Academic and Athletic Scholarships Are Not the Same
Today's post on oversigning raised a debate in the comment section that often follows close behind when the topic is raised: isn't pulling a player's athletic scholarship for not playing up to the coach's standards comparable to a student losing his or her academic scholarship for not making high enough grades?
I wrote a lot of this in that comment section, but I think this is an important enough topic to make a whole new post about it. The short answer is no. The long answer is as follows.
Academic scholarship requirements are far less subjective than athletic scholarship expectations. You know ahead of time what’s required to keep an academic scholarship, and you can change majors to keep it if you struggle in your chosen field of study. You get periodic progress reports in the form of graded work and exams to know where you stand in each class.
A coach can tell athletes that they are doing well all along and then hit them out of the blue with the fact that their scholarships won’t get renewed. That’s a completely different situation than with academic scholarships. Athletes getting cut out of the blue doesn't happen often, but the point still stands. A scholarship contingent on measurable and quantifiable academic progress is completely different than a scholarship contingent on the subjective judgment of one person.
That's the broad reason why academic and athletic scholarships are different. Here are some more specific reasons:
- An athlete's options for transferring and keeping a scholarship are limited by whether or not his current school releases him from his scholarship. A school can even refuse to give a reason for why it won't release a player from scholarship, thereby preventing him from knowing what he can do to rectify the situation. There is no comparable situation in academic scholarships, where one school can prevent a student from getting an academic scholarship from another school.
- When a new head coach and/or coordinator is hired, a player might not fit the new system. That player can then be cut through no fault of his own. Academic scholarships have no equivalent when professors, deans, or administrators change.
The head coach can oversign and might need to reduce roster size right before the deadline. A player can then be cut through no fault of his own. Schools within a university can’t "oversign" students on academic scholarships. They might lose funding and therefore be forced to cut some scholarships, but that's not the same as oversigning.Academic scholarship oversigning can happen. Thanks to John Infante for pointing this out.- Past good grades count towards an overall GPA no matter what. Those offering academic scholarships cannot simply disregard them if they so choose. Coaches can disregard past good performance if they want to when choosing whether or not to not to renew a football scholarship.
- An injury that is no fault of the player can cause his effectiveness at his sport to decrease and leave him susceptible to being cut. Think about a speedy guy who tears an ACL or a cannon-armed quarterback or pitcher who tears a rotator cuff. Medical issues can cause a student’s academic effectiveness to drop, but universities have contingency programs to accommodate students who go through such issues (and therefore help them not lose their scholarships).
- If a student with an academic scholarship has trouble, he or she can often change majors (depending on the scholarship type) to find a more suitable path of study and still keep the scholarship. The vast majority of athletes cannot just switch sports to keep an athletic scholarship.
Those are just a few specific examples of how academic and athletic scholarships diverge. I could come up with more if I wanted to.
The thing to remember is that these are scholarships we’re talking about: grants that exist to help people attend school and work towards a degree. If you’re going to completely throw out the window any consideration of the fact that these are students working towards a diploma, then college athletics should be broken off from universities entirely into professional minor leagues.
ADDENDUM
I should mention that I'm not in favor of making it so athletic scholarships can only be ended for things like career ending injuries (which are already covered under medical disqualification scholarships) or arrests. If a player doesn't respect the leadership, blows off practice, or becomes a serial loafer for reasonable values of "loafer", then pulling the scholarship should be on the table.
However, I do think there should be some kind of paper trail to prevent coaches from solving their high school talent evaluation shortcomings or oversigning issues by suddenly revoking scholarships. If a player isn't performing to expectations, there needs to be written proof that the player is aware of it long before a scholarship gets taken away. There also should be some kind of provision to keep players with a history of non-career ending injuries from being cut, because there's little to nothing they can do to prevent or reverse their loss of effectiveness.
4 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good response
and I agree, the power dynamic is definitely in favor of the schools. I feel sorry if a kid gets his scholarship revoked unexpectedly. But everyone who signs with Saban shouldn’t be blindsided by it. That’s the risk you’re taking with him.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 17, 2012 4:00 PM EST via mobile reply actions
It's a risk with many coaches.
