(01-26-2019 08:54 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 07:40 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 07:18 PM)debragga Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 06:23 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:57 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  It could be, but there is no reason to do it unless your primary goal is cost reduction to the schools.

Limiting opportunities isn’t a great marketing slogan to get behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hadn't thought about the unintended benefit of cost reduction but the argument of "limiting opportunities" could go either way. Fewer players get scholarship offers at Alabama but they'd still have opportunities elsewhere. Almost every player has multiple offers.

NCAA limiting scholarships in 78 and 92 didn't limit opportunities, how would this?

The guys at Alabama would have other P5 offers, but they would replace the guys that would be at those P5 schools, the guys at those P5 schools would have no choice but to go to G5 schools most of the time, and so on until you get into D3.

If you guys don’t understand the math behind 130 FBS schools cutting 20 scholarships in relation to reduction of opportunities for people to play FBS football I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I absolutely understand you guys think you’re gonna smash 5* recruits down to the G5 level but all you’re doing is eliminating spots for low rated talent that’s actually good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would be lambasted as racist by the lefty media much like when some people years ago started talking about cutting a cpl. of basketball scholarships. I think it was the Arkansas coach said that it would take away the opportunities of 300 ( dont remember the exact #) black kids. of course his reasoning was based on only black kids being available for D-1 basketball. I dont remember anyone giving him any crap for the statement but his reasoning would most likely be applied today to any rationing of spots at the top schools. IMHO

Clearly, the lack of NCAA Ice Dancing teams is a slap against the Asian community!

(01-24-2019 05:49 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:40 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Sounds like an awful idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

NFL Roster - 53
FCS Roster - 63
High School roster - approx. 50

Why do FBS programs need 85? The NCAA increased parity in 1978 by imposing scholarship limits and then again by reducing the limit in 1992. Why can't it be done again?

Wuuuut? #DoesNotCompute

(01-28-2019 10:18 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:49 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:40 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Sounds like an awful idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

NFL Roster - 53
FCS Roster - 63
High School roster - approx. 50

Why do FBS programs need 85? The NCAA increased parity in 1978 by imposing scholarship limits and then again by reducing the limit in 1992. Why can't it be done again?

Wuuuut? #DoesNotCompute

I think the one in the town I’m from probably has about 25 or 30 at best. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-28-2019 10:19 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:18 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:49 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:40 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Sounds like an awful idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

NFL Roster - 53
FCS Roster - 63
High School roster - approx. 50

Why do FBS programs need 85? The NCAA increased parity in 1978 by imposing scholarship limits and then again by reducing the limit in 1992. Why can't it be done again?

Wuuuut? #DoesNotCompute

I think the one in the town I’m from probably has about 25 or 30 at best. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d die a little inside haha. I went to my high school (Valdosta Ga.) during the darker ages of football, and they had like 100-120 or so on the team.

(01-24-2019 05:38 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  **This is 100% theoretical and not based on any reports**

Today on ESPN Upstate we've discussed redistribution of talent through scholarship reduction at the FBS level. The supposition is that reducing scholarships for the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Clemsons of the world will drive some of that high 3 and low 4* talent they get down to the Wake Forests, Dukes, UABs, App States of the world. Thus increasing competitiveness among more programs and generating more interest in the sport because more teams stand a legitimate chance.

Thoughts?

Ridiculous.

Why on earth would you want to make it harder for people to go to college?

If you want to try to create some form of equality/competitiveness, then institute a budget cap and profit sharing. But good luck in getting that through anything.

NCAA should put dent in college football superpowers by reducing scholarship limits

....if it had the willpower and the mandate from its masses, could start to create more parity with the snap of its fingers. All it would take is cutting scholarships down to 70.....

....Changing scholarship numbers, of course, isn’t new. The NCAA first put in a 105-scholarship limit for football in 1973 after Congress passed Title IX and has reduced it periodically to 95 and then the current 85 in 1992.....


I think it would be good for the divisional roster limits to be set as follows:

Div III - 55 - No more than 30 full scholarships

Div II - 55 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FCS - 65 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FBS - 75 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

If a kid retires from football due to medical condition, the school must take him off sports scholarship and put them on 4 year academic scholarship if freshman; 3 year if sophomore and so on.


Also eliminate early enrollments aka grey/blue shirts.

