|
Post by jackedup on Feb 2, 2012 21:05:10 GMT -6
Our QB signed with JMU. Our first D1 (FCS) ever at our school.
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Feb 2, 2012 21:46:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Feb 3, 2012 9:17:28 GMT -6
scholarships had always been 4 yr deals then it was changed by schools largely in the south. florida st and the U were the first school to engage in over singing and thus started to treat scholarships as 6moth to 1 yr deals. the big ten also has rules in place when it comes to over singing. the max you can sign is 25 players unless you can show considerable amount of transfers. the u of minnesota signed 31 kids because during the coaching change they had many kids transfer or quit. Not sure if you are correct on this... Schollies have been 1 year renewable grant in aids as far as I can remember. I heard that both Auburn and Florida awarded 4 year scholarships this year.
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Feb 3, 2012 10:00:53 GMT -6
I think the other thing to remember is that plenty of kids will be having nice DIII careers. These kids usually make their decision after financial aid packages are rewarded
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2012 7:50:22 GMT -6
Not sure if you are correct on this... Schollies have been 1 year renewable grant in aids as far as I can remember. I heard that both Auburn and Florida awarded 4 year scholarships this year. Yes...as well as several big ten schools. I was referring to prior to this year.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 4, 2012 9:25:11 GMT -6
NCAA just changed the rule stating that schools can give 4 years if they wish. There were about 100 changes to the recruiting rules this year in regards to pay-for-play and scholarship lengths. Hopefully it will reduce the number of incidents in recruiting process.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2012 11:09:47 GMT -6
NCAA just changed the rule stating that schools can give 4 years if they wish. There were about 100 changes to the recruiting rules this year in regards to pay-for-play and scholarship lengths. Hopefully it will reduce the number of incidents in recruiting process. I am curious to see if any real change comes from this particular reform? Any of you guys have any players lose a scholarship for reasons OTHER than grades/ off field violations? Also, according to Brady Hoke, scholarships apparently WERE for 4 years a long time ago (I stand corrected above!) and there were some issues where players would no longer want to play football and still be on scholarship. Anyone know if there are provisions to regulate this? The "solution" for all the recruiting issues/violations in football/basketball is a simple one. Sadly it is not palatable socially or economically.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 4, 2012 14:01:02 GMT -6
NCAA just changed the rule stating that schools can give 4 years if they wish. There were about 100 changes to the recruiting rules this year in regards to pay-for-play and scholarship lengths. Hopefully it will reduce the number of incidents in recruiting process. I am curious to see if any real change comes from this particular reform? Any of you guys have any players lose a scholarship for reasons OTHER than grades/ off field violations? Also, according to Brady Hoke, scholarships apparently WERE for 4 years a long time ago (I stand corrected above!) and there were some issues where players would no longer want to play football and still be on scholarship. Anyone know if there are provisions to regulate this? The "solution" for all the recruiting issues/violations in football/basketball is a simple one. Sadly it is not palatable socially or economically. scholarships used to be 4 yrs up into the 1990s. I know joe paterno used to take those who no longer wanted to play and made them student managers and student assistant coaches. each could would have a student assistant or two to help him. I think scholarships should be 4 yr commitments. Ralph Nader has taken up the cause as well. I also think their should be 88 scholarships and team could bring in a max of 22 players per recruiting class unless they could prove kids transferred and they were not screwing anyone. I realize the SEC and ACC would oppose this.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2012 14:32:59 GMT -6
I am curious to see if any real change comes from this particular reform? Any of you guys have any players lose a scholarship for reasons OTHER than grades/ off field violations? Also, according to Brady Hoke, scholarships apparently WERE for 4 years a long time ago (I stand corrected above!) and there were some issues where players would no longer want to play football and still be on scholarship. Anyone know if there are provisions to regulate this? The "solution" for all the recruiting issues/violations in football/basketball is a simple one. Sadly it is not palatable socially or economically. scholarships used to be 4 yrs up into the 1990s. I know joe paterno used to take those who no longer wanted to play and made them student managers and student assistant coaches. each could would have a student assistant or two to help him. I think scholarships should be 4 yr commitments. Ralph Nader has taken up the cause as well. I also think their should be 88 scholarships and team could bring in a max of 22 players per recruiting class unless they could prove kids transferred and they were not screwing anyone. I realize the SEC and ACC would oppose this. Would be interesting to see what would happen with recruiting in football if the structure changed so that the first day you could recruit a kid, would also be the first day you could offer AND the player could accept a binding scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 4, 2012 14:53:52 GMT -6
