College Needs A Rule Change For Verbals

[Scooch]

You know what?

that.

You want to bind a 17 or 18 year old kid to a decision, then you better damn well bind every friggin' coach and every friggin' athletic director and every friggin' college President to the same terms.

Schiano wants to leave Rutgers for Tampa? NO. Honor your contract.

Darryl Gross wants to leave USC for SU? NO. Honor your contract.

Nancy Cantor wants to leave Illinois for SU. NO. Honor your contract.

 

[Orangepace]

Too many holes...

1) truthfully, making a verbal commitment binding would be darn near impossible. Rarely holds up in court now, let alone the ensuing finger pointing this would cause.
2) outside of the top 10 or so schools, the lower level schools wouldn't see a commitment until just prior to signing day.. this would actually be more costly to schools than a flipped commitment, because you now have to wait and keep spending those dollars to visit recruits who won't show their hands.
3) $1M for recruiting an already recruited kid? How could this ever be justified? How did you come up with such an arbitrary $? I would fathom a bet that our recruiting budget for the year isn't $25M, so not sure how it would be justified to have such a substantial penalty.
4) Truthfully, yanking the final year of a scholly because a potential student changed schools is assinine. First, how is giving a student a 3-yr scholly appropriate? That's like a used car salesman selling you lemon.. it will get you 75% of your way to work every morning. The other 25%, you can just figure out some sort of other transit. Schollies right now are only year by year, so this would just penalize these kids from being able to successfully complete their degree.

 

[bnoro]

6 figures... It's called a scholarship.

Ah that's right. A school like Texas makes a billion dollars off athletes while giving them a scholarship that adds up to 100K. Seems fair.

 

[mantonio]

You know what?

**** that.

You want to bind a 17 or 18 year old kid to a decision, then you better damn well bind every friggin' coach and every friggin' athletic director and every friggin' college President to the same terms.

Schiano wants to leave Rutgers for Tampa? NO. Honor your contract.

Darryl Gross wants to leave USC for SU? NO. Honor your contract.

Nancy Cantor wants to leave Illinois for SU. NO. Honor your contract.

I agree with your assessment. Coaches should be held to their contracts, or they should face stiff financial penalties for breach. I could make an exception if the circumstances were beyond repair between the coach & the University.

In many other industries, you can't simply breach a contract without severe penalties, so why does a coach get special treatment?

 

[mantonio]

Ah that's right. A school like Texas makes a billion dollars off athletes while giving them a scholarship that adds up to 100K. Seems fair.

I'm not saying we can't come up with an auxiliary compensation system for the kids, but it can't be outrageous. Maybe a stipend for basic living needs , but certainly not a professional salary.

 

[mantonio]

If kids weren't badgered so early in the process to give their "commitment" maybe they wouldn't change their mind so often. The kid is locked in when he signs his letter of intent. Your rule change would simply be the same as changing signing day. How would you propose to validate this oral commitment? Would they have to put it in writing? Oh wait, that's a letter of intent. In regards to "Maybe we just get rid of verbal commitments altogether, if it really has no meaning in it's current format", they never had meaning! It is a term the media came up with and they have never been anything official, that is why they are called non-binding. I know fans think that this process is all about us, but we need to remember it's not.

Wrong. It IS mainly about us, because the fans give these kids their scholarship money. Without a fanbase, a very small percentage of these kids would be going to college at all. WE give them their shot at a future like no other opportunity.

 

[bnoro]

Wrong. It IS mainly about us, because the fans give these kids their scholarship money. Without a fanbase, a very small percentage of these kids would be going to college at all. WE give them their shot at a future like no other opportunity.

You are delusional beyond belief if you think that the fans money goes towards scholarships.

 

[mantonio]

You are delusional beyond belief if you think that the fans money goes towards scholarships.

So, you are saying a University could afford to give away all those scholarships if there were no fans buying tickets to games & watching on television?

Then there's the merchandise...

