will this help us?

[preacher_dawg]

I haven't had a chance to read it all, but just wanted everybody's opinion: www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/...new-scholarship-concussion-proposals-autonomy

 

[amcdan2000]

Hurt us. No way we can keep up. Might as well give 20,000$ car washing jobs that Bama used to have.

 

[patdog]

The only significant proposal passed was the 4-year scholarship rule that says scholarships can't be cancelled due to on-field performance. Who's going to decide if off-field issues are significant enough to drop a player? Can you keep a player on scholarship but make him inactive where he wouldn't count against the 85-man limit?

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

I think schools should be allowed to drop a player from the team but still have to give them tuition, room and board and not count against the 85, or let them transfer without sitting out. I know this could lead to some gaming of the system, but it's only fair. I'm cool with guaranteeing four years of school.

 

[MedDawg]

It should hurt the schools that 'process' players and help those with

I haven't had a chance to read it all, but just wanted everybody's opinion: www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2015-01-17/power-5-ncaa-schools-vote-new-scholarship-concussion-proposals-autonomy

low attrition. Schools that are used to taking in a lot of players and getting rid of the underperformers won't be able to (legally) do that anymore. Schools that keep players and develop them will benefit.

Under Mullen, we were one of the lowest attrition schools anywhere up until a year or so ago. We're still probably one of the lower attrition schools and will develop players over 3-5 years.

Recruiting players with good character/attitude will be more important if you have to keep them for four years.


Of course, schools will still find ways around it, and if a coach simply tells a player that he won't play anymore and that the coach will find him another school to transfer to, then most players will take him up on it.

 

[Dogariffic]

Yes to this x 1000.
QUOTE=MedDawg;1085520]low attrition. Schools that are used to taking in a lot of players and getting rid of the underperformers won't be able to (legally) do that anymore. Schools that keep players and develop them will benefit.

Under Mullen, we were one of the lowest attrition schools anywhere up until a year or so ago. We're still probably one of the lower attrition schools and will develop players over 3-5 years.

Recruiting players with good character/attitude will be more important if you have to keep them for four years.


Of course, schools will still find ways around it, and if a coach simply tells a player that he won't play anymore and that the coach will find him another school to transfer to, then most players will take him up on it.[/QUOTE]