Well, after a couple of pages of more pissing than discussion, the "other" thread about the rule actually has some useful discussion going. And no, I don't for a minute believe that thread was started to spark "some discussion of the pros and cons of the rule." Not with its focus on Bobby-bashing (starting with the title).
So, to steal an idea: The specific nature of a contract does stand in contrast to the rather vague term "commitment," as noted by PR in the other thread. Since I've never seen the documents for a college athletic scholarship, I don't know how the "contractual" obligations are worded.
I once had an academic scholarship that obligated me to include classes that would improve my skills to teach at the college level, along with my usual major curriculum. I was also expected to first seek employment as a college teacher after I completed my degree. On the flip side, the scholarship grantor only promised to keep sending checks for three or four years (can't recall which), as long as I stayed in good academic standing. They did not offer to later help me get an academic job.
Here's the crux for this discussion: The student-athlete is expected to follow the pertinent college rules and legit "orders" from the coaching staff while competing for a team position. For that, he/she gets a stipend, book allowance, and so on. We've already discussed the absence of a "no-cut" clause. And, so far as I know, schools are not specifically obligated to continue the scholarship if the athlete suffers a career-ending injury. (Or has that changed?)
At the big schools, they get other perks (special tutoring, etc.) not available to the "ordinary" student. So here's question: Are any of those "benefits" spelled out in writing, or simply "understood"?
MODS: Could we perhaps combine the threads discussing the proposed new rule ... ditching the other "hot button" title?
