NCAA Proposes to cut schollies to 80 | The Boneyard

NCAA Proposes to cut schollies to 80

Status
Not open for further replies.

DieHardHusky

The Blue Guy
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
408
Reaction Score
56
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34357912

I feel like this is a horrendous move being eyed by the NCAA to be completed by 2014. Schools such as those in the SEC will still find a way to have vastly over-signed classes yearly, and if you add up 5(multiplied by all the schools losing the schollies) that's how many they're taking away from prospective student athletes. In some cases, sports are all kids have separating them from heading in the wrong neighborhood.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,344
Reaction Score
23,005
I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as they make up the difference by increasing the number of scholarships awarded at the lower levels.

However, I doubt that happens. Once again the NCAA is proving they don't care about STUDENT-athletes as much as they pretend to.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,498
Reaction Score
15,682
If this goes through, it will definitely make upgrading men's hockey a lot easier
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction Score
4,241
on the surface, it seems fewer scholorships would force the distribution of talent more evenly among D1 teams, and make success in college fb more about plays than players, coaches over talent. this would be a good thing for northern teams such as us, no?
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
1,582
Reaction Score
1,846
Along with the scholarship reductions they should also put a cap on active roster size, so SEC schools can't stalk-pile walkons. A while back there was talk about football players having 5 years of eligibility with no redshirt option - guess that is off the table??
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,043
Reaction Score
1,827
How is this a bad idea? They used to allow 105 schollies. Ohio State, USC, could just load up. It was crazy. More division of talent. There are enough ships for everyone. So they have to play in the MAC. It's a scholly.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,653
Reaction Score
70,267
This is a very good idea.

I wish they also had an early signing period in September.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,344
Reaction Score
23,005
I agree this may level the playing field, and may be a good thing for UConn, but it is fewer scholarships handed than were previously handed out. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there are 119 FBS schools, and each would be allowed 5 fewer scholarships, so the result will be 595 fewer student athletes getting a free education. I understand not all of those athletes absolutely need the scholarship to attend college, but many and probably a majority do.

If the NCAA increased the number of scholarships per team in the FCS to offset the loss in FBS I think it's a great idea. The NCAA claims to care more about student more than the athlete part of student-athlete, but every time there is a problem they take scholarships away from potential students.

I'm all in favor of an early signing period.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction Score
4,241
I agree this may level the playing field, and may be a good thing for UConn, but it is fewer scholarships handed than were previously handed out. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there are 119 FBS schools, and each would be allowed 5 fewer scholarships, so the result will be 595 fewer student athletes getting a free education. I understand not all of those athletes absolutely need the scholarship to attend college, but many and probably a majority do.

If the NCAA increased the number of scholarships per team in the FCS to offset the loss in FBS I think it's a great idea. The NCAA claims to care more about student more than the athlete part of student-athlete, but every time there is a problem they take scholarships away from potential students.

I'm all in favor of an early signing period.

true. on the other hand, greater parity and lower scholarship costs may encourage more universities such as umass to move to D1A, thus increasing the number of schools giving max scholorships.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
40
Reaction Score
8
I was on the old board and saw that some schools were approaching 30 recruits, I thought someone here said there was some type of limit. Can someone explain?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,362
Reaction Score
33,634
You could count Jan enrollees towards last year. The leftovers are forced to gray shirt and take a year of prep with no guarantee the scholly will still be there. Some kids bolt to other schools. I believe the Mauldin kid from Ville was a SoCar commit until Spurrier told him there was no room. It's a pretty despicable practice and one that I hope we never engage in.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,344
Reaction Score
23,005
true. on the other hand, greater parity and lower scholarship costs may encourage more universities such as umass to move to D1A, thus increasing the number of schools giving max scholorships.
That would be great, but I don't think it happens. The costs associated if you want to really be succesful are far greater than another 15+/- scholarships.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,509
Reaction Score
37,285
This is the NCAA doing it's best to help the SEC get it's player payroll under control.

