Null



Sign in to follow this  
ellitor

NCAA Makes 2 Huge Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

Currently, a student's notification of intent to transfer at the end of a term is not a listed reason a school can use to cancel aid.

That seems odd. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That seems odd. 

On the Internet.

Gotta be true.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AUld fAUx@ said:

On the Internet.

Gotta be true.

From the NYT's vaunted athletics department, no less. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, keesler said:

Saban gave his thoughts on the SEC's grad-transfer rule a couple of weeks ago, he thought each member school should adhere to the rule that was in place.  The SEC voted and the rule was changed, now graduate transfers are unrestricted and can transfer within the conference.   

I read that statement that I referenced as it applies to any transfer, not just the grad transfer. That's why it seemed odd to me. You just made a new rule and then you allow conferences place restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

From the NYT's vaunted athletics department, no less. 

Clearly it's Fake News....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AUsince72 said:

Clearly it's Fake News....

Always is! (if I don't like it)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ellitor said:

Not sure what you mean by outwardly in play but the rest of what you said is very, very old news & has been going on for decades. There is nothing new except the transfer rule change.

Outwardly in play as in, when we get to the point where we are paying players to play as a standard, not behind closed doors. Every year we take baby steps in that direction, and when we get to the point where players are employees, the whole student thing will stop mattering to many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Outwardly in play as in, when we get to the point where we are paying players to play as a standard, not behind closed doors. Every year we take baby steps in that direction, and when we get to the point where players are employees, the whole student thing will stop mattering to many of them.

Why would paying players and still requiring that minimum academic standards be met be mutually exclusive?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Why would paying players and still requiring that minimum academic standards be met be mutually exclusive?

Heyyyy! Don't bring logic into a conspiracy theory.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Why would paying players and still requiring that minimum academic standards be met be mutually exclusive?

Not sure if relevant, but

my Research Assistantships, over the years included requirements for my active participation in the research program (with potential for losing the Assistantship itself) and academic-progress standards (with potential for losing eligibility for the Assistantship if I flunked out). Not sure how legally comparable Assistantships and Grant-in-Aid (?) Scholarships are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Why would paying players and still requiring that minimum academic standards be met be mutually exclusive?

Because the goal is to make money... once they are making money the whole dynamic changes. They are now employees and there is no incentive to do other things. Plus, do you think Saban/Meyer/Fisher/Mullen/etc are going to give a rat's a$$ if their star player who they are paying to win games goes to class? Who else is going to police it. It's not like the schools are going to let the NCAA into their classrooms.

Edited by lionheartkc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

Not sure if relevant, but

my Research Assistantships, over the years included requirements for my active participation in the research program (with potential for losing the Assistantship itself) and academic-progress standards (with potential for losing eligibility for the Assistantship if I flunked out). Not sure how legally comparable Assistantships and Grant-in-Aid (?) Scholarships are.

Yup! If you aren't making the grades & finish the enrolled classes you lose eligibility for a semester at minimum if you are a student athlete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ellitor said:

Yup! If you aren't making the grades & finish the enrolled classes you lose eligibility for a semester at minimum if you are a student athlete.

Because we all know that Ruben Foster could totally handle college level curriculum. Academics is the hardest thing for the NCAA to police, because they have no authority to prove that a student did or didn't earn the grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Because the goal is to make money... once they are making money the whole dynamic changes. They are now employees and there is no incentive to do other things. Plus, do you think Saban/Meyer/Fisher/Mullen/etc are going to give a rat's a$$ if their star player who they are paying to win games goes to class? Who else is going to police it. It's not like the schools are going to let the NCAA into their classrooms.

This is, I guess, one I'm clueless about. Employees in a legal sense? or just in a motivational sense.

As to policing the standards, I recall some stories concerning Mr. Fullwood's academic progress towards the end of his student-athlete tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my understanding of the redshirt rule is: 

Player X comes to AU as a Freshman, the staff feels he needs time to develop, put some weight on and learn the playbook. Under the old rules he would be a redshirt, scout-team player. But with the new rule player X mid way through the season has put on some muscle and has grasped the play book. He now can be used as a player in 4 games ( at Gus’s discretion ) without burning his redshirt. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Because the goal is to make money... once they are making money the whole dynamic changes. They are now employees and there is no incentive to do other things. Plus, do you think Saban/Meyer/Fisher/Mullen/etc are going to give a rat's a$$ if their star player who they are paying to win games goes to class? Who else is going to police it. It's not like the schools are going to let the NCAA into their classrooms.

