Cutting the total number of scholarships by 5....

With all the talk of the NCAA support for a "plus one", the statement that the NCAA was looking at cutting the total number of scholarship by five was ignored. Time to pick it up.

If I recall correctly, the idea is to cut the total number by five from 75 to 70. There can be only one purpose for cutting the total and that is the further weakening of the elites programs by spreading more players to the schools lower on the pecking order. This , of course, increases the number of competetive teams beneath the elites and inreases pressure for even larger playoffs down the road as more teams would be in the "ballpark" of a NCG.

As more pressure would be applied to assume the playoff mentality of the other sports, I assume the real source of the pressure is the media themselves. The opportunity to make more money and the trickle down to the schools themselves.

There is a cost to this. It's potentially. 120 x 5 scholarships 600!! That many kids not getting scholarships. Probably not all but a large number certainly would be lost.

I didn't hear any result of those talks. If anyone has heard anything more on it, I'd appreciate it.

College football is the last of the majors to resist the watering down process. I guess it can't really be stopped, Just like the country.....

This message has been removed by the administrator.

nwtrucker,

I believe you meant the NCAA decided to cut scholarships for both subdivisions.  DI-A (FBS) is going from 83 to 80 scholarships and DI-AA(FCS) is going from 63 to 60 scholarships.  You are correct, that the overall idea behind it is to reduce cost.  However, I believe it is designed more the lower schools who may be having problems keeping up with the Joneses.  Also, when you consider that the same number of scholarships are being cut from women's program in order to meet Title IX requirements.  

Something people may not consider is the possibility that the NCAA may decide to recombine the subdivisions into 1 division again.  If the FBS implements a playoff then the NCAA would be inviolation of its own bylaw; no two subdivisions may have the same postseason format.  I don't think FCS schools will be able to afford paying for 70 scholarships, so the most logical choice would be to limit DI scholarships to only 60.  In theory it would spread the talent pool to more schools, thus reducing the gap between the "haves" and "have nots."  The BCS conferences may not like it, but if the NCAA is going to sponsor 1 DI tournament then it would be in the NCAA's best interest (i.e. more money for the NCAA). 

vthokies1977, hmm, I didn't see it as an afford issue. the revenue has to offset the cost of scholarships unless your playing your games at the local community center.

If that is the case, then what the heck are they doing in competing with the big boys?? Why should the students suffer because of the schools can't compete with the BCs schools. That should be the the point where they drop, not force the those schools that can afford it to leave kids out there who otherwise can't afford school with no alternative.

It may be the biggest reason to keep CFB as it is. The scholarships. thousands benifit from them.

Makes my head spin trying to figure out where these guys have their priorities. must be psych majors.LOL 

nwtrucker,


I have to say this and I could be off base but it seems like you simply have a problem with equality.  When I read your threads it just seems that anything that might put the USCs and Michigans on equal ground to programs that are traditionally not powers is just blasphemy.  These programs are in this together.  If too many of the schools at the bottom can't afford to give away as many scholarships as the others then it has to be addressed, whether you're going to lower scholarships or move them out of the FBS you have to change something.  Parity is a proven way to grow a sport.  The NFL gets it and it's the reason they are the biggest sport in the country.  At the beginning of any given year any fan base can believe that this could be their year.  In college only 15 or so fan bases can really feel that way.  They should want to change that.  More parity will grow the game.  Continually catering to the haves and screwing over the have nots will eventually be their downfall, just like the country.....

The biggest problem we have with athletic scholarships is painfully obvious. Some teams oversign more than others and some don't. The teams that oversign dominate college football because of this huge oversigning advantage (i.e. SEC teams - and yeah, I know that coaching plays a big part as well).

Either everybody should oversign or everybody should not be allowed to do so. Take your pick, I don't care which.

tampabaybishop, Hmm, I will clarify for you, I have a problem with enforced views of equality. They have a price, of which you seem to ignore, both in previous threads as well as this one.

Once again, up to 600 scholarships gone. Not a word from you on that. Nothing. Yes, your a playoff supporter and this increases the need for a larger playoff later which you also support.

So I put it to the readers  that your motive is playoff, apparently, no matter the cost. Even the subject of equality gets skewed under the relentless push.

I'm sure you already know this so I post it for other readers to consider.

There is no such thing as equality, in nature. It doesn't exist. It is an intellectual concept. People/life are different, Bigger, stronger, smarter than others. More motivated etc. 

