Started By
Message
re: NCAA meeting today for sweeping change in FB and BB policy
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:50 am to parkjas2001
Posted on 10/27/11 at 9:50 am to parkjas2001
85 -> 80 scholarships?
1
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:01 am to Crompdaddy8
quote:
85 -> 80 scholarships?
Horrible idea. All this means is that there will be 600 fewer kids getting an opportunity to receive a college education each year.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:03 am to mre
quote:I agree it isn't a good idea, but this isn't true either. Many of those kids would still go to college. They just wouldn't finance it through a football scholarship.
All this means is that there will be 600 fewer kids getting an opportunity to receive a college education each year.
This post was edited on 10/27/11 at 10:05 am
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:06 am to spacewrangler
quote:
Bunch of pointy headed, bow tie wearing, elitist are gonna ruin college football.
Yep.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:08 am to WDE24
600 is an obvious exaggeration (as it's the exact number of kids who would lose their opportunity to play D-1 ball), but I would wager that most D-1 players would be able to otherwise afford college if it weren't for their football scholarship.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:10 am to mre
quote:Yeah, but they would just play at a lower division, knocking those guys that can pay off of scholarship.
but I would wager that most D-1 players would be able to otherwise afford college if it weren't for their football scholarship.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:12 am to WDE24
quote:
Yeah, but they would just play at a lower division, knocking those guys that can pay off of scholarship.
If only coaches offered scholarships based strictly on financial need. :p
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:41 am to mre
How do schools get around title 9?
If you offer $2k to football schollies wouldn't you have to do it for every other sport or would it be linked specifically to TV money? And could you even get away with that without having lawsuits?
Free "Flagship" FARKS here: LINK
If you offer $2k to football schollies wouldn't you have to do it for every other sport or would it be linked specifically to TV money? And could you even get away with that without having lawsuits?
Free "Flagship" FARKS here: LINK
Posted on 10/27/11 at 10:55 am to Reaganite
quote:
How do schools get around title 9?
If you offer $2k to football schollies wouldn't you have to do it for every other sport or would it be linked specifically to TV money? And could you even get away with that without having lawsuits?
Free "Flagship" FARKS here: LINK
There's not way to skirt around Title 9 when providing added financial support to men's teams. There are many, many schools that will not be able to afford to compensate the entire football team, let alone the other men's teams and the women's teams too.
They can't just add to the football stipend and not think that the softball/gymnastics/tennis and every other athlete won't expect equal compensation. At that point the whole damn thing becomes too damn expensive for the school to even consider in most cases. shite, there are very few programs that stay in the "black" with the rules as they stand today.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:16 am to Reaganite
quote:
How do schools get around title 9?
They dont. It will be addressed today as well.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:18 am to parkjas2001
Didn't look at link, but where is the Cam loophole being addressed?
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:18 am to mre
quote:
I don't think it is fair to the university to lock them in to a four year commitment,
I disagree. Does the University have to pay a buyout if the college coach does not work? In my opinion, this will make the coaches do their dang job and not pass scholarships out like candy.
Evaluating talent is one of the strengths that should be needed to be a college football coach. He shouldn't be able to get mulligans just because he didn't do a good job scouting the player.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:23 am to Alahunter
almost two pages before a ghey flame is brought. good thing the flame war is ending soon.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:28 am to Reaganite
They don't get around it. It means an extra 2k for ALL athletes. In practice, it means at some schools the only male athletes on campus are going to be football players and the rest will be females because lots of schools are barely scraping by as it is.
And a big school with all the standard programs, there are close to 400 athletes on scholarship. That will mean around $800k a year at least in more scholarship money.
And a big school with all the standard programs, there are close to 400 athletes on scholarship. That will mean around $800k a year at least in more scholarship money.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:30 am to DrSEC
quote:
I disagree. Does the University have to pay a buyout if the college coach does not work? In my opinion, this will make the coaches do their dang job and not pass scholarships out like candy.
Evaluating talent is one of the strengths that should be needed to be a college football coach. He shouldn't be able to get mulligans just because he didn't do a good job scouting the player.
They're scouting 14-18 year old kids... it's extremely difficult to tell what sort of player these kids will grow into over the next couple of years, and I'm not just talking about X's and O's. Scouting these kids and evaluating their talents is one of the most important skills that a college coach can possess, but they can't know the future.
There are other ways to look after the kids without locking the University into a 4-year commitment with them, such as the plan that I posted on the first page. Tell me how that plan doesn't address any concerns about looking out for the players while at the same time not locking the University into a 4-year commitment to keeping the kids on the team.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:32 am to DrSEC
I am totally against changing the academic rules for eligibility. Not only will it affect quality of the sport but it will also keep kids that would normally be able to play college sports from being able to play them. For many of these kids sports is the only way out of a self-destructive environment that is only going to end up landing them in prison or in a coffin and if you take their ability to go further with it at the collegiate level then you are basically sentencing them to prison or death.
Granted these kids make up the exception not the rule but they also normally make up the better quality players that we see playing in college.
Address the money problems, address the eligibility problems when transferring from school to school, but leave academics the hell alone.
Granted these kids make up the exception not the rule but they also normally make up the better quality players that we see playing in college.
Address the money problems, address the eligibility problems when transferring from school to school, but leave academics the hell alone.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:34 am to ThaKaptin
quote:
I am totally against changing the academic rules for eligibility. Not only will it affect quality of the sport but it will also keep kids that would normally be able to play college sports from being able to play them. For many of these kids sports is the only way out of a self-destructive environment that is only going to end up landing them in prison or in a coffin and if you take their ability to go further with it at the collegiate level then you are basically sentencing them to prison or death.
The flip side of that coin is that it could motivate these kids in tough situations to improve themselves and their situations by studying harder.
A 2.0 is not a difficult task even in the hood.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:41 am to mre
quote:
They're scouting 14-18 year old kids... it's extremely difficult to tell what sort of player these kids will grow into over the next couple of years, and I'm not just talking about X's and O's
Who they have limited contact with and who could have numbers and stats highly skewed because of numerous factors
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:42 am to mre
quote:
They're scouting 14-18 year old kids... it's extremely difficult to tell what sort of player these kids will grow into over the next couple of years, and I'm not just talking about X's and O's. Scouting these kids and evaluating their talents is one of the most important skills that a college coach can possess, but they can't know the future.
There are other ways to look after the kids without locking the University into a 4-year commitment with them, such as the plan that I posted on the first page. Tell me how that plan doesn't address any concerns about looking out for the players while at the same time not locking the University into a 4-year commitment to keeping the kids on the team.
I am not saying it is not difficult....I am saying it is their job. It is difficult to fight fires but that is a fireman's job.
There are a lot of things I do not know much about. However, this topic is one I know a great deal about because I use to work as a scout.
A coach should have to consider the whole package of a player. If they want to take a risk they need to have to reap the consequence. The NCAA is supposed to serve to protect the student athlete and keep a fair playing ground but right now they players are just numbers.
This post was edited on 10/27/11 at 11:43 am
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:42 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Who they have limited contact with and who could have numbers and stats highly skewed because of numerous factors
Absolutely. If we're going to lock the coaches and the schools into 4-year commitments, then the NCAA needs to address all of the recruiting limitations.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News