 

15 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Because we all know that Ruben Foster could totally handle college level curriculum. Academics is the hardest thing for the NCAA to police, because they have no authority to prove that a student did or didn't earn the grades.

Nothing about the new rule would change any of that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AUld fAUx@ said:

This is, I guess, one I'm clueless about. Employees in a legal sense? or just in a motivational sense.

As to policing the standards, I recall some stories concerning Mr. Fullwood's academic progress towards the end of his student-athlete tenure.

If they are being paid to be there, above and beyond their scholarships, then they would be employees, just like any other campus employee, except their job brings in millions to the campus. You know the state is going to want to tax said employment, so it will be in a legal sense. You have to imagine it would also be in an emotional sense, at least from the coach's standpoint, as in "I'm paying good money for this kid to play, no one better get in the way of him doing just that". Just like any other business, the school will look at ROI. There is no ROI for them going to class, but there's plenty for them winning games, so the focus will be on "handling" the academics so the player can play and earn their money.

And yes, there will still be a good percentage, most likely a majority, of the players who still care about academics, but there will also be a good chunk who are 100% focused on the NFL and too good for most coaches to sit because they are... "unmotivated in the classroom".

Fullwood, as in Brent... as in the 1980s? Different world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Nothing about the new rule would change any of that.

I'm not talking about the rule change except to the degree that it is baby steps in the direction of players becoming a tradeable commodity and what that will probably look like when we get there. I said it moves us closer to being like the NFL, E brought up classes to counter that, and I countered that once money is in play, classes will become generally irrelevant.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I'm not talking about the rule change except to the degree that it is baby steps in the direction of players becoming a tradeable commodity and what that will probably look like when we get there. I said it moves us closer to being like the NFL, E brought up classes to counter that, and I countered that once money is in play, classes will become generally irrelevant.

Okay. I've read all the posts and still don't see anything supporting the notion that paying players automatically means they don't have to still get grades.

Taxes? Ok. Why don't they still have to make grades?

Calling them employees? Okay...? They'd still have to make grades in order for schools to let them play football. The NCAA could still mandate that just like they do now.  Besides, don't a lot of students also have jobs working for the school already? Like an RA? A quick Google search led me to Marquette's Student Employee Manual, where they advice student employees to get their checks direct deposited. 

And you've brought up a couple times that coaches' attitudes will change, but I don't buy that, either. They'd already have the players 100% committed to football if they could. Rules preventing that are because of the coaches, going back further at least as far as bear bryant.

And the ROI for the school making kids pretend to be students is that they get to keep putting them on the football field. No grades, no players, no wins. Just like it already is. 

Everything you're describing already applies, except maybe taxes and calling students "employees". But until you offer specifics as to how they make a difference in terms of academic requirements, you might have a tough time convincing folks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Okay. I've read all the posts and still don't see anything supporting the notion that paying players automatically means they don't have to still get grades.

Taxes? Ok. Why don't they still have to make grades?

Calling them employees? Okay...? They'd still have to make grades in order for schools to let them play football. The NCAA could still mandate that just like they do now.  Besides, don't a lot of students also have jobs working for the school already? Like an RA? A quick Google search led me to Marquette's Student Employee Manual, where they advice student employees to get their checks direct deposited. 

And you've brought up a couple times that coaches' attitudes will change, but I don't buy that, either. They'd already have the players 100% committed to football if they could. Rules preventing that are because of the coaches, going back further at least as far as bear bryant.

And the ROI for the school making kids pretend to be students is that they get to keep putting them on the football field. No grades, no players, no wins. Just like it already is. 

Everything you're describing already applies, except maybe taxes and calling students "employees". But until you offer specifics as to how they make a difference in terms of academic requirements, you might have a tough time convincing folks. 

I'm not sure why we have so much trouble communicating, but I'll try to explain.

When you pay players, they cost you money, therefor getting a return on your investment (i.e. winning games) becomes that much more important. To that end you are going to look for the easiest way to get from point a to point b in order to keep those kids on the field, because not having them out there is wasting money. When you have players who are just unmotivated, the easiest way is not to fight them, it's to make arrangements with those around them. Some coaches already play this game. More will when the bottom line becomes involved. 

On top of that, some players will become less motivated because a) they are already getting paid and b) they will know that having them on the field means a lot more to the school than it did when they weren't taking a cut of the revenues. 

