|
Post by notvballdad on Jul 31, 2024 15:09:47 GMT -5
I'm so curious about this 4 year guarantee that is being referenced. That sounds like one of those wives tales that exists to make parents feel better but I"m not aware of many 4 year offers being handed out at all over the last several years at the P4 level and the ones of shorter duration are always back loaded and often times get repurposed before they ever make it to the initially awarded player. I was writing multi-year scholarship agreements a decade ago. They're very real. It's league policy for multiple conferences. Describe "seen it first hand." "I know you were given two years and its your junior year but I need that scholarship for another position now." "I know you were given two years for your Junior and Senior seasons but there's a compliance issue and we don't have those available so you may want to consider entering the portal." "I know you are on four years from the old coaching staff and you just played a full season but we have medical concerns and don't think you are going to be able to continue (completely healthy). You can medically retire here or enter the portal." All those situations have happened to close family friends within the last 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 31, 2024 15:16:31 GMT -5
I was writing multi-year scholarship agreements a decade ago. They're very real. It's league policy for multiple conferences. Describe "seen it first hand." "I know you were given two years and its your junior year but I need that scholarship for another position now." "I know you were given two years for your Junior and Senior seasons but there's a compliance issue and we don't have those available so you may want to consider entering the portal." "I know you are on four years from the old coaching staff and you just played a full season but we have medical concerns and don't think you are going to be able to continue (completely healthy). You can medically retire here or enter the portal." All those situations have happened to close family friends within the last 3 months. What you are describing are "promises" not "written scholarship agreements."
|
|
|
Post by bborr on Jul 31, 2024 15:30:02 GMT -5
The Big Ten four year requirement is discussed all the time on football boards and by journalists— and is very real for all headcount sports. But it is four years, so if you redshirt the 5th year is “just” a promise. And it is limited to entering high school seniors. Any transfer is a negotiation and therefore a promise. See Big Ten press release: “The Big Ten Conference became the first major college sports league to guarantee four-year scholarships across all sports. Big Ten athletic directors, senior woman administrators and faculty representatives agreed to the change during meetings this week at the conference headquarters in Rosemont, Ill.” Oct 8, 2014
|
|
|
Post by vbdadof4 on Jul 31, 2024 15:31:50 GMT -5
I'm so curious about this 4 year guarantee that is being referenced. That sounds like one of those wives tales that exists to make parents feel better but I"m not aware of many 4 year offers being handed out at all over the last several years at the P4 level and the ones of shorter duration are always back loaded and often times get repurposed before they ever make it to the initially awarded player. I was writing multi-year scholarship agreements a decade ago. They're very real. It's league policy for multiple conferences. Describe "seen it first hand." When signing the NLI they also submit the grant-in-aid agreement to the the conference which contains the offer and terms and conditions.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 31, 2024 15:36:06 GMT -5
The Big Ten four year requirement is discussed all the time on football boards and by journalists— and is very real for all headcount sports. But it is four years, so if you redshirt the 5th year is “just” a promise. And it is limited to entering high school seniors. Any transfer is a negotiation and therefore a promise. See Big Ten press release: “The Big Ten Conference became the first major college sports league to guarantee four-year scholarships across all sports. Big Ten athletic directors, senior woman administrators and faculty representatives agreed to the change during meetings this week at the conference headquarters in Rosemont, Ill.” Oct 8, 2014 Transfers can sign multi-year grants in aid.
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on Jul 31, 2024 15:36:36 GMT -5
Either way, it sheds light on how tenuous these arrangements already are. In the case of the four year, it was a signed agreement. The player had already been at the school multiple years. The other two, sure they are promises. The issue at hand is a disparity between what that word means in the rest of society vs. in these situation. People and parents naively take people at their word and make assumptions about what commitments and guarantees mean. I'm not saying those written agreements don't exist. I know they do and they do for a specific segment on the player population and then a large number get guarantees or promises and believe that means something different than it does. Playing college isn't this "we made it and we don't have to worry about it anymore" type commitment and I think that is a lot of people's expectation in recruiting. At the highest levels it is tenuous and semester-to-semester or year-to-year and if there is an opportunity to upgrade and there is wiggle room, a coach is going to take it. I'm not faulting them. It's their job and livelihood to do so. It just needs to be understood what it is and not be a series of word games.
