Thought this was a pretty interesting article. NCAA president for example claims that 40% of basketball players change schools by end of Sophomore year. Changes in conference alignment due to playoffs also he predicts because of their positioning, as well as transfer policy and gulf to grow between have and have not schools.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...ent-053112

Well there are a few things that just bother me concerning players and coaches and I would propose a few changes that I think would bring about some fairness.

First, if a coach can leave his program and immediately begin coaching at another school of the same level (sometimes even a rival), then why can't players? Players have to sit out and lose a year of eligibility or drop to a different division to play unless there is some circumstance for which he can be granted a waiver. BS!! If a coach can leave, then a player should be able to do the same thing. If the player has to sit a year, then the coach should have to do the same unless he is fired. The only exception I would make for a coach is if he makes an announcement during some short (very short) period immediately following the end of the regular season.

Second, require all universities to provide 4 year scholarships...not these "one year renewable" scholarships that they do now. If a kid makes a commitment to you, then you honor that commitment for the 4-5 years he is on campus. Only discipline/academics should be a reason for revocation (same for other students). Dumping a guy after 3 years because you have some hot shot recruit is just plain wrong.

Third, truly limit schools to 25 recruits per year. Allow signing at the beginning of a player's senior season. You make an offer and the kid signs that LOI, it is binding for both player and school. He doesn't make the grades, then you just lost a scholarship. Some kid you were waiting on to see if he makes his grades, well tough if you hit 25 and then he makes them late. This will stop schools like Alabama and LSU who have pulled scholarship offers late in the process, screwing over some kid after someone else committed or finally got their act together academically.

Just my .02 cents!

very good points John

I can't go with point #1 as far as coaches are concerned. It's a job and last I heard it was still legal in this country to change jobs at your decretion if there are no contractual limits or unlawful activities as part of the leaving.

I do think that a coach should be punished job-wise if they were involved in sanctions placed against a school by the NCAA, conference, or school itself. If the players have to suffer then the coach...who was probably responsible for what happened...needs to suffer the consequences, too, not be able to go off to another school and continue with life as usual.

The rest of your points have merit although I think they could be refined a bit.

(06-04-2012 09:39 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  Well there are a few things that just bother me concerning players and coaches and I would propose a few changes that I think would bring about some fairness.

First, if a coach can leave his program and immediately begin coaching at another school of the same level (sometimes even a rival), then why can't players? Players have to sit out and lose a year of eligibility or drop to a different division to play unless there is some circumstance for which he can be granted a waiver. BS!! If a coach can leave, then a player should be able to do the same thing. If the player has to sit a year, then the coach should have to do the same unless he is fired. The only exception I would make for a coach is if he makes an announcement during some short (very short) period immediately following the end of the regular season.

I agree

Second, require all universities to provide 4 year scholarships...not these "one year renewable" scholarships that they do now. If a kid makes a commitment to you, then you honor that commitment for the 4-5 years he is on campus. Only discipline/academics should be a reason for revocation (same for other students). Dumping a guy after 3 years because you have some hot shot recruit is just plain wrong.

Again, I agree

Third, truly limit schools to 25 recruits per year. Allow signing at the beginning of a player's senior season. You make an offer and the kid signs that LOI, it is binding for both player and school.

Agree

He doesn't make the grades, then you just lost a scholarship.

Disagree. The kid failed to live up to his end. The school should be able to sign another kid. Remember, Most kids will not be available because they will have already signed binding letters before schools know whether they have made grades. I agree that a school should not be allowed to have more than 25 signed in a class at any given time.

Some kid you were waiting on to see if he makes his grades, well tough if you hit 25 and then he makes them late. This will stop schools like Alabama and LSU who have pulled scholarship offers late in the process, screwing over some kid after someone else committed or finally got their act together academically.

Just my .02 cents!

(06-04-2012 10:18 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 09:39 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  Well there are a few things that just bother me concerning players and coaches and I would propose a few changes that I think would bring about some fairness.

First, if a coach can leave his program and immediately begin coaching at another school of the same level (sometimes even a rival), then why can't players? Players have to sit out and lose a year of eligibility or drop to a different division to play unless there is some circumstance for which he can be granted a waiver. BS!! If a coach can leave, then a player should be able to do the same thing. If the player has to sit a year, then the coach should have to do the same unless he is fired. The only exception I would make for a coach is if he makes an announcement during some short (very short) period immediately following the end of the regular season.

I agree

Second, require all universities to provide 4 year scholarships...not these "one year renewable" scholarships that they do now. If a kid makes a commitment to you, then you honor that commitment for the 4-5 years he is on campus. Only discipline/academics should be a reason for revocation (same for other students). Dumping a guy after 3 years because you have some hot shot recruit is just plain wrong.

Again, I agree

Third, truly limit schools to 25 recruits per year. Allow signing at the beginning of a player's senior season. You make an offer and the kid signs that LOI, it is binding for both player and school.

