Reducing scholarships

[pittdan77]

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

Your premise is stuck in the 70's when kids were stuck at a program and schools stockpiled talent. There's a transfer portal full of kids now that are leaving bigger programs. If a kid isn't happy with being at Bama and have the talent, they enter the portal and go to another school. Kids from every level of D1 are bouncing around. "Forcing" a kid to play somewhere they don't want to be is just stupid and probably won't happen anyway. You're just limiting opportunities.

You're also working under the assumption that every kid who takes a scholarship at Bama or OSU would start at Pitt. Bama has a couple of DT's in it's 2021 class that Pitt didn't even talk to. Want to swap one of them out for Elliot Donald?

 

[RaleighPittFan]

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

Link?

 

[Las Panteras]

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

Funny,

Back in the day when there were no scholarship restrictions, 3 of the top programs in the country were Bama, ND and Ohio State.

So sure, let's reduce the number again. That will bring real change.

 

[Las Panteras]

Yankees
Red Sox
Dodgers
Cubs

Clemson
Bama
OSU
Notre Dame (or perhaps A&M)

They simply spend more.

Only when spending is leveled, will parity arrive.

Will never happen, and CFB is in the same boat as baseball.

 

[pittdan77]

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

Sigh...you need a minimum of 5 kids to play basketball and 22 to play football. You will actually play far more of each but for the sake of semantics, you're going to need 1 basketball player for every 4 football players to field a team. Guess what the NCAA publishes as the ratio of college basketball players is to football players? While your percentages are correct, you actually need the kids to field a team. Good or bad.

 

[pittdan77]

Link?

His percentages are correct per the NCAA but it hides behind the obvious differences in participation. By his logic, you'd also reduce water polo or lacrosse because they're both around the same percentage as football.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

His percentages are correct per the NCAA but it hides behind the obvious differences in participation. By his logic, you'd also reduce water polo or lacrosse because they're both around the same percentage as football.

1 out of every 33 HS football players go to D1 schools? Really? That’s the source I wanted to read.

 

[pittdan77]

1 out of every 33 HS football players go to D1 schools? Really? That’s the source I wanted to read.

In general, yeah but that's ALL D1 football, not just FBS. The percentages would change if you just looked at the P5. So 85 scholarships, 65 programs, that's 5,525 kids out of a million HS football players. So less than 1% of HS football players will get a scholarship to a P5 program.

Probably getting it from here:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics

 

[RaleighPittFan]

In general, yeah but that's ALL D1 football, not just FBS. The percentages would change if you just looked at the P5. So 85 scholarships, 65 programs, that's 5,525 kids out of a million HS football players. So less than 1% of HS football players will get a scholarship to a P5 program.

Probably getting it from here:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics

Thanks

 

[Chris Peak]

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.

"The trickle down"?

The "trickle down" with going from 85 to 75 is 1,300 fewer kids on scholarship.

1,300.

Are you okay with taking scholarships away from 1,300 kids? That doesn't sit all that well with me.

 

[NTOP]

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.

So you want to water down NCAA FB?? Hint: the 10 kids Bama won't pay to stay will be replaced by walk-ons. The 10 who have to go elsewhere for a scholie will lose to Bama instead of getting a ring.
The tuition cost is minimal, as it isn't spent cash for walk-ons.
Like all dynasties, Bama will fall after Saban retires. If schools like Pitt want to compete, Bama castoffs isn't the answer. Commitment is required, we only hint at it.

 

[lmbjr24]

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

Perhaps they only reduce the number of scholarships to the Alabama, OSU and Clemsons. You lose 5-10 “ships” each time you’re in the playoffs so eventually they will fall back and allow other programs to pick up some athletes. It would help level the playing field a bit and not hurt too many kids

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

In general, yeah but that's ALL D1 football, not just FBS. The percentages would change if you just looked at the P5. So 85 scholarships, 65 programs, that's 5,525 kids out of a million HS football players. So less than 1% of HS football players will get a scholarship to a P5 program.

Probably getting it from here:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics

And then probably 0.3% of HS basketball players would land a scholarship to a team in a Top 10 conference.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

"The trickle down"?

The "trickle down" with going from 85 to 75 is 1,300 fewer kids on scholarship.

1,300.

Are you okay with taking scholarships away from 1,300 kids? That doesn't sit all that well with me.

Absolutely. However, I'd also be ok with getting rid of FCS and making those teams fund a minimum of say, 65 scholarships, which would raise the pool of scholarships. Even if you didn’t get rid of FCS, I think you'd have a lot of FCS programs jump up to FBS if they only had to field 75 scholarships.

As I said earlier, the trickle down effect of 1300 D2 players having to pay to play at a D3 school, I'm ok with. A lot of those kids will get grants or academic scholarships or other assistance anyway.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

Absolutely. However, I'd also be ok with getting rid of FCS and making those teams fund a minimum of say, 65 scholarships, which would raise the pool of scholarships. Even if you didn’t get rid of FCS, I think you'd have a lot of FCS programs jump up to FBS if they only had to field 75 scholarships.

