(09-16-2021 01:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Sure, if you absolutely don't care about destroying the last bit of parity.

Doesn't matter. It is restrictive on the kids and that is unfairly stopping them from choices that may be available to them. If a student-athlete wants a Notre Dame education they should not be rejected just because the NCAA picked a number at random and said stop there. As long as the school and the student agree on the parameters then the 85 rule needs to die.

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Scholarship caps are effective tools for spreading talent across many schools. If scholarship caps are eliminated, we’ll return to the Bear Bryant - Bobby Dodd debate…some brand programs will horde talent even though there is little chance that talented kids get a legitimate chance to play.

That having been said, I do believe that the scholarship limits for certain team sports (such as baseball, softball, soccer, etc.) should be increased.

But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

(09-14-2021 08:55 PM)banker Wrote:  This one will be the killer for the G5.

I wish I had a $ for every time an idiot posted that something would be killer for the G5's.

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Scholarship caps are effective tools for spreading talent across many schools. If scholarship caps are eliminated, we’ll return to the Bear Bryant - Bobby Dodd debate…some brand programs will horde talent even though there is little chance that talented kids get a legitimate chance to play.

That having been said, I do believe that the scholarship limits for certain team sports (such as baseball, softball, soccer, etc.) should be increased.

But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not fair to you, but very fair to most of the G5. Consolidation of power to the P5 has no bounds in some peoples eyes. That said, know the P5 earns 71.5% of the CFP money and not sure, but assuming voting on policies. Hope my assumption is incorrect on voting policies.

(09-16-2021 02:40 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not fair to you, but very fair to most of the G5. Consolidation of power to the P5 has no bounds in some peoples eyes.

Not fair to the student athletes, who cares about me or you? What is best for them.

They are adults and should have all the choices available. I assume this will happen in the future, at minimum the number will be raised. If not I hope another class action is coming.

(09-16-2021 02:44 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:40 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not fair to you, but very fair to most of the G5. Consolidation of power to the P5 has no bounds in some peoples eyes.

Not fair to the student athletes, who cares about me or you? What is best for them.

They are adults and should have all the choices available. I assume this will happen in the future, at minimum the number will be raised. If not I hope another class action is coming.

Yes, wanted to go to Harvard but there were more qualified students applying. Same with athletes. There are so many positions and you are good enough or not. so many things have limits. Not fair my a$$. Life is not fair. :-)

(09-16-2021 02:52 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:44 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:40 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not fair to you, but very fair to most of the G5. Consolidation of power to the P5 has no bounds in some peoples eyes.

Not fair to the student athletes, who cares about me or you? What is best for them.

They are adults and should have all the choices available. I assume this will happen in the future, at minimum the number will be raised. If not I hope another class action is coming.

Yes, wanted to go to Harvard but there were more qualified students applying. Same with athletes. There are so many positions and you are good enough or not. so many things have limits. Not fair my a$$. Life is not fair. :-)

Of course life is not fair. But this can be seen as a restriction on movement or access for student athletes and therefore needs to be done away with. Life has limits in many areas, but just like the NIL this limit needs to be done away with.

(09-16-2021 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With the new more liberal transfer rules, your going to see teams in certain positions get hammered by a huge wave of transfers (say when a popular G5 coach is poached by a P5).

The concern wouldn't be for just any coaching change, it would be if a coaching change might be perceived as a negative by a large number of players, and motivate them to explore transferring -- for example, if a well-liked coach like Tom Allen at Indiana was replaced by a hardass like Bill O'Brien. Or if a coach leaving a successful program goes to a team that is thin on talent and several players from his former team want to follow him to the new place. That seems like a bigger problem in basketball than football, though basketball doesn't have the annual cap on scholarships.

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

I mentioned this issue in another thread. If the NCAA gets rid of rules that run afoul of the Alston case, or if they are forced to by a court, the scholarship caps in each sport probably have to go away, as being anticompetitive -- but a roster limit for each team in each sport would be permissible because it is a rule of competition in the sport, like the number of players that can be on the field or court at the same time, and not a rule relating to compensation.

BYU has effectively ended scholarship limits by sport with their NIL deal providing money to 120 players on the football roster.

I'm not too concerned about that because in the vast majority of cases, the people providing NIL money are going to want themselves and their money to be associated with star players and not guys who only get on the field during practice.

At any rate, a roster limit would take care of that issue, because very few elite athletes are going to want to stay at a school where they are not on the roster, even if their tuition, room, and board are taken care of.

A roster limit is legal.

The NCAA limits the # of coaches a program can hire. Surely they can also limit the number of players allowed to participate in practices.

I would imagine that roster limits (or weekly practice roster limits) will replace scholarship limits soon. But what will the limit be? I just looked up 3 schools' rosters: Toledo's roster is 116, Cincinnati's is 126, Alabama's is 133.

