**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?

Sounds like an awful idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talent diffusion. I like it.

If we could do this and the NFL would let players declare for the draft after one season and that will greatly increase the parity.

(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...

(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?

I'm not a fan. States spend enormous amounts of money on athletics. Asking them to purposely send their talent to other states to be educated may be not go well.

(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?

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

(01-24-2019 05:57 PM)WolfBird 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?

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?

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

(01-24-2019 05:57 PM)WolfBird 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?

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 players who have opportunities at Alabama already have opportunities elsewhere.

If you’re reducing the overall roster sizes than there are fewer opportunities overall for guys to play.

This sounds like every other “great idea” to help the less fortunate that actually hurts them more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

(01-24-2019 05:57 PM)WolfBird 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?

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.

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

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

(01-24-2019 05:57 PM)WolfBird 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?

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

(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?

Lol...riiiight

(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:  

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

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

That's what I was getting at, but you said it a lot better than I did

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

No one is saying 5-star players will go to G5s. There literally aren't even enough 5-star players every season for every P5 to have one, so that's obviously not possible.

I'll use a buffet analogy. Imagine a buffet of food that each CFB program goes through and the order in which they go through it is the pecking order of programs.

The elite programs like Alabama and Ohio State go through the buffet first and they'll still take most of the lobster for themselves and most of the rest of the programs won't get any.

But if they have smaller plates and they fill up their plates with lobster then they have less room for the prime rib, and thus the other P5 programs will pick up more of the prime rib when they go through the line after the elite programs are done. These P5s take more prime rib and have less room for cheaper cuts of steak. That in turn leaves more of the cheaper cuts of steak for the G5 programs to pick up, and of course they put fewer hamburgers on their plate, leaving more hamburgers for the FCS teams, and so on.

It's cheesy, but it demonstrates the principle.

(01-24-2019 10:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

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

No one is saying 5-star players will go to G5s. There literally aren't even enough 5-star players every season for every P5 to have one, so that's obviously not possible.

I'll use a buffet analogy. Imagine a buffet of food that each CFB program goes through and the order in which they go through it is the pecking order of programs.

The elite programs like Alabama and Ohio State go through the buffet first and they'll still take most of the lobster for themselves and most of the rest of the programs won't get any.

But if they have smaller plates and they fill up their plates with lobster then they have less room for the prime rib, and thus the other P5 programs will pick up more of the prime rib when they go through the line after the elite programs are done. These P5s take more prime rib and have less room for cheaper cuts of steak. That in turn leaves more of the cheaper cuts of steak for the G5 programs to pick up, and of course they put fewer hamburgers on their plate, leaving more hamburgers for the FCS teams, and so on.

It's cheesy, but it demonstrates the principle.

Dang. That was cheesy. Forget the whole idea. Cutting scholarships would only make college affordable for fewer people. The buffet analogy only works if the buffet is in Las Vegas and high rollers get free meals and other benefits because of the vast amounts they leave on the tables. Oh wait. That's even a worse analogy.

If you're still reading, I did have one relevant point to make. Number of scholarships is not the same thing as size of squad or number of players "suited out." Remember, in NCAA Baseball, the schools are limited to eleven and a fraction scholarships, yet the teams have 25 or more players. Similarly, in NCAA Football, there are players with less than full scholarships, and even walk-ons. I'm sure there are many very talented athletes who walk on at OU or Alabama hoping to get noticed and maybe get a scholarship later. Not so much at your typical G5 program.

As the first guy said, this is a bad idea.

At the FBS level there aren’t players with partial schollies.

As already mentioned, this idea also means less available scholarships overall, it would have social implications. Some kids (mostly 2-star recruits) wouldn't be able to attend a good college that way... and all this so some G5 teams could field marginally better football teams?

(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 best way to defuse talent is to expand the playoffs. Most P5 schools, it could be argued, are suffering more when there are only 4 playoff births. Clemson and Alabama taking all the oxygen and are awash in talent and resources. There may be 8 schools max that can possibly contend, and even their odds now are slimming.

All 5 P5 champs, plus highest G5, and two at large (likely top programs that stubbed toes during season or an Indy). That opens it up to everyone and makes conference races meaningful.

(01-25-2019 03:16 AM)T2003 Wrote:  As already mentioned, this idea also means less available scholarships overall, it would have social implications. Some kids (mostly 2-star recruits) wouldn't be able to attend a good college that way... and all this so some G5 teams could field marginally better football teams?

If you increase the scholarship ceiling, you get the "what are our priorities? athletics spending is so out of control" complaints. You decrease it, people complain there's fewer opportunities for HS football players. You aren't going to please the harshest critics of college sports on this issue.

(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:  

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

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