NCAA Changes
Although most of the attention focused on a stipend increase of $2,000, what is more significant to schools like USC is a measure that allows scholarships to be awarded for multiple years.
For example, USC could offer a recruit a regular scholarship and then Notre Dame offers the same player a multi-year scholarship. It might be harder for USC to offer a scholarship for more than one year with only 15 per season the next three years.
I always find it odd how Scott always takes the negative slant for USC while missing the more important issue with this decision by the NCAA and that is with the awarding of multi-year scholarships the premium for programs will be on the accurate evaluation of talent. So while Scott points to the potential negatives for USC by not awarding a multi-year with sanctions, it plainly is a risk for a program that awards a multi-year to a recruiting bust.
Imagine giving a multi-year to Whitney Lewis! You'll find most coaches won't want to give multi-years for that very reason. Scott should be focusing on the issue of how good Kiffin and staff's talent evaluation has been over the last two years and more importantly what this means for JC transfers who will have more of a track record to evaluate talent on.
Unfortunately Scott just goes for a negative without really analyzing the implications that I'm sure other writers and analysts will delve into.
To my knowledge, USC hasn't pulled a scholarship in decades. The players who see the field will stay. Of the ones who don't, some will transfer, like they always have. I'd be shocked if USC doesn't extend a multiyear scholarship to any player that the coaching staf really wants, and I'd be equally shocked if any player who receives a multiyear scholarship gives that status any great consideration if they decided that they'd rather pursue the chance for more playing time elsewhere.
Globe Hop, if you want happy news, why don't you go to the happy news sites? I like it that Scott gives us worst case scenarios instead of sunshine pumping. My concern is that in this of limits and Title IX, where is the additional $2000 per athlete per year going to come from?
JAG: I think you're right. The multi-year scholarship actually should help a school like USC, at least in the long run, since USC never pulls schollarships for academic performance. Guys who do get booted usually do so for academic or disciplinary reasons, no? A year ago the discussion was all about how schools like USC and the Big Ten schools (and I'm sure the rest of the P12 too) never take scholarships away but the SEC and B12 schools do it all the time. This actually helps the more high-minded schools vis-a-vis the cutthroat schools. I'm much more sceptical of the 2k stipend. What's that all about?
wouldn't the multi-year scholarships help private(higher-priced) and more academically prestigious universities? better value. for the athletes that attend college just for football it wouldn't matter as much - it's still just the quality of the football program itself. this multi-year scholarship would seem to assist stanford, nd and USC for example.
GoTroy - Scooter doesn't GIVE us the worst case scenario, he IS our worst case scenario.
I agree with Jersey that this could/will hurt the SEC the most. You can bet old Les Miles and Nick Saban (not to mention the soon-to-be-fired Houston Nutt) are none too happy about this. Those guys make a living off over signing, gray shirting, stashing players in JCs, and yes, letting go of under-performing players before their four years are up. Programs like USC that honor their committment to every player can only be helped by this turn of events. Of course, the players themselves (those who are smart enough to hold out for the full four year pact) will be helped the most. They will have nobody else to blame but themselves if guys like Miles and Saban run them off before their time is up.
FIGHT ON!