The ACC has already been mailed the script.

http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34357912

I feel like this is a horrendous move being eyed by the NCAA to be completed by 2014. Schools such as those in the SEC will still find a way to have vastly over-signed classes yearly, and if you add up 5(multiplied by all the schools losing the schollies) that's how many they're taking away from prospective student athletes. In some cases, sports are all kids have separating them from heading in the wrong neighborhood.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,509
Reaction Score
37,285
I was on the old board and saw that some schools were approaching 30 recruits, I thought someone here said there was some type of limit. Can someone explain?

Gray shirts.
 

DieHardHusky

The Blue Guy
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
408
Reaction Score
56
You could count Jan enrollees towards last year. The leftovers are forced to gray shirt and take a year of prep with no guarantee the scholly will still be there. Some kids bolt to other schools. I believe the Mauldin kid from Ville was a SoCar commit until Spurrier told him there was no room. It's a pretty despicable practice and one that I hope we never engage in.
You can only have 3 go towards the previous year by having kids enroll early I believe.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
3,370
Reaction Score
4,422
I agree this may level the playing field, and may be a good thing for UConn, but it is fewer scholarships handed than were previously handed out. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there are 119 FBS schools, and each would be allowed 5 fewer scholarships, so the result will be 595 fewer student athletes getting a free education. I understand not all of those athletes absolutely need the scholarship to attend college, but many and probably a majority do.

If the NCAA increased the number of scholarships per team in the FCS to offset the loss in FBS I think it's a great idea. The NCAA claims to care more about student more than the athlete part of student-athlete, but every time there is a problem they take scholarships away from potential students.

I'm all in favor of an early signing period.

Not necessarily, wing. Those ships would likely be gobbled up elsewhere in each school as most are forced to cut back on ships in other sports in order to satisfy title 9. Prime example is the huskies men's hockey team. Another 5 men's ships available might go quite a long way towards offsetting necessary increases in women's scholarships.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,364
Reaction Score
68,239
I agree this may level the playing field, and may be a good thing for UConn, but it is fewer scholarships handed than were previously handed out. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there are 119 FBS schools, and each would be allowed 5 fewer scholarships, so the result will be 595 fewer student athletes getting a free education. I understand not all of those athletes absolutely need the scholarship to attend college, but many and probably a majority do.

If the NCAA increased the number of scholarships per team in the FCS to offset the loss in FBS I think it's a great idea. The NCAA claims to care more about student more than the athlete part of student-athlete, but every time there is a problem they take scholarships away from potential students.

I'm all in favor of an early signing period.

Yes, every 4 or 5 years it would be 600 - so the net impact is 20 to 25% of that number on an average annual basis, but I agree it is bad to give fewer opportunities to kids who might not otherwise get to go to college.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,344
Reaction Score
23,005
Not necessarily, wing. Those ships would likely be gobbled up elsewhere in each school as most are forced to cut back on ships in other sports in order to satisfy title 9. Prime example is the huskies men's hockey team. Another 5 men's ships available might go quite a long way towards offsetting necessary increases in women's scholarships.

I don't think it's safe to assume the schools will automatically add 5 scholarships elsewhere, but that's a good point and I hope they do.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,544
Reaction Score
691
There is no excuse for this unless the scholarships are replaced elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I hate the teams that are just loaded with talent while other schools suffer. But you simply cannot take away scholarships for the sake of competitiveness in one sport. These kids need the scholarships. They need an education.
 

alexrgct

RIP, Alex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,091
Reaction Score
15,648
The reduction of scholarships didn't increase parity by itself in college football. There were some other factors that came into play:

  • Introduction of the spread and other offenses that changed the geometry of the game and created space for playmakers to make plays.
  • The proliferation of top NFL prospects leaving after three years. Even though juniors have been able to go pro for a long time, it was far less common than it is now (and redshirt sophs declaring was basically unheard of).
Without other analogous accompanying changes this time around, I'm not sure that the reduction in schollie will increase parity, and it will deny 600 high school seniors every year the opportunity to play FBS football.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
665
Reaction Score
660
Reducing scholarships by 5 saves each school $150,000 ($300,000 if you assume they take out 5 women's scholarships along with it).