"Equality" is an agreed upon idea, in the application of laws of the land and under the eyes of God. No where else that I know of. 

"fairness" is the mechanism used to fetter the strong and making them believe they'll "feel good about themselves" if they just make things more "fair".

It is almost always used by those that resent/dislike the big, strong. ie, socialists, big gov't supportors, Union types etc. The mechanism  destroys excellence, replacing it with "self-esteem", mediocracy, excuses/acceptance of failure becomes the norm....

Rather than striving to improve, weakening the strong becomes the shortcut. There was a time when Army, Navy ND and others where on top. That has changed, as it should. But no, can't wait, can't work for it, want it now!!LOL

Remind you of anything.people?

vthokies1977, hmm, I didn't see it as an afford issue. the revenue has to offset the cost of scholarships unless your playing your games at the local community center.

If that is the case, then what the heck are they doing in competing with the big boys?? Why should the students suffer because of the schools can't compete with the BCs schools. That should be the the point where they drop, not force the those schools that can afford it to leave kids out there who otherwise can't afford school with no alternative.

It may be the biggest reason to keep CFB as it is. The scholarships. thousands benifit from them.

Makes my head spin trying to figure out where these guys have their priorities. must be psych majors.LOL 

The attendance at some schools you would think they are playing at a community center.  One thing you may not be thinking about is the number of sports that have already been sacrified in order to continue sponsoring scholarship football.  I believe the University of Maryland announced last fall it was cutting a significant number of non-revenue sports or programs, all sponsored by scholarships, because the university could no longer afford the cost.  For most schools, they use the revenue generated from football and/or basketball to pay for the cost associated with their non-revenue sports.  Unfortunately, even the costs associated with those two sports goes up too, which means less revenue to be used by the univeristy.  The University of Buffalo and the University of Michigan do not have the same revenue stream in football.  Your suggestion that University of Buffalo should go from DI-A to DI-AA goes against the the point you are critizing about.  In order for Buffalo to "drop down" it would have to cut 20 scholarships from the football program and 20 scholarships from the women's program (in order to satisfy Title IX requirements).  So, either way you will have students potentially suffering because at least 40 students will no longer have scholarships.  

Athletic and and academic scholarships are two different sides of the house.  The academic side of the house is run by a different set of rules.  For public universities, their budget has to be approved by the state.  So to assume that a university can cut academic scholarships and use that money to fund athletic scholarships shows a lack of understanding in the accounting/accounting principles that universities/colleges must follow because it is not that simple.     


  

vthokies, OK, that makes sense. I get it. Where I say wait a minute is when those schools force the financially secure schools to cut scholarships to help their situations. At the expense of the students at the big schools. That crosses my line. Save the lttle guys scholarships by cutting the big guys'.

Either way scholarships are being lost

If the states are cutting expenses, understandable, I don't think a USC, a private school, should have to sacrifice theirs to save Buffalo's.

If, following your eg of Buffalo, is going to lose scholarships by dropping to DI-AA, so be it. Then, at least, the correct institution pays.

Title nine losses are just as relevant at USC as Buffalo's.

Your Maryland eg. by your own numbers, suggest that they have more scholarships for non-football sports than for football. Of course they're cutting the non-revenue producers first. Maryland isn't one of the schools playing at a "Community Center". It's their call where to cut expenses and isn't particularly germane to cutting football scholarships for everyone else,IMO.

If the states are cutting expenses, understandable, I don't think a USC, a private school, should have to sacrifice theirs to save Buffalo's. 

From an accounting perspective, which governs how colleges and universities do business (both academically and athletically), private and public universities/colleges follow the same general principle.  The only major difference is public colleges/universities have an extra element because ultimately get their funding from state taxpayers and have to be held accountable.  Either way there are rules in place that place strict guidelines on the flow of money between the academia side of the house and the athletic side of the house.  It is not as easy as cutting 20 academic scholarships in order to fund 20 athletic scholarships, regardless if it is a private or public university.  Likewise, revenue generated from athletic events cannot be easily used to fund the academia side of things.    
 

If, following your eg of Buffalo, is going to lose scholarships by dropping to DI-AA, so be it. Then, at least, the correct institution pays. 

That would be correct, except the NCAA is an association.  Since members pay some form of dues to the NCAA, the NCAA will do what is best for its overall membership, even if it does not benefit a select minority.