Bringing it back to the key topic, its why, again, i don't like the roster limits. People can clearly go with clear expectations of not having a scholarship, being a walk on, betting on themselves and utilizing resources available at the highest and most well funded level and focus on growth rather than constantly being subject to the paranoia of once the portal opens, i might be gone and have to go to another school. Again, it allows coaches to take a few gambles at very little risk and it allows students opportunities to leverage their talents as they grow into adults.
I believe you wrote those agreements and believe you stuck to them and I think that's fantastic. I'm not questioning if they existed or not or continue to exist. What I am asserting (and my sample size is not large statistically) that coaches are very opportunistic and have to be to keep their jobs and that any agreement no matter how formal we think it is, is going to either be wordplayed or manipulated when those hard roster limits are in place without wiggle room and the people that get hurt are the students in the process. It doesn't make coaches bad people at all. Its the nature of what the sport is going to demand. But I'm asking Why when it is avoidable and this settlement gets to write the rules in a blue sky sort of way.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 31, 2024 15:39:56 GMT -5
Either way, it sheds light on how tenuous these arrangements already are. In the case of the four year, it was a signed agreement. The player had already been at the school multiple years. The other two, sure they are promises. The issue at hand is a disparity between what that word means in the rest of society vs. in these situation. People and parents naively take people at their word and make assumptions about what commitments and guarantees mean. I'm not saying those written agreements don't exist. I know they do and they do for a specific segment on the player population and then a large number get guarantees or promises and believe that means something different than it does. Playing college isn't this "we made it and we don't have to worry about it anymore" type commitment and I think that is a lot of people's expectation in recruiting. At the highest levels it is tenuous and semester-to-semester or year-to-year and if there is an opportunity to upgrade and there is wiggle room, a coach is going to take it. I'm not faulting them. It's their job and livelihood to do so. It just needs to be understood what it is and not be a series of word games. Bringing it back to the key topic, its why, again, i don't like the roster limits. People can clearly go with clear expectations of not having a scholarship, being a walk on, betting on themselves and utilizing resources available at the highest and most well funded level and focus on growth rather than constantly being subject to the paranoia of once the portal opens, i might be gone and have to go to another school. Again, it allows coaches to take a few gambles at very little risk and it allows students opportunities to leverage their talents as they grow into adults. I believe you wrote those agreements and believe you stuck to them and I think that's fantastic. I'm not questioning if they existed or not or continue to exist. What I am asserting (and my sample size is not large statistically) that coaches are very opportunistic and have to be to keep their jobs and that any agreement no matter how formal we think it is, is going to either be wordplayed or manipulated when those hard roster limits are in place without wiggle room and the people that get hurt are the students in the process. It doesn't make coaches bad people at all. Its the nature of what the sport is going to demand. But I'm asking Why when it is avoidable and this settlement gets to write the rules in a blue sky sort of way. But they *aren't* tenuous. They're binding. If a coach cancelled a multiyear scholarship agreement because they didn't want the kid there, that's an NCAA violation.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 1, 2024 9:11:30 GMT -5
Either way, it sheds light on how tenuous these arrangements already are. In the case of the four year, it was a signed agreement. The player had already been at the school multiple years. The other two, sure they are promises. The issue at hand is a disparity between what that word means in the rest of society vs. in these situation. People and parents naively take people at their word and make assumptions about what commitments and guarantees mean. I'm not saying those written agreements don't exist. I know they do and they do for a specific segment on the player population and then a large number get guarantees or promises and believe that means something different than it does. Playing college isn't this "we made it and we don't have to worry about it anymore" type commitment and I think that is a lot of people's expectation in recruiting. At the highest levels it is tenuous and semester-to-semester or year-to-year and if there is an opportunity to upgrade and there is wiggle room, a coach is going to take it. I'm not faulting them. It's their job and livelihood to do so. It just needs to be understood what it is and not be a series of word games. Bringing it back to the key topic, its why, again, i don't like the roster limits. People can clearly go with clear expectations of not having a scholarship, being a walk on, betting on themselves and utilizing resources available at the highest and most well funded level and focus on growth rather than constantly being subject to the paranoia of once the portal opens, i might be gone and have to go to another school. Again, it allows coaches to take a few gambles at very little risk and it allows students opportunities to leverage their talents as they grow into adults. I believe you wrote those agreements and believe you stuck to them and I think that's fantastic. I'm not questioning if they existed or not or continue to exist. What I am asserting (and my sample size is not large statistically) that coaches are very opportunistic and have to be to keep their jobs and that any agreement no matter how formal we think it is, is going to either be wordplayed or manipulated when those hard roster limits are in place without wiggle room and the people that get hurt are the students in the process. It doesn't make coaches bad people at all. Its the nature of what the sport is going to demand. But I'm asking Why when it is avoidable and this settlement gets to write the rules in a blue sky sort of way. Some schools have promises. Some schools have signed documents. We are talking about the later. I think everyone here recognizes that what you are saying can and does happen, it's just not the focus of the previous comments/questions.
