Most schools don't have a realistic shot at a title maybe half do.
So this non scholarship model having no chance at a title really doesn't matter.With Covid -19 causing so much harm I could see this model expanding. When you look at the Pioneer they have some members in good primary conferences. Its not a bad deal for the MVC, A-10 and WCC teams that are in strong basketball conferences.

San Diego getting to be in the second best Western basketball conference is pretty nice.
Then they have a hundred students paying tuition to play football.

St Thomas might join. I doubt any other school would even consider it at this point.

(08-01-2020 09:22 AM)Todor Wrote:  St Thomas might join. I doubt any other school would even consider it at this point.

St. Thomas already did join the Pioneer.

(08-01-2020 09:05 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Most schools don't have a realistic shot at a title maybe half do.
So this non scholarship model having no chance at a title really doesn't matter.With Covid -19 causing so much harm I could see this model expanding. When you look at the Pioneer they have some members in good primary conferences. Its not a bad deal for the MVC, A-10 and WCC teams that are in strong basketball conferences.

San Diego getting to be in the second best Western basketball conference is pretty nice.
Then they have a hundred students paying tuition to play football.

They are just not getting "Football scholarships" or "athletic scholarships". Does not mean they are paying. Some can very well be getting some other kind of financial aid or scholarship.

So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

(08-01-2020 09:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

How is college football without scholarships any different than private high school fielding a football team? If you insist on paying college athletes, why not pay high school athletes?

No Division I FCS non-scholarship team is making money off football.

(08-01-2020 11:20 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

How is college football without scholarships any different than private high school fielding a football team? If you insist on paying college athletes, why not pay high school athleles

No Division I FCS non-scholarship team is making money off football.

Pioneer is a D3 football conference allowed to play D1 FCS.
Those players choose some pretty good schools to play at.
The same can be said for D3 schools except they can't play FCS schools.
Yeah their at a disadvantage but the bulk of their schedule is the conference. You can get CTE in high school or D3 ball right ?
For St Thomas its probably mostly business as usual. Giving up the chance for a title but gaining a some higher profile opponents. This is no different than going from FCS to G5 . Everything is basically the same a step up in competition. No chance for a title but you can upset a team in a money game.
Its an observation not an agenda I'm not advocating for anything.

(08-01-2020 09:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

Why is it OK for athletes in one sport to not get scholarships, but not OK for athletes in another sport (like football)? If some athletes won't play football unless they have a scholarship, they can choose to somewhere that will give them one. And there will still be enough athletes willing to play just for fun.

(08-01-2020 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

Why is it OK for athletes in one sport to not get scholarships, but not OK for athletes in another sport (like football)? If some athletes won't play football unless they have a scholarship, they can choose to somewhere that will give them one. And there will still be enough athletes willing to play just for fun.

I mentioned the contact/collision nature of football in my original comment. Also it may not be the case in the Pioneer Football League but football is more popular than other sports. In my high school there were only so many sports that charged admission. At Illinois, I remember a "Go Illini Card" which allowed admission to most sports with the exception of football and men's basketball, it even allowed you to get into women's basketball at the time (things may be different these days or my memory could be really bad because I'm old). Football is still considered a "money maker" or a "prestige" sport no matter what the level. It should be held to a higher standard. Schools shouldn't be able to screw the players while they might be able to with other sports that people don't care about. And in the case of many of the Pioneer League schools correct me if I'm wrong but don't they give scholarships in other sports? Why should football be any different? Too expensive? Then don't play the sport. You want to have a football team, "pay" the players.

(08-01-2020 09:29 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:22 AM)Todor Wrote:  St Thomas might join. I doubt any other school would even consider it at this point.

St. Thomas already did join the Pioneer.

I phrased it poorly. I meant the Pioneer might get a school in a pinch like St Thomas (which the Pioneer did)but that they won't get any others looking at them, particularly because of covid.

