Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="sutomcat, post: 42631, member: 27"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?