scholarships used to be 4 yrs up into the 1990s. I know joe paterno used to take those who no longer wanted to play and made them student managers and student assistant coaches. each could would have a student assistant or two to help him. I think scholarships should be 4 yr commitments. Ralph Nader has taken up the cause as well. I also think their should be 88 scholarships and team could bring in a max of 22 players per recruiting class unless they could prove kids transferred and they were not screwing anyone. I realize the SEC and ACC would oppose this. Would be interesting to see what would happen with recruiting in football if the structure changed so that the first day you could recruit a kid, would also be the first day you could offer AND the player could accept a binding scholarship. Most D 1 coaches want a early signing period for football in June so a to be sr could sign with the school they want. it would solve all the back fighting. for example in the big ten it is a gentleman's agreement that you do not continue recruiting a kid that has verbally committed. other conferences are no holds bar. the college football bubble will eventually burst and changes will be made that is how it works.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 4, 2012 18:17:38 GMT -6
NCAA just changed the rule stating that schools can give 4 years if they wish. There were about 100 changes to the recruiting rules this year in regards to pay-for-play and scholarship lengths. Hopefully it will reduce the number of incidents in recruiting process. I am curious to see if any real change comes from this particular reform? Any of you guys have any players lose a scholarship for reasons OTHER than grades/ off field violations? Not before four years. We had a guy who wasn't asked back for his fifth year but he'd graduated.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 4, 2012 18:19:52 GMT -6
Would be interesting to see what would happen with recruiting in football if the structure changed so that the first day you could recruit a kid, would also be the first day you could offer AND the player could accept a binding scholarship. Most D 1 coaches want a early signing period for football in June so a to be sr could sign with the school they want. it would solve all the back fighting. for example in the big ten it is a gentleman's agreement that you do not continue recruiting a kid that has verbally committed. other conferences are no holds bar. the college football bubble will eventually burst and changes will be made that is how it works. I guess it depends how you define "continue recruiting" because I've seen numerous kids decommit from one Big 10 school and sign with another.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Feb 4, 2012 19:25:18 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 8:25:39 GMT -6
I actually think an early signing period would be bad for the kids, though. There would be a lot of cases where a kid would sign with a school only to then have his coach fired a few months later. I know, I know: kids should pick a school regardless of coach, but we all know that HC is a big reason why kids pick certain schools and programs.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Feb 5, 2012 9:03:42 GMT -6
I had our three-time MVP ask if he could still walk on if he hadn't signed on Signing Day. It was hard not to chuckle a bit on the inside and I love the kid. I've been working with him for over a year now trying to clarify his future plans. He is not D II material and we talked about if he went that route that playing time would probably be minimal even late in his career if at all. The D II programs in Michigan are some of the best in the nation and they recruit from all over the country.
He wants to be able to get on the field so I suggested D III as a more appropriate option for him. However, I also told him that the level that he would be able to compete at the most would have the highest academic standards of any of the places he could apply to. Anyway, he appears to be D III bound if he decides he wants to spend his summer in the classroom.
He applied and was accepted to one D III school but on the stipulation that he would attend summer classes on the campus and not score lower than a C+ in any of them. If he does, then he would qualify to attend the college in the fall and obviously report to camp. I played D III and obviously I knew that if you're accepted you just stay in touch with the coaches and report to camp in August as a freshman. I know I told him that is how it works with D III because there are NO athletic scholarships.
