Remember, DBT is probably the only one here who actually might have been around then..... :smile2:
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
NCAA DI approves +$2k living stipend
- Thread starter Bone Buff
- Start date
Remember, DBT is probably the only one here who actually might have been around then..... :smile2:
Hey, I resent that. I'm getting tired of the "DBT is old" jokes.
Cal84
Member
Exactly. And when Cal offers a kid a 4yr scholarship and he is offered only a 1 yr scholarship from Alabama or whomever, advantage Cal.
DBT,
What do you mean by "level playing field"?
Resources and academic standards will be different at different colleges. So will conference affiliations and how desirable a location is for top recruits. Things are inherently not level.
If you mean that things should be level in terms of enforcement and everyone playing within the same rules, I think this is a move in the right direction. It divides D1 more clearly into the "haves" and "have nots", but it seems to me that the new regs are pushing us in the direction of doing a bit more for athletes. As far as rules are concerned, I really don't care about things like a coach talking to a recruit where or when he's not supposed to. Simplify that stuff and eliminate some of it. What we need to do is focus rules and enforcement on the thing that makes things unfair - illegal gifts by a university or its boosters to a recruit, player or friend/family of a recruit/player. The rest of it really doesn't matter.
Go ahead and serve cream cheese with your bagels. It's irrelevant.
What do you mean by "level playing field"?
Resources and academic standards will be different at different colleges. So will conference affiliations and how desirable a location is for top recruits. Things are inherently not level.
If you mean that things should be level in terms of enforcement and everyone playing within the same rules, I think this is a move in the right direction. It divides D1 more clearly into the "haves" and "have nots", but it seems to me that the new regs are pushing us in the direction of doing a bit more for athletes. As far as rules are concerned, I really don't care about things like a coach talking to a recruit where or when he's not supposed to. Simplify that stuff and eliminate some of it. What we need to do is focus rules and enforcement on the thing that makes things unfair - illegal gifts by a university or its boosters to a recruit, player or friend/family of a recruit/player. The rest of it really doesn't matter.
Go ahead and serve cream cheese with your bagels. It's irrelevant.
Unless something changes drastically within the NCAA, that type of enforcement will never be equal amongst the "haves" and "have nots" as a subset of the "haves".
Any way you slice it, getting more to the athletes is a step in the right direction.
Are you saying the SEC and SWC weren't paying players in 1991??? Hell, even to a humorless mongoloid, that is ****ing hilarious!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's a pretty slim advantage. Negligible, in fact. The kind of athlete that would care about such a thing is going to be marginal at best, IMO. Most kids think they're superman. It never enters their mind that they could get their scholly yanked in year 2.
Cal84
Member
I disagree. There are a lot of kids who are smart enough to know that they can at any time suffer an injury that might not make them ineligible to play but could reduce their skill/abilities and leave them vulnerable to be cut. It's not just a hypothetical. Just look at the number of kids cut from SEC teams during their middle years. I guarantee you those numbers will be shown to kids Cal recruits. Now you can argue that a lot of kids also don't care about the education they receive (are supposed to receive). But again, those aren't the kids Cal recruits. There are more than enough kids (and parents) that do care to fill out a top 20 recruiting class.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Let me know when Cal out-recruits LSU, Alabama, etc.
Time will tell, I suppose. I really don't see this having much of an impact.
Cal84
Member
Keenan Allen. I seem to recall him catching a game winning TD in overtime against someone this year...
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
You mean the wide receiver whose brother is Cal's QB?
Right..........
I'm sure Cal's 4-year scholarship is what tipped him over to Cal. :roll eyes: Certainly the fact that Alabama wouldn't offer Maynard a spot had nothing to do with it at all. :roll eyes AGAIN:
That's my take on it as well - that the 4-year scholarship deal is very minor in the overall scheme of things. There's a list that every recruit has in his mind of the factors he's looking for when making a decision as to where to go to school. Coaching, location, history, championship opportunity, preparation for the NFL, educational opportunities, proximity to home, facilities, hot chicks, the opportunity to play on TV... And so on. Way, WAY down at the bottom of that list is whether or not he can get a 4-year scholarship as opposed to a one-year scholarship. If he's being recruited by Alabama (for example), he's not worried about losing his scholarship.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
And Zach Maynard's actions are exactly the reason why scholarships should be on a year-to-year basis!!
eh, 4 year scholarship will always be tied to meeting team rules etc... coaches will always have a way to get rid of players.
