Started By
Message
Is it time again to reduce football schollies?
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:03 am
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:03 am
There have been 5 College Football Playoffs. That is a total of 20 playoff spots with 10 different teams having filled those spots. Given the current status of teams, conferences, etc., we will likely go another 5 years of College Football playoffs with maybe only another 2 or 3 different teams being added to the list of those making an appearance in the playoffs. That would be a total of 40 playoff spots being filled by only 12 or 13 different teams.
It goes without saying that recruits want to play for teams that make the playoffs so teams making the playoffs have a built in advantage for continuing to sign the best players. Essentially, the playoffs are becoming a device that will only strengthen the already strongest teams. This obviously will make it even harder in the future for new teams to get a playoff spot.
So the argument seems to be "expand the playoffs", and looking at the history of the NCAA basketball tourney it is likely this is where we are headed. Expanding the NCAA Tourney basically destroyed college basketball's version of bowl games, the NIT. The NCAA Tourney expansion also weakened the importance of the regular season and the importance of winning one's conference; at one time it was required that a team win their conference tourney to get an NCAA bid.
It is almost universally agreed that expanding the College Football Playoffs will begin a slow death of the bowl system and will weaken the importance of the regular season and conference championship games. Yet college football is headed in this direction. We can all look at the future and see this is where we're headed.
Is there a better alternative? I'm just throwing this out there and spitballin' this idea, but what about reducing the maximum scholarships for college football?
Football scholarships used to be unlimited for D-1 football until Congress passed Title IX in the early 70's. Due to the passing of Title IX the schools agreed to set a scholarship limit of 105. Over the years the number has been reduced until reaching its current level of 85 in the early 90's.
The NFL carries a 53 man roster. Can we all agree that college football's 85 scholarship limit is an arbitrary number? Why 85? Is it possible that 85 is more than enough, maybe too much?
What if the max scholarships were reduced to say 60? What are the positives and negatives of doing this? I'm having a hard time coming up with negatives but the positives are many. The most glaring positive is that it will create more parity in college football. Sure the best teams will continue to recruit the best players initially, but there will be more good players going to different schools and those schools will eventually win some games they had little chance to win before. This ultimately results in more parity and more parity increases the likelihood of different teams making the College Football Playoffs.
What are the arguments against reducing college football schollies? Why would this be a bad idea? I can only think of one and that is college football may need more players than the NFL due to injuries, etc. The NFL can just sign another player during the season but college teams have to have players available. So, maybe college teams need almost 85 players. Then just treat college football like college baseball and offer partial scholarships. For example, if a coach believes he needs more than 60 players then some of the schollies will be partial schollies to increase the roster.
Back to the NFL for sec. Why does the NFL give the worst teams the first picks in the draft? To create parity which creates interest. If it were better for the NFL to award the most successful teams with the first picks, then certainly that is what the NFL would do; but it's not what the NFL does because it's detrimental to fan interest and to the NFL. Yet, the College Football Playoffs have essentially created a situation that is making the strongest teams stronger....the exact opposite of what the NFL does.
It goes without saying that recruits want to play for teams that make the playoffs so teams making the playoffs have a built in advantage for continuing to sign the best players. Essentially, the playoffs are becoming a device that will only strengthen the already strongest teams. This obviously will make it even harder in the future for new teams to get a playoff spot.
So the argument seems to be "expand the playoffs", and looking at the history of the NCAA basketball tourney it is likely this is where we are headed. Expanding the NCAA Tourney basically destroyed college basketball's version of bowl games, the NIT. The NCAA Tourney expansion also weakened the importance of the regular season and the importance of winning one's conference; at one time it was required that a team win their conference tourney to get an NCAA bid.
It is almost universally agreed that expanding the College Football Playoffs will begin a slow death of the bowl system and will weaken the importance of the regular season and conference championship games. Yet college football is headed in this direction. We can all look at the future and see this is where we're headed.
Is there a better alternative? I'm just throwing this out there and spitballin' this idea, but what about reducing the maximum scholarships for college football?
Football scholarships used to be unlimited for D-1 football until Congress passed Title IX in the early 70's. Due to the passing of Title IX the schools agreed to set a scholarship limit of 105. Over the years the number has been reduced until reaching its current level of 85 in the early 90's.
The NFL carries a 53 man roster. Can we all agree that college football's 85 scholarship limit is an arbitrary number? Why 85? Is it possible that 85 is more than enough, maybe too much?
What if the max scholarships were reduced to say 60? What are the positives and negatives of doing this? I'm having a hard time coming up with negatives but the positives are many. The most glaring positive is that it will create more parity in college football. Sure the best teams will continue to recruit the best players initially, but there will be more good players going to different schools and those schools will eventually win some games they had little chance to win before. This ultimately results in more parity and more parity increases the likelihood of different teams making the College Football Playoffs.
