Reducing scholarships

[Sean Miller Fan]

I'm going to post this again after last night. The NCAA has to reduce scholarships to around 75 for 2 reasons:

1. Level the playing field. College football is MLB and the EPL

2. Reduce costs in this COVID era. Plus the spending per athlete has gone up with the cost of attendance and all the extra ancillary benefits.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

College football needs more parity.

 

[cashisking884]

When has college football ever had much parity?

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

I don't like the idea of letting less young people go to school for free. They just need to create a system where more teams have an opportunity to play meaningful football. Then the concentration of top talent won't be so drastic. Just look at college basketball: You see 5-stars going to some pretty obscure places, because they don't have to go to Duke or Kentucky in order to play for a championship.

All conference winners should definitely be in the playoff. That means Pitt from a few years ago, Virginia from last year, Northwestern from this year, etc. would have all had a chance to play themselves into the championship tournament.

 

[pittdan77]

I'm going to post this again after last night. The NCAA has to reduce scholarships to around 75 for 2 reasons:

1. Level the playing field. College football is MLB and the EPL

2. Reduce costs in this COVID era. Plus the spending per athlete has gone up with the cost of attendance and all the extra ancillary benefits.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

College football needs more parity.

Pitt fans: Look at all of the 2-star All-Americans that we made! Take that you football factories.

Also Pitt fans: We should thin the heard so we can get more higher ranked players.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I don't like the idea of letting less young people go to school for free.

Ehhh....There's an inordinate amount of HS football players getting free college as it is compared with other sports. HS football participation keeps dropping and FBS keeps adding programs. I wont shed a tear if some average kid from NA cant go play for Akron without paying for tuition and instead has to walk-on somewhere.

 

[cashisking884]

I don't like the idea of letting less young people go to school for free. They just need to create a system where more teams have an opportunity to play meaningful football. Then the concentration of top talent won't be so drastic. Just look at college basketball: You see 5-stars going to some pretty obscure places, because they don't have to go to Duke or Kentucky in order to play for a championship.

All conference winners should definitely be in the playoff. That means Pitt from a few years ago, Virginia from last year, Northwestern from this year, etc. would have all had a chance to play themselves into the championship tournament.

You mean division winners?

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

You mean division winners?

No. Pitt would have had a chance to play themselves into the tournament. They would have had to beat Clemson and win the conference to do so.

 

[cashisking884]

No. Pitt would have had a chance to play themselves into the tournament. They would have had to beat Clemson and win the conference to do so.

But they got destroyed.
That’s like saying the local Durham high school should have a chance to play themselves into the basketball tournament by getting to play Duke at the end of the season. Even if you gave them that chance, what would it matter?

The pool of talent isn’t going to flee to Pitt or UVA simply because Pitt or UVA can theoretically play for a national championship. They can do that now.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

But they got destroyed.
That’s like saying the local Durham high school should have a chance to play themselves into the basketball tournament by getting to play Duke at the end of the season. Even if you gave them that chance, what would it matter?

The pool of talent isn’t going to flee to Pitt or UVA simply because Pitt or UVA can theoretically play for a national championship. They can do that now.

Correct. Which is why reducing scholarships is the only way.

 

[bayardstreet]

Not to turn this into a political thing but the cost of college is absurd. You never hear anybody talking about ways to reduce the cost of an education. 85 scholarships is a bit much in my opinion but the cost to fund each scholarship is crazy. But hey, let’s just talk about absolving school debt or giving extra money to help offset tuition. Alabama will always be a contender because the school spends disproportionately to support the program with facilities and 100 staff members salaries etc.


that the mission of Alabama.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

But they got destroyed.
That’s like saying the local Durham high school should have a chance to play themselves into the basketball tournament by getting to play Duke at the end of the season. Even if you gave them that chance, what would it matter?

The pool of talent isn’t going to flee to Pitt or UVA simply because Pitt or UVA can theoretically play for a national championship. They can do that now.

Okay, that's one year. Georgia Tech won the ACC not long ago. Wake Forest won it in 2006. Clemson only beat UNC and VT by a touchdown in 2015 and 2016. Northwestern could have beat Ohio State this year. Iowa State had a very real shot at winning the Big 12 this year.

