Quote:Pac-12 university presidents have sent a letter to their colleagues at the other four major football conferences calling for sweeping changes to the NCAA model and autonomy for those leagues.

A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday night. It was sent last week to the other 53 university presidents from the Southeastern Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conference.

Spurred in part by Northwestern football players' move to unionize, the Pac-12 presidents outlined a 10-point plan for reform that includes many proposals commissioners have been advocating for several years, including a stipend for athletes. The NCAA is working on a new governance structure that will allow the five wealthiest conferences to make some rules without the support of smaller Division I schools.

"We acknowledge the core objectives could prove to be expensive and controversial, but the risks of inaction or moving too slowly are far greater," the letter reads. "The time for tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments is over."

The full list of proposals included in the letter are:

— Permit institutions to make scholarship awards up to the full cost of attendance.

— Provide reasonable ongoing medical or insurance assistance for student-athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury in competition or practice. Continue efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury.

— Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing.

— Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season, correspondingly increase the time available for studies and campus life, by preventing the abuse of organized "voluntary" practices to circumvent the limit of 20 hours per week and more realistically assess the time away from campus and other commitments during the season.

— Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports.

— Further strengthen the Academic Progress Rate requirements for postseason play.

— Address the "one and done" phenomenon in men's basketball. If the NBA its Players Association are unable to agree to raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.

— Provide student-athletes a meaningful role in governance at the conference and NCAA levels.

— Adjust existing restrictions so that student-athletes preparing for the next stage of their careers are not unnecessarily deprived of the advice and counsel of agents and other competent professionals, but without professionalizing intercollegiate athletics.

— Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.

Pac-12 presidents are asking for a response to the proposed reforms by June 4.

The plan comes after Northwestern University football players cast secret ballots April 25 on whether to form the nation's first union for college athletes. The results of the vote will not be known for some time.

The full National Labor Relations Board has agreed to hear Northwestern's appeal of a regional director's March ruling that the players are university employees and thus can unionize. Ballots will remain impounded until that process is finished, and perhaps until after any court fight that might follow a decision.

Part of the idea behind the proposal by the Pac-12 presidents is to get ahead of the issue and meet some of the demands that have been raised by Northwestern players and other athletes without "professionalizing" college sports.

The letter states "it is clear from the recent statements of any number of individuals that, while they may share or view that labor unions are not the answer, the time has come for a meaningful response both to the student-athletes' grievances and the need to reassert the academic primacy of our mission."

Antonio Gonzalez @agonzalezAP
Arizona State President Michael Crow tells AP decision by Pac-12 to send letter "was unanimous. There's very strong support for this."

Don't agree with the first and last stipulations.

What happened to the unlimited food? Already passed? Of "full cost of attendance, ongoing medical or insurance, and the guarantee scholarships to complete a bachelor's degree," the major expense could very well be the medical expenses --- not that the others will be small.

I don't see any issues with any of the stipulations. As for transfers, please realize that the coaches can move from school to school at will - but players can be stuck under a coaching staff that does not value them at the institution. That must be fixed.

(05-20-2014 11:36 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't see any issues with any of the stipulations. As for transfers, please realize that the coaches can move from school to school at will - but players can be stuck under a coaching staff that does not value them at the institution. That must be fixed.

I'm against the first stipulation because it should be need based. People like Johnny Manziel don't need a stipend to go out and blow on booze and basketball games. There are a good deal of players that won't "need" the extra cash no matter how much they whine that they want it. With non-discretionary dispersion of these athletic assets/stipends, the lives of many of the universities' athletes will be substantially superior to that of those of the students that are actually there for what the school is meant for - academics; and that should not be the case.

Rising tuition in the US is already ridiculously absorbidant. With the presidents, coaches, and upper level trustees/staff getting much more than they should be. Giving a slice of the pie to everyone of the athletes is going to put an even greater burden on the students of these schools because we all know that the University administrations / coaches aren't taking pay cuts so Shabazz Napier doesn't have to eat ramen on Sunday nights like the rest of the campus.

