The problem is that coaches can just find a reason to "get rid of" a player. There would have to be rules in place to stop that as well. The real way to solve this problem is make sure these young athletes know the track record of some of these coaches.
It would certainly level the playing field for everyone. Not that I am pointing fingers at any particular conference.
I (ess eee) see what you're saying....
Toss up, currently they can just transfer kids to a full ride t open up room if things aren't going well. IMO, the 4 year scholarship should be a given unless they are booted from the school, but it should be able to be converted to a none football full ride 4 year scholarship at any point. I think that if you "don't make the team" you DON'T make the team and your scholarship should still be full ride and 4 years, but no longer a football scholarship.
This would allow the football teams to cut players with little to no impact on that individual player. The catch should be that then that player can transfer to any school of his choice without sitting out a year. I think it would make an interesting dynamic, set the recruit up for a a full ride regardless of what happens (sans getting booted from the school for legal issues as an example).
I feel if a player isn't living up to the hype, there should be cutting allowed, transfer of the 4 year scholarship to a nonathletic one, and allow a free transfer to any other school. I think it is the most fair to that player and fair to the schools.
I would only agree with this if the player move to a 'non football scholarship" then could not be on the football team in any form. If not I could just see a coach "cutting" players and their senior year you see them on the field because they finally developed after sitting on the scout team.
The kid that just decomitted from Oregon because he decided he didn't want to play anymore is exactly why they should never have 4 year scholarships. What do you do with a kid that comes in, decides he doesnt want to play anymore and just gives up for 4 years. He deserves a full ride for 4 years even though he barely even shows up and puts forth zero effort?
I agree. Any other type of scholarship comes with performance requirements. You can't keep an academic scholarship for 4 years without keeping your GPA up.
I agree, but those performance requirements should be stated at the beginning.
A four-year scholarship, provided that you show up and do your work at this percentage of workouts, get this GPA, and stay out of trouble sounds fine to me. They should be something that are assured provided that you meet those requirements.
I disagree because its Oregon. A full ride is pocket change to them #Knight
I agree with this logic. On one hand there should be a 4 year good faith agreement between both parties. On the other, if either party does not fulfill their respective obligations the agreement can be voided. This does put the better evaluators of recruits at an advantage, verses over signing and releasing a kid because "someone better came along in the new recruiting class". There must be responsibilities that both parties must adhere too. I also like the analogy with academic scholarships, probably a good format to use. I do see the potential of kids being able to transfer from school to school (without having to sit or drop down to another division for a year) if their current school violates the agreement in some way as well. As to what the violation would be, not really sure I can answer that. But when schools do go on probation kids are allowed to transfer (without having to sit) at will currently. All in all, because of the last sentence I am very proud of last years group of seniors for their contribution to our program and intestinal fortitude.
"No matter where you go, there you are." B. Banzai
These are scholarships for education after all .... so if the "student" is managing his school work load and keeping up with the grade requirements, these scholarships should be honored for the duration of the college degree.
Would this stop schools from over signing players?
Wherever you are, there you be!
If coaches could not cut the scholarship just because they "better" player then it probably would help
It wouldn't stop it. But it would force them to keep options open for the kids. One of the things that seems to make people point the finger at SEC schools, is the way that kids transfer out, are kicked out for team rules violations, or given medical waivers, the week before summer camp begins. This is far too late in the process for these kids to have options available to them. They still have to sit out a year. Rarely is there a school that has open scholarships available that late in the offseason. So if they want to go somewhere else, it is on their dime. And, with those kind of hurdles, it becomes more likely they drop out of the system.
With a four year scholarship, essentially a written contract, the coach has to make sure his actions can withstand a lawsuit. That will definitely reduce, even if it does not eliminate, the blatant oversigning.
Agreed. Snakes like saban will still find ways to get around it most likely but it should slow what he's doing down. It's just wrong to over sign so many players every year and get rid of the kids that don't quite pan out to make room. It's disgusting.
I'm not for or against four year scholarships, but I think it may be better to just keep the current system and put a cap on how many players you can get rid of in a year, say for instance 5. It would force coaches to make decisions about the type of players they recruit and evens the playing field so schools can't just horde talent and then cut those who don't produce.
Four years is a good plan. Get your degree b/c most of the players will be professionals in something other than the NFL.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." -Woody Hayes-
Interesting question. Makes you think that the focus on education really needs to be emphasized. No one can say for sure which players may make it to the NFL or not.
For, with the provision that you can boot someone (like for a felony). Would have to be a set rule with no local exceptions