I don't get how saying "Eh, they'd probably just lose anyway" is really beneficial. At least you're giving these teams a shot. Also, my underlying point is being lost here. If these teams have a realistic path to playing for a championship, they will start to recruit better. So the talent disparity won't be like it is right now between Clemson and Pitt.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Ehhh....There's an inordinate amount of HS football players getting free college as it is compared with other sports. HS football participation keeps dropping and FBS keeps adding programs. I wont shed a tear if some average kid from NA cant go play for Akron without paying for tuition and instead has to walk-on somewhere.

Actually agree with you here. If limiting scholarships pushes talent down to lower levels (even D2), then so be it. And if it means marginal kids don't get D2 scholarships, that's ok too. Need to focus on lowering costs for all students anyways.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Actually agree with you here. If limiting scholarships pushes talent down to lower levels (even D2), then so be it. And if it means marginal kids don't get D2 scholarships, that's ok too. Need to focus on lowering costs for all students anyways.

Right. The trickle down will be some very average WPIAL player having to pay to go to D3 W&J instead of getting a full ride or 3/4 ride at D2 IUP. Its so insignificant. Yea, it sucks that kid will have school debt but that's life. Maybe concentrate on baseball or lacrosse or something and get a scholarship for that instead.

 

[cashisking884]

Okay, that's one year. Georgia Tech won the ACC not long ago. Wake Forest won it in 2006. Clemson only beat UNC and VT by a touchdown in 2015 and 2016. Northwestern could have beat Ohio State this year. Iowa State had a very real shot at winning the Big 12 this year.

I don't get how saying "Eh, they'd probably just lose anyway" is really beneficial. At least you're giving these teams a shot. Also, my underlying point is being lost here. If these teams have a realistic path to playing for a championship, they will start to recruit better. So the talent disparity won't be like it is right now between Clemson and Pitt.

Teams have a realistic path to a championship right now. GT controls its destiny as to winning a national championship next year. They can sell that on the recruiting trail right now. “Come to GT, it’s literally possible for us to win a championship.”

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Teams have a realistic path to a championship right now. GT controls its destiny as to winning a national championship next year. They can sell that on the recruiting trail right now. “Come to GT, it’s literally possible for us to win a championship.”

Going 7-5/8-4/9-3 and winning a conference championship game just seems a little more achievable than going 11-1 or 12-0... and, in all likelihood, still having to win that conference championship game anyway.

 

[cashisking884]

Going 7-5/8-4/9-3 and winning a conference championship game just seems a little more achievable than going 11-1 or 12-0... and, in all likelihood, still having to win that conference championship game anyway.

A 7-5 team isn’t winning the college football championship, even if you let them in.
So GT could win the championship next Year. There is nothing legally preventing that. They are capable of selling that on the Recruiting trail.

Your argument is that if an 8-5 GT team was able to go to the playoffs and get railed out by Alabama in the first round, this would allow them to sell the fact that they could win the championship. And so kids in GA will now choose GT over BAMA and UGA?

 

[giveitarest]

Right. The trickle down will be some very average WPIAL player having to pay to go to D3 W&J instead of getting a full ride or 3/4 ride at D2 IUP. Its so insignificant. Yea, it sucks that kid will have school debt but that's life. Maybe concentrate on baseball or lacrosse or something and get a scholarship for that instead.

This response is all about the fans not the students/players. That is BS. Some will never get to college without scholarships. You want to reduce scholarships because this will somehow vault Pitt into the CFP playoff.

The only comment you made that makes sense is they need to reduce the cost of going to college. That I agree with as costs are out of hand. FB pays a lot of bills for athletic depts. but thinking if you create more parity the product suffers then so does the $$$$$.
College athletics is and should be about the Student Athlete first period.

If you want to level the playing field then get rid of the NCAA and have an organization that will truly monitor and punish cheaters.

 

[pittdan77]

Right. The trickle down will be some very average WPIAL player having to pay to go to D3 W&J instead of getting a full ride or 3/4 ride at D2 IUP. Its so insignificant. Yea, it sucks that kid will have school debt but that's life. Maybe concentrate on baseball or lacrosse or something and get a scholarship for that instead.

How many true D3 players are on Pitt's roster? Name them, please.

Do you believe that football players can just jump over to another sport and displace a baseball or lacrosse player?

Or, are you just full of wind and spout random things?

 

[FIVE4PITT]

The big schools that have the large athletic budgets will do the best. Auburn is spending 60 million on a new football facility. It's going to have a flight simulator. It has been an arms race for many years. The big stadiums and donations schools like Clemson get is hard to beat so they can keep on winning. The problem with Pitt over the many years was the administration holding the program back. It seems to be better now so hopefully better recruiting and good coaching the program will have greater success.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

A 7-5 team isn’t winning the college football championship, even if you let them in.
So GT could win the championship next Year. There is nothing legally preventing that. They are capable of selling that on the Recruiting trail.

