd the coaches had an "extra" scholarship so they awarded him one.

Not sure that this outweighs all the bad.. but it is a great silver lining