So I was just a bit taken aback when he asked me about signing day. Sometimes no matter how informed you attempt to make kids, they are still ignorant about the process of pursuing athletics at the next level. I blame ESPN and recruiting websites for this $hit. High school games on tv and Signing Day Specials combined with the recruiting websites that anybody can register with, create kids that feel compelled to include themselves with the 4 and 5 star recruits. This results in my best player who will be going D III at best to ask me about signing a letter of intent :/
I think he wants to play but he's wrestling right now so he's not thinking about it that much. Plus, he's got a girlfriend who I'm wondering just how much she'll influence where he goes...you know the drill, if its not going to school at the same school it may be going to one that's right nearby which would eliminate his opportunity to play ball because where she's going is nowhere near the place where he could play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 9:28:32 GMT -6
I don't know if any schools do this in your area, Coach, but I've seen high schools invite media members to view one of their kids "signing" with a D3 school. Honestly, I think it's a good thing for the schools and player involved--positive publicity and much smaller scale than D1 signing day--but it definitely creates a misconception about how D3 works.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 5, 2012 13:01:10 GMT -6
I am curious to see if any real change comes from this particular reform? Any of you guys have any players lose a scholarship for reasons OTHER than grades/ off field violations? Not before four years. We had a guy who wasn't asked back for his fifth year but he'd graduated. That has been my experience as well. Haven't really heard about this "forcing" out of the lesser athletes.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 5, 2012 19:53:44 GMT -6
I actually think an early signing period would be bad for the kids, though. There would be a lot of cases where a kid would sign with a school only to then have his coach fired a few months later. I know, I know: kids should pick a school regardless of coach, but we all know that HC is a big reason why kids pick certain schools and programs. This is true. Any more ideas why an early period, or just an outright OPEN period like I mentioned earlier (first day you can recruit, you can sign a binding commit) would not be a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by oguru on Feb 5, 2012 21:47:46 GMT -6
it would solve all the back fighting. for example in the big ten it is a gentleman's agreement that you do not continue recruiting a kid that has verbally committed. other conferences are no holds bar. the college football bubble will eventually burst and changes will be made that is how it works. [/quote]
It looks like that gentleman's agreement has gone out the window with the arrival of Urban Meyer he stole three kids from penn state one from michigan state and one from Wisconsin.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Feb 6, 2012 12:04:10 GMT -6
I don't know if any schools do this in your area, Coach, but I've seen high schools invite media members to view one of their kids "signing" with a D3 school. Honestly, I think it's a good thing for the schools and player involved--positive publicity and much smaller scale than D1 signing day--but it definitely creates a misconception about how D3 works. Yeah this is a bit of a catch 22. I believe this is a situation where accurately representing the process for the prospective DIII recruit is more important than having a day to create a buzz for your high school program. If you have a kid who goes DII or higher or gets a scholarship to an NAIA school then by all means, have the press conference where he puts on the school's hat and signs a letter of intent. But if its for a DIII school, scrap the press conference, throw out the fake letter of intent, and nevermind the hat. Just put an article in the newspaper and call it good. That'll create some buzz for the program and still keep the DIII process intact. Now mind you, this is coming from a former DIII player. But bottom line...there are no athletic scholarships at the DIII level. Having any letter of intent process for that level is simply a farce.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 6, 2012 12:31:10 GMT -6
I don't know if any schools do this in your area, Coach, but I've seen high schools invite media members to view one of their kids "signing" with a D3 school. Honestly, I think it's a good thing for the schools and player involved--positive publicity and much smaller scale than D1 signing day--but it definitely creates a misconception about how D3 works. Yeah this is a bit of a catch 22. I believe this is a situation where accurately representing the process for the prospective DIII recruit is more important than have a day to create a buzz for the program. If you have a kid who goes DII or higher or gets a scholarship to an NAIA school then by all means, have the press conference where he puts on the school's hat and signs a letter of intent. But if its for a DIII school, scrap the press conference, throw out the fake letter of intent, and nevermind the hat. Just put an article in the newspaper and call it good. That'll create some buzz for the program and still keep the DIII process intact. Now mind you, this is coming from a former DIII player. But bottom line...there are no athletic scholarships at the DIII level. Having any letter of intent process for that level is simply a farce. I agree with this but I do think that it's OK to include a D.3 kid in a press conference if there are other kids who are signing scholarships. No reason not to let them get some share of the glory.
|
|
|
Post by bigm0073 on Feb 6, 2012 12:37:38 GMT -6
I have 3 D-III kids too... Problem is they are still doing their visits... Most will not be done until another two - three weeks. They really have not committed and will not until their aid packages and academic scholarship packages come through..
To be honest a lot of the D-II schools around here really do not have the money to offer FULL scholarships (many have less then 20 ) and many do not decide until later this month into March when the D-IA and I-AA slips fall through the cracks.
The D-IA and IAA yeah... The D-II and NAIA programs around here really are waiting for the leftovers and many do not announce their signing class until well into March...
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Feb 6, 2012 13:32:52 GMT -6
I have 3 D-III kids too... Problem is they are still doing their visits... Most will not be done until another two - three weeks. They really have not committed and will not until their aid packages and academic scholarship packages come through.. To be honest a lot of the D-II schools around here really do not have the money to offer FULL scholarships (many have less then 20 ) and many do not decide until later this month into March when the D-IA and I-AA slips fall through the cracks. The D-IA and IAA yeah... The D-II and NAIA programs around here really are waiting for the leftovers and many do not announce their signing class until well into March... BigM: Do you do anything for your DIII kids?