Your argument is that if an 8-5 GT team was able to go to the playoffs and get railed out by Alabama in the first round, this would allow them to sell the fact that they could win the championship. And so kids in GA will now choose GT over BAMA and UGA?

You're taking it to a dramatic extreme. My argument is that if GT got into the playoff, it would increase their exposure and recruiting. No, I didn't say recruits would consistently now pick them over Georgia, but one or two might in the next cycle. That's how these things tend to work. Also wasn't that long ago when they were outperforming Georgia on the field in some years, so it's not as implausible as you make it seem.

It's not going to happen overnight, but it's about chipping away at the structure as it currently exists, where less than ten teams have a legitimate shot (and only three or four have a consistent shot). It wouldn't happen as obviously and reductive as you stated it: Maybe those two 4-stars who now chose Georgia Tech over Georgia open the door for Tennessee to beat Georgia next year. And so forth and so on.

Penn State won its conference not long ago. Maybe exposure that helps pull them closer to Ohio State, which might help Michigan catch up to Ohio State. These are all random examples, but I'm talking about the ripple effect more than anything. As it stands, the talent is much too concentrated into three or four programs. I don't see how this wouldn't help to shake that up. There is no perfect solution, outside of completely gutting a system that makes a lot of money and doesn't want to be gutted. But I think recruits have a pretty good idea of which teams have a realistic shot at playing for titles. If you open the door for five more in two years, that might lead to ten more in five years, and so forth and so on. I'm sure there is a subliminal effect on recruits seeing the same teams in the playoff year after year, which enables to gap between the haves and have-nots to only grow exponentially larger.

 

[pittdan77]

You're taking it to a dramatic extreme. My argument is that if GT got into the playoff, it would increase their exposure and recruiting. No, I didn't say recruits would consistently now pick them over Georgia, but one or two might in the next cycle. That's how these things tend to work. Also wasn't that long ago when they were outperforming Georgia on the field in some years, so it's not as implausible as you make it seem.

It's not going to happen overnight, but it's about chipping away at the structure as it currently exists, where less than ten teams have a legitimate shot (and only three or four have a consistent shot). It wouldn't happen as obviously and reductive as you stated it: Maybe those two 4-stars who now chose Georgia Tech over Georgia open the door for Tennessee to beat Georgia next year. And so forth and so on.

Penn State won its conference not long ago. Maybe exposure that helps pull them closer to Ohio State, which might help Michigan catch up to Ohio State. These are all random examples, but I'm talking about the ripple effect more than anything. As it stands, the talent is much too concentrated into three or four programs. I don't see how this wouldn't help to shake that up. There is no perfect solution, outside of completely gutting a system that makes a lot of money and doesn't want to be gutted. But I think recruits have a pretty good idea of which teams have a realistic shot at playing for titles. If you open the door for five more in two years, that might lead to ten more in five years, and so forth and so on. I'm sure there is a subliminal effect on recruits seeing the same teams in the playoff year after year, which enables to gap between the haves and have-nots to only grow exponentially larger.

Try to reason why Texas, USC, Penn State, Michigan, Florida State, and Notre Dame, all of whom easily have the resources, spend the money, and have the name, don't dominate? Ask yourself why Tennessee is such a mess despite having one of the biggest fan bases in CFB?

See, it's not the concentration of talent. It's not the money. You still have to pull that all together and win. What Bama and Clemson have done the last ten years is remarkable. You just don't dominate the way they have without some superior coaching and running a program properly. You can give every team you want a shot at a playoff but how many are running programs that are built for continued success?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

How many true D3 players are on Pitt's roster? Name them, please.

Do you believe that football players can just jump over to another sport and displace a baseball or lacrosse player?

Or, are you just full of wind and spout random things?

Wow, you completely missed every point I was making.

 

[Mikefln]

This thread is hilarious with irony. So many people claiming "Student Athlete" and never supporting something that reduces the availability of them going to college for free. Yet they are amongst the first to say the NFL needs to pay for a developmental league because these kids are not there for education.

Well which one is it then?

A couple questions for you all. 1 a micro and the 2nd a macro.

