NCAA may cut schollies | Syracusefan.com

NCAA may cut schollies

Cutting scholarships down to 80 might not be a big deal to a state school that has a huge walk-on program. To a private school it would have a bigger impact I think. As a 'Cuse grad, I'm not sure I would like that change.
 
Be a good thing for SU football and for parity in general. More good players to go to other teams instead of being stuck as a 3rd string somewhere.
 
Wouldnt going by enrollment be better. Like a real small school in WF could give 85. A real big school like ohio state can give out 75? Then you would have schools in the middle with 80. Just a thought
 
Whoo Hoo! This means we can add 6 more to Women's Field Hockey!!! :)

Actually, it's probably just the opposite. Schools in compliance with Title IX -- if they are forced to cut 5 FB scholarships and 1 BB scholarships, will also go ahead and cut 6 scholarships from Women's sports.
 
Be a good thing for SU football and for parity in general. More good players to go to other teams instead of being stuck as a 3rd string somewhere.

Agree... And with Marrone showing the ability to locate and utilize strong Walk-Ons, it only strengthens the advantage. The only thing I think you have to be careful about is that less bodies means you have to really take a hard stand on whether or not a kid is going to RS or not.
 
More good players to go to other teams instead of being stuck as a 3rd string somewhere.

Private schools would save the cost of 5 schollies per year, which is a bigger deal than at the factories. Maintaining funding levels while reducing that marginal cost would give privates a bigger boost in other areas, like capital expenditures on facilities.

I wonder if they would change recruiting limits also, maybe allowing 23 recruits per year instead of 25, or something along those lines.
 
It will hurt smaller schools more I think. A school like Ohio or Auburn can still offer their car - hooker - tattoo service to those 5 additional walk-ons to get them to go there.
 
Private schools would save the cost of 5 schollies per year, which is a bigger deal than at the factories.

That comes out to $1.25 million dollars over the course of 4 years, not counting the 5th-year seniors, which would up it to $1.5 million.
 
You know there is a movement afoot to have the really big schools withdraw from the NCAA and form their own Association. This is just the sort of thing that could start those logs rolling.

That's been the idea of the original people like Vince Dooley who wanted super conferences years and years ago.
 
That comes out to $1.25 million dollars over the course of 4 years, not counting the 5th-year seniors, which would up it to $1.5 million.

And we could use that money to upgrade training facilites since we'd HAVE to keep players healthy at that point.
 
Be a good thing for SU football and for parity in general. More good players to go to other teams instead of being stuck as a 3rd string somewhere.

Not so sure. If schools are still allowed 25 schollies a year it will hurt us more than help. A school will be punished if they don't have a 50% grad rate. So in theory they can offer 25 a year and have a squad of 80 kids with 20 kids who transferred or flunked out. Those kids who transfer or more likely to go 1AA so they don't have to sit out. Which means SU isn't getting a trickle down and has 5 less schollies than before.
 
The goal here, as I understand it, is two-fold:

1. By eliminating 6-8 scholarships (5 in football and another 3 total in men & women's basketball), a school would save a quarter of a million dollars each year. This would be subsidized and reinvested into paying the 'full cost' of scholarships. In other words, this would free up money to pay each athlete an annual stipend of $3-5,000.

2. This also frees up about 5-6 scholarships to cut from women's sports, if needed, to remain Title IX compliant. My hunch is that they're preparing to go forward with a full 4-year scholarship, rather than annual renewals.
 
My hunch is that they're preparing to go forward with a full 4-year scholarship, rather than annual renewals.

The UConn rule?
 
From the perspective of a college football and basketball fan, this is not good news.

Continuing to cut the number of scholarships of the revenue generating sports to save money/allow more money spent on non revenue generating sports is short sighted.

This will lower the quality of the product and make it less enjoyable to watch. There is no waiver wire or minor league to get replacement players from if players are hurt, flunk out, etc.

Let's just take the game last week. Tulane was playing walk ons at WR on Saturday and SU has been forced to play several walk ons this year as well. I for one do not want to see more walk ons out there...and that is what will happen (along with seeing skinny true freshmen that are not ready to play, players playing out of position, etc., etc.). If the number of scholarship players goes to 80, I don't think you will see placekickers and punters on scholarship anymore period.

The same applies to basketball, where if you factor in the things that happen in real life to major programs, you are going to often end up with 7 or 8 players available to play on a given night. There are players who leave school early, flunk outs, players who get expelled, players who get injured, player suspensions, transfers, loss of scholarships due to bad grades, etc, etc.

Football and men's basketball are the golden goose of college athletics. Don't kill the golden goose.
 
From the perspective of a college football and basketball fan, this is not good news.

Continuing to cut the number of scholarships of the revenue generating sports to save money/allow more money spent on non revenue generating sports is short sighted.

This will lower the quality of the product and make it less enjoyable to watch. There is no waiver wire or minor league to get replacement players from if players are hurt, flunk out, etc.

Let's just take the game last week. Tulane was playing walk ons at WR on Saturday and SU has been forced to play several walk ons this year as well. I for one do not want to see more walk ons out there...and that is what will happen (along with seeing skinny true freshmen that are not ready to play, players playing out of position, etc., etc.). If the number of scholarship players goes to 80, I don't think you will see placekickers and punters on scholarship anymore period.

The same applies to basketball, where if you factor in the things that happen in real life to major programs, you are going to often end up with 7 or 8 players available to play on a given night. There are players who leave school early, flunk outs, players who get expelled, players who get injured, player suspensions, transfers, loss of scholarships due to bad grades, etc, etc.

Football and men's basketball are the golden goose of college athletics. Don't kill the golden goose.
See where you're coming from, Tom, but that is the same argument made about reductions when there were 105 FB and 18 BB. Obviously, there is a tipping point, but I'm not sure we've reached it yet. Certainly, JB is noted for not using his whole 13.
 
Certainly, JB is noted for not using his whole 13.
Problem is, you still have to have quality in practice. Cutting one scholly means one more 'quality' walk-on you have to find.
 
Problem is, you still have to have quality in practice. Cutting one scholly means one more 'quality' walk-on you have to find.
I'm not talking about the number of guys he plays, but rather the number of scholarships he uses. He has stated publicly that he thinks 12 scholarship players is the right number to run a program.
 
It is definitely less of a problem for basketball than football, especially for a head coach who rarely plays more than 8 players in meaningful games. But in college hoops, it is already relatively common to have situations (players were suspended, sick, rash of injuries, rash of foul outs, etc.) that result in walk-ons or true frosh not ready to play getting quality playing time.

From my perspective, you try and protect the sports that make all the money and make all the other sports possible. There are no women's sports, there are no men's sports, there is no college athletics without men's basketball and especially football making these things possible.
These sports have already experienced significant reductions in scholarships due to attempts to save money. Enough is enough.

My point is that cutting scholarships waters down the product. At some point, doing it is going to lessen interest and reduce revenue. We are at the point now where you can't cut scholarships any further without affecting the quality of the product.

In football, the quality of the product has already been affected by cutting to 85. Many programs can't afford the luxury of having placekickers and punters on scholarship any longer. You see walk-ons on two deeps and even starting on a regular basis. Cutting to 80 will make things much worse.

Hey, maybe we should go to 60 scholarships for football and go back to one platoon football. That would save a ton more on expenses but it would also destroy revenue. People don't want to see that brand of football. At least not in my opinion.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,384
Messages
4,700,167
Members
5,906
Latest member
DA CUSE

Online statistics

Members online
266
Guests online
2,002
Total visitors
2,268


Top Bottom