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Feb 6, 2012 14:14:14 GMT -6
I agree with this but I do think that it's OK to include a D.3 kid in a press conference if there are other kids who are signing scholarships. No reason not to let them get some share of the glory. I think if a kid is concerned at all about the glamorous part of college football like signing day, then he probably shouldn't opt for the DIII level. When I reported to camp as a freshman we had around 120 guys on the roster. I was assigned number 22b (as in there was somebody with 22 already) and I shared a locker with another freshman. I ended up getting my own number when a kid quit after two weeks or so. I kept it the rest of my career. Oh yeah, I got his locker too. Sometimes the absence of the glamour aspect makes way for the real glory like lettering all four years, starting, and being a part of a conference championship team. I didn't have a press conference but I didn't feel any less able to play at the next level. I think not having those glamorous parts was a positive because it kept my humility at a necessary level. Maybe I would've had the press conference, reported to camp feeling more confident about my ability than I should have, and then quit because I wasn't being treated well with my "b" number and shared locker. I cannot imagine having been at the small, private school I chose and not playing football. DIII schools are so small and everybody belongs to some team, group, or organization. So I probably would've transferred. Who knows? Certainly wouldn't have gone Greek. No offense to the Greek coaches on here. It just wasn't for me. I could be totally off base here. But the thing that I valued the most about my DIII experience was how pure it was. Because of the level of football and obviously the environment my head coach, coordinators, and position coaches created, there was no preferential treatment. If you worked hard you at least had a chance to compete for the opportunity to contribute on the field in some way be it offense, defense, or special teams. I believe that purity should extend into that time preceding a prospective DIII recruit's freshman year. They'll be better off that way if they decide to go the DIII route...trust me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 14:27:54 GMT -6
I totally get what you're saying, but I'll also say that if the kid is expressing a desire to play at the D3 level, he also has the positive attributes you mention and those won't be ruined by one press conference.
BTW, I'm probably using that term too loosely. The d3 "press conferences" I've seen consist of the kid saying, "I've decided to play college football at this d3 school...", a few people clap, and then maybe a local newspaper reporter has a few questions. If "glamour" is the issue, there's probably more associated with postgame interviews than the D3 pressers I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Feb 6, 2012 14:32:22 GMT -6
I agree with this but I do think that it's OK to include a D.3 kid in a press conference if there are other kids who are signing scholarships. No reason not to let them get some share of the glory. I think if a kid is concerned at all about the glamorous part of college football like signing day, then he probably shouldn't opt for the DIII level. When I reported to camp as a freshman we had around 120 guys on the roster. I was assigned number 22b (as in there was somebody with 22 already) and I shared a locker with another freshman. I ended up getting my own number when a kid quit after two weeks or so. I kept it the rest of my career. Oh yeah, I got his locker too. Sometimes the absence of the glamour aspect makes way for the real glory like lettering all four years, starting, and being a part of a conference championship team. I didn't have a press conference but I didn't feel any less able to play at the next level. I think not having those glamorous parts was a positive because it kept my humility at a necessary level. Maybe I would've had the press conference, reported to camp feeling more confident about my ability than I should have, and then quit because I wasn't being treated well with my "b" number and shared locker. I cannot imagine having been at the small, private school I chose and not playing football. DIII schools are so small and everybody belongs to some team, group, or organization. So I probably would've transferred. Who knows? Certainly wouldn't have gone Greek. No offense to the Greek coaches on here. It just wasn't for me. I could be totally off base here. But the thing that I valued the most about my DIII experience was how pure it was. Because of the level of football and obviously the environment my head coach, coordinators, and position coaches created, there was no preferential treatment. If you worked hard you at least had a chance to compete for the opportunity to contribute on the field in some way be it offense, defense, or special teams. I believe that purity should extend into that time preceding a prospective DIII recruit's freshman year. They'll be better off that way if they decide to go the DIII route...trust me. I can agree w/ you here that it might not be the best thing for the individual involved but the question that needs to be asked is what is best for your program..the team as a whole...If by providing just a little bit of "glitz" or recognition, this might encourage others who might not have been working as hard as this young man to get off their lazt arse and start doing the necessary things to be able to play at the D111 level...I'd rather have a bunch of those guiys year after year than the scholly kid every now and then
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Feb 6, 2012 15:26:51 GMT -6
So the question is...what's more important? Doing everything possible including not doing some things (press conference on signing day) to give the DIII prospect who more than likely worked hard for your program the best chance to be successful. Or do something, essentially fake, that you know could potentially be a detriment to him with the environment he's heading into for the sake of having more of his type within your program? I just couldn't do that to the kid not even to have more of him. I care about him too much to do anything that could set him up for failure. I owe it to him to give it to him straight about what he's walking into and the differences between college football of different levels.
