This model is not sustainable

[Seamus84]

Apologies if this discussion is posted elsewhere, but thought I‘d separate from the current Outbound Transfer thread.

in short, my feeling is that every kid in every sport should take every bag and/or every transfer opportunity available now because this is not sustainable on any dimension….economics, competition, fan engagement, coaching, player development, etc….and has to change within the next 5 years. The system is eating itself and unless the model changes, there will be a fraction of the number of sports, and therefore coaches and players, in the future.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Sustainable isn't an objective or a goal.

The top of the game want a system rigged in their favor and they have it.

If it blows up, the same power brokers will come up with a new system which still favors the elites.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

This (the transfer portal & NIL) will reach an equilibrium before long (next couple of seasons). Granted, schools like us may not be happy with what the equilibrium is (constant fear of losing quality players to programs with higher profiles and deeper pockets) but the portal and NIL will find a level that will be sustainable and reasonably consistent. Everything does.

 

[JMick]

There's a reason most pro league teams use salary caps or incentive spending less.

The only way this slows down is if boosters get sick of paying millions for guys who suck

 

[ZooCougar]

Apologies if this discussion is posted elsewhere, but thought I‘d separate from the current Outbound Transfer thread.

in short, my feeling is that every kid in every sport should take every bag and/or every transfer opportunity available now because this is not sustainable on any dimension….economics, competition, fan engagement, coaching, player development, etc….and has to change within the next 5 years. The system is eating itself and unless the model changes, there will be a fraction of the number of sports, and therefore coaches and players, in the future.

It’s not sustainable with that attitude.

 

[ZooCougar]

There's a reason most pro league teams use salary caps or incentive spending less.

The only way this slows down is if boosters get sick of paying millions for guys who suck

Yeah this is a bubble.

 

[JMick]

Yeah this is a bubble.

The biggest issue is that they're trying to do the free market thing when it's not a truly free market. If they want any sort of fairness with the current model they would require players to publicly declare earnings.

 

[UConnJim]

Apologies if this discussion is posted elsewhere, but thought I‘d separate from the current Outbound Transfer thread.

in short, my feeling is that every kid in every sport should take every bag and/or every transfer opportunity available now because this is not sustainable on any dimension….economics, competition, fan engagement, coaching, player development, etc….and has to change within the next 5 years. The system is eating itself and unless the model changes, there will be a fraction of the number of sports, and therefore coaches and players, in the future.

College basketball is much worse than college football as a higher % of kids are hitting the portal. As UConn fans, we don't mind what is going on in college basketball as it has helped UConn. Think about this, UConn had 4 transfers on the roster (Alleyne, Newton, Calcaterra, and Diara) during the championship run, but I didn't hear UConn fans complaining about how NIL and the portal were reducing their interest in UConn basketball. And, I didn't hear people complaining when Gaffney, Akok, Diggins, and Floyd entered the portal to clear roster space.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

 

[temery]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

^ This. There is no reason to stockpile players who will never play.

 

[ZooCougar]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

^ This. There is no reason to stockpile players who will never play.

Nice idea. But it won’t work. They would just find ways to get 20 more players financial aid.

These schools are always finding outside the box solutions for this, and some of them are doing the already with NIL.

We have to be stoic about it and accept the game and play it. And work around the rules creatively too.

 

[temery]

Nice idea. But it won’t work. They would just find ways to get 20 more players financial aid.

These schools are always finding outside the box solutions for this, and some of them are doing the already with NIL.

We have to be stoic about it and accept the game and play it. And work around the rules creatively too.

'Not sure what you mean. If the ncaa limits a team to ~65 players, that would be the limit. Are you saying schools would offer aid to players to attend the school just so they wouldn't go elsewhere to play?

Kids want to play. Some would settle to just be a practice player if they really like the school.

 

[Palatine]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

The idea is sound but 65 is too few and that means it will never happen. There might be a chance to get it down to 82 or 78. Any incremental move down would make a difference.

The real problem is the portal. It was created because coaches could move and coach immediately but players couldn't move and play immediately. But coaches don't move every year like the players are. The portal needs to be reigned in.

 

[UConnJim]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

If you look at the top P2 schools, they are net providers of portal athletes. For example, last year, 21 athletes hit the portal from Alabama and they took 5 from the portal for a net loss of 16. Georgia lost 16 players to the portal and took 4 for a net loss of 12. Texas lost 20 athletes and took 5 for a net loss of 15 players.

