USC to offer 4 year scholarships

[BoulderSooner79]

Very interesting move. On the surface, I don't see the motivation behind this as USC has never had a problem recruiting (in football, at least). And it seems anti-Bama as it makes it harder for the coach to run off players that don't progress to the college level of play. Perhaps this is in response to the player pay issue?

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/usc-trojans-four-year-scholarships-revenue-sports-062314

[Jacie]

Regardless of the reason, I like it.

It is just one school and just one step but it transfers a little bit of power back to the student-athlete. While they can still choose to cut and run, the school will uphold it's end of the bargain.

As for Bama and other schools that oversign, it will take a lot more than just USC to buy into this before they feel any pressure to follow suit but I would support OUr school should it decide to go this route.

[badger]

I'd endorse 3-year scholarships in football, since that's the first year students can opt to go pro. This is also around the time students choose to transfer without penalty to pursue a master's program (or whatever fangled excuse the Russell Wilsons and Jeremiah Masolis of college football use), so there's that too. If students or coaches choose to stay with the program longer, then make it renewable on a yearly basis

[BoulderSooner79]

Regardless of the reason, I like it.

It is just one school and just one step but it transfers a little bit of power back to the student-athlete. While they can still choose to cut and run, the school will uphold it's end of the bargain.

As for Bama and other schools that oversign, it will take a lot more than just USC to buy into this before they feel any pressure to follow suit but I would support OUr school should it decide to go this route.

Agreed that it will take more than one school to have much impact, but the fact it is USC is a lot more clout than say, Northwestern. Maybe this is in response to OU getting a few top players out of their back yard! (Heh)

[jkjsooner]

I like it. For starters, if a schools is really about education then they should do this no matter what. Secondly, it could be an incentive for a few players to pick USC. I think that latter is the exception as most guys out of high school never even consider the fact that they could possibly lose their scholarship and saying, "If you end up sucking we'll still honor your scholarship," is not a way to approach a potential recruit.

[8timechamps]

Very interesting move. On the surface, I don't see the motivation behind this as USC has never had a problem recruiting (in football, at least). And it seems anti-Bama as it makes it harder for the coach to run off players that don't progress to the college level of play. Perhaps this is in response to the player pay issue?

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/usc-trojans-four-year-scholarships-revenue-sports-062314


I believe the motivation is to voluntarily do what is eventually going to be mandated. This is going to be a change brought on by the recent lawsuits/unionization atmosphere. I think USC did it so that when it is mandated, they can say "we did this before it was a rule". Just a little positive PR.

[BoulderSooner79]

I like it. For starters, if a schools is really about education then they should do this no matter what. Secondly, it could be an incentive for a few players to pick USC. I think that latter is the exception as most guys out of high school never even consider the fact that they could possibly lose their scholarship and saying, "If you end up sucking we'll still honor your scholarship," is not a way to approach a potential recruit.

Agreed; the top players have egos the size of hot air balloons and they all think they will start day one. And then, after 3 years as All-Americans, they will be 1st round NFL picks.
So I think this is a much more strategic decision and may to ward off the play-for-pay movement. This certainly does increase the perceived value of a scholarship - especially at a private $50k/year school like USC.

[Eielson]

I like it. Saban will probably try to outlaw it along with the hurry up offense.

[BoulderSooner79]

I like it. Saban will probably try to outlaw it along with the hurry up offense.

He'll certainly outlaw it at 'Bama. :friendly_wink:

[olevetonahill]

Riddle me this. How will this affect the 85 scholly rule?

[BoulderSooner79]

Riddle me this. How will this affect the 85 scholly rule?

I don't see that it will as this is just one school setting it's own policy. It will complicate the juggling for USC, but they should still have the same rules. I'm sure they will still be able to revoke scholarships "for cause" (failing academics, violating rules). Still have medical conversions for injuries, etc. About the only thing they can't do is revoke a scholly because a kid isn't good enough and they want it back for a new recruit. If a player is content being buried in the depth chart and working to get his degree, he'll be able to do it. That seems to be the case at OU anyway, but you never know what goes on in Stoops' office.

[picasso]

What about the Onepete single year scholly. They still have that?

[OUmillenium]

I like it. Saban will probably try to outlaw it along with the hurry up offense.

Bingo (Eddie)

[CatfishSooner]

I like the move...

[Ton Loc]

I believe the motivation is to voluntarily do what is eventually going to be mandated. This is going to be a change brought on by the recent lawsuits/unionization atmosphere. I think USC did it so that when it is mandated, they can say "we did this before it was a rule". Just a little positive PR.

They're just getting out in front. Not a bad idea by them. Glad the rest of their ideas are crap - i.e. their hiring decisions.

[badger]

Riddle me this. How will this affect the 85 scholly rule?

Programs always have attrition. Unless you also hold the players to 4 (or 3 if you like my idea) year commitments, players will transfer for more playing time, personal reasons (remember Tashard Choice?), academic fallout, etc.

The problem is that the more loopholes you have in the 4 (I prefer 3!) year commitment, the more coaches will abuse it. That's how former Ole Miss coach Houston Nutt had a recruiting class of 37 back in 2009 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sec/2011-02-03-mississippi-nutt-oversigning_N.htm) (then was fired for losing too much, yes). If you don't have strict scholarship rules, coaches will bend the rules till they break.

Can't fault the morons too much. The schools are equally stupid for hiring some of these bozos for millions when you know the only thing they're committed to is money.