The transfer issue is also more complex that just saying we should "liberalize the rules" If anything we need to make transfering a bit more difficult for some of these student athletes (especially basketball where it's really becoming a problem). I do agree that if a coaching staff leaves then the player should be granted an appeal to transfer immediately (not necessarily guaranteed but not unrealistic either). But, barring that case, as well as family illness (not homesickness), transfers should sit out a season. They're making a commitment when they sign their LOI to the school. For 4 years. These young men and women need to learn that their word is important.

Link to OP story:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gopher...y#continue

Nothing in that letter that seems unreasonable.

(05-21-2014 12:31 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 11:36 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't see any issues with any of the stipulations. As for transfers, please realize that the coaches can move from school to school at will - but players can be stuck under a coaching staff that does not value them at the institution. That must be fixed.

I'm against the first stipulation because it should be need based. People like Johnny Manziel don't need a stipend to go out and blow on booze and basketball games. There are a good deal of players that won't "need" the extra cash no matter how much they whine that they want it. With non-discretionary dispersion of these athletic assets/stipends, the lives of many of the universities' athletes will be substantially superior to that of those of the students that are actually there for what the school is meant for - academics; and that should not be the case.

Rising tuition in the US is already ridiculously absorbidant With the presidents, coaches, and upper level trustees/staff getting much more than they should be. Giving a slice of the pie to everyone of the athletes is going to put an even greater burden on the students of these schools because we all know that the University administrations / coaches aren't taking pay cuts so Shabazz Napier doesn't have to eat ramen on Sunday nights like the rest of the campus.

The transfer issue is also more complex that just saying we should "liberalize the rules" If anything we need to make transfering a bit more difficult for some of these student athletes (especially basketball where it's really becoming a problem). I do agree that if a coaching staff leaves then the player should be granted an appeal to transfer immediately (not necessarily guaranteed but not unrealistic either). But, barring that case, as well as family illness (not homesickness), transfers should sit out a season. They're making a commitment when they sign their LOI to the school. For 4 years. These young men and women need to learn that their word is important.

(05-21-2014 12:31 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  I do agree that if a coaching staff leaves then the player should be granted an appeal to transfer immediately (not necessarily guaranteed but not unrealistic either). But, barring that case, as well as family illness (not homesickness), transfers should sit out a season. They're making a commitment when they sign their LOI to the school. For 4 years. These young men and women need to learn that their word is important.

That reasoning should apply only if the school has itself committed to the athlete for 4 years by giving them a guaranteed 4-year scholarship. But if it is a typical one-year-renewable scholarship, then at the end of each year, the student should have same right to decide whether to renew or not as the school has, and just as the school can decide to drop the scholarship with no further obligation, so should the student (i.e., should be free to transfer and play immediately anywhere).

I wonder what they mean by this:
— Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports.

Aside from spring, most out of season football workouts are "voluntary" and "organized by the players themselves", at least that's what the coaches would say. So how do you stop football players from getting together in the offseason to workout?

If that's the bulk of it in a nutshell, I'm not understanding why the majority, if not all, Division I schools wouldn't have accepted these terms as long as it is "permissive" in nature and not obligatory. I understand the potential cost factors associated with passing this legislation and the fact that each of the non-power conferences as well as other D1 Olympic sports might feel as if this provides the power schools with more of an unfair advantage when they may not be able to offer "some" of these changes, but at the end of the day, the 4 or 5 star athlete that picked Notre Dame because of these changes would have picked Notre Dame anyway before any of these changes.

As long as the scholarship limits remain the same and the changes are permissive, I say drive on as long the other nonpower conferences can offer up the same thing "if they want to".

I think all of those terms are fair and many of them should have been implemented years ago. The only thing I don't think I like is the last point, about making it easier to transfer. I think if the schools are going to commit to items like full cost of attendance and "Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing." then the students should also show some level of commitment back to the school. JMO.

(05-21-2014 08:22 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  If that's the bulk of it in a nutshell, I'm not understanding why the majority, if not all, Division I schools wouldn't have accepted these terms as long as it is "permissive" in nature and not obligatory. I understand the potential cost factors associated with passing this legislation and the fact that each of the non-power conferences as well as other D1 Olympic sports might feel as if this provides the power schools with more of an unfair advantage when they may not be able to offer "some" of these changes, but at the end of the day, the 4 or 5 star athlete that picked Notre Dame because of these changes would have picked Notre Dame anyway before any of these changes.

