Leading the way in student-athlete welfare, USC will now offer four-year athletic scholarships in the revenue sports.

USC will offer four-year athletic scholarships to all scholarship student-athletes in the revenue sports of football and men's and women's basketball in lieu of the current practice of offering one-year renewable scholarships, USC athletic director Pat Haden announced Monday.

Haden said this policy will be effective July 1 for all current and future scholarship student-athletes in those sports.

"In taking this action, USC hopes to help lead the effort to refocus on student-athlete welfare on and off the field," Haden said.

I wonder if this is in regards to the judge's hints in the O'Bannon case that she wants to know about "less restrictive alternatives" for players receiving pay for using their name/image.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... rial-judge

I don't know how much their decision was based on the wellbeing of the students, vs an interior motive for USC, but regardless of the reasons, I'm glad to see this happen. Kinda of the dirty little secret of collage football that scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis. Never been fair for a kid to bust his ass, do everything the coaches want both on and off the field, but because he is a step slow, he could still lose his meal ticket.

I'll be in favor of this when ALL scholarship athletes, male and female, are awarded four-year rides. Otherwise it's not truly equitable.

The most frustrating part of the "paying athletes" debate is that so many people seem to be completely fine with the status quo.

There are tons of issues with the current system and this is one of them.

Schools can't cut scholarship players after each year if they want. But, players get punished if they want to transfer.

AppGrad78 wrote:I'll be in favor of this when ALL scholarship athletes, male and female, are awarded four-year rides. Otherwise it's not truly equitable.

Depends on how you define equitable.

Gonzo wrote:

AppGrad78 wrote:I'll be in favor of this when ALL scholarship athletes, male and female, are awarded four-year rides. Otherwise it's not truly equitable.

Depends on how you define equitable.

I'll define it for you - ALL (male and female) athletes should receive 4 year scholarships --- It certainly isn't the female soccer player or male wrestlers fault they don't participate in a "Revenue" sport ---

Offering one-year renewable scholarships for non-revenue sports concurrently with four-year rides for revenue sports doesn't really bother me. It's uncharted title-IV territory as far as I know, but I don't see anything unfair about offering the money makers extra incentives as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the other sports.

The soft-ball team at USC will carry on as it has for years.

Gonzo wrote:Offering one-year renewable scholarships for non-revenue sports concurrently with four-year rides for revenue sports doesn't really bother me. It's uncharted title-IV territory as far as I know, but I don't see anything unfair about offering the money makers extra incentives as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the other sports.

The soft-ball team at USC will carry on as it has for years.

Like they don't already have all the incentives.

hapapp wrote:

Gonzo wrote:Offering one-year renewable scholarships for non-revenue sports concurrently with four-year rides for revenue sports doesn't really bother me. It's uncharted title-IV territory as far as I know, but I don't see anything unfair about offering the money makers extra incentives as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the other sports.

The soft-ball team at USC will carry on as it has for years.

Like they don't already have all the incentives.

They certainly do, but I'm not one to cry foul about it. There are more incentives to go to medical school than to become a plumber.

It would be interesting to see how many players (in good standing) don't have their scholarships renewed each year. I'm sure it increases during years a team has a coaching change, but I really doubt it is a major problem for most players. I would imagine there will still be plenty of ways to void a 4 year ride for off field issues.

Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

Gonzo wrote:

hapapp wrote:

Gonzo wrote:Offering one-year renewable scholarships for non-revenue sports concurrently with four-year rides for revenue sports doesn't really bother me. It's uncharted title-IV territory as far as I know, but I don't see anything unfair about offering the money makers extra incentives as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the other sports.

The soft-ball team at USC will carry on as it has for years.

Like they don't already have all the incentives.

They certainly do, but I'm not one to cry foul about it. There are more incentives to go to medical school than to become a plumber.

And the relevance of that statement?

The Southern Cal baseball coach was on Sirius today. He does not want the guarantee for olympic sports. His reasoning was that they don't give full scholarships anyway and they vary the percentages from year to year depending upon the needs and the financial abilities of the players.

Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

I'm fairly sure FB, MBB and WBB are the only ones that have to sit. Also think they are the only ones that have to give full schollies.

huskie3 wrote:Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

I'm fairly sure FB, MBB and WBB are the only ones that have to sit. Also think they are the only ones that have to give full schollies.

I'm not certain if this has anything to do with anything, But all mentioned are head count sports. Women's Volleyball, women's tennis, and women's gymnastics are also head count sports (not sure if they have to sit out a year upon transferring), but I wonder if this will be where they eventually draw the line.

The others are called equivalency sports, where scholarships can be split among team members. Head count is one player, one full scholarship.

AppinVA wrote:

huskie3 wrote:Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

I'm fairly sure FB, MBB and WBB are the only ones that have to sit. Also think they are the only ones that have to give full schollies.

I'm not certain if this has anything to do with anything, But all mentioned are head count sports. Women's Volleyball, women's tennis, and women's gymnastics are also head count sports (not sure if they have to sit out a year upon transferring), but I wonder if this will be where they eventually draw the line.

The others are called equivalency sports, where scholarships can be split among team members. Head count is one player, one full scholarship.

So FCS football is considered an equivalency sport? They give out partials so that fits the definition of equivalency. Another reason to move when we did.

WVAPPeer wrote:

Gonzo wrote:

AppGrad78 wrote:I'll be in favor of this when ALL scholarship athletes, male and female, are awarded four-year rides. Otherwise it's not truly equitable.

Depends on how you define equitable.

I'll define it for you - ALL (male and female) athletes should receive 4 year scholarships --- It certainly isn't the female soccer player or male wrestlers fault they don't participate in a "Revenue" sport ---

Equitable can mean a lot of things. It might mean having the ability to negotiate the terms of your own contract based on the the value you actually bring to the table and the value the other side brings to the table. Its a fair rule that could apply everyone - meaning its equitable. And it certainly wouldn't guarantee that all football players get 4 year deals, nor would it guarantee that no soccer players get 4 year deals (though we can guess where most of the 4 year scholarships will go).

Someone else argued its not the non-revenue athletes fault that their sports aren't revenue sports. Its also not the janitor's fault that we pay the dean more money - even if the janitor is excellent and the dean is terrible. Now I'm not against artificially leveling the playing field for janitors through a high minimum wage, public benefits, etc. But the degree to which we're handicapping revenue generating athletes is totally unique in American society. Of course this system is likely to take a huge hit by year's end. News coming out of the O'Bannon trial doesn't sound good for the NCAA.

appst89 wrote:The Southern Cal baseball coach was on Sirius today. He does not want the guarantee for olympic sports. His reasoning was that they don't give full scholarships anyway and they vary the percentages from year to year depending upon the needs and the financial abilities of the players.

T

That's a fair point.

Non-revenue sport scholarship athletes sign NLI, which technically binds them to the school and could cause them to have to sit out a year if they transfer. In practice, schools will often grant a release to non-revenue sport athletes who transfer out. This enables the transferring athlete to compete without sitting out or losing a year of eligibility. The problem lies in the revenue sports, which require transfers to sit out a year and possibly lose a year of eligibility, while only offering one-year renewable scholarships. NLI system is highly one sided in favor of the schools and one of many reasons the NCAA finds themselves in such a precarious position, a position that is increasingly hard to defend.

How are we handicapping revenue generating athletes?