1) A school like Pitt that supports the Athletic Department with the general fund because the athletic program does not support itself, is that fair for the rest of the student body to pay higher tution for other to go free?

2) How many other schools are like Pitt? This article does not say but it eludeds to most of them. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/16/college-sports-revenue-loss-making-programs-academics


If you think this is false, look at the tuition of Grove City College a school that does not offer any type of scholarship or aid if it is not endowed (or at least actual dollar in house) vs its peers. All of GCC peers offer scholarships and aid without endowment (or actual dollar in house) and their cost is doubled that of GCC. One approach is more fare to the student body than the other.

With all this said I am in favor of dropping the limit to 60 for football. 36 for for FCS, 20 for D2 and D3 of course 0.
BTW I did not always have that opinion, learning about Grove City College from an employee there opened my eyes to the shear nonsense that is scholarships at most schools.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

This response is all about the fans not the students/players. That is BS. Some will never get to college without scholarships. You want to reduce scholarships because this will somehow vault Pitt into the CFP playoff.

The only comment you made that makes sense is they need to reduce the cost of going to college. That I agree with as costs are out of hand. FB pays a lot of bills for athletic depts. but thinking if you create more parity the product suffers then so does the $$$$$.
College athletics is and should be about the Student Athlete first period.

If you want to level the playing field then get rid of the NCAA and have an organization that will truly monitor and punish cheaters.

Fans are way more important to the NCAA than some average WPIAL player getting a D2 ride instead of paying for D3. Times have changed. Football numbers are way down. We don't need to be giving practically every HS football senior some type of football scholarship.

 

[pittdan77]

Wow, you completely missed every point I was making.

Right. The trickle down will be some very average WPIAL player having to pay to go to D3 W&J instead of getting a full ride or 3/4 ride at D2 IUP. Its so insignificant. Yea, it sucks that kid will have school debt but that's life. Maybe concentrate on baseball or lacrosse or something and get a scholarship for that instead.

Do explain.

 

[JokePa]

I'm going to post this again after last night. The NCAA has to reduce scholarships to around 75 for 2 reasons:

1. Level the playing field. College football is MLB and the EPL

2. Reduce costs in this COVID era. Plus the spending per athlete has gone up with the cost of attendance and all the extra ancillary benefits.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

College football needs more parity.

Hate to admit it but that is a good idea.

 

[raninab]

I'm going to post this again after last night. The NCAA has to reduce scholarships to around 75 for 2 reasons:

1. Level the playing field. College football is MLB and the EPL

2. Reduce costs in this COVID era. Plus the spending per athlete has gone up with the cost of attendance and all the extra ancillary benefits.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

College football needs more parity.

This is not a bad idea. With college athletes getting paid by their institutions within the next 3 seasons cost cutting will be coming from all directions. The Covid Virus has seriously depleted any cash that had been put away. Cuts in scholarships could go to 66 players. That's a 3 deep on each side of the ball. That would be 18 scholarships cut in football.

 

[pittdan77]

Do explain.

@Sean Miller Fan ???

 

[pbrad]

I love the term "student athlete". How many student athletes actually graduate. How many go to class.

As far as GT playing for a NC, are you serious. When they won it I was still a young man and there was no CFP. You did not have to rely on winning a conference championship you just had to win the polls. The way the polls worked then was if you were voted the top team you stayed there until you lost no matter who you plated.

 

[OH Pete]

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

Those 20 kids that you speak of likely had the opportunity to choose Pitt or the MAC instead of Bama. And with the way transfers work these days, there are very few kids who won't get a chance to hit the field where they are staying put. Most transfer out when they see the writing on the wall. The ones that stay are probably staying because they truly love the school.

The NCAA should be looking for more opportunities for kids, not less.

 

[Parkview57]

I love the term "student athlete". How many student athletes actually graduate. How many go to class.

Here is your answer, about 90%/ <85% for football Link

 

[OH Pete]

Here is your answer, about 90%/ <85% for football Link

And 40% of all people who start college don't finish. So I'd say sports are raising the bar. I'm sure some won't like your stat and mine. Facts are a stubborn thing.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

@Sean Miller Fan ???

Its the net effect. Pitt doesn't have D3 players now. That's not what Im saying.

It goes like this.

10 players who would have ridden the bench for 3-4 years at Bama now have to go to Pitt

10 players who would have ridden the bench for 3-4 years at Pitt, now have to go to Akron.

10 players who would have gone to Akron, now have to go to YSU (FCS).