As I said earlier, the trickle down effect of 1300 D2 players having to pay to play at a D3 school, I'm ok with. A lot of those kids will get grants or academic scholarships or other assistance anyway.

As I’ve said on many occasions: It’s a good thing you don’t get to make any decisions.

 

[NTOP]

Yankees
Red Sox
Dodgers
Cubs

Clemson
Bama
OSU
Notre Dame (or perhaps A&M)

They simply spend more.

Only when spending is leveled, will parity arrive.

Will never happen, and CFB is in the same boat as baseball.

That's correct. We don't have Nutting as a Chancellor, do we?

 

[pittdan77]

And then probably 0.3% of HS basketball players would land a scholarship to a team in a Top 10 conference.

So it's approximately the same. At the very least, statistically insignificant. As always you talk yourself right out of your "point".

 

[pittdan77]

Absolutely. However, I'd also be ok with getting rid of FCS and making those teams fund a minimum of say, 65 scholarships, which would raise the pool of scholarships. Even if you didn’t get rid of FCS, I think you'd have a lot of FCS programs jump up to FBS if they only had to field 75 scholarships.

As I said earlier, the trickle down effect of 1300 D2 players having to pay to play at a D3 school, I'm ok with. A lot of those kids will get grants or academic scholarships or other assistance anyway.

FCS schools aren't just jumping to FBS because the scholarship limits are the same. The vast majority couldn't afford to support enough athletic programs or have a stadium adequate for that move. It's like you wake up every morning and forget everything you should know as a CFB fan.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

So it's approximately the same. At the very least, statistically insignificant. As always you talk yourself right out of your "point".

What? No its not? 3 times as many football players are getting scholarships.

 

[pittdan77]

What? No its not? 3 times as many football players are getting scholarships.

You said 0.3%, not me. Or are we back to the original numbers because, ding-dong, wrong again, it's four times as many. But we already did the math on that. Five players versus 22? Four times as many, four times as many scholarships. Please do try to keep up.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You said 0.3%, not me. Or are we back to the original numbers because, ding-dong, wrong again, it's four times as many. But we already did the math on that. Five players versus 22? Four times as many, four times as many scholarships. Please do try to keep up.

In discussing percentages, the whole number of scholarships is irrelevant. The number of players on a field and on a team are also irrelevant.

The bottom line is that 3% of HS football players earn a D1 scholarship. Around half that are FBS scholarship.

1% of HS basketball players earn a D1 scholarship. 1/3 to 1/4 of that 1% earn a "major D1" scholarship.

 

[pittjas]

Dumb post. For one, if you aren’t the one paying, why would you be in favor of taking away scholarships from kids? ESPECIALLY because sports, specifically football and basketball, get a lot of kids to go to college who otherwise wouldn’t. Taking that opportunity away from over 1,000 kids for “competitive balance” makes 0 sense and goes against the whole idea of college athletics.

Second, it wouldn’t even help the balance issues anyways... how does 10 less scholarships change things if its 10 less across the board? Would Pitt have beat Clemson this year if they got to add Clemson’s 10 worst players?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Dumb post. For one, if you aren’t the one paying, why would you be in favor of taking away scholarships from kids? ESPECIALLY because sports, specifically football and basketball, get a lot of kids to go to college who otherwise wouldn’t. Taking that opportunity away from over 1,000 kids for “competitive balance” makes 0 sense and goes against the whole idea of college athletics.

Second, it wouldn’t even help the balance issues anyways... how does 10 less scholarships change things if its 10 less across the board? Would Pitt have beat Clemson this year if they got to add Clemson’s 10 worst players?

It helps. How much? I dont know. But it helps if there are fewer Clemson, OSU, and Alabama scholarships to go around. For example, lets say Bama doesn't have a ship for Robert Foster. Maybe we play for a Natty with Boyd, Foster, Conner, Peterman.

Maybe Michigan doesn't have a ship for Breaston. Maybe we play for a Natty with Fitz and Breaston (instead of Brockenbrough)

 

[Las Panteras]

It helps. How much? I dont know. But it helps if there are fewer Clemson, OSU, and Alabama scholarships to go around. For example, lets say Bama doesn't have a ship for Robert Foster. Maybe we play for a Natty with Boyd, Foster, Conner, Peterman.

Maybe Michigan doesn't have a ship for Breaston. Maybe we play for a Natty with Fitz and Breaston (instead of Brockenbrough)

The problem with this theory, is it is quite likely Bama doesnt even offer Foster a scholarship. They simply have to be more selective.

But it is still Bama, or OSU, or Notre Dame. They will still get a higher number of the best than anyone else.

I will repeat my earlier post. When scholarships were unlimited, Bama, ND and OSU sat atop CFB.

