masthead.jpg

February 25, 2012

In case you didn’t hear, the NCAA members and conferences narrowly failed to override the earlier decision to allow member institutions to offer a full 4-year athletic scholarship. It doesn’t mandate such scholarships. It merely gives universities the option to offer scholarships that are not as they have been. Several schools actually did this on signing day this year. Previously, the rule was that all athletic scholarships were only for 1-year, renewable annually at the school’s discretion.

This had seemed like a no-brainer decision by the NCAA. Show at least a little more than lip-service to the concept that the kids getting athletic scholarships were students as well. There was surprising pushback. First it seemed by more of the low- and mid-majors, who seemed more concerned with the overall costs of such a guarantee.

This, despite the possible extra edge in recruiting. Bigger schools with the name recognition, history and other advantages would be in a better position to keep offering kids only 1-year scholarships in exchange for greater exposure and attention. The smaller schools could offer more of a guarantee of an education.

It’s no question that most schools would happily offer a 5-star and most 4-star recruits a full 4-year ride. But what if you are offering a 3-star kid? A MAC or Sun Belt school would happily offer him a 4-year deal, but what would/should Pitt, Florida, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. do? It would seemingly put more pressure on the coaches to more fully evaluate players before offering.

It also makes things a little tougher when a school changes coaches and the system changes. Suddenly the new coach (and AD that stuck his neck out on the hire) may have a harder time if the players don’t fit the system. You know, even thought the NLI says they committed to the school not the coach (or system). Players with a multi-year ride may not be so cooperative to be driven off the team transfer for a fresh start.

The override vote was surprisingly close (PDF). A 2/3 majority was needed for the override, but fell a few votes short. It was 125 votes not to override the multi-year scholarship option (Allow the option), 205 votes to override (revert back to the 1-year, renewable only system), 2 abstentions and 35 schools that simply didn’t vote.

Pitt did the right thing by supporting option to offer multi-year scholarships. As did Penn State. WVU — this should not be a surprise — did not.

Across the 6 major conferences, plus teams that will be joining them (along with BYU and Xavier), the vote was very close:

38 votes to override the multi-year option, and go back to 1-year scholarships (S)

42 votes to keep the multi-year option (D)

4 schools that didn’t vote

The only conference to cast its vote in favor of overriding was the Big 12

The Big 12 was nearly unanimous in its dislike of multi-year scholarships. Only Mizzou voted against the override. Worth noting that incoming members WVU and TCU wanted the override as well.

The Big 10 was the most supportive of the multi-year scholarships. Only Wisconsin voted for the override.

Here’s the breakdown by conference.

ACC - D

Duke – D

NC St. – D

Miami – D

Maryland – D

Wake Forest – D

UNC – Did not Vote

UVa – S

VT – S

Clemson – S

FSU – S

Georgia Tech – S

BC – S

Big 12 – S

Missouri – D

Kansas – S

K-State – S

Texas – S

Texas A&M – S

Texas Tech – S

Baylor – S

Iowa State – S

Oklahoma – S

OK State – S

TCU – S

Big East – D

Pitt – D

UConn – D

USF – D

ND – D

Georgetown – D

Villanova – D

DePaul – D

Syracuse – Did not vote

Seton Hall – Did not vote

Rutgers – S

WVU – S

Louisville – S

Cinci – S

St. John’s – S

Providence – S

Marquette – S

SMU – D

Temple – Did not vote

Memphis – S

UCF – S

Houston – S

SDSU – S

Boise St. – S

Big Ten – D

Michigan – D

MSU – D

Purdue – D

Indiana – D

Illinois – D

Northwestern – D

Ohio State – D

Iowa – D

Minnesota – D

Nebraska – D

Penn State – D

Wisconsin – S

PAC – 12 – D

Utah – D

UCLA – D

Washington – D

Washington State – D

ASU – D

Oregon – D

Oregon State – D

Arizona- S

Cal – S

USC – S

Colorado – S

SEC -D

Auburn – D

Arkansas – D

Florida – D

Georgia – D

Kentucky – D

Mississippi St. – D

Others

BYU – S

Xavier – S

Ole Miss – D

South Carolina – D

Vanderbilt – D

Alabama – S

LSU- S

Tennessee – S





Chas, I am in agreement .. I think. I assume that a player can still transfer provided he gets the release from the school.