What are the arguments against reducing college football schollies? Why would this be a bad idea? I can only think of one and that is college football may need more players than the NFL due to injuries, etc. The NFL can just sign another player during the season but college teams have to have players available. So, maybe college teams need almost 85 players. Then just treat college football like college baseball and offer partial scholarships. For example, if a coach believes he needs more than 60 players then some of the schollies will be partial schollies to increase the roster.
Back to the NFL for sec. Why does the NFL give the worst teams the first picks in the draft? To create parity which creates interest. If it were better for the NFL to award the most successful teams with the first picks, then certainly that is what the NFL would do; but it's not what the NFL does because it's detrimental to fan interest and to the NFL. Yet, the College Football Playoffs have essentially created a situation that is making the strongest teams stronger....the exact opposite of what the NFL does.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 10:11 am
5
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:04 am to Toneski
TL;DR
Cliffs please
Cliffs please
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:13 am to Toneski
quote:
What are the arguments against reducing college football schollies?
College football viewership and attendance is driven by the biggest programs. By cutting scholarships, you make the product worse at your key revenue-driving programs.
The NFL wants parity because all of their teams are in major cities with the ability to create a huge amount of revenue for the league, which operates under a league-wide revenue sharing model. A rising tide lifts all boats under this structure. This is not true for college football beyond the conference level, particularly for the major programs in the southeast.
Aside from these differences, drastically cutting scholarships across the board essentially eliminates academic opportunities for a few thousand teenagers.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 10:15 am
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:18 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Aside from these differences, drastically cutting scholarships across the board essentially eliminates academic opportunities for a few thousand teenagers.
This statement seems wrong. The money for scholarships doesn't go away just because football schollies get reduced. That money can be used to fund more scholarships in a variety of non-revenue sports. So the "academic opportunities for teenagers" wouldn't decrease. In fact, it could be argued that more student athletes could receive scholarship money if the football scholarships are spread around as partial schollies in other sports.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 10:20 am
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:19 am to Toneski
The NCAA & powers that be are always looking for ways to force parity, so this wouldn’t be shocking.
The rise of the SEC has set into motion a series of events that will ultimately destroy football’s regular season.
The rise of the SEC has set into motion a series of events that will ultimately destroy football’s regular season.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:23 am to Toneski
quote:
What are the arguments against reducing college football schollies?
Giving fewer kids the opportunity to play college football while earning a free education?
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:24 am to Toneski
quote:
That money can be used to fund more scholarships in a variety of non-revenue sports.
That money isn't going to be used that way because those sports do not generate revenue. That's why those sports have fewer scholarships allotted to them in the first place. Unused scholarship dollars would be re-invested back into football in some other way (coaches, facilities, etc.) because that generates revenue for the school.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:29 am to Toneski
Letting guys make the NFL jump at any point would be the easiest way to increase parity.
The other thing you could do is change transfer rules. The question is how to do that. I used to think that letting guys transfer at will would increase parity, but it actually seems like the more lenient transfer rulings recently have done the opposite because high school kids know they can always transfer if they don't win the starting job at the top tier program (see Justin Fields)
Plus good graduate players often leave for bigger programs now. The Buffalo QB is a good example.
The other thing you could do is change transfer rules. The question is how to do that. I used to think that letting guys transfer at will would increase parity, but it actually seems like the more lenient transfer rulings recently have done the opposite because high school kids know they can always transfer if they don't win the starting job at the top tier program (see Justin Fields)
Plus good graduate players often leave for bigger programs now. The Buffalo QB is a good example.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 10:32 am
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:30 am to Crowknowsbest
Legislation could be passed to increase the number of scholarships for other programs such as baseball or soccer. It is why we have many programs today such as women's sports, etc.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:32 am to allin2010
quote:
Legislation could be passed to increase the number of scholarships for other programs such as baseball or soccer. It is why we have many programs today such as women's sports, etc.
Sure, but I don't want to speculate that that legislation would hypothetically be passed, what it would look like, or what the unintended consequences would be.
ETA: It seems like a bridge too far for a legislative body to legislate that colleges (especially private ones) have to use a certain amount of scholarships on certain sports. Title IX is a different deal.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 10:34 am
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:34 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
because that generates revenue for the school.
You've circled around to the crux of the matter. College football is the cash generator. I'm proposing an idea to save college football and preserve the cash generator.
Maybe you didn't read my entire post but the point is we're on a path where fans will lose interest in college football and that means less future revenue.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:35 am to Crowknowsbest
I think it's time to start paying the players (legally) that are bringing in 10s of millions of dollars to their universities and entertaining us every fall.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 10:36 am to Toneski
quote:
Maybe you didn't read my entire post but the point is we're on a path where fans will lose interest in college football and that means less future revenue.
I don't think that's true for major programs. Schools with programs that can't survive in that world should probably downsize or divert those resources elsewhere, regardless.
Parity has never existed in college football, and college football has thrived.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News