If I have my information right back when the NCAA put the scholarship limitations in place back in the 90's most teams only played an eleven game schedule, now with the twelfth game and more and more teams going to bowl games wouldn't it make sense to up that number? Not a huge jump bout maybe up to 95 or 100 allowing teams to continue to compete throughout the season. I don't have all the consequences hammered out just yet, but would be interested to here your input.
Scholarship Idea
- Thread starter alextupelo
- Start date
My initial thought was that that would mean that the better teams that recruit better would only gain those top players. In other words, more 5 star running backs sitting on the bench at USC. The scholarship limit gives teams that don't recruit as well a chance to grab some higher "rated" players. All of this is assuming the ratings for recruits are accurate.
Last edited:
The chances of the NCAA raising the scholarship limit for football are slim and none (and slim's left town). If anything, they'll eventually drop the limit to 75 or 80.
If they were to raise limits in any sport, it would be baseball (11.7 scholarships for a 20-30 man roster).
If they were to raise limits in any sport, it would be baseball (11.7 scholarships for a 20-30 man roster).
Smaller schools and ones less able to cover many scholarships are the ones behind the previous reductions. They have more votes. Fewer scholarships for the big boys means more talent trickles down to them as well. I don't think anything has seriously changed for them to vote differently.
Not only do you have some issues with other sports, but Title IX (I think that's it) would also demand some additions in women sports also... at least I think.
Title IX shouldn't be insuperable, BR. FB already produces the surplus that carries a lot of minor and women's sports. However, I don't see the NCAA backing off of their "level playing field" philosophy. The limits will go up when the major schools pull out of the NCAA and it crumbles...
So whats your best ball park estimate of when this will happen? Or is that the wrong question? Should I ask whether to keep the time until that happens with a stop watch, egg timer, hour glass, or abacus?
:biggrin:
If the NCAA were to fold tomorrow, there wouldn't be an increase in football scholarships or any other men's sports. The NCAA is a private organization that has only limited/reduced football scholarships to reduce the athletic department financial losses of most of its members. It is about money and not the sharing of available talent or leveling the playing field. If athletic departments were allowed to run their departments to be profitable, or at least limit their losses, (and not be forced to live under the Title IX ruling) many would drop minor sports with many of those being women's sports. But that will never happen because the United States government will enforce Title IX requiring schools to roughly spend the same amount of money on women's sports as they do men's sports. Adding football scholarships would require schools to match that expense on the women's side. How could you expect a school that is loosing money in their athletic department to vote to accept the additional losses? Even if the profitable athletic departments were to pull out and form a super conference, Title IX would follow them. There might be 15-20 college athletic departments in the country that could afford to participate in the super conference and still live under Title IX. I think it is reasonable to assume that most high school players with ambitions to play in the league would beg to attend one of the super conference schools. Regardless of what you called the super conference schools, they would become somewhat of a minor league for pro football. If you think college presidents would allow that to happen, you have a different opinion than I.
IMO, the next change in the total number of football scholarships will be a reduction. The same considerations that have reduced the number to 85 have become even more of an influence as Title IX has become fully implemented.
However, and again only my opinion, there might be some hope that the number of baseball scholarships might be increased in the future.
It would really help things within the athletic department budget if one of our women's sports were to become profitable, but apart from softball, I don't see how that could happen. Even if that happened, it wouldn't change the total of football scholarship numbers we could offer.
Increasing the number of football scholarships has nothing to do with good business practices, common sense, fairness, or profitability. It is all about living under the Title IX rulings and I don't see them going away.
IMO, the next change in the total number of football scholarships will be a reduction. The same considerations that have reduced the number to 85 have become even more of an influence as Title IX has become fully implemented.
However, and again only my opinion, there might be some hope that the number of baseball scholarships might be increased in the future.
It would really help things within the athletic department budget if one of our women's sports were to become profitable, but apart from softball, I don't see how that could happen. Even if that happened, it wouldn't change the total of football scholarship numbers we could offer.
Increasing the number of football scholarships has nothing to do with good business practices, common sense, fairness, or profitability. It is all about living under the Title IX rulings and I don't see them going away.