Your Maryland eg. by your own numbers, suggest that they have more scholarships for non-football sports than for football. Of course they're cutting the non-revenue producers first. Maryland isn't one of the schools playing at a "Community Center". It's their call where to cut expenses and isn't particularly germane to cutting football scholarships for everyone else,IMO.

All schools play more non-revenue sports than football or basketball.  Whether it is the University of Hartford, Georgia State, or the University of Maryland, it is all the same.  Schools face pressure to keep up with the Joneses.  University of Nebraska-Omaha cut its wrestling program, which made multiple NCAA tournament appearances, and its football program to make the jump from DII to DI.  Yes, it was UNO's decision to cut those two sports, but it shows that UNO probably could not really afford the financial cost associated with playing as a DI school.  UNO made the move because it was chasing after the additional dollar it could make playing DI and willing to sacrifice its two biggest sports to satisfy Title IX requirements. 

vthokies1977, I do understand. yet, after all the rhetoric is done, same old, same old. The "associations" end up costing more than they're worth.

Your explaination is fine, as a justification it leaves a bit to be desired. The NCAA and it's rulings, rules and innovative ability stands somewhere between our congress and the United Nations.LOL

I already support leaving the BCS, leaving the NCAA isn't workable, obviously.

It's also obvious that the "majority" have no business in D1-A football in the first place and have used the the NCAA to wiggle in via the political side.

Losing more scholarships, again, bad for the students, as just more evidence that the NCAA has outweighed it's usefulness.

It might work, if they increase the number of schollies at a lower tier to make up for it.

Otherwise... 600+ kids will not get a college education who once could. 

The justification is a bit more complicated than what can be covered on message board.  To completely understand accounting rules and regulations that all colleges must adhere to, that would require taking a class on Government and Non-Profit Accounting.  The political side of the NCAA can be discussed on here, but even that may not truly scratch the surface.  When schools decided to join the NCAA, they agreed to the various rules and methods to defining the rules.  The NCAA decided that the best way to govern collegiate athletics is through committees.  Is may not be the best way of doing business, but I am not really sure there is a good way when you have over 600 members and all have competing interests.  When schools joined, they were agreeing to adhere to whatever rules are passed and receive whatever punishments for breaking various rules.  If a college/university does not believe the NCAA is looking out for its best (long-term) interest, then it can do 1 of 3 things; 1-be proactive to implement change in the NCAA, 2-leave the NCAA and join the NAIA, or 3-leave the NCAA to form a new association.

In terms of the NCAA, it does not believe that monopolies and/or oligopolies are what is best for a sport's long-term interest.  After all it does not work in the buisness world in the long run.  Yes, in the beginning the cost to consumers may be low and the customer service may be excellent, but that is only because the business/industry wants to justify being allowed to obtain the monopoly/oligopoly.  Once the business/industry knows it has the consumer by the cohunes, then prices start to go up and customer services starts to decline.  The same is true for college athletics.  Back when universities were allowed to have 110 scholarship athletes on the football team, the elite teams could stockpile the talent.  At that time, if you were a 3rd or 4th teamer on Nebraska then chances are good you could start for just about any other football program out there.  It does not make for very much excitement when only a handful of programs are competing for a national championship.  So, the NCAA decided to limit the number of scholarships to 83 per team.  As a result, more universities had access to the talent pool because universities could no longer stockpile the talent.  If the NCAA had not done that then you would not have seen schools (i.e. Boise St, Fresno St, So. Miss, UCF, USF, etc) build the kind of reputation they have over the years.  Also, you would not see unknown schools (i.e. Marshall, Tulane, Miami (OH), Hawai'i, etc) have magical seasons.  I am sorry, but as a football fan I do not think magical seasons should only be limited to the Sewanee's 1899 football team.  Yes, there is a reason I picked that year; 1-Sewanee played 11-man football with only 15 players, 2-went 12-0 that year including 9 games against current DI-A schools, 3-outscored their opponents 322-10, and 4-played 5 shutout games in 6 days.  I realize the game has greatly changed since then, but if DI-A is only limited to the "elite" then the NCAA runs the risk of losing the magical moments that make college football so great.  I certainly don't want to hear 50 years from a college football fan say, "magical moments only happen during my grandpa's era" because DI-A football (or college sports in general) has become too predictable.  

trucker,

The powerful rarely give up their power without being urged to so if you don't want rules/laws that slant toward that goal then you have something against equality IMO.  Whether you think it's an unabtainable goal is beyond the point.  I could never be the physical specimine some of these players are, does that mean I shouldn't work out?  We have to work toward having these programs on equal footing even if they never will be.  Certainly if you leave it up to the programs they will not take it upon themselves to do so.