Today with 85 limit, who is on top at the moment?

 

[Las Panteras]

I would further add, that one need not look any further than Pitt Football for the unintended consequences of limiting scholarships.

Johnny Majors always said he built this program by bringing in way more than 85 scholarship players.

The NCAA limits the number, and Pitt football hasnt gotten off the mat ever since.

 

[Las Panteras]

There is only one road to parity, and it is an evening out of money spent by schools. Since this will never happen, the whole discussion is moot


There will NEVER be parity in CFB.

 

[pittdan77]

In discussing percentages, the whole number of scholarships is irrelevant. The number of players on a field and on a team are also irrelevant.

The bottom line is that 3% of HS football players earn a D1 scholarship. Around half that are FBS scholarship.

1% of HS basketball players earn a D1 scholarship. 1/3 to 1/4 of that 1% earn a "major D1" scholarship.

How the heck is the number of players that participate irrelevant? You're also just spouting numbers and percentages because you're wrong. Go and actually do the math and the percentage of "major D1" scholarships are roughly the same.

The entirety of your logic is flawed. Right down to how it would "help" Pitt. It won't. It's cute when you try to be edgy and spout nonsense but it's kind of sad when you die on a hill like this.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The problem with this theory, is it is quite likely Bama doesnt even offer Foster a scholarship. They simply have to be more selective.

But it is still Bama, or OSU, or Notre Dame. They will still get a higher number of the best than anyone else.

I will repeat my earlier post. When scholarships were unlimited, Bama, ND and OSU sat atop CFB.

Today with 85 limit, who is on top at the moment?

Because 85 is still far too many. You dont need 85 players to have a team. These teams, including Pitt have almost an entire FCS team of walk-ons as well.

 

[rpastir]

Because 85 is still far too many. You dont need 85 players to have a team. These teams, including Pitt have almost an entire FCS team of walk-ons as well.

I agree. I actually think the number of scholarships should be drastically reduced to 48 (2 each position offense, 2 each position defense, 2 punter, 2 kicker). Fill the rest of the roster with non-scholarship players. I think with that much of a limit, it would bring some parity since some 5 star recruits will excel, while some won't meet expectations. Conversely, some 2 star recruits will excel, while some will play like 2 star recruits. Anyway, just my $.02

 

[Papillion]

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.

This rhetoric of college athletes eventually getting paid by their schools has been pushed as if it's inevitable. It isn't. You just said COVID has depleted funds so how are they going to afford to pay players then when they can't afford it now? Where is this money going to come from? And keep in mind, once a football player is paid, there will be another line for soccer players, softball players, track, etc., etc. Or else you will have massive lawsuits down their throats.

It's not going to happen. Besides, they're already being paid with a stipend (regardless if people think it's enough) on top of a college education, which includes meals, room, board, tuition, tutors, travel and life experience they never had till they got to college. This wave of political correctness has got to stop and must be stopped. Because now we see this "poor unfortunate" athlete who is being taken advantage of. B.S. being shoved down our throats.

No one talks about all the time, effort and money it takes for these schools to recruit these ever growing ungrateful athletes who are increasingly transferring at the drop of a hat. What you see is a growing sentiment towards the lack of importance of a college education. Calling it slavery is as ignorant as it gets. There are a lot of perks being associated with a university as an athlete, especially if they leave in good standing. No one talks about that either.

Paying these 18 to 22 year olds will ruin college football/sports and the college way of life forever. It's like saying being educated isn't enough. The money these schools are making off sports such as football, is going right back into their education upkeep and life while they are there.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You just said COVID has depleted funds so how are they going to afford to pay players then when they can't afford it now? Where is this money going to come from?

Maybe instead of paying the head coach $4 million a year you only pay him $3 million per year and split the other $1 million up among the players?

Nah, can't do that. We all know that college sports are all about the coaches and that they are way more important than the players, so they should be the ones getting all the money.

 

[GoEERsBig12]

Maybe instead of paying the head coach $4 million a year you only pay him $3 million per year and split the other $1 million up among the players?

Nah, can't do that. We all know that college sports are all about the coaches and that they are way more important than the players, so they should be the ones getting all the money.

Okay, what do you do about the rest of the sports?

 

[NTOP]

Okay, what do you do about the rest of the sports?

A share of the revenue from their sport. They are a cost, not a source of money. Most schools lose money on almost all the sports. The kids on the VB team should thank the FB & hoops players.

 

[pittdan77]

A share of the revenue from their sport. They are a cost, not a source of money. Most schools lose money on almost all the sports. The kids on the VB team should thank the FB & hoops players.

Eh, cost relative to income is a loss but it's not breaking the bank. Scholarships don't really cost the school anything (sunk cost) and they get people to sponsor them. Covers the other expenses. A lot gets made of the "free" education but let's be real, they're charging a huge premium to regular students.