Mike Greenberg tears the Georgia Bulldogs a new ***crack

[Milwaukee]

From an online article 2014:

"Those who transfer within conference in the SEC or Atlantic Coast Conference not only must sit out a year, but could lose a year of eligibility. In the ACC, an athlete would have to pay his or her own way and would lose a year even if they have a redshirt year to use. The SEC says if the school from which the athlete is transferring doesn’t get permission for the other school to contact, the athlete would have to pay his or her own way the first year, under NCAA rules, but that a redshirt year could be used if an individual hasn’t used it yet."

From the same article:

"The NCAA board of directors is expected to grant “autonomy” to the SEC and four other major conferences later this summer."


Does anyone have links to the actual rules? I'm curious as to what they are.

 

[scrappy_95]

So, anyway, I thought the point of Tech's no transfer policy was that "we made a commitment to you that we are not going to break so we expect you to keep your commitment to us." Alabama is different because they reserve the right to revoke a scholarship any time they want while prohibiting the athlete from ending his relationship with them any time he wants.

Winner...winner ...chicken dinner.

This is the key. If you promise a kid a 4-5 year scholarship and don't snatch a scholarship when something better comes along, then a more restrictive policy is not as bad (still bad but not as bad). We are in investing in you for 4-5 years regardless if you are a factor on the football field and in return you are committing to do the same for 4-5 years. Sounds like a good and sound business deal. If you are only promising a kid a 1 year scholarship at a time, then why should a coach hold all the cards. If you have the option to not renew my scholarship, I should have the equal option to leave and go anywhere I want. I still don't understand why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp and why the NCAA allows this to continue. Allow these kids the option and allow to market place to determine where these kids end up. Not talking money, but if there is a market for this kid's skills at another school and the schools is willing to pay the price for that skill with a scholarship, why shouldn't the market dictate this move instead of a false barrier put up by a coach, that should not be there in the 1st place.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

One unintended consequence of no restrictions on transfers would be increased shenanigans as programs / boosters head hunt for top talent. I think sitting out a year is pretty fair...sitting 2 is BS as is sitting one and losing extra year of eligibility. I also think there should be no restriction if a head coach takes a new job or gets fired. I'd prefer no restrictions on where transfers are made to....like Tech to UGA etc....

 

[InsideLB]

I don't give two shirts about the Dwags. IMO the boards obsess a little much. I mean, I hate them as much as anybody...just am more a fan of GT content.

 

[LongforDodd]

.... and they had "the student's best interest in mind."

....

Does Smart have that much antipathy toward Richt?
...?[/QUOTE]

No he doesn't. Smart's just trying to project a tough-guy persona...the antiRicht persona...and that is what the money guys want who wanted Richt gone.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

The crowd that is lauding Kirby for taking a tough stand on this is the same crowd that blast Johnson for his stance on recruits keeping their commitment. UGA always gets the backing of our local press Personally, Greenburg is not the one putting the blood, sweat and tears into recruiting, developing and coddling these so called student athletes. I think they should only be allowed to transfer under extraordinary circumstances if at all.

Go Jackets!

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Can we back track a moment on a statement made earlier? I thought Tech offered four year scholarships. At the very least my understanding is that Tech would not yank a scholarship from a player simply because someone else came along that they liked better. So, anyway, I thought the point of Tech's no transfer policy was that "we made a commitment to you that we are not going to break so we expect you to keep your commitment to us." Alabama is different because they reserve the right to revoke a scholarship any time they want while prohibiting the athlete from ending his relationship with them any time he wants.

Most people do not realize the Grant-in-Aid (or scholarship or whatever you want to call it) is for one year at a time. I believe that is the way everyone does it since late 70s or 80s but not sure. I believe it was an NCAA thing.

The vast, vast, vast majority of schools, not just GT, honor them 4-5 years. It would not be economically, ethically, athletically feasible to not continue to honor them. Most schools do not have the wealth of talent / depth that bama does to have a developed upper classman leave due to a ready to go, just as talented Frosh come in.

Back in the late 70's a kid that went to my old HS got a ship from bama and after his Soph year bear did not renew it. Not sure if I have this entirely correct, but seems like we had a LB that rejoined the team after Gailey left. The kid implied, I believe but not 100%, that Gailey kinda asked / implied / told him that he was no longer needed on team or no longer had a ship. Not sure.

But the ships everywhere, AFAIK, are for one year at a time.

 

[forensicbuzz]

As long as the school is only obligated to the athlete for the existing year, so should the athlete only be obligated to the school for the existing year. The obligation from both sides should be equal. If the school wants to offer a 4-5 year scholarship, then the transfer rules should be strict. If the school only guarantees the present year, then the student should be free to transfer anywhere the next year, without penalty.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

As long as the school is only obligated to the athlete for the existing year, so should the athlete only be obligated to the school for the existing year. The obligation from both sides should be equal. If the school wants to offer a 4-5 year scholarship, then the transfer rules should be strict. If the school only guarantees the present year, then the student should be free to transfer anywhere the next year, without penalty.

I have no problem with that at all.

