Blog: Should the NCAA Remove the Limit on Football Scholarships?

RedStar

Hall of Fame
Jan 28, 2005
9,628
0
0
39
The Shoals, AL
I don't think that anyone has suggested that it should. I took the comment to only mean "with respect Title IX".
I guess that's where this is all headed then. Maybe Title IX needs to be looked at and re-examined. It's a wonderful idea on paper, and I don't want to see it completely done away with, but it feels icky to see the cash cow sport forced to carry the brunt of all the other sport's burdens.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
Scholarship limits are not about parity. They are about cutting the EXPENSES of all men's sports in athletic departments.
Limits were put in place to create parity. The issues may have evolved, but that has nothing to do with why scholarship limits were put in place.
Football scholarship limits will drop to 65 in the next 20 years.
Sorry, not gonna happen because the industry makes too many people mountains of money.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
I guess that's where this is all headed then. Maybe Title IX needs to be looked at and re-examined. It's a wonderful idea on paper, and I don't want to see it completely done away with, but it feels icky to see the cash cow sport forced to carry the brunt of all the other sport's burdens.
Title IX isn't about equality or women - it is political pandering.
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,982
3,421
187
Gadsden, Al.
Removing Scholarships would have the effect of the 'Rich Getting Richer'.
Universities like Alabama, USC, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, TAMU would all have the resources.
To provide a larger number of scholarships.

Universities that can't fill a medium sized stadium will fall further and further behind.

It's all about money... The Haves and the Have nots...
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,919
187
If you want to raise football scholarships to 105, I hope you plan to support our new women's lacrosse team.
 

GulfCoastTider

Hall of Fame
Y'all are fixin' to either (1) incur the wrath of Earle or (2) get this thread moved to the non sports forum.

I'm not a fan of removing scholarship limitations. There are smaller schools with limited resources that should have an opportunity to sign quality players. I am a fan of restoring the 105 scholly limit because that would give kids more opportunities to get scholarships.

Trying to force things through bureaucratic tinkering doesn't work and it hasn't worked in college football. Not. One. Bit. The OP demonstrated this by explaining that the same programs who won before 1994 have won after 1994. There's no reason to think that it won't change. The guys with the resources to game the system always will. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

Eventually, the guys with the resources will throw up their hands and say that the NCAA model is no longer working. It will lead to the creation of a new league, with perhaps 40-80 big time college programs who leave the NCAA and make their own TV deals.

The business of America is business. And college football ain't never been more business than it is now. The people who try to restrict business will be gotten around one way or another.
 

Florida Tom

All-American
Aug 15, 2011
4,449
0
0
Tampa, FL
Y'all are fixin' to either (1) incur the wrath of Earle or (2) get this thread moved to the non sports forum.

I'm not a fan of removing scholarship limitations. There are smaller schools with limited resources that should have an opportunity to sign quality players. I am a fan of restoring the 105 scholly limit because that would give kids more opportunities to get scholarships.

Trying to force things through bureaucratic tinkering doesn't work and it hasn't worked in college football. Not. One. Bit. The OP demonstrated this by explaining that the same programs who won before 1994 have won after 1994. There's no reason to think that it won't change. The guys with the resources to game the system always will. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

Eventually, the guys with the resources will throw up their hands and say that the NCAA model is no longer working. It will lead to the creation of a new league, with perhaps 40-80 big time college programs who leave the NCAA and make their own TV deals.

The business of America is business. And college football ain't never been more business than it is now. The people who try to restrict business will be gotten around one way or another.
I agree with EVERYTING you said here.
 

Capstone46

1st Team
Jun 5, 2000
897
1
0
It is not politics. Title IX was the ruling of the U.S. Federal Courts. Football skews the EXPENSE numbers. It is not about the mountians of money being made in college football. It is about Title IX requiring equal amounts to be spent on women's rowing, bowling, gymnastics, soccer, and the other women's sport out there. Since football has 85 scholarships with very expensive equipment and facilities, it will always be the easiest target to cut by limiting scholarships. Every dollar/scholarship cut in football helps every athletic department losing money to cut epenses X 2 by reducing an equal amount on the women's side. Bet the ranch that athletic departments losing money will vote to reduce football scholarships every opportunity provided them. The recent success of the SEC in winning NC's will only make it happen quicker. Whether you agree or disagree, but I sincerely believe they will be limited to 65 in most of our lifetimes.
 