As far as lowering scholarships, I didn't endorse the move.  I didn't agree or disagree with it, I didn't respond to it because I had nothing in particular to say about it.  All I said was it is a move that should help grow the sport.  If this is what's on the table I would urge them to move the teams that can't compete down to FCS.  My point was simply to ask you what your problem with equality is. 

Strong and weak are percecptions.  You can be a strong person and not have funds, education, and breaks.  You can be a weak person and have everything you will ever need handed to you.  The strong but poor person may never get the break they need no matter how hard they work, how much they educate themselves, how many connections they make.  It's the same with some of these schools.  A lot of them could become the "strong" if they didn't have the "strong" stepping on their throats everytime they try to take a breath.  Some of the "strong" teams would fall like a rock if they didn't have the system propping them up.  It's not socialism for a group of people to prop each other up, it's community, it's civilization!!!!  They are in this together just as Americans are in it together.  Having a few people have all power doesn't work in sports or the real world.  And I just have to say I can't help but smile everytime someone says they are against big government.  The government's power grows no matter what party is in charge, it just grows in different ways. 

If the states are cutting expenses, understandable, I don't think a USC, a private school, should have to sacrifice theirs to save Buffalo's.

I would have to imagine the power schools support this or it wouldn't happen.  Buffalo isn't going to make this happen.  Maryland isn't even going to make this happen on their own.  The point is that a school like Maryland (and Cal) can't afford all of their sports and that is what could be driving this.  Also, at the end of the day we all know this isn't about the education of young adults, it's about money.  If cutting schollies is what's going to bring these schools more money they will be all in and not give a damn about the students.  I mean it's big business, why on Earth would they care about the people? 

tampabaybishop, You avoid my rebut. It's enforcement of a concept of equality. 

Strong and weak are percecptions.  You can be a strong person and not have funds, education, and breaks.  You can be a weak person and have everything you will ever need handed to you.  The strong but poor person may never get the break they need no matter how hard they work, how much they educate themselves, how many connections they make.  It's the same with some of these schools.  A lot of them could become the "strong" if they didn't have the "strong" stepping on their throats everytime they try to take a breath.  Some of the "strong" teams would fall like a rock if they didn't have the system propping them up.  It's not socialism for a group of people to prop each other up, it's community, it's civilization!!!!  They are in this together just as Americans are in it together.  Having a few people have all power doesn't work in sports or the real world.  And I just have to say I can't help but smile everytime someone says they are against big government.  The government's power grows no matter what party is in charge, it just grows in different ways.

OK, You have an agenda. Let's take it from your post. One point at a time You state "a lot of them could be strong if they didn't have the strong stepping on their throats." You use this an example of college football? For our colleges?

You position this idiotic example to demean the big schools? That the big schools are somehow "evil" because they are "strong"? Typical socialist rhetoric. Both false and  inflammatory. Stepping on their necks?? Your words.

The only point I see that you have right is "community". What you skillfully ignore is willingness, not "enforcement" that is socialism, that makes it work.

Having a few people having "all the power" doesn't work. The big schools have all the power?? Idiocy. Ask USC with the penalties, way out of line with both previous and later penalties. Who has the "power"? LOL.

My thread was based on lost scholarships for your "poor curb-stomped kids". Under your concept of "equality" we get more regulation, more fettering of all the schools, resulting in less scholarships for "all". Just another foot on the neck of the poor oppressed.

If the "strong" can't stay strong, even when they are strong already, what chance has anyone who isn't strong becoming strong???

I have a problem  with your mentality. It ultimately weakens, makes us less strong under the guise of compassion. A helping hand, tough love and hard work is what made this country. Not pedantic concepts of artificial equality enforced on the nation by tenured theorists who, in fact, are the ones who have had everything handed to them. Not the other way around.

OK, You have an agenda. Let's take it from your post. One point at a time You state "a lot of them could be strong if they didn't have the strong stepping on their throats." You use this an example of college football? For our colleges?

I absolutely do use that for our colleges.  You brought up Notre Dame.  You basically said they used to be great and are now crap.  The problem is they still are part of the reasont he system turns the way it does.  It seems as if their president has as much power as the conference commissioners.  He certainly has as much pull as mid-major commisioners.  They have been garbage for almost 2 decades but they are still a cog that makes the engine run or keeps it stalled at the station, which ever way you want to look at it.