Badly needed. The 25/year had good intention but with transfers on the rise and coaching getting fired quicker and quicker it is needed to give teams a chance to get to the full 85. South Carolina is only at 79 for this year and that is with placing several walk ons on scholarship and counting several transfers against the 2022 class.

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Scholarship caps are effective tools for spreading talent across many schools. If scholarship caps are eliminated, we’ll return to the Bear Bryant - Bobby Dodd debate…some brand programs will horde talent even though there is little chance that talented kids get a legitimate chance to play.

That having been said, I do believe that the scholarship limits for certain team sports (such as baseball, softball, soccer, etc.) should be increased.

But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

Baseball is at I think 13.5 or something insane. Way too low considering there are 35 players on the roster and realistically 20+ that play significant innings.

(09-16-2021 02:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Scholarship caps are effective tools for spreading talent across many schools. If scholarship caps are eliminated, we’ll return to the Bear Bryant - Bobby Dodd debate…some brand programs will horde talent even though there is little chance that talented kids get a legitimate chance to play.

That having been said, I do believe that the scholarship limits for certain team sports (such as baseball, softball, soccer, etc.) should be increased.

But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

(09-16-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Scholarship caps are effective tools for spreading talent across many schools. If scholarship caps are eliminated, we’ll return to the Bear Bryant - Bobby Dodd debate…some brand programs will horde talent even though there is little chance that talented kids get a legitimate chance to play.

That having been said, I do believe that the scholarship limits for certain team sports (such as baseball, softball, soccer, etc.) should be increased.

But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

Shouldn't the students be the judge of what is fair? Why should they be limited? If they want to join an ND or Alabama that has a 150 scholarship athletes why should they be stopped? Equity of choices ( allow them to go where they want), not of outcomes. ND should never have to turn away a student athlete if we want them and they want us. I get the "why" people do not want it for their schools, but this is about choices for athletes.

(09-16-2021 01:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Sure, if you absolutely don't care about destroying the last bit of parity.

Doesn't matter. It is restrictive on the kids and that is unfairly stopping them from choices that may be available to them. If a student-athlete wants a Notre Dame education they should not be rejected just because the NCAA picked a number at random and said stop there. As long as the school and the student agree on the parameters then the 85 rule needs to die.

With free transfers, those buried kids are going to start getting offers/calls to leave and START right away. Back then, you couldn't just walk on a bad situation.

We're talking about a player-run situation - the old rules don't apply.

(09-16-2021 03:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With the new more liberal transfer rules, your going to see teams in certain positions get hammered by a huge wave of transfers (say when a popular G5 coach is poached by a P5).

The concern wouldn't be for just any coaching change, it would be if a coaching change might be perceived as a negative by a large number of players, and motivate them to explore transferring -- for example, if a well-liked coach like Tom Allen at Indiana was replaced by a hardass like Bill O'Brien. Or if a coach leaving a successful program goes to a team that is thin on talent and several players from his former team want to follow him to the new place. That seems like a bigger problem in basketball than football, though basketball doesn't have the annual cap on scholarships.

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

I mentioned this issue in another thread. If the NCAA gets rid of rules that run afoul of the Alston case, or if they are forced to by a court, the scholarship caps in each sport probably have to go away, as being anticompetitive -- but a roster limit for each team in each sport would be permissible because it is a rule of competition in the sport, like the number of players that can be on the field or court at the same time, and not a rule relating to compensation.

BYU has effectively ended scholarship limits by sport with their NIL deal providing money to 120 players on the football roster.

I'm not too concerned about that because in the vast majority of cases, the people providing NIL money are going to want themselves and their money to be associated with star players and not guys who only get on the field during practice.

At any rate, a roster limit would take care of that issue, because very few elite athletes are going to want to stay at a school where they are not on the roster, even if their tuition, room, and board are taken care of.

A roster limit is legal.

The NCAA limits the # of coaches a program can hire. Surely they can also limit the number of players allowed to participate in practices.

I would imagine that roster limits (or weekly practice roster limits) will replace scholarship limits soon. But what will the limit be? I just looked up 3 schools' rosters: Toledo's roster is 116, Cincinnati's is 126, Alabama's is 133.

Those numbers must include injured players. The maximum number of players allowed to participate in preseason practices is 110. (D-I Manual, Bylaw 17.11.2.1.2)

The SEC permits 80 home team players to play in conference games, visiting teams are allowed a maximum of 70, and both teams are permitted 70 at neutral site games. http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2017/0126/201...20Size.pdf

Let's split the SEC's limits and set every team's FBS game-day roster at 75. To accommodate serious injuries or players quitting the team, each team would set its 75-player roster before the first game of the season, and could replace players in future weeks on the condition that once a player is removed from the roster, he cannot be returned to the roster during the remainder of that school year.

(09-16-2021 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Sure, if you absolutely don't care about destroying the last bit of parity.

Doesn't matter. It is restrictive on the kids and that is unfairly stopping them from choices that may be available to them. If a student-athlete wants a Notre Dame education they should not be rejected just because the NCAA picked a number at random and said stop there. As long as the school and the student agree on the parameters then the 85 rule needs to die.