I also would like to see some more leverage for the player where the coach they committed to leaves. (but not sure exactly what)

On a further note .. kickoffs are now from the 3 yard line, and get this, after a touchback, the offense begins at the 25

Comment by wbb 02.25.12 @ 10:17 am

Patrick kugler to michigan

Comment by Pk 02.25.12 @ 11:10 am

I assume this is in regards to the cases like the kid at Rice- who was screwed by Graham, actually.
In the Atlantic’s NCAA takedown, the kid highlighted wanted to be a doctor, was poor, had the grades, and was a bench rider on the football team- if my memory is correct? Graham cut the kid during his senior year and he almost couldn’t afford to complete his education. There was some paperwork reason why the kid couldn’t qualify for an academic scholarship I think…

I read that & was so disgusted by Graham.
I’m happy to hear the NCAA did something right.

Comment by Rieur1114 02.25.12 @ 11:53 am

Steven adams was selected to the jordan brand classic the other day, according to his high school coach. Good for him. Thats quite an accomplishment.

Comment by Pk 02.25.12 @ 12:21 pm

@pk What do you mean by “Patrick Kugler to Michigan”? Is he visiting Michigan? Did he commit to Michigan? If your going to take the time to post something like that, please include some detail as to what it actually means. Thanks.

Comment by Hank the Tank 02.25.12 @ 12:44 pm

Doh…”you’re” not “your”

Comment by Hank the Tank 02.25.12 @ 12:45 pm

He committed to michigan. i should have clarified. Sorry

Comment by Pk 02.25.12 @ 12:49 pm

No problem G…maybe I should have taken the 5 seconds to look on Scout instead of bitchin at you. Thanks for the heads up, but not good news.

Comment by Hank the Tank 02.25.12 @ 12:53 pm

Yea, we couldve really used him. I think it may be a case where he wouldnt wanna see his dad every day

Comment by Pk 02.25.12 @ 1:13 pm

First big recruiting loss. Hope it is not a trend!

Comment by JP 02.25.12 @ 2:29 pm

Why do kids committ this early? Yes he was in our backyard but he’s a transplant from Buffalo and probably wanted to get further away from Dad. Good school and coaches up there now. Can’t blame him but please don’t let this become an indictment of Chryst. If Pitt loses Foster, I would be concerned.

Comment by TX Panther 02.25.12 @ 2:42 pm

TX panther..would you really be “concerned” if pitt doesnt get foster, i mean yeah obviously he would be a great addition, but it seems like osu is pushing hard to get him..

i just dont see having a bigtime recruit go to a team where alot of bigtime recruits go as something that we can look at and say ok now we can be concerned

Comment by rhyno527 02.25.12 @ 3:44 pm

Rhyno, its not that hes a big time recruit, its that hes a big time recruit from the wpial. If you cant keep most of the best at home then youre never going to be better than a good team. That plus he plays a position of need and is the caliber of recruit that could help bring in other kids. Foster and dorian johnson (OT) are must gets. Dokish says that hes confident johnson will commit to pitt (hes a known pitt fan and goes to jue rudolphs alma mater/it must be great that youre a top target of your favorite team). Plus a top qb recruit, like malik zaire from ohio, a lot of linemen, and maybe one or two more wrs in addition to foster and pitt has mett all of its needs.

Comment by Pk 02.25.12 @ 6:03 pm

Kugler isn’t originally from Pittsburgh so its not a surprise that he’d go elsewhere. Pitt wasn’t keeping him home in recruiting him, he’s only been living here since 2010. This is not losing a “local” kid. Ya, it would have been nice to get him, but there was not shot.

Comment by OntarioLett'sGoPitt 02.25.12 @ 10:31 pm

Michigan has now recruited 5 offensive linemen in Kugler’s class, so he will have a lot of competition for playing time. At Pitt he would have had a much better shot of playing early. A lot of high school atheletes have so much confidence tin their abilities, that they have no idea of the competetion that they will be facing just to get on the field.

Comment by Justinian 02.26.12 @ 8:57 am

pk,
how solid is adams after this tough season. i think i heard he is a very solid, but u never know with recruiting…my friend tends 2 think he is the savior 4 pitt b-ball
teezy76

Comment by teezy 02.26.12 @ 10:12 am

PK, i agree 100% it definately is big to keep the best local guys here if we can, but at the same time i know that osu is gonna come lurking for some of the higher prospects for this area and most likely get a few..and when ur recruiting against one of the best programs in college football, that should be expected..

Im not saying it isnt a big deal for pitt to get these guys, im just saying that i dont think we should panic if we lose a couple of the best guys in this area to osu (or michigan or psu or wvu), cause thats always going to happen regardless of pitts success

Comment by rhyno527 02.26.12 @ 12:09 pm

Adams signed his LOI so there is no turning back unless he wants to sit a year.

Comment by longsufferingpittfan 02.26.12 @ 12:23 pm

Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com