10 players who would have gone to YSU, have to go to Slippery Rock (D2)

The net effect is that 10 kids who would have been able to earn a D2 scholarship to go to SRU, now have to go D3. Big deal.

A reduction in scholarships could also encourage more FCS teams to move up which increases the total amount of US football scholarships. The WAC is adding 4 good Southland teams plus Southern Utah from the Big Sky and Tarleton State (TX) from D2. With New Mexico State having to play as an independent, there is talk the WAC may again become an FBS conference.

As for the comment about other sports....I mean if there are less football scholarships to go around, perhaps it makes parents and kids focus on other sports in middle school and HS so they can earn a hockey, lacrosse, or baseball scholarship.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

Its the net effect. Pitt doesn't have D3 players now. That's not what Im saying.

It goes like this.

10 players who would have ridden the bench for 3-4 years at Bama now have to go to Pitt

10 players who would have ridden the bench for 3-4 years at Pitt, now have to go to Akron.

10 players who would have gone to Akron, now have to go to YSU (FCS).

10 players who would have gone to YSU, have to go to Slippery Rock (D2)

The net effect is that 10 kids who would have been able to earn a D2 scholarship to go to SRU, now have to go D3. Big deal.

A reduction in scholarships could also encourage more FCS teams to move up which increases the total amount of US football scholarships. The WAC is adding 4 good Southland teams plus Southern Utah from the Big Sky and Tarleton State (TX) from D2. With New Mexico State having to play as an independent, there is talk the WAC may again become an FBS conference.

As for the comment about other sports....I mean if there are less football scholarships to go around, perhaps it makes parents and kids focus on other sports in middle school and HS so they can earn a hockey, lacrosse, or baseball scholarship.

I’m surprised that you’re not advocating for the last group to get a sex change, so they can take advantage of Title lX.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I’m surprised that you’re not advocating for the last group to get a sex change, so they can take advantage of Title lX.

Hey, there you go. Those D3 football players can go and dominate women's hoops.

 

[djbpitt]

I don't like the idea of letting less young people go to school for free. They just need to create a system where more teams have an opportunity to play meaningful football. Then the concentration of top talent won't be so drastic. Just look at college basketball: You see 5-stars going to some pretty obscure places, because they don't have to go to Duke or Kentucky in order to play for a championship.

All conference winners should definitely be in the playoff. That means Pitt from a few years ago, Virginia from last year, Northwestern from this year, etc. would have all had a chance to play themselves into the championship tournament.

"Going to school"? You mean spending four year at an NFL farm team trying to perfect their trade and get to the next level. There, I fixed that for you.

 

[OH Pete]

As for the comment about other sports....I mean if there are less football scholarships to go around, perhaps it makes parents and kids focus on other sports in middle school and HS so they can earn a hockey, lacrosse, or baseball scholarship.

Now that I am for. It would be nice for a school to be able to give more than half scholarships for baseball players, even though baseball isn't a revenue sport for any school north of the Mason Dixon line.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Just reduce the number of ships by counting early departures for the pros, flunk outs, transfers and all who don't graduate against the 85 limit until their respective recruiting classes run out of eligibility.

Would solve lots of problems including reducing transfering (other schools won't have much ship room) and not recruiting players who won't give you 4-5 years of eligibility in the first place. Let the NFL find a way to not use the colleges as a developmental league.

 

[PittMBA]

I'm going to post this again after last night. The NCAA has to reduce scholarships to around 75 for 2 reasons:

1. Level the playing field. College football is MLB and the EPL

2. Reduce costs in this COVID era. Plus the spending per athlete has gone up with the cost of attendance and all the extra ancillary benefits.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Alabama who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters at Pitt.

There's 10 kids on scholarship at Pitt who will never get on the field who would be 3 year starters in the MAC.

College football needs more parity.

Reducing scholarship limits would have clear benefits to diffuse talent more widely- but would ultimately hurt the players as some significant number (say 10x 130 FBS schools ) of kids wouldn’t get scholarships.

I think it would have to be coupled with deeper resources for the players (profit sharing, etc.) .

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Now that I am for. It would be nice for a school to be able to give more than half scholarships for baseball players, even though baseball isn't a revenue sport for any school north of the Mason Dixon line.

3% of HS football players land a D1 scholarship but only 1% of HS basketball players. Its already too disproportionate. 1 out of every 33 HS players going D1 is far too many. There arent that many good players out there. That's like 1-2 per HS team