Bye-Week Discussion Bomb - Scholarship Limits

[SteveM]

More Points

More Points

couple more thoughts

1) I disagree that the parents/athletes are not aware of the likelihood of sitting the bench for x-years, or entirely. That is, objectively there is more than enough information easily deducible that most players will not play. when you start to funnel down the number of players who play in HS, vs the number of players in D-1 football, vs the number of players who play in the pros (NFL), anyone looking at it objectively should realize the odds of playing are against them each level they rise. Whether or not players/parents do look at it objectively is obviously a different discussion.

2) Something i think you're missing (that is important to me personally) is this forces football players to chose playing over education.

What if I'm a kid who knows he's not likely going pro, but is good enough to get a scholarship to a D-1 school. I'm content to being a #2, 3 or prep squad, taking the field saturday, and getting a free education at one of the best universities in the US; the school of my choosing. I'm using my physical abilities to advance my educational opportunities, knowing my physical abilities probably end at that level.

If I'm one of those 66-85 players, now I lose that opportunity even though I was content with being a #2 or #3 string player for my college career. But because someone else wants me to have playing time, I am forced to a school not of my own choosing, a non-BCS school, Div 2, 3 or NAIA. That's not to say that a kid can't get a good education at a non-BCS school, or Div 2, 3, or NAIA school. But now kids like my example are not allowed to choose their school/education, and instead are forced to accept a different edcational opportunity than they want. I prefer less institutional compulsion.

I recognize a kid could still choose to walk-on at his school of choice, but that's beside the point. Why take away his opportunity for a free education at his school of choice if playing time is not an issue for him, and force him to take on the added financial burden?

3) This isn't just about the 2400 D-1 scholarship football players either. This will also have a ripple effect down through Div2, 3, and NAIA. This is also tied to my 2nd point. By forcing the 2400 players to essentially go down, Div2 players will be forced down, and Div3 and NAIA players may be forced out all together.

Now you not only take away choice for Div1 players, you may effectively keep some Div-2, 3 and NAIA players from getting a free education at all.

Most kids who go to Div2, 3 and NAIA programs on scholarship probably know they aren't going to play professionally. They're using their physical ability to advance their educational opportunity, which would be taken away by this proposal.



this is a good point and i don't know that there could be enough controls here to prevent widespread abuse. IMO, cutting the number of avail scholarships will only increase the abuse, lying, scheming and mistreatment of 18-21 year old male atheletes by D-1 football coaches who have extrordinarily high expectations on them already.

SCD,

Points noted:

Again, I argue that 20 scholarship students wrestling for real is better than 20 practicing football. Collecting a scholarship and coasting as a practice player is a rational choice for a kid. I just think better things can be done with the scholarship. Everyone has danced around this argument. Can someone here address it directly?

Forced to a school of not of the player's choosing? Well yeah, no one said life was fair. Ask the players 86+ talent wise who wanted to go to ND but didn't get an offer or the HS wrestler who has few programs to enroll in at all. Most people go to a school which is not their "ideal" for a variety of reasons. E.g., a kid at Cornell may be bummed that he didn't get into Harvard. So what?

I'm not sure, but it's my impression that the lower divisions do not offer athletic scholarships.

The 2,400 is absolutely the MAX loss. Why would other non-D-1A squad counts change?

SteveM

 

[lags24]

SteveM, the only level that does not offer scholarships is D3. There are a few D1-AA conferences that do not offer scholarships. The lower levels tend not to give full scholarships.

 

[SoCalDomer]

SCD,

Points noted:

Again, I argue that 20 scholarship students wrestling for real is better than 20 practicing football. Collecting a scholarship and coasting as a practice player is a rational choice for a kid. I just think better things can be done with the scholarship. Everyone has danced around this argument. Can someone here address it directly?

I'll try. But my first question is what does "wrestling for real" mean? I know how you are using it, but to me you are artificially placing a higher value on playing any sport than participating in sports that there is real demand for.

What i mean is this, how much demand is there for wrestling scholarships? I think we can agree not as many as football or basketball scholarships. Your proposal is trying to compel people to choose different sports, sports that there just isn't as much interest in. If athletes, schools and the public wanted more college wrestling, they would have it. But the fact is there just isn't enough interest there.

Forced to a school of not of the player's choosing? Well yeah, no one said life was fair. Ask the players 86+ talent wise who wanted to go to ND but didn't get an offer or the HS wrestler who has few programs to enroll in at all. Most people go to a school which is not their "ideal" for a variety of reasons. E.g., a kid at Cornell may be bummed that he didn't get into Harvard. So what?

I agree, life is sometimes not fair. But that appears to be the whole point of your proposal. You are trying to bring playing-time (what you believe is fair) into the equation. You are the one who is trying to make the system more fair based on a value (playing time) you think is important. I'm not aware of mass numbers of D-1 football players who are out their boycotting, protesting, or petitioning because they are upset at a lack of playing when the trade off is a free education.

A player not being able to go to his school of choice because of this proposal is not an example of "life is not fair." It's an example of this proposal attempting one view of equity yet achieving the exact opposite.

