Jimbo quote in Coachingsearch.com
I've wondered when the push by the P5 would come to up the scholarship limit from 85 to whatever. An expanded CFP system may be the vehicle to get that going. Another effective way to make the gap widen (already very wide) between the P5 and G5 eventually.
the problem when guys say that is other P5 schools have no interest in agreeing to that at all whatsoever. Why would Duke want to up the scholarship limit to help FSU out? Why would Kentucky want to up it to help Florida out?
I come from the flip side of this argument. I'd advocate for lowering the scholarship limit to 80 from 85. It would have minimal effect on the biggest programs, a large net positive for the lower 60% of the P5 and the top tier of the G5 and a smaller but still net positive for the rest of the G5. Expanding the CFP to the Top 6 with the top 2 getting a 1st round bye would be the best system.
Both proposals are non-starters with people who make decisions (NOT coaches).
Only being reported because it gets lots of clicks, not because it has a chance in heck. Didn't click on it.
As for me personally, I agree with lowering scholarships. Not raising them. Only raise I'd consider is letting schools give four year players who stay in school financial support without it counting against the head count.
(11-15-2016 09:40 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I come from the flip side of this argument. I'd advocate for lowering the scholarship limit to 80 from 85. It would have minimal effect on the biggest programs, a large net positive for the lower 60% of the P5 and the top tier of the G5 and a smaller but still net positive for the rest of the G5. Expanding the CFP to the Top 6 with the top 2 getting a 1st round bye would be the best system.
I'd go for 75. It would save 10 scholarships and give more playing time to people there and practicing.
The ONLY reason to increase the number of scholarships is to allow coaches at the top 15-20 programs to take more chances on academically and morally questionable players while still having the depth in case they bomb.
Pro football got by on 40 players and a 7 player taxi squad for years. The NCAA once had a 60 player limit on the traveling squad. 75 scholarships gives you room for 3 full teams on each side of the ball, 3 kickers and still have 10% (6) players out each week. And that doesn't count walk-ons who are 20-30 players on the major programs.
I would eliminate athletic scholarships all together. They serve no purpose relative to a school's mission. Clearly, if you argue that athletic scholarships are a way to get poor kids to college, there are simply better ways to that. The only reason to have them is so some school doesn't cheat to get as many good athletes into school as possible. But, schools still cheat the system all the time. Frankly, no student should be admitted to any school simply based on how good an athlete they are.
I have no problem with college sports, but it should be actual students of one school versus actual students. Michigan-Ohio State, Auburn-Alabama, etc would still draw. Bigger schools may have an advantage, true, since they have more students from which to choose. However, that may not necessarily be true. Lots of small high schools compete against and beat larger schools. Maybe lower tier academic schools might have an advantage because they admit everyone (although smart kids can be athletic too). There should be a minor league for kids who want to prepare for a sports career, but are not college material. Pay them and let them go to tech school on the side.
bullet,
I'd also argue that higher scholarships allows elite programs to stockpile talent simply for the sake of keeping good players away from other schools. Doesn't help anyone. Don't allow it.
(11-15-2016 11:35 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]bullet,
I'd also argue that higher scholarships allows elite programs to stockpile talent simply for the sake of keeping good players away from other schools. Doesn't help anyone. Don't allow it.
That was one of the big effects when the NCAA first imposed scholarship limits. The guy happy to be the 4th QB at Nebraska because he was getting a full ride now takes the full ride elsewhere instead of being a walk-on at Nebraska.
I don't see much chance of things changing either direction. Lowering it before had a lot both intended and unintended consequences.
1. You have seen team rise up as talent (also money due to other reasons) has spread out.
2. You have seen long periods of once dominant teams down.
3. You have seen a huge premium put on the best coaches and a very big push for the best facilities as those make a huge difference with more limited scholarships.
All in all, there is healthy balance that needs to be struck. College football exists in a system where you have 120+ teams which bring very different things to the table. You have some who have bigger fanbases than the several NFL teams, others who will only have limited attention (even locally) and most the rest in the middle.
College football needs the biggest fanbases to generally doing well (both for the attention and because it doesn't want to put them in a position they might start to ask if it is better to break away), but also wants teams without the massive following to be able to rise and bring excitement as well. I think the 85 scholarship limit has mostly achieved that. The down periods for big programs have been longer than ideal and some would like a few more teams to get into the national title mix, but this is probably close to where they want that mix. I think a few more scholarships would probably tip the balance to about perfect, but think that stands about zero chance of happening.
Yeah, Alabama and Ohio St certainly have been down for just far too long .... better make sure they have even more of an unfair advantage over everyone else.
the down periods for big programs has nothing to do with the # of scholarships. it's got everything to do with coaching. Michigan is a prime example. When did they get back? When Harbaugh came around. Alabama was down until Saban arrived.
(11-15-2016 11:35 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]bullet,
I'd also argue that higher scholarships allows elite programs to stockpile talent simply for the sake of keeping good players away from other schools. Doesn't help anyone. Don't allow it.
Players want to be on a winning team, and showcase their talents for the Pros. They can't do that if they are the 4th string QB. A lot of players are being drafted by the NFL from schools that are not in the P5 like G5, FCS and lower. Boise State and North Dakota State are getting lots of players drafted by the NFL more often lately than from Texas. One year a few years ago, Texas never got a player drafted.
stever,
Well then we should take scholarships away from programs like Michigan, Ohio St, Alabama, to even up the playing field!
Or better yet, limit how much they can pay for the elite head coaches, so as to give other programs a chance at hiring them!
(11-15-2016 11:49 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]the down periods for big programs has nothing to do with the # of scholarships. it's got everything to do with coaching. Michigan is a prime example. When did they get back? When Harbaugh came around. Alabama was down until Saban arrived.
Coaching is magnified now with fewer scholarships. It has always mattered, but mattered less if you had more players who could be busts.
Over the last 20 years, we havd seen more down periods for longer than we had in the past for several top programs.
Good.
Bad for the game to have the same five programs winning the CFP championship all 12 years.
(11-15-2016 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Good.
Bad for the game to have the same five programs winning the CFP championship all 12 years.
lol. Why? If they win, they win.
(11-15-2016 12:25 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2016 11:49 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]the down periods for big programs has nothing to do with the # of scholarships. it's got everything to do with coaching. Michigan is a prime example. When did they get back? When Harbaugh came around. Alabama was down until Saban arrived.
Coaching is magnified now with fewer scholarships. It has always mattered, but mattered less if you had more players who could be busts.
Over the last 20 years, we havd seen more down periods for longer than we had in the past for several top programs.
There's still the same 16-20 programs dominating the top 3 spots in the polls every year. They just aren't all up there at the same time.
It will move to 8 teams next and finally to 16 teams. In the 16, you would use 15 bowls. In the 8, you would use 7 bowls.
(11-15-2016 03:34 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]It will move to 8 teams next and finally to 16 teams. In the 16, you would use 15 bowels. In the 8, you would use 7 bowels.
I think you're going to need a laxative for that!
No it's perfect.
In order to get the CFP board to actually vote for expansion, you're basically going to have to take a giant dump on their salad plates.