Im_on_dsp

All-SEC
Oct 10, 2007
1,329
795
137
Canton, GA
You said "Before the reduction, CPB used to sign people just so no one else could have them." There's no other way to read that other than the way you intended. No coach has the power to sign kids against their will. Recruits are free to sign wherever they want. If they want to attend Alabama as an 8th string LB, then who am I to disagree? It's certainly not the NCAA's duty to tell kid where to go.?
I still don't see how your getting to the someone being forced to sign. They've always been free to sign where they want. I'm sure every one of those boys that signed scholarships 86 thru 105 were absolutely tickled pink to be going to Alabama and playing for the best coach of all time. However, having signed that scholarship with Alabama they were taken off the market for everyone else. If I had 105 scholarships I might be willing to sign a marginal player just to keep Auburn from getting them. That's what I was saying and that's exactly what the Alabama's, Oklahomas, Nebraskas did back in the 70's.

Not angry at all. Why does every other thread devolve into this? Just because two people disagree doesn't mean anger has to be involved. I've got no issue with someone holding a separate viewpoint from mine, just as I assume you don't. I've always thought that was the entire point of a message board anyway. To have a discussion. Seems like that's what we're doing, no?
It is, but being snarky shouldn't be a part of it.

Boosters can donate at their will, and we've seen that before. If a Booster wants to donate a few million to have a locker room named after him, then that's exactly what's done. (The Fail Room) If a soccer donor wants to earmark their contribution to the soccer program, than that's done too. I don't even understand the point in bringing that into the discussion. Boosters have absolutely nothing to do with the original conversation.
Boosters do have something to do with the original conversation because it all revolves around money and BOOSTERS = CASH$. And FWIW, I don't think there is a check-box on the form when you donate to only send the money to soccer, football, etc. When you donate to the Athletic Dept they spend your money as they see fit. More money spent on football means 1) more money that now has to be spent on women's sports and 2) less money for other men's sports. Other men's sports don't "carry their weight" because they don't generate revenue and never will. I guess we should do away with them.
 

mikes12

All-American
Nov 10, 2005
3,548
0
0
49
Chattanooga, TN
Boosters do have something to do with the original conversation because it all revolves around money and BOOSTERS = CASH$. And FWIW, I don't think there is a check-box on the form when you donate to only send the money to soccer, football, etc. When you donate to the Athletic Dept they spend your money as they see fit. More money spent on football means 1) more money that now has to be spent on women's sports and 2) less money for other men's sports. Other men's sports don't "carry their weight" because they don't generate revenue and never will. I guess we should do away with them.
If the donors don't see their donations going where they want it to go, the donations will dry up.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I don't know enough about it but here's what I do know - we need to cut the FBS in half, have four 16-team conferences, and a four-team playoff using a Top 20, not 25.

Whatever does that would be fine. However, the bowls won't let that happen.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
Other men's sports don't "carry their weight" because they don't generate revenue and never will. I guess we should do away with them.
Along with any women's sports that do not have sufficient fan support to survive on their own. Individual schools should decide these things, not some external agenda.
 

Capstone46

1st Team
Jun 5, 2000
897
1
0
Most large donations to the athletic department are earmarked or to a specific giving opportunity. Obviously, football gets the majority, but not all athletic department donations are directed to the football program. Tennis Coach Jenny Mainz has done an incredible job in coaching as well as fund raising to build facilities. Our tennis facilities are some of the best in the country as a result of earmarked tennis donations. Coach Pat Murphy has done the same with the softball program and the softball faciities. If you ever have an opportunity to hear Pat speak, you will understand why. No coach on campus has done a better job of building a program than Coach Murphy. He used to call it "selling the vision" and he was the best at it.

Selma, How did you mean using the "Top 20 and not the Top 25" in a 4 team playoff? It may come to 4 sixteen team conferences but breaking away from the NCAA to form any other entity the mind of man can imagine DOES NOT change the court ordered enforcement of Title IX.
For the record, I am a traditionalist and don't favor a playoff beyond what is now scheduled for the BCS. Alabama has a strong fan base that faithfully travels with the Crimson Tide but even the planned 4 team playoff has me concerned. My concern is that playoffs become a made-for- tv production and lose some of the fan game day experience which is expensive enough for fans. Ask yourself this question: How many fans would have been at South Beach drinking $34 poolside margaritas if it had been a semifinal game with the actual NC Game scheduled the following weekend in Pasadena? More than likely most would have made the choice of one game or the other. I could see the BCS NCG becoming like the SuperBowl where sponsors take practically all of the tickets and fans are left at home. Sure the money is enticing but I would hate to see the regular season game day excitement replaced, or diminished, by playoffs.
Off topic, sorry. But the fact athletic departments will always be forced to comply with Title IX, or lose tax paying funding for the universities, is an absolute fact....regardless of how much money is generated through college football.
 