If the way Alabama does business was a concern to recruits, it would already manifest itself. Recruits going there know exactly how Bama rolls, they obviously don't care.
:nod: Right on the bullseye.
As far as cheating is concerned, there will always be boosters willing to do a little something extra to give their program an advantage. There will always be recruits and players who want to take financial advantage of having a marketable skill who take extra benefits from street agents or boosters.
So how you address this is through the coaches and administrations.
As long as the benefits of winning outweigh the risk of NCAA penalties, coaches and administrations will look the other way (or even actively work with certain boosters and agents to make things happen).
I like the idea of coaches and athletic directors being licensed by the NCAA. A suspension of these licenses could cost the individuals millions of dollars while also making them unemployable after an incident. The risk would become huge.
So how you address this is through the coaches and administrations.
As long as the benefits of winning outweigh the risk of NCAA penalties, coaches and administrations will look the other way (or even actively work with certain boosters and agents to make things happen).
I like the idea of coaches and athletic directors being licensed by the NCAA. A suspension of these licenses could cost the individuals millions of dollars while also making them unemployable after an incident. The risk would become huge.
Cal84
Member
Now you're just being dense. That is something that can be offered going forward. And the question rhetorically asked was when Cal out recruited Alabama. Allen was an Alabama commit. He enrolled at Cal. So there's your example. Obviously one can not provide an example of Cal out recruiting Alabama or anyone else for that matter by offering a 4 year scholarship rather than a 1 yr scholarship because it has never been allowed previously.
More generally the issue of whether or not offering a 4 year scholarship rather than a 1 year scholarship has any traction with recruits is not a deterministic one. There are some for whom that will not matter. There are some for which it will have an effect. And that's the rub. Is it a factor for 50% of all recruits? 40%? 30%? 10%? Let's say it's 10%. You might then claim that it's a minor factor and viewed in the aggregate it very well may be (only a factor for 10% of recruits). But if it's a factor for even 10% of all recruits, that's more than the number of kids you can bring in and thus means meaningfully better recruiting opportunities. Moreover since Cal is generally recruiting kids who are predisposed to valuing the education aspect of a scholarship it's effect is further magnified. You guys pooh pooh the educational angle to recruits, but one of the things that historically has had a lot of traction with recruits has been info that Cal has provided on earnings/income of football scholarship recipients who graduated but were not drafted and thus did not go onto the NFL. This stuff matters to thoughtful kids and especially to their parents.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
The end result is still the same. Alabama still doesn't have to offer 4-year scholarships, and why would they?
Cal84 may have a point when it boils down to a choice between, say, Cal and UW. If Cal is offering a guaranteed 4 year scholarship and UW is only offering a one year guarantee, I can see where that might be a deciding factor. It's only a deciding factor when all else is equal. That wouldn't be the case with Alabama. Alabama was just a poor choice of comparison.
I don't think I'm getting my point across. Programs with very high academic standards could have a lower APR than schools with very low academic standards. Therefor, raising the APR standards will either favor schools with low standards and/or force schools to lower their standards.
So, this is my thought. The NCAA needs to develop a floating scale. Like a difficulty factor. Why should an engineering student be rated on the same scale as, say, an Ethnic Studies major? How come I'm the only one who sees the disparity? CU doesn't have any "pass through" majors that I know of. Lots of schools do. Yet we are rated on GPA and grad rate on an "equal" basis.
So, this is my thought. The NCAA needs to develop a floating scale. Like a difficulty factor. Why should an engineering student be rated on the same scale as, say, an Ethnic Studies major? How come I'm the only one who sees the disparity? CU doesn't have any "pass through" majors that I know of. Lots of schools do. Yet we are rated on GPA and grad rate on an "equal" basis.
Cal84
Member
I see what you are saying, but I think the practical difficulties behind creating a floating scale will keep "regulations" at a fairly simplistic level. I can make an argument that graduating from Berkeley is much more difficult than at the majority of FBS schools, but some dimwit at Mississippi State will always lobby that his school is just as tough.