There are other ways we can create recognition for the kid and the program without potentially hurting the player. Its just way to hard for a lot of kids to balance confidence and humility. I believe there are more kids that come up short at the next level, not because they lack confidence but instead because they lack humility. Many of the guys that quit while I was at college were kids who had all the accolades coming out of high school only to find out everybody was all-conference, all-area, all-county, and their team's MVP. They just couldn't handle not being on that pedestal.
There is such a fine line between recognition and glamour. Signing day for DIII recruits is glamour. Get an article in the newspaper and put a picture and/or jersey plaque up in the weight room next to the rest of the college football players from your program regardless of level. There is nothing "fake" about that. They are all college football players. Some signed letters of intent and got scholarships and some didn't but they all played at the next level.
Better yet, have additional recognition for those who play all four years or five if they redshirt at higher levels. Retire the number or do like the University of Michigan and have a patch on the uniform of the player who went on to play college football all four years. Use your imagination and you'll think of something that would be meaningful and authentic.
Those kids are the ones you really want to have represent your school as far as those playing at the next level. The ones with commitment who follow through, especially the ones who go the DIII route because they understand they are going for an education and they have to be motivated academically. Not to imply that anybody who doesn't go DIII doesn't value education. But if they do go DIII, they better otherwise they will be out of school with a very hefty bill that there was no athletic scholarship to pay for.
This would mean a little less recognition for the kid who goes DII on a half scholarship but quits after two years and never graduates because the credits to stay eligible never amounted to anything. You're recognizing football "student-athletes"...kids who have their priorities in order (character, family, academics, football) and used their work ethic to get a degree and compete at the next level of football. Now that's motivating.
The selling point becomes "if you work your butt off in the classroom and in this weight room, you give yourself the best chance to be successful right now in high school and you'll give yourself an opportunity to pursue an education and athletic career at the college level." "And your legacy will live on within our football program and hopefully encourage youngsters coming up through the ranks to follow the trail you blazed."
If the kids in the program can't get motivated to accomplish great things for their team, program, school, community, and themselves by looking at a huge row of college football players from their school...then they need to keep playing Call of Duty.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 6, 2012 15:29:16 GMT -6
Unfortunately, in this day and age of "Schools of Choice," if you don't promote your program in such a fashion ("press conference" to announce LOI signings or perhaps even D-III commitments) you may lose prospective players to neighboring schools who do.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Feb 6, 2012 15:39:16 GMT -6
Unfortunately, in this day and age of "Schools of Choice," if you don't promote your program in such a fashion ("press conference" to announce LOI signings) you may lose prospective players to neighboring schools who do. I agree that this must be done at scholarship levels. The reason there are even letters of intent is to secure a scholarship with a particular school. But DIII is not an athletic scholarship level...hence no letters of intent. Now if the kid goes DII or higher or NAIA and gets an athletic scholarship of any amount, by all means, have a press conference with pyrotechnics, I mean knock people's socks off! Not every kid has what coaches want to warrant being offered a scholarship. It should be a celebration...its rare. But the bottom line is, that DIII prospect could go to any DIII school he's been accepted to. Hell he could change his mind constantly or wait as long as he wanted to. I mean eventually he needs to secure some housing. That's about all of a commitment that must be made. He's not locked in on signing day to go anywhere because he's not accepting a scholarship. We just need to be real with those kids. That's all. I mean we certainly don't want to perpetuate any more misunderstanding on the part of kids or parents as to what levels scholarships are offered at. I can hear it now "but Johnny signed a letter of intent at that press conference."Why isn't he getting a scholarship? He signed a letter of intent right?"
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Feb 6, 2012 19:50:32 GMT -6
I tend to doubt that anyone day would spoil a whole college career.....now I do agree that they shouldn't be signing something but having the kid have a ceremony saying that he is going to xyz college isn't going have an real big effect one way or the other IMO...if the kid is going to quit, he'll find a reason to quit
|
|