Pac-12 recruiting pitches just got a LOT stronger

[PtldPlatypus]

Guaranteed 4-year scholarships (instead of 1-year renewals), health care coverage for four years after leaving college, and immediate post-transfer eligibility. Unless other conferences pass similar reforms, this will give Pac-12 schools a decided advantage over other conferences.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...orms-including-guaranteed-4-year-scholarships

I do wonder, however, about what effect that immediate eligibility could have on attempted athlete poaching. Are there tampering rules in the NCAA similar to what the professional leagues have? What would prevent (for example) Mark Helfrich from contacting Oregon State's starting linebacker and saying, "Come on down the freeway and play for a title next year"?

 

[Wheels]

I believe Big 10 passed this a couple months ago as well. But good news regardless. Take care of these kids who are making suits millions.

 

[1honestfan]

I'm a little nervous about a player leaving a team like OSU to go play at USC because they want to play for a title contender. I think that rule favors the big market schools WAY TO MUCH.

Let's say that this rule was in place 4 years ago. DAT comes to Oregon because he wants to play offense instead of defense at USC. Oregon lets him play offense and you saw what he could do. With this rule, USC goes back to DAT and says that they were wrong and he could transfer to USC and they would promise to only play him on offense. I could easily see DAT leaving Oregon to play at USC with no hesitation. I just think that rule is flawed.

 

[Quack U!]

This transfer rule seems like a Poachers lotto for sure. It could become year round back door recruiting. Weasel coaches like Saban, Meyer, Mora and Sark may use this new loophole to go after player frustrated on their depth chart order and in places of immediate need for their schools. Let's take Tyner as a perfect example of this! What if Sark could lure him to USC because they need a RB in the worst way or UCLA for that matter and Tyner thinks " Rolls has taken my start, why not bolt!?" If I'm understanding this rule it's basically a buyers remorse clause and players will hold the cards without penalty of not honoring their commitments.

Today they asked Peppers top rated player for Michigan's recruiting class if he regretted his decision to commit to the Wolverines, well if he was in the Pac the rival coaches would be lining up to steal him to their backfield next year. This rule will create a VERY SLEAZY UNDERCURRENT which is my worry!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Frankly, is it better for Tyner to be starting at USC or benchriding here? It hurts good programs with good recruiting who have 5-stars sitting on their bench, but at the same time if Oregon had recruited Tyner with "we're bringing in some good players every year and trying to win the NC, you're not guaranteed squat" he might already be in Pasadena.

I guess I"ll put it this way--if a player's in a good situation, he won't want to leave no matter what Mora/Sark/Saban offers. What you need to worry about is your depth, because your #3 WR or a stud you're trying to redshirt won't be happy riding pine for you while he's being promised to be a starter elsewhere.

 

[Quack U!]

I agree, imagine if a massive exodus were to take place here when Marcus leaves because many recruits will think it'll take 2+ years to get back to the national championship level. For that matter SO CAL kids missing home after this year who "say" win the national championship with Marcus and think... time to go hit the sun and ladies again!

Your are very correct our talented and vast depth could take a massive hit!