If I am a player who is content with getting an education and not playing because the current system means many more qualified athletes share the roster with me, that's my choice. Taking away choices such as that is opposite to what I believe is beneficial for society.

I'm not sure, but it's my impression that the lower divisions do not offer athletic scholarships.

I'm pretty sure they do. at least when i went to school they did. there are probably not as many, though.

The 2,400 is absolutely the MAX loss. Why would other non-D-1A squad counts change?

i'm not exactly sure what you're asking. But if i am correct, you're asking why would the lower levels be impacted? For all the reasons i stated in my first post. The D-1 players who maybe aren't as good would play a division lower, and those lower division players would conceivably go lower, etc.

Now, you may be right that the net loss would only be 2400 football athletes, but my point remains. you've now taken away 2400 atheletes' opportunity to get their education of choice, or to get any education at all. And the reason for doing so appears to be based on arguments no one in the system is actually making.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

case closed socal

 

[SoCalDomer]

case closed socal

i think it's an interesting discussion. it makes us think about the values of the current system compared to other values and the ramifications of change. overall it's healthy.

i recall my fix to the BCS bowl system didn't meet with much approval, even though i attempted to fix many of the issues that we complain are bad.

 

[SteveM]

More More Points

More More Points

I'll try. But my first question is what does "wrestling for real" mean? I know how you are using it, but to me you are artificially placing a higher value on playing any sport than participating in sports that there is real demand for.

What i mean is this, how much demand is there for wrestling scholarships? I think we can agree not as many as football or basketball scholarships. Your proposal is trying to compel people to choose different sports, sports that there just isn't as much interest in. If athletes, schools and the public wanted more college wrestling, they would have it. But the fact is there just isn't enough interest there.

SCD,

This is a primary basis for my argument that I tried to make clear. There is plenty of HS talent in boy's wrestling and baseball and swimming. The demand is there but the sports are NOT at the collegiate level because the teams have been eliminated by Title IX. Those kids would love to compete in college under scholarship.

Title IX makes men's scholarships zero sum. Schools eliminated men's programs not because they wanted to, but because they had to. (Wrestling and track cancellations are especially egregious because they cost next to nothing to support.)

I say bring back one or two men's sports with the 20 football scholarships. When you look at it that way, the "Life ain't fair" argument makes much more sense because you have to ask "Fair to whom?" I suppose you view a football scholarship for a practice-only guy as more worthwhile than a scholarship for a wrestling kid who would actually compete in meets. And the 20 collective practice scholarships as more valuable than resurrecting a popular men's sport that was killed by Title IX.

If so, then we disagree. Partially because I think a lot of the football players would actually enjoy whatever they did instead more if they were pushed off. (If you played, you know that practice is a grind. If a kid only practices for 4 years, it's gotta be a real grind.)

It would be interesting to survey D-1A football guys from all schools who graduated and never played and ask them if they could do over again, would they choose the same program or select an alternative where they would have played?

Most college sports have low spectator support. Again, I'm looking at this from the kids' perspectives (all sports) so place no value on spectator support for this issue.

Bomb away if you want.

SteveM

 

[goldandblue]

I can't get over the fact that if a player is not going to see time on the football field he is just supposed to switch sports. So if I'm a D-1 Baseball player but I spend my time in the dugout and not on the field I'm just supposed to say to hell with baseball I'm going to finish my career on a diving scholarship?? WTF??

I agree with Socal, this has been a good discussion and reps to SteveM for bringing it up even thought I think his idea is full ofileof:

Bye the way SteveM don't get upset over the pile of shit.....

 

[SoCalDomer]

SCD,

This is a primary basis for my argument that I tried to make clear. There is plenty of HS talent in boy's wrestling and baseball and swimming. The demand is there but the sports are NOT at the collegiate level because the teams have been eliminated by Title IX. Those kids would love to compete in college under scholarship.

Title IX makes men's scholarships zero sum. Schools eliminated men's programs not because they wanted to, but because they had to. (Wrestling and track cancellations are especially egregious because they cost next to nothing to support.)

I say bring back one or two men's sports with the 20 football scholarships. When you look at it that way, the "Life ain't fair" argument makes much more sense because you have to ask "Fair to whom?" I suppose you view a football scholarship for a practice-only guy as more worthwhile than a scholarship for a wrestling kid who would actually compete in meets. And the 20 collective practice scholarships as more valuable than resurrecting a popular men's sport that was killed by Title IX.

no you're right, i wasn't factoring in that part of your argument. i think you can see though, that based on my argument I would prefer getting rid of Title 9. I agree it harms many of the less popular men's sports. But my solution would be to dump it, rather than give it credence by working within it.

If so, then we disagree. Partially because I think a lot of the football players would actually enjoy whatever they did instead more if they were pushed off. (If you played, you know that practice is a grind. If a kid only practices for 4 years, it's gotta be a real grind.)

It would be interesting to survey D-1A football guys from all schools who graduated and never played and ask them if they could do over again, would they choose the same program or select an alternative where they would have played?

