NCAA Looks to Reduce FB Scholarships

[BGIF]

NCAA looking to cut football scholarships - CBSSports.com

January 13, 2012 5:17 pm
Posted by Bryan Fischer

INDIANAPOLIS -- As part of sweeping changes stemming from a Presidential retreat in August, an NCAA working group will recommend to the organization's Board of Directors that FBS-level football scholarships be cut from 85 to 80 starting in 2014.

The proposal was among the most controversal to be discussed at a Division I session Friday morning at the annual NCAA convention, with several school leaders quite outspoken about the issue.

"What you see with these proposals is an effort to restrain spending at the expense of student-athletes," Harvey Perlman, chancellor of Nebraska, said. "The working group says if you reduce scholarships and other expenses you can reallocate it to other things for student-athletes. But the problem is, I don't know of an athletic department that won't spend every penny it has.

"I just think this is bad publicity and I think it's bad policy."

Georgia president Dr. Michael Adams chaired the group responsible and was put in the precarious position of leading the charge of several unpopular measures.

"Of all the things I've done the last 30 years at the NCAA, this is the most unpopular. I have the scars to show for it," Adams said. "There's a notion that we are a runaway train in Division I with less regard for student-athletes than the people who are making the exorbitant salaries. We need to put a stake down somewhere."

...

"The divide between presidents and AD's on one side and coaches is a pretty wide gulf," Adams said. "I don't want to fight with anybody. But on some of these issues I think there needs to be reasonable compromise to protect the academic process and, secondly, deal with the economic realities of the world we're now living in. My faculty hasn't had a raise in three years and a lot of them think what they see in athletics has a lot of excess in it."

The scholarship proposal also calls for a cut in the number of FCS scholarships by three - from 63 to 60 - and will be sent to the Board of Directors on Saturday to be voted on.

 

[irishfanjho15]

How about simplifying your own rules and enforcing them? Just a suggestion.

 

[Ironman8]

The rich get richer. The poorer get poorer.

 

[BGIF]

The rich get richer. The poorer get poorer.

I just sent you an PM to change the title. Long snappers and kickers will become endangered species but the title does do the topic justice.


Damn, you're quick. Must be all that HS training dodging traffic on Rt 17.

 

[enrico514]

Scholarship limits don't affect schools like Alabama !

 

[BGIF]

Tonight coaches across the country are studying the Kiffin Recruiting Model. With the KRM and a complete lack of ethics (I know, it's redundant), 80 scholarships will not present a problem.

 

[JadeBrecks]

How about simplifying your own rules and enforcing them? Just a suggestion.

WHAT?! HOW ABSURD!!! Freaking crazy talk!

 

[NYMIKE6]

It's not the number of scholarships it's the over recruiting thats killing college football.

 

[ACamp1900]

Scholarship limits don't affect schools like Alabama !

My first thought... so the schools that follow the current rules will find themselves even more behind the eight ball... that's what i hear... because the SEC and others won't stop with their current tactics...

 

[Kak7304]

This will only make the Nick Saban roster management tactics more common. If the NCAA is going to implement this reduction, changing to 4-year schollies is a must.

 

[Zwidmanio]

It's not the number of scholarships it's the over recruiting thats killing college football.

Over-recruiting is certainly one of the larger problems that the NCAA should be dealing with. The number of scholarships that football teams are allowed are way down the list of issues that need to be addressed, if at all. I don't have a problem with the 85 scholarship limit at all.

The sad thing about it is, if the NCAA actually puts this one (scholarship reduction) through without first addressing issues such as grey-shirting, over-signing, putting non-performers out to pasture, etc., then it will only exacerbate these issues which, I feel, pose a far greater threat to college football than five extra scholarships per season.

If you think SEC practices are shady now...

 

[NYMIKE6]

I think the SEC runs the NCAA

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm not sure what is more of an issue with me... the fact that the SEC wins the way they do... or the fact that the SEC wins the way they do...

 

[RyCo1983]

I think the SEC runs the NCAA

DING DING DING
We have a winner.

 

[scUM Hater]

Should ND join the SEC?

 

[BGIF]

It's interesting that they're recommending cutting 5 football scholarships to reduce expenses to the universities at the same they're recommending cutting 2 women's basketball scholarships but only to provide parity in the sport.


"Break up UCon and The Vols" or 13 women's scholarships instead of 15 would result in something like 700 less women's scholarship.

No mention of the other 3 women's lost scholarships per school. It's a Title IX thing.

5-2=3 more that can be chopped.


Another measure would would limit the number of non-coaching personnel — strength and conditioning coaches, videographers and administrative personnel — to 12 in football and six in men's basketball.

 

[BGIF]

I think the SEC runs the NCAA

No, the SEC runs the BCS. They know where the money is.

 

[BeauBenken]

lol This has gotta be a joke, right?

 

[Rocky2820]

Should ND join the SEC?

No ****ing way! I would not want to be associated with them athletically, and I sure as hell don't want to be associated with them academically. Conference affiliation is about a whole lot more than athletics.

