Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Oct 13, 2011.
Wow, they are doing everything they can to destroy themselves. More players available for non-BCS schools to equal the playing field. Problem is that the conferences paying the bills don't need the NCAA.
Sounds stupid. Surprise, surprise...
I would like to know the reasoning behind this. It seems as if they want to increase the cost of the scholarship, maybe to give more benefits to the student....
I think this also helps the weaker schools have a better shot at Florida, California, & Texas recruits.......
The part in bold in the second quote answers the first. Read the tea leaves for a minute. IF you are the NCAA, your worst fear is becoming irrelevant. What would make the NCAA irrelevant? If 4 super conferences left the NCAA and BCS and formed their own governing faction. However, if the NCAA makes the playing field more even, the NCAA has a better product left to market than otherwise would be the case.
I could see it backfiring and making several "Fringe" schools more attractive for the Super 4 to nab and get to 64 and bolt.
This is a Title IX issue. Balancing the number of athletic scholarships available to men and women is almost impossible when there are 85 men's scholarships to make up for in football. Football should be exempted from the calculation.
The search for parity. Less scholies means a wider dispersion of talent. It's not a bad idea for the have nots.
The "BCS" is not a governing faction and there would be no need for the super-conferences to "leave" the BCS, they are the BCS. Not the relevant part of your post but still a clarification that many people don't see. The BCS is an alliance of the conferences, not the NCAA's arm in bowl games.
Agreed with this, but this will really put more pressure on HC's to make sure the ones they hand out are well placed.
This might benefit the JUCO's more than it will the smaller schools, as those recruits that were borderline offers could prove themselves at a JUCO for 2 years and then get to a BCS program for the final 2 or 3 years of their college career and showcase for the NFL.
I've seen several ominous comments from AD's and University Presidents that "college sports" will not look the same in 4-5 years, whether it was during the football realingment chaos and even the hockey conference chaos from unrelated schools/conferences.
From stipends and scholarship limits, to TV rights, recruiting, and academic progress ratings there are certainly many valid reasons why you can't have a "one size fits all" approach to what is currently Division I-A football.
Behind the scenes there is also the congressional interest in the BCS bowls' non-profit status, expenses and conference payouts, and not to mention the selection process and access issues.
The reasoning is always about $. Most schools are in the red. It costs a fortune to run a big athletic program. There is no question this will help the "have nots". No question at all. It's been done before to reduce the number to 85. In the old days the big schools would recruit and sign guys just to keep them off opposing teams. This would be a very good deal for CU, very good. Often times depth is what separates the elite from everyone else, especially over the course of a season with injuries and general attrition.
I agree that 5 fewer scholarships for football would probably be a benefit to CU. But if the NCAA is supposed to be concerned with the welfare of student athletes, how can it defend reducing the number of scholarships available? This rule would mean thousands fewer scholarship athletes over the years. Thousands of kids having to pay their own way. How does this help students?
Not necessarily the case. The number of students who won't be able to get a scholarship anywhere won't really go down that much, I don't think. It would mean some students would have to choose between playing for a scholarship at School B rather than walking on at School A.
It might be good for CU during the rebuilding process but when we get back to strength we want and can have as much depth as we want.
After thinking about this, I have come to the conclusion that this is all about the SEC. It's damn hard to cover payroll in this economy. This simply helps them cover their overhead without bouncing checks.
Big picture. More stability. Quality over quantity. Current path for the entire system is non-sustainable. And heaven forbid an athlete have to pay for his education? OMG!!
You'll never get. Too far away from major recruiting bases. This is good for CU. The schools located near the recruiting densities will always have an edge. This takes away some of that edge.
Plus, there are no promises in rebuilding. Just because you're down doesn't mean that you're for sure going up.
I can see this being pushed very hard by the non-AQ conferences. It pushes more talent their direction at the same time as making a significant cut in their cost of doing business.
At the same time the major conference schools could see this as just another step with the schools that they are already carrying trying to exert more control over them. The BCS is not a governing body right now. It very easily could become one. It would not be hard for the BCS member schools to simply say goodbye to the NCAA and form their own governing body. They would have to wait for current contractual obligations to run out but the time frames involved in the transition would require some time anyways. As it stands the bigger revenue schools see themselves as subsidising the smaller schools and lower divisions anyways. In the world of unitended consequences this may just speed up the separation of the big revenue schools from the NCAA anyways. The attempt by the lower end schools to get more of the pie may leave them with none.
I think you're way off here. CU would benefit as much as anyone. Don't kid yourself.
This. The major conferences will quietly accept this and continue to move towards a separation from the NCAA altogether.
CU would benefit from the reduce scholly limit but at the same time would be one of the schools that would leave the small schools behind. A lower scholly limit would reduce program cost for CU and give us access to additional recruits. At the same time it is not in CUs interest for MWC type schools to have access to better recruits than they are getting now and to increase their competitiveness. CU would easily be one of the schools more than happy to leave behind the NCAA and those who benefit from the revenues generated by the major schools (including CU.)
You guys are stretching on this leaving the NCAA thing.
If you don't think it's a real posibility you are either not paying attention or in denial. We are talking about huge amounts of money as shown by the new media contracts. The larger revenue producing conferences justifiably see that money as theirs, the lower revenue confrence schools want to get their hands on it. The non-AQ conferences continue to fall farther behind and continue to increase their interest in trying to force the hands of the major (AQ) conferences to cut them in on the money.
The only thing that could stand in the way of the separation would be the law but that won't happen. If push comes to shove the congresspeople from the states where college football is highly influential are going to protect their schools interest. The congresspeople from the schools lacking an AQ teams where a non-AQ team is significant enough to be a factor are insufficient in numbers to keep from getting run over.
Imagine the political fallout if a senator from an SEC state, a Big 10 state, a Big XII state voted against the interest of their flagship program. Those states alone provide enough influence to carry the senate. In the house just the representatives from Texas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, etc. would be enough to carry the load against those from the states like Idaho, Nevada, etc. where the non-AQ interest would prevail.
Money plus politics makes almost anything possible and in this case the money and the politics are all on one side and that isn't the side of the NCAA.
That wasn't the point. The point was that the NCAA is supposedly concerned with the welfare of student athletes, which would seem to argue against limiting scholarships any further. Except for football and basketball, very few student athletes get full rides.
I don't see it that way. On the whole, if you consider all student atheletes at a school, they're probably better off, as a whole, with fewer football scholies. Collective good for student athletes.
Case in point. If your resources are drained by having to keep up with football scholies, then you're forced to cut entire programs, like baseball, tennis, etc.
I can see where this could be good for CU in both the short term and long term. Short term would help us get access to some recruits that we might not have had access to before. Long term, the elimination of the NCAA.
And to Walter's point - I really believe you are not paying attention if you don't believe the major conferences are moving towards splitting from the NCAA. Every move we're seeing gets us one step closer. Fewer, larger conferences, coupled with massive television contracts for those conferences, completely diminishes the attractiveness of the NCAA as a governing body. The folks at Michigan and Texas don't feel like they should have to adhere to the same guidelines as they do at Morehead State. I can't say I disagree with them on that, either. They have a lot more invested in their athletic programs. We can debate the merits of this trend all day long. I'm go hot and cold on it myself. But make no mistake - that's the direction we're headed.
Separate names with a comma.