(06-21-2021 12:31 PM)emu79 Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 12:20 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 11:53 AM)emu79 Wrote:  You can win the battle but lose the,war. The 20 to 30 haves can afford the extra costs. Schools in the MAC can not afford a bidding war. Club level sports here we come. In the end the schools that will exit having scholarship sports will result in less opportunities for athletes after high school. The current model I agree was broken but this ruling will result in it being more broken.

Agree. I haven't read a good write up yet, but anything which substantially adds to intercollegiate sports costs will result in more schools dropping sports, esp. football.

Here is a definition which is close: "reduce the extent of (something) by removing superfluous or unwanted parts." Something dies because of lack of water and nutrients (e.g., a plant).

Since this is the "Money Monday" thread (and today is Monday), universities would need to find additional revenue sources. Maybe an extended CFP could add say 1 - 2M per FBS school.

It is possible that both revenues and expenditures will continue to rise. FCS schools might get hurt the most because they don't share in CFP monies (think I'm right on that. They do share in the NCAA March Madness monies, though).

What is needed is a system where student athletes earn more compensation college offering scholarship athletics can at least break even doing so and there's a level playing field as much as there can between the haves and have nots this is where I quote Lennon you may call me,a dreamer but I'Mont the only one.