With free transfers, those buried kids are going to start getting offers/calls to leave and START right away. Back then, you couldn't just walk on a bad situation.

We're talking about a player-run situation - the old rules don't apply.

They will, and that is fine. We see that starting now anyway. Does not mean that they should not have the choice.

(09-16-2021 04:06 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 10:31 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Just do away with scholarship caps. If a school wants to give out a 1000 scholarships and kids want to play their let it happen.

Sure, if you absolutely don't care about destroying the last bit of parity.

Doesn't matter. It is restrictive on the kids and that is unfairly stopping them from choices that may be available to them. If a student-athlete wants a Notre Dame education they should not be rejected just because the NCAA picked a number at random and said stop there. As long as the school and the student agree on the parameters then the 85 rule needs to die.

With free transfers, those buried kids are going to start getting offers/calls to leave and START right away. Back then, you couldn't just walk on a bad situation.

We're talking about a player-run situation - the old rules don't apply.

They will, and that is fine. We see that starting now anyway. Does not mean that they should not have the choice.

I'm okay with ND stashing 100 guys, and then the middle 30 get raided by everyone with a passable program. It would be messy, but both the schools and the players would have autonomy here.

(09-16-2021 04:09 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 04:06 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 01:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sure, if you absolutely don't care about destroying the last bit of parity.

Doesn't matter. It is restrictive on the kids and that is unfairly stopping them from choices that may be available to them. If a student-athlete wants a Notre Dame education they should not be rejected just because the NCAA picked a number at random and said stop there. As long as the school and the student agree on the parameters then the 85 rule needs to die.

With free transfers, those buried kids are going to start getting offers/calls to leave and START right away. Back then, you couldn't just walk on a bad situation.

We're talking about a player-run situation - the old rules don't apply.

They will, and that is fine. We see that starting now anyway. Does not mean that they should not have the choice.

I'm okay with ND stashing 100 guys, and then the middle 30 get raided by everyone with a passable program. It would be messy, but both the schools and the players would have autonomy here.

Yeah, it would be a giant mess. But heck we have one now and this is just the beginning.

I just want as much freedom as possible, and with that can come confusing and messiness at times.

(09-16-2021 03:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  But why limit student choices? They should have the right to go to any school they want.

Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

Shouldn't the students be the judge of what is fair? Why should they be limited? If they want to join an ND or Alabama that has a 150 scholarship athletes why should they be stopped? Equity of choices ( allow them to go where they want), not of outcomes. ND should never have to turn away a student athlete if we want them and they want us. I get the "why" people do not want it for their schools, but this is about choices for athletes.

But the competition of the sport will not be fair. The brand programs, or those with the most funding, will have lasting advantages.

In addition, the impacted students’ welfare is only marginally impacted. The 86th-150th choice to Notre Dame will still get a scholarship offer to Northwestern, Boston College, Stanford, etc. It’s not like the kid will miss out on excellent opportunities. You know that these kids already have the choice to play high-level football at 20 or 30 FBS programs. Although you may believe that a Notre Dame education and experience is unparalleled…NW, BC, Stanford, etc. may also have legitimate claims to the same story-line.

(09-16-2021 04:37 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Mainly in the interest of fairness of athletic competition. Football is a massive revenue generating sport that funds other collegiate sports. Schools that have elite brand value (e.g., Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc.) would gain a permanent competitive advantage in competing against most other schools. Professionals play the sport with 53 person rosters…85 scholarships seems sufficient to field a team. Increasing the number of football scholarships won’t enhance the competitiveness of the sport.

On the other hand, expanding scholarship limits on other sports makes sense. For example, soccer is limited to 9.9 scholarships even though a starting line-up requires 11 players. IMO - Basketball, baseball/softball, soccer and lacrosse scholarship limits could all be increased.

I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

Shouldn't the students be the judge of what is fair? Why should they be limited? If they want to join an ND or Alabama that has a 150 scholarship athletes why should they be stopped? Equity of choices ( allow them to go where they want), not of outcomes. ND should never have to turn away a student athlete if we want them and they want us. I get the "why" people do not want it for their schools, but this is about choices for athletes.

But the competition of the sport will not be fair. The brand programs, or those with the most funding, will have lasting advantages.

In addition, the impacted students’ welfare is only marginally impacted. The 86th-150th choice to Notre Dame will still get a scholarship offer to Northwestern, Boston College, Stanford, etc. It’s not like the kid will miss out on excellent opportunities. You know that these kids already have the choice to play high-level football at 20 or 30 FBS programs. Although you may believe that a Notre Dame education and experience is unparalleled…NW, BC, Stanford, etc. may also have legitimate claims to the same story-line.

Fair? This whole thing is not fair to the student-athletes. I believe every school should sell their brand and experience. But students should not be limited by a number just because. If ND can afford to sign 500 athletes than so be it. If BC can great! No one is stopping them. This is a free market man.