You position this idiotic example to demean the big schools? That the big schools are somehow "evil" because they are "strong"? Typical socialist rhetoric. Both false and  inflammatory. Stepping on their necks?? Your words.

I didn't say the big schools are evil.  they've been allowed the power that they have.  I have no problem with some of that power being stripped.  Call it socialism all you want. 

The only point I see that you have right is "community". What you skillfully ignore is willingness, not "enforcement" that is socialism, that makes it work.

they were willing to become NCAA affiliates so in my opinion they are willing participants in what ever the NCAA hands down.

Having a few people having "all the power" doesn't work. The big schools have all the power?? Idiocy. Ask USC with the penalties, way out of line with both previous and later penalties. Who has the "power"? LOL.

They made an example out of USC.  Trust me, I would have rather Ohio State be the example but daddy felt he had to get the kids under control and unfortunately USC was the kid that through something in the house that day.  Obvously O$U has more power than USC. 

My thread was based on lost scholarships for your "poor curb-stomped kids". Under your concept of "equality" we get more regulation, more fettering of all the schools, resulting in less scholarships for "all". Just another foot on the neck of the poor oppressed.

OK

If the "strong" can't stay strong, even when they are strong already, what chance has anyone who isn't strong becoming strong???

That's my point.  Not all of the top money programs are as strong as the programs with less means.  Oregon has become a strong program pretty much from nothing but it was ont he back of Nike money.  Not every program has that kind of backing so it's either let the rich alumni decide who's going to be the best programs or make things as equal as you can so it's not about who's pockets are deeper.

I have a problem  with your mentality. It ultimately weakens, makes us less strong under the guise of compassion. A helping hand, tough love and hard work is what made this country. Not pedantic concepts of artificial equality enforced on the nation by tenured theorists who, in fact, are the ones who have had everything handed to them. Not the other way around.

Yeah, that nasty compassion thingy.  We need to wipe the world of it.  I fail to see how trying to push along the American Dream that anyone can accomplish anything is wrong.  No one is saying they shouldn't work hard or should expect everything to be handed to them.  Only that they should not be penalize dout of the gate. 

tampabaybishop, penalized out of the gate? OK, right back at you. They signed on to the NCAA "Association" and their rules. Now they're the "poor guys with no chance", sounds like two standards to me.  

ND's strength is NOT with the NCAA, it's with a fan base and as a result TV Networks. Hence they can tell the conference commissioners to take a long walk off a short pier. 

Oops, there's that evil "strength" again. Lessen it, demean it. I prefer to admire it. They set some very cool standards that makes it tougher for them to compete with the rest and even if they don't return to former glory, the day ND moves into lock-step with the rest, CFB will be the poorer for it.

Striving for greatness is an American Ideal. Fettering greatness is a European Ideal. Despite the growing popularity of it,I prefer the former.

Nothing wrong with compassion, until, that is, it requires self-effacement. The elite programs have a long and proud history, legends made, men developed, all things that can and should be admired.

Along with that view, I add maintaining it as well. After all, if it was easy to attain, it wouldn't be worth as much would it? So let the little guys earn it. With it will come real admiration.

Oh spare me, nwtrucker.

The American dream is about staking your claim. I get 'the struggle' of a small team making it big. Heck, I agree with it.

But what about the other side? These so called 'elite' programs who staked a foothold long ago, only to lose it, yet expect to hold that same spot for all of perpetuity?

That isn't the American dream or an American ideal. That's just manure.

The media froths every time a legacy team makes a run. If successful, it is always seen as the greatest thing of the moment and we have to hear how college football is so great because it's just like it was 50 years ago!

Blah.

If a Boise State can't have a shot that Alabama gets the system is wrong. Alabama could go 3-8 for 5 years straight and go 12-0 in the 6th and demand a national title shot. Insert the name of any legacy team in place of Alabama. Notre Dame. Ohio State. Oklahoma.

Why do they deserve this accolade because of what they did decades ago?

College football should have amnesia. You should keep the past the past and start each year anew. Otherwise every year you're gonna get an Oklahoma State on the outside while Oklahoma walks through the door every time.

War Eagle I agree but using BSU copared to Bama is not a good example.  You always have the strength of schedule difference with those two.   I would use Bama and Vandy, very similiar schedules and one is the "elite" and one is not.