(08-01-2020 09:47 AM)lion1983 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:05 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Most schools don't have a realistic shot at a title maybe half do.
So this non scholarship model having no chance at a title really doesn't matter.With Covid -19 causing so much harm I could see this model expanding. When you look at the Pioneer they have some members in good primary conferences. Its not a bad deal for the MVC, A-10 and WCC teams that are in strong basketball conferences.

San Diego getting to be in the second best Western basketball conference is pretty nice.
Then they have a hundred students paying tuition to play football.

They are just not getting "Football scholarships" or "athletic scholarships". Does not mean they are paying. Some can very well be getting some other kind of financial aid or scholarship.

There is an NCAA rule that says varsity athletes can get non-athletic scholarships or financial aid if the same scholarships or aid are available to all other members of the student body.

For example, if non-athlete student X has a family income of $75,000 and gets $35,000 in need-based grants toward a total cost of attendance of $70,000/year, then it's permissible to give the same amount to varsity football player Z if Z's family has a $75,000 income. But if both X and Z have family income of $250,000, and X gets no need-based grant money, then it would be an NCAA violation to give need-based grant money to Z.

Or, if the school has an academic scholarship for every student that had a 3.7 high school GPA, then if Z had a 3.7 high school GPA, the school can give him the same scholarship, but can't give it to him if he doesn't meet that GPA requirement.

I suspect that many schools fudge their compliance with this rule, for athletes in sports that get partial or no athletic scholarships, but that's the rule.

(08-01-2020 12:45 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  So you're suggesting taking away the scholarships away from more athletes? Scholarships might be an expense but aren't athletes the reason there is a sport in the first place? I think the schools wanting football but not giving the players scholarships is taking advantage of the players, having their cake and eating it too. If you don't want to give scholarships, don't have football at all. Many colleges choose not to have football. It's one thing to have players play non contact sports "for fun" and not "get paid" for them but football and not get compensated is a joke if you ask me. If the University of San Diego makes a dime off football and their players don't get anything out of it and one of them gets CTE or suffers a big injury you tell me that's fair. Or they have to travel all the way cross country for every game because they're too cheap to give their players scholarships.

Why is it OK for athletes in one sport to not get scholarships, but not OK for athletes in another sport (like football)? If some athletes won't play football unless they have a scholarship, they can choose to somewhere that will give them one. And there will still be enough athletes willing to play just for fun.

I mentioned the contact/collision nature of football in my original comment. Also it may not be the case in the Pioneer Football League but football is more popular than other sports. In my high school there were only so many sports that charged admission. At Illinois, I remember a "Go Illini Card" which allowed admission to most sports with the exception of football and men's basketball, it even allowed you to get into women's basketball at the time (things may be different these days or my memory could be really bad because I'm old). Football is still considered a "money maker" or a "prestige" sport no matter what the level. It should be held to a higher standard. Schools shouldn't be able to screw the players while they might be able to with other sports that people don't care about. And in the case of many of the Pioneer League schools correct me if I'm wrong but don't they give scholarships in other sports? Why should football be any different? Too expensive? Then don't play the sport. You want to have a football team, "pay" the players.

I noted your reference to contact and injuries in your first post. That is true as well for most sports. If you don't want to risk injury, then don't play any of those sports.

I agree that football is more popular than most sports. Some even consider it more prestigious. I haven't ever heard of a school using this as an excuse for playing it. Usually, you hear the old "front porch" type arguments to justify spending millions on it. I personally have a problem with the notion that it's OK to "screw" students who play less popular sports, but not OK to "screw" football players.

There is a way, of course to resolve these conundrums. Just ban all organized sports at the collegiate level, and let the athletes who want to play the popular or lucrative sports turn professional and continue to play in leagues that aren't affiliated with universities. Surely football is popular enough for leagues like that to form.

I could see non scholarship growing among private schools in FCS. The non scholarship Pioneer League gets an autobid so if someone like the NEC decided to go that route they would still have playoff access.