(01-28-2019 10:29 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:19 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:18 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:49 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:40 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Sounds like an awful idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

NFL Roster - 53
FCS Roster - 63
High School roster - approx. 50

Why do FBS programs need 85? The NCAA increased parity in 1978 by imposing scholarship limits and then again by reducing the limit in 1992. Why can't it be done again?

Wuuuut? #DoesNotCompute

I think the one in the town I’m from probably has about 25 or 30 at best. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d die a little inside haha. I went to my high school (Valdosta Ga.) during the darker ages of football, and they had like 100-120 or so on the team.

My school had about 50 but we were a small 4A at the time with about 1100 students. A few years earlier, we had Freshman and Junior Varsity squads as well.

That is why using a High Schools as an example does not work.

My Junior High School in Tuscaloosa actually had two football teams. Due to refusing to integrate, each junior high was assigned a grade. And one High Schools was assigned all 10th graders. The 11th and 12th grades were at Central. Central became a power house. Enterprise did something similar a few years later. Dothan City schools are about to do the same. Therefore, high schools are not a good example.

The NFL roster of 53 is a bit misleading also since NFL teams also have practice squads and Injured Reserve status where they can either pull a player up from the practice squad or even sign a new player once a roster player is injured.

(01-24-2019 05:48 PM)T2003 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 05:38 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  **This is 100% theoretical and not based on any reports**

Today on ESPN Upstate we've discussed redistribution of talent through scholarship reduction at the FBS level. The supposition is that reducing scholarships for the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Clemsons of the world will drive some of that high 3 and low 4* talent they get down to the Wake Forests, Dukes, UABs, App States of the world. Thus increasing competitiveness among more programs and generating more interest in the sport because more teams stand a legitimate chance.

Thoughts?

The Alabamas, Ohio States, Clemsons etc would probably file a lawsuit or even leave the NCAA altogether...

I think that is exactly where this is headed. The P5 conferences are going to leave the NCAA entirely. They’ll regulate themselves, like the NFL does. They will allow themselves as many scholarships as they want to allow. They’ll have as many teams make the playoffs as they want to have, but rest assured, there will be no such thing as an access bowl.

you guys may not remember the old days when there were no limits on scholarships given and teams would often sign guys they didnt plan on using just to keep their competitors from getting them. I had several pals who were borderline good that were happy to get a free ride to a "name" school even if they knew they would probably not get any playing time. the teasips were good at that and even the coach back then at tiny little Baylor said once that he would sign 200 if he needed to. the ncaa has walked the tightrope over the years trying to scale back the big money programs and guiet the howls from the lesser divisions without them just all leaving the ncaa and starting their own governing body. now that nearly all pretense of amateurism has gone by the wayside, the drain on lower level programs trying to keep up will most likely cause more schools to drop down. IMHO or like BRtransplant says the money schools will leave altogether and there will be such a big gap between them and us that there will be no need to drop down.

A smaller adjustment would have a better chance of passing.

FBS--from 85 down to 80

FCS--from 63 down to 60

This would reduce costs and eases Title IX compliance. The Title IX problem has been a big issue at some schools and is not going away. Walk-ons oft times receive other financial aid and/or get a scholarship later in some cases. IMO 85 is a little much compared to football at other levels. This is only approximately a five percent reduction.

This would increase parity over time. For example that would be 70 less schollies to the ACC every year.Those players--most at least-- would enroll at G5 schools. This adjustment would be seen as a compromise and doable by some on both sides and yet would still help us in the long run. Hope it happens but not holding my breath.

When NCAA reduced scholarships by 10% in 1992 (1-A 95 to 85 / 1-AA 70 to 63) a lot of my friends complained about it. My reaction was it was the best thing that could ever happen to us. Just within the 5 states our campus we suddenly had access to 130 players that would have been on 1-A rosters. Things have changed quite a bit with the declining participation in HS football and the addition of 13 new FBS programs (1105 scholarships) since 1991. There's no question it would make for a more even playing field. Does a team really need 5 QB's on scholarship is a legitimate question. It certainly force coaches be more selective when offering a grant. Seventy Five scholarships gives you three full depth charts plus some specialists and that should be more than enough to filed a competitive football team.

(01-31-2019 08:41 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  NCAA should put dent in college football superpowers by reducing scholarship limits

....if it had the willpower and the mandate from its masses, could start to create more parity with the snap of its fingers. All it would take is cutting scholarships down to 70.....