Stick that money back into education. Some of you guys talk as if the scholarship money will just go to profit, but a lot of these athletic departments are running at deficits, and in the end, that means the student body or states need to subsidize. Make running athletics a little cheaper, and watch the money go back where it truly belongs...
 

alexrgct

RIP, Alex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,091
Reaction Score
15,648
Reducing scholarships by 5 saves each school $150,000 ($300,000 if you assume they take out 5 women's scholarships along with it).

Stick that money back into education. Some of you guys talk as if the scholarship money will just go to profit, but a lot of these athletic departments are running at deficits, and in the end, that means the student body or states need to subsidize. Make running athletics a little cheaper, and watch the money go back where it truly belongs...
1. Why punish athletic departments that are financially solvent and operate indepedently of the general university budget?
2. I see no evidence the money saved would go back to education.
3. In fact, what's stopping athletic departments from just spending the 300K on something else? The CFB arms race includes all sorts of costs ancillary to scholarships.
4. It's been demonstrated right here in Connecticut that having strong athletics can increase interest in your school and improve overall academic standing (increased applications, higher average test scores of matriculating classes, etc.). Investing in athletics is not a simple zero-sum proposition.
 

uconnbill

A Half full kind of guy
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,546
Reaction Score
15,099
Reducing scholarships by 5 saves each school $150,000 ($300,000 if you assume they take out 5 women's scholarships along with it).

Stick that money back into education. Some of you guys talk as if the scholarship money will just go to profit, but a lot of these athletic departments are running at deficits, and in the end, that means the student body or states need to subsidize. Make running athletics a little cheaper, and watch the money go back where it truly belongs...

Your thinking is Ivy league thinking. Sports bring much to the university and should be left as is.
I do agree that a early signing period would be nice though
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,360
Reaction Score
2,814
There is no excuse for this unless the scholarships are replaced elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I hate the teams that are just loaded with talent while other schools suffer. But you simply cannot take away scholarships for the sake of competitiveness in one sport. These kids need the scholarships. They need an education.

If that's the justification then just put that money in the school's general scholarship pool. There are lots of kids that need an education even though most couldn't run a 5.0 40 if their lives depended on it. Remember that the overwhelming majority of athletic departments run at a loss, thereby drawing money away from the general university budget that is used to educate students. Making athletic departments run leaner (which means more than a token cut in football) would probably mean more students being educated, not less.

I see no problem with cutting football scholarships. It will reallocate players just as prior cuts increased competitive balance. Teams will still be able to carry a full scholarship two-deep plus another complete set (essentially a three-deep) and some redshirts and walk-ons. I would probably draw the line in the 75-80 range, however, as the maximum that could be cut. Below that I fear that we'd start seeing a lot of freshmen forced into playing on the lines and an increase in injuries. That's where you see the biggest difference in major college football between a 22-23 year old man and an 18 year-old adolescent, even a really large adolescent.

Without other analogous accompanying changes this time around, I'm not sure that the reduction in schollie will increase parity, and it will deny 600 high school seniors every year the opportunity to play FBS football.

That's 600 over 4 (or even 5 years), so the reduction would be 125-150 scholarships for each high school senior class. In the grand scheme of things that's a drop in the bucket compared to the impact being seen from cuts in many university budgets.