Agree

He doesn't make the grades, then you just lost a scholarship.

Disagree. The kid failed to live up to his end. The school should be able to sign another kid. Remember, Most kids will not be available because they will have already signed binding letters before schools know whether they have made grades. I agree that a school should not be allowed to have more than 25 signed in a class at any given time.

Some kid you were waiting on to see if he makes his grades, well tough if you hit 25 and then he makes them late. This will stop schools like Alabama and LSU who have pulled scholarship offers late in the process, screwing over some kid after someone else committed or finally got their act together academically.

Just my .02 cents!

I understand your disagreement with my last point. Let me give you my reasoning. If a school takes a chance on a kid who is borderline academically, then it is a lick on them. I believe that you will see schools hold off on those offers or take limited chances. Also, it might, just might, get high school coaches, teacher, parents, and most importantly, the kids to start taking their school just a little bit more serious and bust their butt to get their academics squared away. I am looking at a change in culture with this proposal. Hell, it wasn't too many years ago that Ole Miss signed something like 38 players, the with a huge number not qualifying. Randally Mackey, from Bastrop high school, didn't qualify. It was then that I found out that a player could have something like a 1.75 GPA and still play high school ball in Louisiana. Sad. Another story comes from LSU. Just a couple of years back, LSU signed their class. Two commits got qualified in the summer. Miles told 2 kids that they had to grey shirt. One already had an apartment. Fortunately, he was able to find another school to enroll at. Is that fair? Those kids did what they were supposed to do and got theirselves qualified. If anyone should have had to scramble for a place to play ball and go to school, it should have been the ones who didn't take care of business to begin with.

(06-04-2012 10:13 AM)SOT1977 Wrote:  I can't go with point #1 as far as coaches are concerned. It's a job and last I heard it was still legal in this country to change jobs at your decretion if there are no contractual limits or unlawful activities as part of the leaving.

I do think that a coach should be punished job-wise if they were involved in sanctions placed against a school by the NCAA, conference, or school itself. If the players have to suffer then the coach...who was probably responsible for what happened...needs to suffer the consequences, too, not be able to go off to another school and continue with life as usual.

The rest of your points have merit although I think they could be refined a bit.

SOT, I guess my point is that if a coach can leave, then the players should be able to do the same. If they can change their job, then the players should be able to change schools. If you are locking in the players, then the coaches (who are selling the kid) should be locked in as well.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

(06-04-2012 10:36 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:13 AM)SOT1977 Wrote:  I can't go with point #1 as far as coaches are concerned. It's a job and last I heard it was still legal in this country to change jobs at your decretion if there are no contractual limits or unlawful activities as part of the leaving.

I do think that a coach should be punished job-wise if they were involved in sanctions placed against a school by the NCAA, conference, or school itself. If the players have to suffer then the coach...who was probably responsible for what happened...needs to suffer the consequences, too, not be able to go off to another school and continue with life as usual.

The rest of your points have merit although I think they could be refined a bit.

SOT, I guess my point is that if a coach can leave, then the players should be able to do the same. If they can change their job, then the players should be able to change schools. If you are locking in the players, then the coaches (who are selling the kid) should be locked in as well.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Can we kick a kid to the curb mid season if he is not performing as expected also (similar to firing a coach mid season)?

(06-04-2012 10:38 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:36 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:13 AM)SOT1977 Wrote:  I can't go with point #1 as far as coaches are concerned. It's a job and last I heard it was still legal in this country to change jobs at your decretion if there are no contractual limits or unlawful activities as part of the leaving.

I do think that a coach should be punished job-wise if they were involved in sanctions placed against a school by the NCAA, conference, or school itself. If the players have to suffer then the coach...who was probably responsible for what happened...needs to suffer the consequences, too, not be able to go off to another school and continue with life as usual.

The rest of your points have merit although I think they could be refined a bit.

SOT, I guess my point is that if a coach can leave, then the players should be able to do the same. If they can change their job, then the players should be able to change schools. If you are locking in the players, then the coaches (who are selling the kid) should be locked in as well.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Can we kick a kid to the curb mid season if he is not performing as expected also (similar to firing a coach mid season)?

Nope. See my comment about 4 year scholarships. LSU and Alabama are notorious for releasing players for various reasons because of new recruits. The ony thing I would say is if both parties agree, then the kid is immediately released and immediately eligible to play for any team.

On 4 year scholarships. Generally speaking it is good but there is one situation that it should be addressed. That is a player that is there but refuses to do things that make him/her an asset. A player that refuses to lose weight to be at optimal playing weight or properly workout to get fully conditioned. I believe a career ending/limiting injury should not be scholarship termination.