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Aug 1, 2024 9:54:20 GMT -5
Do we have any idea how the ‘expanded’ rosters would affect program operations budgets? As we know, next to no one runs in the black. Adding more bodies can only increase anything that’s a variable cost. I would assume the revenue sharing isn’t actually profit sharing and higher costs for the program doesn’t factor into the athlete distribution.
I’m kind of fascinated by the changes for a school who used to carry less and now has 18. Is the travel roster 18 as well? Did the NCAA change that too?
Two more hotel rooms each night, three more plane seats. For those who fly charter, is that three less people that travel as support staff? No more social media coordinator tagging along. Do you leave a GA at home who helps you in match with blocking reads so a redshirt doesn’t feel left out and hop in the portal?
So many new things to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on Aug 1, 2024 11:29:53 GMT -5
Either way, it sheds light on how tenuous these arrangements already are. In the case of the four year, it was a signed agreement. The player had already been at the school multiple years. The other two, sure they are promises. The issue at hand is a disparity between what that word means in the rest of society vs. in these situation. People and parents naively take people at their word and make assumptions about what commitments and guarantees mean. I'm not saying those written agreements don't exist. I know they do and they do for a specific segment on the player population and then a large number get guarantees or promises and believe that means something different than it does. Playing college isn't this "we made it and we don't have to worry about it anymore" type commitment and I think that is a lot of people's expectation in recruiting. At the highest levels it is tenuous and semester-to-semester or year-to-year and if there is an opportunity to upgrade and there is wiggle room, a coach is going to take it. I'm not faulting them. It's their job and livelihood to do so. It just needs to be understood what it is and not be a series of word games. Bringing it back to the key topic, its why, again, i don't like the roster limits. People can clearly go with clear expectations of not having a scholarship, being a walk on, betting on themselves and utilizing resources available at the highest and most well funded level and focus on growth rather than constantly being subject to the paranoia of once the portal opens, i might be gone and have to go to another school. Again, it allows coaches to take a few gambles at very little risk and it allows students opportunities to leverage their talents as they grow into adults. I believe you wrote those agreements and believe you stuck to them and I think that's fantastic. I'm not questioning if they existed or not or continue to exist. What I am asserting (and my sample size is not large statistically) that coaches are very opportunistic and have to be to keep their jobs and that any agreement no matter how formal we think it is, is going to either be wordplayed or manipulated when those hard roster limits are in place without wiggle room and the people that get hurt are the students in the process. It doesn't make coaches bad people at all. Its the nature of what the sport is going to demand. But I'm asking Why when it is avoidable and this settlement gets to write the rules in a blue sky sort of way. Some schools have promises. Some schools have signed documents. We are talking about the later. I think everyone here recognizes that what you are saying can and does happen, it's just not the focus of the previous comments/questions. I agree. My fault for getting drawn offsides and going off topic. Sorry for derailing. Still hate the roster limits for the reasons in my first post. I'll see if I can delete the others. THanks,
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 1, 2024 12:12:50 GMT -5
Either way, it sheds light on how tenuous these arrangements already are. In the case of the four year, it was a signed agreement. The player had already been at the school multiple years. The other two, sure they are promises. The issue at hand is a disparity between what that word means in the rest of society vs. in these situation. People and parents naively take people at their word and make assumptions about what commitments and guarantees mean. I'm not saying those written agreements don't exist. I know they do and they do for a specific segment on the player population and then a large number get guarantees or promises and believe that means something different than it does. Playing college isn't this "we made it and we don't have to worry about it anymore" type commitment and I think that is a lot of people's expectation in recruiting. At the highest levels it is tenuous and semester-to-semester or year-to-year and if there is an opportunity to upgrade and there is wiggle room, a coach is going to take it. I'm not faulting them. It's their job and livelihood to do so. It just needs