As long as the scholarship limits remain the same and the changes are permissive, I say drive on as long the other nonpower conferences can offer up the same thing "if they want to".

It's not about the 4 and 5 star guys, they already have them. When you couple this with freedom to move around, the Alabama's of the world will get any 2 or 3 star that pans out. The G5 will essentially become the farm teams of the P5.

Also, as I read it from this perspective, they'd be able to guarantee those 4* and 5* players 4 year scholarships and if they don't pan out, cut them from the team (they'd still have their scholarships) and replace them with a 2* from UAB that turned out to be a superstar.

(05-21-2014 08:37 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 08:22 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  If that's the bulk of it in a nutshell, I'm not understanding why the majority, if not all, Division I schools wouldn't have accepted these terms as long as it is "permissive" in nature and not obligatory. I understand the potential cost factors associated with passing this legislation and the fact that each of the non-power conferences as well as other D1 Olympic sports might feel as if this provides the power schools with more of an unfair advantage when they may not be able to offer "some" of these changes, but at the end of the day, the 4 or 5 star athlete that picked Notre Dame because of these changes would have picked Notre Dame anyway before any of these changes.

As long as the scholarship limits remain the same and the changes are permissive, I say drive on as long the other nonpower conferences can offer up the same thing "if they want to".

It's not about the 4 and 5 star guys, they already have them. When you couple this with freedom to move around, the Alabama's of the world will get any 2 or 3 star that pans out. The G5 will essentially become the farm teams of the P5.

Also, as I read it from this perspective, they'd be able to guarantee those 4* and 5* players 4 year scholarships and if they don't pan out, cut them from the team (they'd still have their scholarships) and replace them with a 2* from UAB that turned out to be a superstar.

Yeah I can see the point you and Chappy make collectively. That's one area that probably needs some refinement.

(05-21-2014 08:37 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  Also, as I read it from this perspective, they'd be able to guarantee those 4* and 5* players 4 year scholarships and if they don't pan out, cut them from the team (they'd still have their scholarships) and replace them with a 2* from UAB that turned out to be a superstar.

I can see where the PAC is coming from there. Recruiting does have one big crapshoot element to it: You are recruiting 17-year old kids and 17-year olds often aren't physically mature.

E.g., take the case of U. of Buffalo LB Khalil Mack, the 5th overall pick in this year's NFL draft. How did he slip out of the state of Florida past all those SEC teams up to Buffalo, the only FBS school to make him an offer?

One reason was size. Today Mack is 6'3", 255 pounds, but when he was coming out of high school he was 6'1", 215 pounds, far from big-time prospect size for a linebacker. Also, he had suffered a bad patella injury in high school. But he kept growing, and turns out the patella recovered fully.

That happens a lot. So with this rules change, a school like USC or Alabama could scour the lineups of schools like Buffalo for kids who they originally overlooked but have since blossomed physically, and then get them to transfer without penalty.

— Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.



I do agree with this one. If schools can revoke scholarships any time they wish, players should have it much easier leaving any time they wish.

(05-21-2014 08:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  — Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.



I do agree with this one. If schools can revoke scholarships any time they wish, players should have it much easier leaving any time they wish.

I agree to a point, but if this is just going to turn into P5 schools recruiting the best G5 school players away every year then I don't agree with it.

(05-21-2014 09:00 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 08:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  — Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.



I do agree with this one. If schools can revoke scholarships any time they wish, players should have it much easier leaving any time they wish.

I agree to a point, but if this is just going to turn into P5 schools recruiting the best G5 school players away every year then I don't agree with it.

That's the one that can have the most effect on competitive balance. Tulane takes a good kid that works himself into an All Conference player and then the player leaves after his junior year to go play for LSU. If you allow players to transfer willy-nilly without sitting out a year and such then the Big money schools will use the G5 as a farm system...kind of like the NY Yankees do by signing free agents from lower payroll teams. This could especially happen more with juniors leaving early.

IMO, the transfer requirements are about right...although basketball seems to be having way too many.

OK --- fairness to players aside --- say *some* G5 schools keep the 1 year transfer 'ball and chain' on their players. Others, for recruiting reasons, don't. Who gets the recruit?