I think (without any actual polling mind you) many athletes who didn't play might say if they knew they weren't going pro, they would have preferred to go somewhere and actually play. But i think that response misses the fact that they assume they would be in the same [career/life] spot where they are at the point of the survery, which may not be true.

I stopped playing baseball in college. Now that I'm 30 and too old to play competitively, I do wish I would have continued when i had the chance. But I can't say if I continued playing whether I would have taken the same educational path.

 

[SoCalDomer]

i believe a bigger problem the NCAA needs to address is the major disparity of graduation rates in D-1 football and basketball.

if a student has to maintain a "C" average to be eligible to play, why does the NCAA allow the schools themselves to perenially fail at graduating student athelets?

(but no one hijack the thread trying to respond. it's an issue that is more rhetorical than serious question. because the bottom line is money.)

 

[SteveM]

Great Discussion All

Great Discussion All

i believe a bigger problem the NCAA needs to address is the major disparity of graduation rates in D-1 football and basketball.

if a student has to maintain a "C" average to be eligible to play, why does the NCAA allow the schools themselves to perenially fail at graduating student athelets?

(but no one hijack the thread trying to respond. it's an issue that is more rhetorical than serious question. because the bottom line is money.)

Guys,

Thanks for your posts. To close on my end, I absolutely agree that Title IX is pathological. Even the girls agree because they have brothers and boy friends who got whacked. Providence had to drop baseball a few years ago and the story was on TV. It's like a bad dream when it happens because it's so arbitrary.

Here's a real pathological example. I went to grad school at George Washington. Several years ago they merged small Mt Vernon college into their system. But guess what? Mt Vernon was all girls. So because of the merger, the male/female ratio of the institution as a whole changed and Title IX made them kill off two men's sports!!!

That drives me nuts because the ratios are PC driven artifacts. I agree the objective should be changing Title IX. But the Democrats are reactionary liberal and will never do it. And when Bush came to power with a Republican Congress, they had hearings but then the Republicans lost their nerve. (They lost their nerve over a lot of other stuff too.)

So guys, with the thought experiment, I was just looking at shit and trying to make it Shinola. I think you see what I was getting at.

SteveM

P.S. Speaking of shit G&B, stepping in it has been the story of my life. So your "Turd of Endearment" is graciously accepted.

 

[goldandblue]

LMAO! I know the feeling. still LMAO!!! reps once again. Will have to wait says I have to rep some one else. Where's Arabia when you need her??

 

[roto-stud]

Instead of theory, can someone research how many of this years ND scholarship seniors went four years and never got into a game... taking away injuries, I believe the number is zero.

 

[Legacy]

i believe a bigger problem the NCAA needs to address is the major disparity of graduation rates in D-1 football and basketball.

if a student has to maintain a "C" average to be eligible to play, why does the NCAA allow the schools themselves to perenially fail at graduating student athelets?

(but no one hijack the thread trying to respond. it's an issue that is more rhetorical than serious question. because the bottom line is money.)

I agree with SoCalDomer. We live in a Notre Dame world, where recruits have a four year scholarship, expect graduation and work for PT, though end up with a great degree no matter what. Another example, Alabama signed 140 LOIs in the last 5 years. Only 85 can play at one time. Maybe some were greyshirted to raise their academics or bulk up. Alabama's football grad rate in 5 years is 48%. So, 2/3s of the prospects signed could play at one time and 1/2 graduated. So just to play and graduate is their ideal. Those that don't may well feel like they were part of a football factory.

A recent model that attempted to predict highly-regarded recruits choices found that recruits often go to schools which got commitments from highly-regarded players at their position in previous years, though they mention early playing time in their decision. They were willing to sit for 2-3 years. An example is how USC keeps signing top running backs.

 

[tgolden]

I know several scholarship players who as it is now, are going to be perpetually on the scout team or at best 2nd or 3rd string for their whole careers. This includes some guys who were fairly highly ranked coming out of high school. They've had the chance to transfer, but they prefer stay at Notre Dame, do their best to earn playing time, do what they can to help the team win, and enjoy their experience. Some of them may choose to use up their 5th year at a different college to get the playing time, but they have chosen to stay at Notre Dame for 4 years because they truly want to be part of Notre Dame and they want to graduate. Then you have players who come in very highly ranked and never would have been pushed to a second tier school by the 65 limit who end up sitting on the bench behind guys who weren't nearly as highly ranked who probably would have ended up at delaware with a 65 limit.

If there were 65 scholarships, that's still a lot of guys not playing. Why don't we just cut it to 22 scholarships? But we need a kicker and punter, so make it 24. That way everyone gets to play for sure. That way no scholarship athlete has to compete (which is one of the main points of sports) to earn playing time.

and if you would like to have a discussion about Title IX and why you are wrong and why it is necessary, let me know. For the record, Title IX does NOT EVER require a school to cut men's teams. You obviously have no idea what it is like to be a female athlete and have obviously never spoken to a female athlete who played, or tried to play, before Title IX.

I don't even necessarily think we need 85 scholarships for football, I just think your arguments against it don't make much sense.