SM, I don't see it all as Title IX - related. And, you are assuming that a substitute, authoritative body, similar to the NCAA would arise. I don't see the major FB powers ever allowing that to happen again. The major schools have voted against reductions but have been voted down by the host of smaller schools who are affected, not only by T. IX, but also by the fact that their FB operations are losing money and cutting scholarships cuts that loss. What I think will replace the NCAA will not be a body with clout to enforce limits. What I think will replace the NCAA would be a loose body dealing mostly with TV rights , a la the old CFA, and rules. I think it'll be a much more lassez faire era, in reaction against the excesses of the NCAA...
I don't agree with the way Title IX is enforced, but it does not demand that the money be divided equally between men's and women's sports.
It demands that the gender ratio of scholarships to be the same as the gender ratio of the general student popluation. Therefore, a school like Georgia Tech gets an advantage because it is 2/3 male. Alabama is close to 50-50, so our scholarships have to be divided pretty evenly.
It demands that the gender ratio of scholarships to be the same as the gender ratio of the general student popluation. Therefore, a school like Georgia Tech gets an advantage because it is 2/3 male. Alabama is close to 50-50, so our scholarships have to be divided pretty evenly.
Earle,
I think you are right that there is the possibility another body could be formed to primarily deal with the broadcast rights of major college athletics. However, as inconsistent as the NCAA has been in enforcing their rules fairly, it is my opinion the few that have been wronged wouldn't have the clout to move the rest of the membership to another organization with a new set of rules. No doubt the NCAA has some ridiculous rules that should be changed or eliminated. To me the bigger problem is not the rules but how they are enforced. I also think college presidents -even those that clearly understand the value of a winning football program to their school- would not allow college athletics to move a university away from their primary mission of education. I just don't think that will ever happen nor would I personally support deviating from that mission. I recongnize many current college football players are only in school to fulfill their hopes of playing in the NFL. I admit many schools would recruit those talented players even if they couldn't read, write, make a 10 of the ACT, or even count to ten. Someday there may be a minor league for pro football but I think college football will move more towards developing student-athletes rather than players for the NFL. DeMeco Ryan recently proved that we can do both.
Chuck, Compliance with Title IX offers several qualifying options. One of those options does address the male/female student body ratio. I think last year our ratio of male to female was 46/54 but last year's freshmen class had a much lower male/female ratio. It looks like that may be the case again with this year's freshmen class. It is a good time to be a young man at the University of Alabama. Many of the best and brightest are very attractive young ladies.
I think you are right that there is the possibility another body could be formed to primarily deal with the broadcast rights of major college athletics. However, as inconsistent as the NCAA has been in enforcing their rules fairly, it is my opinion the few that have been wronged wouldn't have the clout to move the rest of the membership to another organization with a new set of rules. No doubt the NCAA has some ridiculous rules that should be changed or eliminated. To me the bigger problem is not the rules but how they are enforced. I also think college presidents -even those that clearly understand the value of a winning football program to their school- would not allow college athletics to move a university away from their primary mission of education. I just don't think that will ever happen nor would I personally support deviating from that mission. I recongnize many current college football players are only in school to fulfill their hopes of playing in the NFL. I admit many schools would recruit those talented players even if they couldn't read, write, make a 10 of the ACT, or even count to ten. Someday there may be a minor league for pro football but I think college football will move more towards developing student-athletes rather than players for the NFL. DeMeco Ryan recently proved that we can do both.
Chuck, Compliance with Title IX offers several qualifying options. One of those options does address the male/female student body ratio. I think last year our ratio of male to female was 46/54 but last year's freshmen class had a much lower male/female ratio. It looks like that may be the case again with this year's freshmen class. It is a good time to be a young man at the University of Alabama. Many of the best and brightest are very attractive young ladies.
Amazon Deals for TideFans!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.
Latest threads
-
-
Alabama’s Ozmer Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
News Article: Jalen Hurts ties the knot with Bry Burrows
- Started by JustNeedMe81
- Replies: 3
-
-