Your thinking is Ivy league thinking. Sports bring much to the university and should be left as is.
I do agree that a early signing period would be nice though

Reducing football scholarships from 85 to 80 is hardly a path to the Ivy League. College sports can be run much more efficiently and still provide the benefits so many want to see.
 

alexrgct

RIP, Alex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,091
Reaction Score
15,648
If that's the justification then just put that money in the school's general scholarship pool. There are lots of kids that need an education even though most couldn't run a 5.0 40 if their lives depended on it. Remember that the overwhelming majority of athletic departments run at a loss, thereby drawing money away from the general university budget that is used to educate students. Making athletic departments run leaner (which means more than a token cut in football) would probably mean more students being educated, not less.

I see no problem with cutting football scholarships. It will reallocate players just as prior cuts increased competitive balance. Teams will still be able to carry a full scholarship two-deep plus another complete set (essentially a three-deep) and some redshirts and walk-ons. I would probably draw the line in the 75-80 range, however, as the maximum that could be cut. Below that I fear that we'd start seeing a lot of freshmen forced into playing on the lines and an increase in injuries. That's where you see the biggest difference in major college football between a 22-23 year old man and an 18 year-old adolescent, even a really large adolescent.



That's 600 over 4 (or even 5 years), so the reduction would be 125-150 scholarships for each high school senior class. In the grand scheme of things that's a drop in the bucket compared to the impact being seen from cuts in many university budgets.



Reducing football scholarships from 85 to 80 is hardly a path to the Ivy League. College sports can be run much more efficiently and still provide the benefits so many want to see.
Kind of irrelevent because it looks like it isn't happening, but your post doesn't make a ton of sense.

No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to have a college football program, or to operate it at a loss for that matter. Why punish schools who have a good brand, or sell their third-tier rights effectively, or who market effectively in their communities?

Moreover, there is little evidence that reducing scholarships will make anything more competitive. Scholarhsips have been at 85 since 1992. Parity is far more recent, and it came about in tandem with more NFL prospects leaving after three years and the proliferation of innovative offensive systems. Artificially reducing the number of scholarship players by itself didn't accomplish much at all. Boise State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin- they've had success because they learned how to compete with bigger programs on the field without competing much head-to-head with the big boys on the recruiting trail. Oregon had an infusion of cash from private donors, mainly Phil Knight, plus an innovative offense. OK State's success is similar. Why reward mediocre coaches who can't figure out how to compete without artificially lowering scholarships for everyone else? Sounds like a welfare state to me. Not to mention that the need to compete on the field in ways other than "line 'em up and win in the trenches" (a losing proposition for smaller schools because the best trench players are still going to the big boys, and you can't readily hide deficiencies on your line) has spawned a lot of more interesting and exciting football. Competition breeds innovation. Rewarding mediocrity does not.

Furthermore, there's little to no evidence that parity is good for sports. People like to complain about dominant teams, but I didn't see the PGA complaining about their ratings when Tiger was dominant, or ESPN complaining about its women's basketball ratings when UConn is on, or the NBA crying about the artificially high ratings it received during the run of Michael Jordan's Bulls. Great teams draw fans to the sport. Having a bunch of flawed teams where "everyone has a chance to win" is dull.

Again, why are you assuming that scholarship cuts would result in a reallocation of funds to non-athletic scholarships? Why wouldn't schools just put those dollars towards facilities costs or simply reduce the university budget or just allocate that money to another important part of the state budget like $250K salaries for university police chiefs? And, more generally, why are we assuming that more people with college degrees is a good thing? Student-athletes enhance a university's branding. The average student with a diploma reduces the perception of the value of a college education in this country. I'd argue that fewer people need university educations, not more, if I'm being perfectly frank. These days, having a college degree has become the equivalent of having a high school degree a generation ago. How is this a good thing?

You're absolutely right- college sports can be run more effectively. Punishing kids who want to play is not the means to getting there. Let each university have the cojones to demand fiscal responsibility of its athletic department, and if they don't have the cajones to do that, the university can suffer the consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
328
Guests online
2,078
Total visitors
2,406

Forum statistics

Threads
159,598
Messages
4,197,090
Members
10,065
Latest member
bardira


.
Top Bottom