I read in the camera that the PAC 12 has voted in favor of allowing schools to offer a 4-year schollie commitment rather than the single year, re-up system that is currently in place...thoughts?
Last edited:
I don't think it will make any significant difference in most cases as long as the school maintains the integrity to keep honoring schollies for kids who maintain reasonable standards.
CU has carried a significant number of players on the roster who never worked out and contributed on the field as expected but continued to be solid teammates and performed in the classroom.
This change is I think more of a poke at schools who might have the SEC-like cut em' and replace em' mentality about non-performing schollies.
What I do like about the renewables is that if a kid becomes an attitude problem or is continually on the fringes of stuff that could embarrass the program you can get rid of him before he becomes a headline or contaminates your locker room. With the 4-year this is much harder to clean up and the coaches have less control.
We should offer them.
May as well get ahead of the game.
It really changes nothing regarding disciplinary reasons for pulling a scholarship. What it changes is programs that missed on a guy who isn't good enough and then decide not to renew the scholarship in order to make room for someone else.
This is college, not pro. You sign a kid and he does the work he should stay on scholarship.
I understand trying to fix the "fired for not being good enough" aspect of 4 yr scholly. The rule seems to protect the university from the player that fails academically or behavior issues. But, is the university protected from the player that (regardless of skill) does the work academically, but does not put forth effort on the practice or game field? I am speaking of a kid that receives an athletic scholarship and basically turns it into an academic scholarship by not performing his athletic responsibilities.
I read in the camera that the PAC 12 has voted in favor of allowing schools to offer a 4-year schollie commitment rather than the single year, re-up system that is currently in place...thoughts?
I finally got around to reading the article. Funny how Ringo lists all of the reasons DiStefano voted against the proposal, but then just declares it bad for CU at the end. He's entitled to his opinion, but his only logic was other schools are doing it. I don't really buy that. I also think even schools that do offer multi-year will offer one year at a time to guys with injuries.
Anyone responsible for the decission to extend Hawkins for a fifth season probably doesn't have the most reliable opinion.
I'd lean towards whatever peers in the conference are doing.
it would seem that the current staff has been ahead of the curve in terms of evaluating talent. Cu was first, or close to first to offer several kids last cycle and is already putting offers out there for next cycle. Once scout,rivals, 24/7,espn start grading athletes, then many of these kids will get more attention and offers.
That being said, multiyear scholies favor the schools that hit on their evaluations. If the sec doesn't want to honor multiyear schollies because they can't evaluate talent (i.e. Rely on recruiting services), pac12 may start attracting that talent because those sign and cut practices can be exploited in recruiting.
I think there would always be the ability to cut players off for off the field behavior, grades, drugs, etc.
Okay, but did you read the article? He's quoting all groups he talked with, faculty, coaches and even the players, all of whom did not want multiple year scholarships. It's not a one off DiStefano decision. The players want to be pushed to work for each year's scholarship, and they want to know the guy next to them has to do the same. I'm going with the players on this one.