(08-01-2020 04:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I could see non scholarship growing among private schools in FCS. The non scholarship Pioneer League gets an autobid so if someone like the NEC decided to go that route they would still have playoff access.

Yeah something like that seems more likely because of the virus.
Two Big South schools switched places from scholarship to non scholarship.

So to cut costs the schools decide to take money from the players, the whole reason why there's a team to begin with. If this was any other sport, they wouldn't keep playing it but not give the players scholarships, they'd just cut the sport altogether. It's OK for Butler to have Division 1 football without scholarships but not OK for Temple to have Division 1 baseball or softball without scholarships? If schools really wanted to give players a chance to play, there'd be more scholarship less teams in other sports. Why is it only football? Because the schools don't think it's worthwhile in other sports (with the exception of the Ivy League which is cheap in every sport). Schools want to have football without giving scholarships to me is bullcrap. It's cheap. They want the benefits but not the costs. Screw them. If more colleges get away with not giving scholarships for football, next thing you know Alabama and Clemson will stop giving scholarships.

(08-01-2020 04:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I could see non scholarship growing among private schools in FCS. The non scholarship Pioneer League gets an autobid so if someone like the NEC decided to go that route they would still have playoff access.

NEC used to be non-scholarship until about 10-15 years ago. As a group, they decided scholarships were worth it and started phasing them in. Last I heard they had gotten to 40 scholarships, but that was a long time ago and they could allow the full 63 by now.

(08-01-2020 09:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  So to cut costs the schools decide to take money from the players, the whole reason why there's a team to begin with. If this was any other sport, they wouldn't keep playing it but not give the players scholarships, they'd just cut the sport altogether. It's OK for Butler to have Division 1 football without scholarships but not OK for Temple to have Division 1 baseball or softball without scholarships? If schools really wanted to give players a chance to play, there'd be more scholarship less teams in other sports. Why is it only football? Because the schools don't think it's worthwhile in other sports (with the exception of the Ivy League which is cheap in every sport). Schools want to have football without giving scholarships to me is bullcrap. It's cheap. They want the benefits but not the costs. Screw them. If more colleges get away with not giving scholarships for football, next thing you know Alabama and Clemson will stop giving scholarships.

I agree that it is odd that they allow a non scholarship D1 FCS conference. Take Dayton 35 million in athletic revenue A10 basketball powerhouse. 11k stadium and 600 million dollar endowment yet no scholarships for football. Seems like they could be FBS if they really wanted to. To me it makes sense that a Campbel type school would do it. I am not advocating for more non scholarship football . I could just see this cheaper option being taken since a hundred sports programs have been cut do to Covid. Alabama would give every recruit a Mercedes if allowed. Those top football schools print money because of football. The majority lose money a lot of money.

The PAC 12 should explore this—put their whiny entitled players in their place. It’s not like they are relevant any way.

(08-02-2020 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12 should explore this—put their whiny entitled players in their place. It’s not like they are relevant any way.

Please welcome Mike Leach to CSNBBS!
http://www.espn.com/video/clip/clip?id=27726924

(08-02-2020 02:23 AM)Hammersmith Wrote:  NEC used to be non-scholarship until about 10-15 years ago. As a group, they decided scholarships were worth it and started phasing them in. Last I heard they had gotten to 40 scholarships, but that was a long time ago and they could allow the full 63 by now.

About half of the NEC are counters for guarantee games, leveraging 40 grants with 20-23 full aid packages, which is how Wagner gets games with Syracuse, LIU vs. West Virginia, etc.

(08-02-2020 10:43 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  I agree that it is odd that they allow a non scholarship D1 FCS conference. Take Dayton 35 million in athletic revenue A10 basketball powerhouse. 11k stadium and 600 million dollar endowment yet no scholarships for football. Seems like they could be FBS if they really wanted to.

Two points: I-AA/FCS has no scholarship requirements, and an 11K stadium does not make an I-A/FBS program.

And anyone who studies NCAA accounting practices knows that a $35 million budget does not means $35 million in revenues.