For the top schools, the best players available to them are HS recruits. Each school needs to figure out the right balance of HS recruits and portal recruits especially portal recruits with 1 year of eligibility and recruits with multiple years of eligibility.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Posters not wanting to acknowledge it's a feature not a bug.

 

[billybud]

I agree with UConnJim...

2024 Class Rankings Have Georgia, Ohio State, and FSU as #1,2,3.

Those programs will lose kids who want to play and don't see the field enough...

Michigan (top 10 classes) had 14 outgoing to 8 incoming...It will be yearly reshuffling to meet needs, or to replace talent that did not develop as planned.

When you are adding 25 kids, you probably have to shoo some off.

 

[Palatine]

Want to take the teeth out of the portal? This will never be done but it would work.

Portal movement is limited from P4 to P4 and from G5 to Group G5.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

'Not sure what you mean. If the ncaa limits a team to ~65 players, that would be the limit. Are you saying schools would offer aid to players to attend the school just so they wouldn't go elsewhere to play?

Kids want to play. Some would settle to just be a practice player if they really like the school.

They use to do that many years ago.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

The idea is sound but 65 is too few and that means it will never happen. There might be a chance to get it down to 82 or 78. Any incremental move down would make a difference.

The real problem is the portal. It was created because coaches could move and coach immediately but players couldn't move and play immediately. But coaches don't move every year like the players are. The portal needs to be reigned in.

Who said 65 is too few? 65 is fine if it applies to everyone.

 

[ZooCougar]

'Not sure what you mean. If the ncaa limits a team to ~65 players, that would be the limit. Are you saying schools would offer aid to players to attend the school just so they wouldn't go elsewhere to play?

Kids want to play. Some would settle to just be a practice player if they really like the school.

He didn’t say players. He said scholarships. We have 120 players and 85 scholarships.

They will just find another way to have 20 more pseudo scholarships.

Better to leave it as it is and make players sit a year if they transfer unless they are grad transfers with one year of eligibility remaining.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

At the beginning of the season a team would submit the 65 players that they have in scholarship. Those would be the only 65 players that could actually play in a game.

That’s cut and dry for the NCAA to oversee. There’s no room for fudging the number of players on a team

A bonus, which would also help level the playing field, would be the reduction in expenses by reducing the scholarship numbers by 20. It’s a win-win for everybody except the Alabama’s, Michigan’s, etc of the power five conferences. They’d be forced to compete on a level playing field.

 

[Kolumbo]

Reduce the number of players on scholarship to 65 and it’ll level the talent across the country and put a roadblock up for players looking to transfer.

Talent will be spread more evenly across the country at the D1 level programs.

NIL and conference affiliation won’t have nearly the impact they do today if there aren’t openings at the big name college football programs.

The losers would be many of the kids at G5 who want to play football in exchange for an education. Reducing scholarships by 20 is a big hit. And you would still have some kids choosing to go to Ohio State without a scholarship rather than going to Ohio U on scholarship so it may not level the playing field that much. NIL will go a long way to help defray tuition at Ohio State for kids who can hang at that level.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

The losers would be many of the kids at G5 who want to play football in exchange for an education. Reducing scholarships by 20 is a big hit. And you would still have some kids choosing to go to Ohio State without a scholarship rather than going to Ohio U on scholarship so it may not level the playing field that much. NIL will go a long way to help defray tuition at Ohio State for kids who can hang at that level.

A major issue with the 85 scholarship limit, is those last 20 players almost never see the football field in their entire career. that’s like hiring an extra 25% people at a workplace and telling them they never have to go to work unless an emergency arises. And having them get a full paycheck regardless. That’s really hard to make a rational argument for.

 

[Kolumbo]

A major issue with the 85 scholarship limit, is those last 20 players almost never see the football field in their entire career. that’s like hiring an extra 25% people at a workplace and telling them they never have to go to work unless an emergency arises. And having them get a full paycheck regardless. That’s really hard to make a rational argument for.

That may be true and doesn't refute anything I wrote.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

That may be true and doesn't refute anything I wrote.

I made an argument against your opposition to a reduction in scholarships from 85 to 65.

You said that it’d exclude many G5 kids from scholarships. My answer to that is, “yes it would and that’s for the best”.

P5 or G5, doesn’t matter. Too many full scholarships unnecessarily provided to players who never play a down in their entire careers.