NCAA Proposes to cut schollies to 80

[kibblesnbits]

Seriously, you don't see any correlation between this:

Scholarships 105 --> 95 (1978) --> 85(early 90s)​

and this:

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.

Yes, they've worked to create a niche. But could it also be that one reason they get some of those players without as much competition is that there are fewer players being recruited by the big boys? Schools like Northwestern, Wake Forest and Kansas State went decades between bowl visits (yes, I know there were far fewer bowls but with their records in the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s it didn't matter) but now regularly compete for bowl bids and occasional rankings. Not many players grew up dreaming of playing for those schools, but when the dream offer to play for the Crimson Tide, Longhorns or Buckeyes doesn't happen it's still a chance to play competitive FBS football and reach a bowl once or twice before graduating.

 

[LRock34]

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.

Lets not pretend that all scholarship 1A athletes are getting an "education". If this happens, 500 or so kids will trickle down to 1AA, 500 to Div II and 500 more to Div III. 500 D III kids will have to walkon and take out loans like the rest of us or pay their way.

This is a good thing for 1A football. As far as the gray shirting goes...if you can't as a coach recruit a kid away from a school where he doesn't even have a scholarship??? Shame on you.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Lets not pretend that all scholarship 1A athletes are getting an "education". If this happens, 500 or so kids will trickle down to 1AA, 500 to Div II and 500 more to Div III. 500 D III kids will have to walkon and take out loans like the rest of us or pay their way.

This is a good thing for 1A football. As far as the gray shirting goes...if you can't as a coach recruit a kid away from a school where he doesn't even have a scholarship??? Shame on you.

Yeah, not all of them are...but the ones that aren't are going to get the scholarships anyway cause they're usually the ones that are really good. So the ones you take away may be those who need the education to continue and won't make the pros.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

You make a great argument. If the school put that money academic or need based assistance I agree with your points. How likely do you think that is?

 

[SAMCRO]

this idea was already voted down, per Sproting News: link

"A proposal to cut FBS-level scholarships from 85 to 80 starting in 2014 received some spirited debate Friday at the NCAA’s annual convention. But the measure was voted down by the NCAA's Board of Directors on Saturday."​

 

[freescooter]

I don't see any way this is a bad thing. And I suspect it si part of the quid pro quo to allow the additonal 'cost of attendance" to be added to the scholarships they have. Likely an attempt to buy some votes. Back in the days of 105 scholarships, the big name schools would simply stockpile guys even if they had no intent of using them simply to insure that the other schools couldn't get them.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

This will be good for programs like UConn. The Alabama's, Florida's, Florida State's, Penn State's of the world can't stockpile kids. These kids will have to turn elsewhere for their dream. Better to be on the field at UConn than the 85th player at the University of Texas or USC, IMO. And these kids would be good players to boot. The Oregons, Wisconsins, Oklahoma's, Nebraska's don't recruit anything less than the elite out of H.S. So spread that talent around and give those 81-85th kids the chance to compete.