 

[kmoose]

If they really want to maintain academic integrity, AND level the playing field, then they ought to set limits on the amount of money that the athletic department can spend, based on the number of student athletes in the Athletics Department. Maybe they set the number at $2000 per student. So the total athletic budget expenditures cannot equal more than the total number of student-athletes x $2000. Then they could allow Athletics Departments to maintain a "General Fund" of sorts, to cover major capital expenditures like facilities upgrades or construction. They could limit the annual contributions to the "General Fund" to say, 15% of your allowable budget expenditures. These contributions would not count as budget expenditures, but capping contributions at 15% would mean that no one school's fund could grow exponentially faster than the average school's. All the rest of the Athletics Departements revenues would then be returned to the University, for use by non-Athletic Departments.

 

[IrishinSyria]

If they really want to maintain academic integrity, AND level the playing field, then they ought to set limits on the amount of money that the athletic department can spend, based on the number of student athletes in the Athletics Department. Maybe they set the number at $2000 per student. So the total athletic budget expenditures cannot equal more than the total number of student-athletes x $2000. Then they could allow Athletics Departments to maintain a "General Fund" of sorts, to cover major capital expenditures like facilities upgrades or construction. They could limit the annual contributions to the "General Fund" to say, 15% of your allowable budget expenditures. These contributions would not count as budget expenditures, but capping contributions at 15% would mean that no one school's fund could grow exponentially faster than the average school's. All the rest of the Athletics Departements revenues would then be returned to the University, for use by non-Athletic Departments.

Why should parity even be a consideration? Successful programs are successful because millions of people are emotionally invested in them. The fan bases of schools like Michigan, ND, Alabama, Texas, etc... are a huge part of what makes CFB great. If they are bringing in the revenue that justifies the type of top of the line facilities they're building, why stop them just so San Jose St can compete?

As for the scholarships, there's got to be better ways of cutting costs than taking away twelve thousand potential free educations every year. (120 FBS teams=600*2=1200 due to title 9). As others have said, let's start with simplification/enforcement of existing rules. If a school can't afford to give out max scholarships, then don't. If they can't compete, drop down to FCS or DII. Any decent CFB program brings in way more than enough revenue to cover costs.

As for academic integrity, ND is a perfect example of a school that has used its football program to become an academic powerhouse. There's nothing stopping other schools from emulating that model, cutting spending will do nothing to change that. If the NCAA was serious about academic integrity, they should start by hammering teams with low graduation rates. Then get into issues of cheating, football-focused classes, etc ....

 

[phgreek]

"There's a notion that we are a runaway train in Division I with less regard for student-athletes than the people who are making the exorbitant salaries. We need to put a stake down somewhere."

Yea, so exacerbate the problems we already have, that you already fail to address...great. How can so many people who are in leadership positions lack the intellect and/or character to see the right solutions and implement them...

I agree with those who mention the issues of overrecruiting, grey shirting, etc. As well, many issues are resolved by saying a scholarship is for 4 years. All great points.

my solution is indeed spit a % of football revenue to the academic side (a big %), and implement a performance benchmark that means something...ie teams who graduate > 85% of their players get to have another scholly for every point over 85. Those below lose one for every point below 85...and the curriculum must be reasonable (no effing underwater basketweaving degrees). I think those two measures would satisy the academians and common sense folks on the outside who think the NCAA is a joke.

This isn't that hard...if these people simply look at their own mission and vision statements, and take them to heart, the answers are evident and the solutions are doable.

 

[kmoose]

Why should parity even be a consideration? Successful programs are successful because millions of people are emotionally invested in them. The fan bases of schools like Michigan, ND, Alabama, Texas, etc... are a huge part of what makes CFB great. If they are bringing in the revenue that justifies the type of top of the line facilities they're building, why stop them just so San Jose St can compete?

As for the scholarships, there's got to be better ways of cutting costs than taking away twelve thousand potential free educations every year. (120 FBS teams=600*2=1200 due to title 9). As others have said, let's start with simplification/enforcement of existing rules. If a school can't afford to give out max scholarships, then don't. If they can't compete, drop down to FCS or DII. Any decent CFB program brings in way more than enough revenue to cover costs.

As for academic integrity, ND is a perfect example of a school that has used its football program to become an academic powerhouse. There's nothing stopping other schools from emulating that model, cutting spending will do nothing to change that. If the NCAA was serious about academic integrity, they should start by hammering teams with low graduation rates. Then get into issues of cheating, football-focused classes, etc ....

I'm not advocating parity. I'm advocating not allowing a relatively small group of schools to become behemoths, while the others are all left in the projects. Allow schools room to grow, but control the growth so that the almighty $ doesn't have such a huge influence. And I completely agree with hammering teams that don't even pretend to care about academics.

 

[irishtrain]

Scholarship limits don't affect schools like Alabama !

NCAA is starting to work towards evening the playing field. I have been saying that the rest of the country is starting to get pissed at the SEC and its pro standards. Depth is an issue and it wont hurt Notre Dame as much as the pro factories. The country is starting to wise up. This and more needs to be done. How about a level academic standard and no oversigning.

 

[NDOM]

They really only need to do this in the SEC! Since every team (Alabama) takes like 75 kids then ends up cutting 30 of them. This should have been done a long time ago.