NCAA Announces Major Rule Changes, 109 Schools Oppose Player Payments

Alabama made national recruiting news Tuesday when Nick Saban said that the Tide would offer four-year scholarships to recruits. This was a surprising move to many, as ‘Bama coach Nick Saban was thought to be one of the staunchest in opposition to the practice, which recently survived an override vote:

Saban is a great recruiter. His Tide just took home another top recruiting class. He simply took stock of the situation and realized that not offering four-year scholarships could lead to negative recruiting against his Tide by teams offering the long-term deals, and changed course. It’s a smart move by the coach who is widely regarded as practicing the most extreme roster management.

So of course Nick Saban told Tide Sports that Bama and “our whole conference ... all the schools” will offer four-year scholarships. And not just do it, but be “happy to do it.” Onlookers are right to be surprised, as Alabama’s been the biggest target of oversigning rants due to its extremely creative recruiting practices. Yes, that’s about the nicest way to say that.

Which ... huh. This changes things, it would seem.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the breakdown, much of it quite disappointing. However, 205 votes was not enough to overturn the new policy.

When the NCAA announced teams would be able to bargain with recruits by offering multi-year scholarships instead of just one-year deals, the popular thinking was that it would offer an equalizer for smaller schools. While powers were unlikely to use them, a lesser program could compete for talent by laying out four-year scholarships.

Florida, like Georgia and Vanderbilt, has publicly come out against oversigning and oversigning-esque things, likely to the amusement of SEC East associate Steve Spurrier, a SEC Westly proponent of active roster management.

The BCS is looking at changing itself. And, for the first time in my life, I can say I feel sorta like Clark Gable.

Except I’m way past not giving a damn. I’m now infuriated by the selfish, borderline sociopathic mentality that makes anyone think changing the postseason should be anywhere near the top of anyone’s college athletics to-do list. If the NCAA is run by two-legged, Orwellian pigs, playoffs and plus-ones would be their bicycles.

The system, the big one, is broken. By comparison, the BCS is simply unpopular.

Coaches already have an unhealthy amount of control. Rogue boosters and shady agents are the invisible hands guiding an underground personnel market not terribly unlike human trafficking. Academic legitimacy is clearly incompatible with the demands, on all parties, of big-time college football. And, in futile defiance of economic theory, common sense and human decency, the market wage for coveted talent remains depressed to an education too many players are incapable of redeeming.

But, if everyone puts their heads together, we can come up with a playoff system that can only drive up the stakes and make things worse!

You knew the NCAA’s decision to allow member schools to pay athletes up to $2,000 in addition to scholarships and cost of living expenses would be divisive. Power conferences like the SEC and Big Ten have called for the change, while smaller schools and especially academics-centered (there’s not a nice way to say “insufficiently sports-crazed”) have plenty of cause to object.

And object they have -- 109 of them, according to a document that lists dissenters (ht SEC blog Team Speed Kills) and comments from many of them. The doc also lists objectors to other NCAA movements, with Prairie View A&M showing up all over the place. The Panthers have had it.

The NCAA has delayed a plan to give athletes a $2,000 stipend after small schools pushed back. Meanwhile...

↵

That new NCAA rule allowing schools to pay athletes up to $2,000 more per year? Great for the big programs, since it will help in recruiting, but an extra challenge for the little guys.

↵Except for just about the littlest guy of all, apparently:

According to Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith, only “60-70%“ of the 347 Division 1 schools would be able to afford the cost of paying student-athletes $2,000 under NCAA President Mark Emmert’s new proposal.

Under the proposal, conferences will have the option to participate or not. So colleges are not required to take advantage of the rule change.

It’s not going to be easy for some people to digest the news that the NCAA just said schools will soon be allowed to pay their players up to $2,000 a year in addition to their scholarships.

For some, it sounds like part of a reform long past due. Others are going to wail about broken innocence and the student-athlete getting a small* amount of money. Nevermind that the NCAA invented the term “student-athlete” in the first place.

The nuts-and-bolts details of the new rule:

UConn’s APR last time around was 893.

The NCAA announced a trio of major rule changes Thursday, springing from a series of summer rule recommendations. They’re all going to impact college sports significantly, but the one likely to draw the most attention is the part about PAYING STUDENT-ATHLETES CASH PAPER:

Schools will essentially have the option to pay their players up to $2,000 in addition to their scholarships. Power conferences like the Big Ten and SEC have lobbied for this change, since their schools have the money to throw around $2,000 like it’s nothing.

The war over the soul of college athletics has quieted down over the past few weeks, but on Monday, more than 300 college athletes--from UCLA, Kentucky, Purdue, Arizona, and more--signed a petition demanding a cut of television revenues from college sports.

From the AP:

But that’s just a meaningless petition.

Since last week, dozens and dozens of college athletes have been petitioning the NCAA for cuts of television contracts, according to an AP report released Monday. No word yet on what the petition looks like, but ... whoa! This might be the first time current student-athletes players have made their stance known en masse, though former players have grumbled in groups before.

From the Associated Press:

The NCAA’s plan to raise minimum academic progress rate scores from 900 to 930 would severely limit the number of basketball teams that could enter the NCAA Tournament, based on the scores turned in last year. The SWAC, for one, would have had only one tourney-eligible team. Other tournament-based sports would also see their available pool of competitors diminished.

Did you know Division I football gets to be included too? FCS teams play in a tournament, so of course they’re in, but even FBS’ bowl system, despite being totally meaningless, is subject to the new standard as well, per the NCAA’s official release.

NCAA president Mark Emmert told ESPN Radio host Scott Van Pelt on Thursday that the association’s Division-I Board of Directors has approved a plan to institute a minimum academic standard for teams participating in the NCAA Tournament, with roll-out expected by 2016, according to The Bylaw Blog. Teams falling under a 930 on the Academic Progress Rate would apparently being barred from the next NCAA Tournament.

The NCAA already has penalties for poor APR scores; most notably, UConn basketball was dinged two scholarships for the 2011-12 season for posting a low APR score. APR is a measure of player academic eligibility and retention.