Yes, the NCAA can wave their fist and say "academics is still important and you have to meet the standards", but they can't police that today, outside of recruiting, so it's all hot air.

That's what happens when it becomes about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lionheartkc said:

When you pay players, they cost you money, therefor getting a return on your investment (i.e. winning games) becomes that much more important. To that end you are going to look for the easiest way to get from point a to point b in order to keep those kids on the field, because not having them out there is wasting money. When you have players who are just unmotivated, the easiest way is not to fight them, it's to make arrangements with those around them. Some coaches already play this game. More will when the bottom line becomes involved. 

They already give them scholarships. And they already spend obscene amounts of money to win games, which they can't do without the players. It's already very much a bottom line scenario.

Quote

On top of that, some players will become less motivated because a) they are already getting paid and b) they will know that having them on the field means a lot more to the school than it did when they weren't taking a cut of the revenues. 

You don't think they'd still be trying to play for a high draft pick that would mean *real* money? (And, again, having the best players on the field is already a multi-million dollar concern for the schools.)

Quote

Yes, the NCAA can wave their fist and say "academics is still important and you have to meet the standards", but they can't police that today, outside of recruiting, so it's all hot air.

Okay. So we agree that nothing would change there.

Quote

That's what happens when it becomes about money.

You know, one thing just occurred to me that could happen, and it would be a transfer of wealth from coaches to players. So maybe coaching salaries would become more reasonable? Bill Belichick makes $7.5 million a year to Tom Brady's $14 or so million. That actually would've been a reasonable ratio for Chizik and Cam. Works for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

They already give them scholarships. And they already spend obscene amounts of money to win games, which they can't do without the players. It's already very much a bottom line scenario.

It's a set bottom line scenario... when it gets to the point that they are paid, it won't be a set amount for every player. The better players will cost more.

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You don't think they'd still be trying to play for a high draft pick that would mean *real* money? (And, again, having the best players on the field is already a multi-million dollar concern for the schools.)

Sure, but it's a leverage scenario. They are worth more on the field, now, because they cost more.  Except for a few top teams, holding a player out doesn't cost them because they aren't playing in any of the money games anyway. If you are paying them, it's an automatic loss of investment. The only way to counter that is to make it pay-for-play or have financial penalties tied to actions off the field. Which I guess is a solution. Don't make your grades, get a fine.

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You know, one thing just occurred to me that could happen, and it would be a transfer of wealth from coaches to players. So maybe coaching salaries would become more reasonable? Bill Belichick makes $7.5 million a year to Tom Brady's $14 or so million. That actually would've been a reasonable ratio for Chizik and Cam. Works for me. 

I love the Utopia that your brain lives in some of the time. If only the coaches were so altruistic. I've been wracking my brain, off and on, to figure out a scenario that would bring coaches salaries back into the world of reason. I haven't come up with anything, yet, beyond stranding all of the highest paid coaches on a dessert island.

Edited by lionheartkc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lionheartkc said:

I've been wracking my brain, off and on, to figure out a scenario that would bring coaches salaries back into the world of reason. I haven't come up with anything, yet, beyond stranding all of the highest paid coaches on a dessert island.

If it is all about principle.....Auburn or any other school that wants to send a message that it thinks coach's salaries are too high can make a statement by just deciding to pay all HCs less than the University president...…and just hire the people who will work for those salaries.  

Lots of Group of Five schools pay their head football coach less than most of our lower level assistants make......Last I saw, the coach at Jax State had a package of about $250K....no reason we can't do the same if we want to ratchet back the sky high salaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AU64 said:

If it is all about principle.....Auburn or any other school that wants to send a message that it thinks coach's salaries are too high can make a statement by just deciding to pay all HCs less than the University president...…and just hire the people who will work for those salaries.  

Lots of Group of Five schools pay their head football coach less than most of our lower level assistants make......Last I saw, the coach at Jax State had a package of about $250K....no reason we can't do the same if we want to ratchet back the sky high salaries. 

The only reason we can't do the same is because we are expected to compete and there are other schools who will pay the good coaches a lot more. Declaring that you are putting a ceiling on your coach's salary is just a less direct way of saying that you are no longer planning to compete at a meaningful level. The only way it works is if everyone agrees to do the same thing... and follows through.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

I haven't come up with anything, yet, beyond stranding all of the highest paid coaches on a dessert island.

Mmmmm.... a dessert island....

 

alive-the-incredible-story-of-one-shipwreck-survivor-yarpnews.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this