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
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.
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
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
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
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