I believe any school, however, can only give a ship for one year at a time by the rules. It just so happens that in almost every case the school does it for 4 / 5 times per S/A

 

[forensicbuzz]

If the AD's and President's wanted it, 5-year scholarships would be a NCAA rule. The reason it's not is because the power schools don't want it that way.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

If the AD's and President's wanted it, 5-year scholarships would be a NCAA rule. The reason it's not is because the power schools don't want it that way.

Perhaps, but this procedure, to the best of my memory, was put into place roughly 35 - 40 years ago. No such term as "power schools" back then. I really think, back then, it had something to do with saving $.

Those with a better memory about this might be able to shed some light.

As for today, yes, they could adopt such a rule. But I have not heard a word from ANY university pushing this, "power school" or not.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Perhaps, but this procedure, to the best of my memory, was put into place roughly 35 - 40 years ago. No such term as "power schools" back then. I really think, back then, it had something to do with saving $.

Those with a better memory about this might be able to shed some light.

As for today, yes, they could adopt such a rule. But I have not heard a word from ANY university pushing this, "power school" or not.

In 2012, the rules were changed back to allow multi-year scholarships. Now, coaches can offer 1-year or 4-year (multi-year) scholarships. An article on it here. Interesting read from 2014.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...4-year-scholarships-to-athletes-but-many-dont

In 2012, the NCAA barely passed a rule giving schools the option to provide multiyear scholarships. The arrangement was nearly scrapped when 62.12 percent of the 330 schools voting opposed the legislation -- just shy of the 62.5 percent needed to overturn the new rule. Twenty-five schools abstained and 14 changed their votes for the rule to survive.​

From 1957 (scholarships first created) until 1973 all scholarships were 4-year scholarships. Guess who pushed for that change in 1973?

At a Senate committee hearing this summer, historian Taylor Branch testified that the 1973 rule to eliminate multiyear scholarships “was driven by the coaches at the biggest universities … because they wanted more control over their athletes. They were driven to win. You have a better chance of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up and how much time he spends in the weight room.”
​

I laughed outloud when I read this quote: [emphasis mine]

“We really haven't had (multiyear scholarships) come up a whole lot, but it's something we'll continue to revisit and research,” said Tennessee coach Butch Jones, whose school provided no multiyear scholarships last year. “A lot of times it's all about trust. We develop such great trust with our recruits.”​

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Good research. Thx.

So who is giving multi year ships?

 

[deeeznutz]

In 2012, the rules were changed back to allow multi-year scholarships. Now, coaches can offer 1-year or 4-year (multi-year) scholarships. An article on it here. Interesting read from 2014.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...4-year-scholarships-to-athletes-but-many-dont

In 2012, the NCAA barely passed a rule giving schools the option to provide multiyear scholarships. The arrangement was nearly scrapped when 62.12 percent of the 330 schools voting opposed the legislation -- just shy of the 62.5 percent needed to overturn the new rule. Twenty-five schools abstained and 14 changed their votes for the rule to survive.​

From 1957 (scholarships first created) until 1973 all scholarships were 4-year scholarships. Guess who pushed for that change in 1973?

At a Senate committee hearing this summer, historian Taylor Branch testified that the 1973 rule to eliminate multiyear scholarships “was driven by the coaches at the biggest universities … because they wanted more control over their athletes. They were driven to win. You have a better chance of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up and how much time he spends in the weight room.”
​

I laughed outloud when I read this quote: [emphasis mine]

“We really haven't had (multiyear scholarships) come up a whole lot, but it's something we'll continue to revisit and research,” said Tennessee coach Butch Jones, whose school provided no multiyear scholarships last year. “A lot of times it's all about trust. We develop such great trust with our recruits.”​

Wow, that quote from Butch Jones (what is it with coaches named "Butch" being scumbags?) is a real laugher. You couldn't even pick a coach that would sound more ridiculous saying those words. You combine the insane hypocrisy in that statement with the rape cover-up issue happening (seriously, read about the treatment from the team towards a fellow player helping a rape victim...it's sickening the lengths they went to ostracize one of their own who was trying to do the right thing) and I don't think old Butch is long for that job. Although he did stock the cupboard for whoever the next coach is, so at least they got that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

More information about the current state of scholarships. Looks like 4-year scholarships were part of the rules change to allow full cost-of-attendence stipends.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-attendance-multi-year-scholarships-approved/
http://informedathlete.com/the-facts-about-guaranteed-multi-year-ncaa-di-scholarships/

Beginning this fall, schools in the “power five” conferences – the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 – mandated four-year scholarships for their athletes following January’s [2015] passage of landmark rules changes.​

And finally in January [2015], in what was almost treated like the inconsequential fine print to the adoption of “cost-of-attendance” stipends, guaranteed four-year scholarships returned, coming full circle back to where the NCAA first began requiring multi-year deals in 1957 to minimize “pay for play” claims.

– The “protection” provided by this rule only applies to athletes who will be enrolling in a Division I university as a freshman or new transfer this Fall [2015], AND who will be receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment.

– This rule will NOT apply to athletes who were already enrolled at their Division I university this past year [2014].