....Changing scholarship numbers, of course, isn’t new. The NCAA first put in a 105-scholarship limit for football in 1973 after Congress passed Title IX and has reduced it periodically to 95 and then the current 85 in 1992.....


I think it would be good for the divisional roster limits to be set as follows:

Div III - 55 - No more than 30 full scholarships

Div II - 55 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FCS - 65 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FBS - 75 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

If a kid retires from football due to medical condition, the school must take him off sports scholarship and put them on 4 year academic scholarship if freshman; 3 year if sophomore and so on.


Also eliminate early enrollments aka grey/blue shirts.

I like the ideas about the red shirts and medical injuries.

(01-31-2019 08:41 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  NCAA should put dent in college football superpowers by reducing scholarship limits

....if it had the willpower and the mandate from its masses, could start to create more parity with the snap of its fingers. All it would take is cutting scholarships down to 70.....

....Changing scholarship numbers, of course, isn’t new. The NCAA first put in a 105-scholarship limit for football in 1973 after Congress passed Title IX and has reduced it periodically to 95 and then the current 85 in 1992.....


I think it would be good for the divisional roster limits to be set as follows:

Div III - 55 - No more than 30 full scholarships

Div II - 55 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FCS - 65 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

FBS - 75 - full scholarships + 5 medical redshirts

If a kid retires from football due to medical condition, the school must take him off sports scholarship and put them on 4 year academic scholarship if freshman; 3 year if sophomore and so on.


Also eliminate early enrollments aka grey/blue shirts.

D3 will never have scholarships. That is why there is such a division.

Also, the reason there is a roster of 100 is to develop the freshman and sophomores.

(02-04-2019 06:45 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  When NCAA reduced scholarships by 10% in 1992 (1-A 95 to 85 / 1-AA 70 to 63) a lot of my friends complained about it. My reaction was it was the best thing that could ever happen to us. Just within the 5 states our campus we suddenly had access to 130 players that would have been on 1-A rosters. Things have changed quite a bit with the declining participation in HS football and the addition of 13 new FBS programs (1105 scholarships) since 1991. There's no question it would make for a more even playing field. Does a team really need 5 QB's on scholarship is a legitimate question. It certainly force coaches be more selective when offering a grant. Seventy Five scholarships gives you three full depth charts plus some specialists and that should be more than enough to filed a competitive football team.

That is why USF immediately announce it was starting a program and UCF moved up from IAA.

(02-04-2019 04:04 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 06:45 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  When NCAA reduced scholarships by 10% in 1992 (1-A 95 to 85 / 1-AA 70 to 63) a lot of my friends complained about it. My reaction was it was the best thing that could ever happen to us. Just within the 5 states our campus we suddenly had access to 130 players that would have been on 1-A rosters. Things have changed quite a bit with the declining participation in HS football and the addition of 13 new FBS programs (1105 scholarships) since 1991. There's no question it would make for a more even playing field. Does a team really need 5 QB's on scholarship is a legitimate question. It certainly force coaches be more selective when offering a grant. Seventy Five scholarships gives you three full depth charts plus some specialists and that should be more than enough to filed a competitive football team.

That is why USF immediately announce it was starting a program and UCF moved up from IAA.

In 1995 App's administration put together a study group on making the move up to 1-A. I spoke to several AD's about their own experiences and issues about making the move. The one that stood out to me was Steve Sloan at Central Florida. The guy obviously knew football and when we were discussing recruiting budgets he basically said they didn't need much of a budget because "we can get every player we need within a 2 hour drive of campus". That was really an eye opening moment for me.

The thing is you have to give the Alabama's and Clemson's of the world a reason to support it otherwise they will saber-rattle defecting and you don't get the required votes.

So what makes them interested?

Take the scholarship limit down to whatever number can be agreed upon but repeal the 25 newcomer limit, grant immediate transfer eligibility to any player whose scholarship is revoked.

Maybe someone already said this but the case study on this is women's basketball. They have 15 scholarships in a sport with a limited amount of true 5* star players. It is very easy for the big programs to lock up the talent an maintain the status quo. A reduction to 13 like the men's side would significantly help balance things out. With that in mind, I would love to see FBS go down to 80.scholarzhips to help level out things a bit. However, it will never happen.

I never realized women's basketball allowed two more scholarships than men's.

What does softball have compared to baseball?