AgentAntiOrange

1st Team
Dec 30, 2009
888
0
0
Norman, OK
Ask yourself this question: How many fans would have been at South Beach drinking $34 poolside margaritas if it had been a semifinal game with the actual NC Game scheduled the following weekend in Pasadena?
It will be painful but eventually the entire bowl system needs to be removed. Playoff games should be seeded and played at higher seeds home field. Championship games could be played at rotating southern and domed sites like the SB.
 

Capstone46

1st Team
Jun 5, 2000
897
1
0
I could not disagree more. Div I college football regular season games would suffer if playoffs followed the way of the lower divisions playoffs. Off topic -but none of this impacts scholarship limits.
Bowls or no bowls, fans would have extreme difficulty traveling coast to coast on one week's notice.
 

bamafaninOhiO

All-American
May 11, 2010
2,114
0
0
Dayton, Ohio
You said "Before the reduction, CPB used to sign people just so no one else could have them." There's no other way to read that other than the way you intended. No coach has the power to sign kids against their will. Recruits are free to sign wherever they want. If they want to attend Alabama as an 8th string LB, then who am I to disagree? It's certainly not the NCAA's duty to tell kid where to go.
Not angry at all. Why does every other thread devolve into this? Just because two people disagree doesn't mean anger has to be involved. I've got no issue with someone holding a separate viewpoint from mine, just as I assume you don't. I've always thought that was the entire point of a message board anyway. To have a discussion. Seems like that's what we're doing, no?

And nowhere in any of my statements did I even remotely insinuate that all I wanted Alabama to have was a football program. There's nothing even remotely close to that. I've probably been to more Alabama basketball games than I have Alabama football games. Boosters can donate at their will, and we've seen that before. If a Booster wants to donate a few million to have a locker room named after him, then that's exactly what's done. (The Fail Room) If a soccer donor wants to earmark their contribution to the soccer program, than that's done too. I don't even understand the point in bringing that into the discussion. Boosters have absolutely nothing to do with the original conversation.

I'll ask the question again since it hasn't been answered. Why should it be football's responsibility to carry the other sports?
..simple, because football drives revenue at most schools...others are not revenue generators.
 

RedStar

Hall of Fame
Jan 28, 2005
9,628
0
0
39
The Shoals, AL
I still don't see how your getting to the someone being forced to sign. They've always been free to sign where they want. I'm sure every one of those boys that signed scholarships 86 thru 105 were absolutely tickled pink to be going to Alabama and playing for the best coach of all time. However, having signed that scholarship with Alabama they were taken off the market for everyone else. If I had 105 scholarships I might be willing to sign a marginal player just to keep Auburn from getting them. That's what I was saying and that's exactly what the Alabama's, Oklahomas, Nebraskas did back in the 70's.
When you say someone is "hoarding" players, you make it sound as if they are doing so against the players will. I completely understand your point, I just don't buy it.


Boosters do have something to do with the original conversation because it all revolves around money and BOOSTERS = CASH$. And FWIW, I don't think there is a check-box on the form when you donate to only send the money to soccer, football, etc. When you donate to the Athletic Dept they spend your money as they see fit. More money spent on football means 1) more money that now has to be spent on women's sports and 2) less money for other men's sports. Other men's sports don't "carry their weight" because they don't generate revenue and never will. I guess we should do away with them.
As has been said, boosters can earmark their donations, and they have. It's why some sports have top notch facilities (softball) and some don't (baseball).

No one is suggesting we do away with any sports, I don't understand how you're pulling that out of these posts. If a program is under-performing or not bringing in enough money to keep itself afloat, that's a problem the University would have to deal with on a case by case basis. But no one here is suggesting we cut any sports as far as I can tell.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
This thread reminds me of when I was going through my divorce. My lawyer told me to make the decisions with the childs best interest in mind. Do not make decisions for selfish reasons. Fight only if it benefits the child. I believe that the NCAA could benefit from my lawyers advise to me, and make decisions based soley on the needs of the student athlete. And, if they were to move the number back to 105. I believe thet would benefit the student athlete. Reason being that they might be able to go to the school of their choice. I think that 125, or 150 might make sense. I am sure that the University of Alabama could afford to grant 150 football scholorships. That would allow more student athletes a better opportunity to get an education.
I agree. If I'm a 3 star athlete and it has been my dream to play football at the University of Alabama, and they can afford to give me a scholarship just to let me "ride the pine", I should have the opportunity to accept that scholarship and suit up for "my team".
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.