Four year scholarship should be optional. If a player accepts a four year rather than a one-year renewable they should be required to sit 3 semesters rather than 2 if they transfer and ineligible to practice or train with the coaches and staff at the new school or use athletic department training facilities for 2 semesters. Likewise if a school awards a 4 year scholarship and the player leaves in the first three semesters, can't fill the slot for two semesters, if they leave after 4, 5, or 6 semesters can't fill the slot for one semester.

Four year scholarships should be a negotiated benefit with a cost to the player and the school if either fails to honor the agreement.

Coaching changes, I'm all for free transfer after a coaching change provided that the player and new coach meet first and the player does not transfer to the new school of the head coach or any of the assistants. Follow them sit like a regular transfer.

(06-04-2012 10:36 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:13 AM)SOT1977 Wrote:  I can't go with point #1 as far as coaches are concerned. It's a job and last I heard it was still legal in this country to change jobs at your decretion if there are no contractual limits or unlawful activities as part of the leaving.

I do think that a coach should be punished job-wise if they were involved in sanctions placed against a school by the NCAA, conference, or school itself. If the players have to suffer then the coach...who was probably responsible for what happened...needs to suffer the consequences, too, not be able to go off to another school and continue with life as usual.

The rest of your points have merit although I think they could be refined a bit.

SOT, I guess my point is that if a coach can leave, then the players should be able to do the same. If they can change their job, then the players should be able to change schools. If you are locking in the players, then the coaches (who are selling the kid) should be locked in as well.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I get what you're saying and understand why you feel that way. I can't blame you. But a coach can quit if he wants to, same as a player can. In the kid's case the coach has to release him from his scholarship...a formality...and release him to sign with another school for the remainder of that school year. If a coach quits, then I would think that maybe his contract should say that he can't coach at another school in the same conference (some contracts may already say that) for the remainder of a current school year. It's already clear that players can transfer within the same conference...ULL and ULM have already "exchanged" players before.

Here is the deal though, 99% of the time, the kid gets released. Once released, he can go somewhere and be on scholarship for that year. He just can't be on the roster. That's the difference between being on scholarship and being a hired employee. If the school loses a coach, they just hire another one. But a team cannot replace a player that leaves. Where will the player come from? Oh that's right, another team. So then you have set up a hierarchy chart where kids can move up if they play better? Turns Div I programs into feeder programs. It would destroy the mid majors because that is where the majority of the coaches come from. You would create a system much like this conference realignment mess.

No player is ever held hostage, if they can't get released (rare), they can pay their own way for a year. Maybe they will appreciate that scholarship a little more when their year is up. But those are rare circumstances. Most schools will release a player if he wants to leave with some minor rules (no conference teams, future opponents, etc). Once released, the player can get a scholarship and go to school during that 1 year sit out period. They just can't be on the roster.

(06-04-2012 03:02 PM)stebo Wrote:  Here is the deal though, 99% of the time, the kid gets released. Once released, he can go somewhere and be on scholarship for that year. He just can't be on the roster. That's the difference between being on scholarship and being a hired employee. If the school loses a coach, they just hire another one. But a team cannot replace a player that leaves. Where will the player come from? Oh that's right, another team. So then you have set up a hierarchy chart where kids can move up if they play better? Turns Div I programs into feeder programs. It would destroy the mid majors because that is where the majority of the coaches come from. You would create a system much like this conference realignment mess.

No player is ever held hostage, if they can't get released (rare), they can pay their own way for a year. Maybe they will appreciate that scholarship a little more when their year is up. But those are rare circumstances. Most schools will release a player if he wants to leave with some minor rules (no conference teams, future opponents, etc). Once released, the player can get a scholarship and go to school during that 1 year sit out period. They just can't be on the roster.

I get it and some things would have to be tweaked. I think some of that would be solved by the 4 year scholarship. But if you release a player, why in the world should a coach have any say so over where he goes to school. Keep him on scholarship and he gets an education, or he gets released and is eligible immediately to whereever he wants, or he transfers and sits a year. I think that could be a good compromise.

Look, I know that none of the big boys would go for this. Most all of them are just too damn hypocritical (student athletes vs business). This is just a frustrating thing for me as I have seen year after year some kid getting screwed over by one of the big schools for the next hot commodity that comes along. Then you hear about some vindictive coach who won't release a player (a couple of stories like that over the past year). This was just my "if I was king for a day" rant!! :)

There was a trend this year and some schools offered 4 year scholarships (Auburn and Florida I believe). If that starts helping them land some players, look for that trend to continue

I am all for the four year scholarships, and beleve a high school kid should not be playing unless he has a 2.0 average. Would definately be in favor of enforcement of the 25 total per year. Early offers should only be allowed to students with 2.0 averages, anything less they should have to wait to see what their final grades are regardless of their athletic abilities.
We haven't had that problem, but cannot stand for coaches to get schools in trouble with violations and then go to another school when things get hot and heavy. Believe whatever penalties are delivered to the school he was at should be enforced also if another school is blazen enough to hire him. That would stop a lot of crap.