– The rule also will NOT apply to athletes who are not receiving an athletic scholarship in their first year of enrollment at their university. (Example: a volleyball player not receiving an athletic scholarship in their freshman year, but promised one in the following three years, will not receive the protection of this new rule.)

– It will still be possible for universities to cancel, or choose to not renew, a scholarship for the following reasons not related to athletic performance, ability, or contribution to team success. Cancellation or non-renewal will be possible if an athlete:

• 
  
  • Is ruled to be ineligible for competition;
  • Provides fraudulent information on an application, letter of intent, or financial aid agreement;
  • Engages in serious misconduct that rises to the level of being disciplined by the university’s regular student disciplinary board;
  • Voluntarily quits their team; or
  • Violates a university policy or rule which is not related to athletic conditions or ability (such as a university policy on class attendance, or an athletic department policy regarding proper conduct on a team trip).

 

[Boomergump]

If it is a 4 year scholarship, I have no problem with a coach placing limitations on where a kid can transfer. Heck, I have no problem with a coach refusing to release him from the scholarship. It is a contract for crying out loud. In most cases, a coach will let a kid go. I mean, who wants a malcontent hanging around, taking up a scholarship? If it is a one year scholarship (contract), I don't see how a coach can stop a kid once the year is over.

If you don't want limitations placed on you, don't sign the letter. It is as simple as that. I am really not sure how far our culture is going to take this sentiment that "the world revolves around me and whatever I want to do is what I will do regardless of the commitments I made". All it takes nowadays is for a kid to have a little competition, making it a little difficult to move up the depth chart, before he just opts to bail. Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!

When I signed my contract letter with the USMC I had no illusions. I was giving up my rights and freedom to decide for myself for a given period of time. I had no problem with it. I understood why it was important and I entered into the agreement with my eyes wide open. Just like Uncle Sam was under no obligation to please me, neither should a coach be.

 

[Milwaukee]

Wow, that quote from Butch Jones (what is it with coaches named "Butch" being scumbags?) is a real laugher. You couldn't even pick a coach that would sound more ridiculous saying those words. You combine the insane hypocrisy in that statement with the rape cover-up issue happening (seriously, read about the treatment from the team towards a fellow player helping a rape victim...it's sickening the lengths they went to ostracize one of their own who was trying to do the right thing) and I don't think old Butch is long for that job. Although he did stock the cupboard for whoever the next coach is, so at least they got that.

Maybe you should look at the facts of that "rape" case @ Tennessee again. Just a suggestion to help you.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

If it is a 4 year scholarship, I have no problem with a coach placing limitations on where a kid can transfer. Heck, I have no problem with a coach refusing to release him from the scholarship. It is a contract for crying out loud. In most cases, a coach will let a kid go. I mean, who wants a malcontent hanging around, taking up a scholarship? If it is a one year scholarship (contract), I don't see how a coach can stop a kid once the year is over.

If you don't want limitations placed on you, don't sign the letter. It is as simple as that. I am really not sure how far our culture is going to take this sentiment that "the world revolves around me and whatever I want to do is what I will do regardless of the commitments I made". All it takes nowadays is for a kid to have a little competition, making it a little difficult to move up the depth chart, before he just opts to bail. Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!

When I signed my contract letter with the USMC I had no illusions. I was giving up my rights and freedom to decide for myself for a given period of time. I had no problem with it. I understood why it was important and I entered into the agreement with my eyes wide open. Just like Uncle Sam was under no obligation to please me, neither should a coach be.

What I don't understand is why there's a double standard for sports scholarships and everything else. Colleges are paid to provide an education and other activities for students. Students who get a scholarship to come study calculus and compete on the math team aren't banned from switching to other schools later on, so why should student-athletes be?

 

[Boomergump]

What I don't understand is why there's a double standard for sports scholarships and everything else. Colleges are paid to provide an education and other activities for students. Students who get a scholarship to come study calculus and compete on the math team aren't banned from switching to other schools later on, so why should student-athletes be?

I hear you and you make a good point. Such things can be argued for the future. However, when an athlete signs a contract LOI today, it comes with the commitment I mentioned. If you don't like the commitment, don't sign the paper.

 

[scrappy_95]

I hear you and you make a good point. Such things can be argued for the future. However, when an athlete signs a contract LOI today, it comes with the commitment I mentioned. If you don't like the commitment, don't sign the paper.

Unfortunately, the "don't sign the paper" argument is not a very realistic measuring stick, in my opinion. It's like saying, if you don't like the President, stop complaining, just leave the country. Many people's only options are to stay in the USA, just like many of these kids only option to better themselves through education is through the national LOI program. They worked to create a marketable value for their skills. I think this thread highlights that the only reason the rules are the way they are is to protect already well protected institutions and coaches from 18-19 year old kids. I think most people on this board are market people who prefer less regulation, so I am a little surprise that we are not up in arms about the fact that the NCAA and institutions is limiting the market potential for these SA, in the way of mobility. Once again, free up the regulations and let the market dictate what happens. Just my two cents.

By the way, I think this thread is a very good discussion topic. It really makes me appreciate this board. To the admins, thanks for letting me participate.