(01-28-2014 04:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 10:56 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 06:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This according to an article in this morning's Honolulu Star-Advertiser. The article is behind a pay wall but some excerpts are provided below. A couple of other interesting tidbits: raising scholarship limits is being advocated by at least some of the P5 schools, and the resistance to giving the P5 free reign is coming mainly from the G5 (more so than from the FCS and non-football conferences) because of parity concerns.

...The discussions included giving $2,000 stipends to student-athletes in selected sports and raising the scholarship limit in football from its current 85. Both have been tabled as the NCAA board of directors also seeks to restructure its own governing processes, including giving more of a voice to the student-athlete and representation from those who are in the trenches daily: the athletic directors.

The G5 should not be the only group opposed to raising the scholarship limits - the vast majority of the P5 teams SHOULD oppose it as well. Why? Think about it this way: currently each team gets 85 players on scholarship, but what happens if they raise the limit by 15 to 100 players?

Let's take the case of the Big Ten: does that mean that Illinois still gets the same 85 they get now, plus 15 more? Eh, NO - it means Ohio State and Michigan get to pick up 30 players which otherwise would've gone to Illinois, while Illinois picks up 45 players which would've gone to the MAC most likely.

The same could be said of the SEC - does S Carolina or Miss St get to keep their current 85 players, or does Georgia and Alabama get to grab 15 of them and force the former to find 30 more, each?

I'm convinced that increasing scholarship limits is the WRONG direction. You want more exciting games - then DECREASE the scholarship limits and spread out the talent. You want to make sure the best talent goes to the P5? Giving out stipends will do that most of the time - no need to lock up more players, just better ones.

I think that you're right about this - scholarship limits definitely help the middle-to-lower members of P5 conferences as well as G5 schools. Look at the success Kansas and Missouri had around 2008 with quarterbacks Todd Reesing and Chase Daniel. They were both from TX, but considered to be too small to be of interest to UT and aTm. Now consider a scenario where those schools can expand their rosters - they might be more prone to take those types of talented kids, both for the chance to take a flier on someone who can play but who is undersized, but also to keep them away from competing schools. A limit of 100 may still be a little too small to stash away players just for that reason, but once the door opens then 105, 110, or 115 may not be far off.

I think that talk about increasing the number of scholarships is just a smoke screen. The reasons that have been posted here are valid. There are more P5 teams that would be hurt than would be helped. Even if the P5 have autonomy, they probably don't have the votes. They aren't a monolith - they are 65 separate institutions.

I see this as a bargaining chip. It's an issue the P5 can concede on to appear reasonable. It's also one they can compromise on, in ways that would help more of them. For example, I could see instead a rule change giving every football player five years eligibility instead of four, doing away with redshirts.

At some point, I expect ESPN to weigh in (quietly) on proposals that reduce parity within the P5. The fewer competitive teams/games in the P5 the weaker the entertainment value for ESPN. They have no more interest in televising a blowout between two P5 schools than between a P5 and a G5 or FCS. Less parity means less inventory.

(01-28-2014 06:58 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 03:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What would you do if you were at a dinner party with coworkers and some ass hole started calling himself the "high resource" guy?

Key in on his biggest insecurities and address it in front of the crowd. Then throw my head back and laugh with the other guests as he sucks his thumb in the corner.

It's a gift I have.



For the record I'd probably just ignore him and let others form their own opinion.