But a key difference here is that Justin Taylor did not sign a scholarship. He’s not even in college yet. You can’t revoke a status that does not exist.
Nothing he was promised has been revoked at all. He was told that he would be welcomed in next year’s class also. If Saban wanted to get rid of him, he could have simply tossed him to the curb and never thought a second thing about it. Taylor may not want to wait and may sign with another school and that is his decision. The reason that he was not included this year was that the rehab is still up in the air. It’s not known yet what kind of a player he will be on the flipside and thanks to the new rules, you cannot simply sign a kid and give him a medical redshirt for his first year. In other words, he would count against this year’s class and provide no assurance that he can even play in the future.
Saban has been criticized for oversigning(which is a huge non-issue as it is completely legal under NCAA rules), but he doesn’t simply drop kids that he doesn’t want anymore. Only a handful of players have been released in their time at Alabama under Saban. You will find that these kids stuck around for several years before being released and did not go on to play college football anywhere else. They were given medical releases and even though a couple of these players came back later and said that Saban was simply cutting people, it is awfully suspicious that these supposedly very capable athletes didn’t go anywhere else to play when they still had eligibility left.
Saban has this reputation for being some sort of heartless villain and about 99% of the charges are baseless.
No matter how you count 'em, we've got more --- Roll Tide!
I didn't say anything about Taylor
I’m talking about 1 year scholarships. And the only thing I’m saying about Saban is that kids should know what to expect. No need to call up the Saban Defense Force.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 18, 2012 5:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is a good article and you bring up several good points.
There are some important differences here though that go the other way.
1) Academic scholarships are not arbitrarily limited by a governing body. An individual university can give as many or as few as they have the funding to supply. Athletic scholarships are capped nationwide with no respect to an individual university’s ability to pay for them. This creates a very competitive environment. If a university would not be punished for maintaining “too many” scholarships then I don’t think you’d see many issues with releasing players.
We all know the reason for the this difference is because of the competitive nature of sports themselves. While universities do compete with each other over grant money, the nature of the competition is very different than playing games with an opposing school and determining victory based on a set of defined rules. It would be unfair to allow schools to give out an unlimited number of scholarships for athletic purposes due to the fact that that ability would greatly skew results on the field in favor of the universities with the largest athletic budgets. These are the rules even though universities with the largest academic budgets are not restricted in like fashion.
2) While I agree with the point that it is preferable that athletes be given some sort of progress report that gives them a good idea of where they stand, this is almost impossible in competitive sports. When it comes to academics, you have very measurable goals that you either meet or don’t meet. When it comes to sports, what is considered success or failure is much more subjective and depending on which team you are on it is also relative. Player #85 on the roster for Alabama would probably be doing just fine if he were down the road at UAB because the standards and the level of competition are different.
The problem with each team or each conference coming up with their own standards of success for maintaining scholarships is that, like the NCAA rule capping scholarships, there would need to be some sort of NCAA rule on what standards would be acceptable or unacceptable for maintaining scholarships. Otherwise, the competitive balance could again be very skewed.
It would also be difficult to design a fair set of qualifications. Do you make the rule that a player has to have so much playing time? Accumulate a certain number of positive stats in relation to negative stats? What other qualifiers would be allowed in order to account for some sort of discrepancy in how a player performs and whether or not the coach actually wants to dismiss him? And there’s also the fact that many players never see the field in order to give themselves an opportunity to meet these standards. Being that a player is not simply judged on his own merits, but on his merits within a team context then you can never even guarantee a player will get the opportunity to prove himself. New scholarship athletes are being added every year whereas recipients of academic scholarships are judged solely on their own performance more or less within a vacuum.
If you can’t fairly judge a player’s playing time then do you judge his results in practice? Wouldn’t that then bring in a whole new set of subjective criteria as well?
So anyway, I think most of your points are good ones and there could be some reform here. I’m not sure comparing academic and athletic scholarships as thought they could be total equals gives us the correct picture though.
No matter how you count 'em, we've got more --- Roll Tide!

by 