 

[sufandu]

Wrong. It IS mainly about us, because the fans give these kids their scholarship money. Without a fanbase, a very small percentage of these kids would be going to college at all. WE give them their shot at a future like no other opportunity.

Really? So scholarships didn't exist before signing day was covered like it was the superbowl? Scholarships don't exist for non-revenue sports?

Has college football and basketball become big business? Absolutely! That doesn't mean some kid has to make a decision to make you feel better. He made his decision within the rules. Those same rules allow coaches to pull a scholarship offer right up until a LOI is received, and even then they can cut the kid without having to give reason whenever they want to. Remember when coach P back in the day would say the numbers would always work themselves out and then a kid would conveniently transfer? How many of those kids do you think initiated those transfers? Not many. That happens everywhere.

You can't make a verbal commitment binding anymore than a car dealer can make you purchase a car because you told the him you would. If you want to change the rule, allow the kids to sign a LOI at any point after December 31 of their Junior year. If you do that however, the school would also be required to commit to the player for at least one season. What you would then see is much more judiciousness taken in scholarship offers because teams wouldn't want a kid taking a slot that they had wanted for someone else. Accountability would then exist for both school and athlete.

 

[bnoro]

So, you are saying a University could afford to give away all those scholarships if there were no fans buying tickets to games & watching on television?

Then there's the merchandise...

Yes, I am on a scholarship from Syracuse and no one is buying tickets or watching me on television (i hope).

The merchandise is the biggest bullsh!t out of everything. They use a players' number to make exorbitant amounts of money. The players should, if anything, get a portion of money for the gear they sell.

 

[mantonio]

Yes, I am on a scholarship from Syracuse and no one is buying tickets or watching me on television (i hope).

The merchandise is the biggest bullsh!t out of everything. They use a players' number to make exorbitant amounts of money. The players should, if anything, get a portion of money for the gear they sell.

Again, I am in favor of some monetary compensation for the athletes, within reason. But realistically, those student athletes would never get a scholarship if no one watched sports & followed the team. The money flows from fans...

 

[bnoro]

Again, I am in favor of some monetary compensation for the athletes, within reason. But realistically, those student athletes would never get a scholarship if no one watched sports & followed the team. The money flows from fans...

How do you know this? Maybe if they knew they couldn't get a scholarship from sports they would apply themselves in school and earn scholarships. Sure, some wouldn't ever be able to get in, but some would absolutely. Dontez Ford, for example would definitely get an academic scholarship here for over 20,000 a year.

 

[Scooch]

Again, I am in favor of some monetary compensation for the athletes, within reason. But realistically, those student athletes would never get a scholarship if no one watched sports & followed the team. The money flows from fans...

Absolutely. The TV money that just POURS in is the lifeblood of women's field hockey and men's crew.

 

[dollarbill44]

Yes, I am on a scholarship from Syracuse and no one is buying tickets or watching me on television (i hope).

The merchandise is the biggest bullsh!t out of everything. They use a players' number to make exorbitant amounts of money. The players should, if anything, get a portion of money for the gear they sell.

The problem with giving players merchandise royalties is enforcing the amounts paid. It's a pandora's box and if you think the playing field is sloped in favor of the big programs now, it will be a hundred times worse if this happens. Every player will want to go to the programs with the most fans because they will get the highest royalties from merchandise.

 

[SmilinBob]

Absolutely. The TV money that just POURS in is the lifeblood of women's field hockey and men's crew.

I don't agree with what he said about athletes getting paid but if the schools are not getting TV dollars plus fans dollars for games and such there might be as many sports for athletes to play.

 

[Scooch]

I don't agree with what he said about athletes getting paid but if the schools are not getting TV dollars plus fans dollars for games and such there might be as many sports for athletes to play.

Well, one might argue that if school's didn't have the massive expenses of state-of-the-art facilities, gigantic stadiums/arenas, and travel to far-flung opponents, then they could offer even more sports.