to be understood what it is and not be a series of word games. Bringing it back to the key topic, its why, again, i don't like the roster limits. People can clearly go with clear expectations of not having a scholarship, being a walk on, betting on themselves and utilizing resources available at the highest and most well funded level and focus on growth rather than constantly being subject to the paranoia of once the portal opens, i might be gone and have to go to another school. Again, it allows coaches to take a few gambles at very little risk and it allows students opportunities to leverage their talents as they grow into adults. I believe you wrote those agreements and believe you stuck to them and I think that's fantastic. I'm not questioning if they existed or not or continue to exist. What I am asserting (and my sample size is not large statistically) that coaches are very opportunistic and have to be to keep their jobs and that any agreement no matter how formal we think it is, is going to either be wordplayed or manipulated when those hard roster limits are in place without wiggle room and the people that get hurt are the students in the process. It doesn't make coaches bad people at all. Its the nature of what the sport is going to demand. But I'm asking Why when it is avoidable and this settlement gets to write the rules in a blue sky sort of way. But they *aren't* tenuous. They're binding. If a coach cancelled a multiyear scholarship agreement because they didn't want the kid there, that's an NCAA violation. Unfortunately, this is one of the easiest rules to get around. "Hey Suzie, we think you're great but we want to be super honest. You're never going to see the court. And in practice, we're going to utilize our male practice players to better prepare us for our competition, so you won't play in 6v6 there either. If you want to play volleyball, your best path would be to enter the transfer portal." There are exceptions, but that conversation is legal and will convince many kids to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Aug 1, 2024 12:47:21 GMT -5
But they *aren't* tenuous. They're binding. If a coach cancelled a multiyear scholarship agreement because they didn't want the kid there, that's an NCAA violation. Unfortunately, this is one of the easiest rules to get around. "Hey Suzie, we think you're great but we want to be super honest. You're never going to see the court. And in practice, we're going to utilize our male practice players to better prepare us for our competition, so you won't play in 6v6 there either. If you want to play volleyball, your best path would be to enter the transfer portal." There are exceptions, but that conversation is legal and will convince many kids to leave. Or who were told they would not be part of the team activities, but that their scholarship would still be in place. If they wanted to go elsewhere to play that the staff would assist them with that.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 1, 2024 12:56:49 GMT -5
Do we have any idea how the ‘expanded’ rosters would affect program operations budgets? As we know, next to no one runs in the black. Adding more bodies can only increase anything that’s a variable cost. I would assume the revenue sharing isn’t actually profit sharing and higher costs for the program doesn’t factor into the athlete distribution. I’m kind of fascinated by the changes for a school who used to carry less and now has 18. Is the travel roster 18 as well? Did the NCAA change that too? Two more hotel rooms each night, three more plane seats. For those who fly charter, is that three less people that travel as support staff? No more social media coordinator tagging along. Do you leave a GA at home who helps you in match with blocking reads so a redshirt doesn’t feel left out and hop in the portal? So many new things to worry about. There are really no details established beyond what was in the settlement proposal. We are a ways from a fully established operating manual. One thing to remember is that the settlement proposal seemed to mostly established by the P5 conference commissioners consulting with the schools and likely not much input by the NCAA. On something like the travel roster, limits for conference games are established by the schools. NCAA only establishes it for the tournament and realistically it's a number that it will reimburse the schools for its travel expenses and the number that is eligible to play in tournament games. If a team wants to travel more than this for the tournament, it can do so. If I were to guess, I'm thinking the roster limit is 18 and that will be the limit for those schools for anything else such as a travel squad.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Aug 1, 2024 17:46:30 GMT -5
When is the settlement supposed to be finalized?
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 1, 2024 19:24:50 GMT -5
All I know is if the 18 scholarships had been available 2 offseasons ago, Keonilei Akana and Kayla Caffey remain at Nebraska and don't transfer to Texas . . .
|
|