Colin Cowherd was just saying CFB was contemplating reducing the number of scholarships from 85 to 80. If this ever did happen just how big of an effect could this have? Would it close the gap between the P5 and G5 all that much if at all?

It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

(06-25-2013 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

(06-25-2013 09:16 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

(06-25-2013 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:16 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

(06-25-2013 09:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:16 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

I doubt the top of the AQ's would want talent trickleing down to the bottom of their own conferences much more than they would to the the g-5.

I would love to see them reduce the number of scholarships. Not only would it save money for schools, but it would send more FBS talent to G5 schools.

How likely is this to occur?

(06-25-2013 09:09 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  Colin Cowherd was just saying CFB was contemplating reducing the number of scholarships from 85 to 80. If this ever did happen just how big of an effect could this have? Would it close the gap between the P5 and G5 all that much if at all?

I'd agree that this would help the G5 both on the field and in the books. But considering it was once 105 and then 95, this seems like a fairly natural progression.

NFL rosters deal with 54 team members. There's no reason other than P5 greed to keep FBS at 85 scholarships. Its a form of hoarding.

(06-25-2013 09:38 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:16 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It would help a lot, which is why I struggle to see why they would do it. That's 5 less players every P5 team could sign, therefore it would push even more high quality recruits downward.

I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

I doubt the top of the AQ's would want talent trickleing down to the bottom of their own conferences much more than they would to the the g-5.

The top teams probably wouldn't want that. But there's more votes at the middle and bottom of every conference than at the top. It also could be a compromise. Cutting 5 football scholarships would essentially offset some of the cost of the proposed stipend. Also, wuldnt cutting 5 football scholarships allow some women's scholarships to also be cut? So we actually might see the reduction of 10 total scholarship cuts among the schools that feel financially squeezed. That could make swallowing the stipend a little easier.

(06-25-2013 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:38 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:16 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  I agree, and the savings represented by five scholarships would have a greater beneficial impact on the GO5 schools than the AQ schools.

I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

I doubt the top of the AQ's would want talent trickleing down to the bottom of their own conferences much more than they would to the the g-5.

The top teams probably wouldn't want that. But there's more votes at the middle and bottom of every conference than at the top. It also could be a compromise. Cutting 5 football scholarships would essentially offset some of the cost of the proposed stipend. Also, wuldnt cutting 5 football scholarships allow some women's scholarships to also be cut? So we actually might see the reduction of 10 total scholarship cuts among the schools that feel financially squeezed. That could make swallowing the stipend a little easier.

Women's scholarships are not 50/50. They're based on the proportion of students.

If a school is 75% men 25% women, then scholarships can be 75% male and 25% female I believe.

(06-25-2013 01:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:38 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have been thinking they would actually go the other way on this and raise the number of scholarships, as that's how they could make the talent gap even wider between the haves and have nots.

Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

I doubt the top of the AQ's would want talent trickleing down to the bottom of their own conferences much more than they would to the the g-5.

The top teams probably wouldn't want that. But there's more votes at the middle and bottom of every conference than at the top. It also could be a compromise. Cutting 5 football scholarships would essentially offset some of the cost of the proposed stipend. Also, wuldnt cutting 5 football scholarships allow some women's scholarships to also be cut? So we actually might see the reduction of 10 total scholarship cuts among the schools that feel financially squeezed. That could make swallowing the stipend a little easier.

Women's scholarships are not 50/50. They're based on the proportion of students.

If a school is 75% men 25% women, then scholarships can be 75% male and 25% female I believe.

Then why doesn't admissions just skew their numbers to get around TitleIX? You know, admit more men than women. I think it DOES NOT work like that, as that would be very easy to hide numbers and circumvent TitleIX.

(06-25-2013 01:49 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 01:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:38 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps the thinking is that it will allow the bottom of P-5 leagues separate from the top of G5 leagues. Maybe they figure more top talent that would have gone to Alabama or LSU would flow to Ole Miss or Kentucky before it would go to UAB or Cincy. That's the only way I could see it making sense for the P5 to support the move.

I doubt the top of the AQ's would want talent trickleing down to the bottom of their own conferences much more than they would to the the g-5.

The top teams probably wouldn't want that. But there's more votes at the middle and bottom of every conference than at the top. It also could be a compromise. Cutting 5 football scholarships would essentially offset some of the cost of the proposed stipend. Also, wuldnt cutting 5 football scholarships allow some women's scholarships to also be cut? So we actually might see the reduction of 10 total scholarship cuts among the schools that feel financially squeezed. That could make swallowing the stipend a little easier.

Women's scholarships are not 50/50. They're based on the proportion of students.

If a school is 75% men 25% women, then scholarships can be 75% male and 25% female I believe.

Then why doesn't admissions just skew their numbers to get around TitleIX? You know, admit more men than women. I think it DOES NOT work like that.

I wish it did though.

hree-prong test
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."

"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.

"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[11][24]

"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

(06-25-2013 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote:  hree-prong test
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."

"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.

"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[11][24]

"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

I would imagine that schools err on the high side for women's scholarships to ensure that no one has a reason to get people sniffing around. I still think it would be easy to circumvent TitleIX by simply accepting less females if that guideline is adhered to. Your prong test obviously takes into account that there are schools with possibly huge imbalances in male to female ratio. So it wouldn't seem that far of a stretch to artificially create that imbalance to save a lot of money on women's schollies and keep the money in the revenue generating male sports, thus creating the very discrimination that TitleIX seeks to avoid.

(06-25-2013 02:14 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote:  hree-prong test
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."

"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.

"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[11][24]

"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

I would imagine that schools err on the high side for women's scholarships to ensure that no one has a reason to get people sniffing around. I still think it would be easy to circumvent TitleIX by simply accepting less females if that guideline is adhered to. Your prong test obviously takes into account that there are schools with possibly huge imbalances in male to female ratio. So it wouldn't seem that far of a stretch to artificially create that imbalance to save a lot of money on women's schollies and keep the money in the revenue generating male sports, thus creating the very discrimination that TitleIX seeks to avoid.

Would be pretty easy to prove that you did that.

You are also assuming that school administrators care about athletics first. In most cases they do not.

(06-25-2013 04:36 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 02:14 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote:  hree-prong test
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."

"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.

"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[11][24]

"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

I would imagine that schools err on the high side for women's scholarships to ensure that no one has a reason to get people sniffing around. I still think it would be easy to circumvent TitleIX by simply accepting less females if that guideline is adhered to. Your prong test obviously takes into account that there are schools with possibly huge imbalances in male to female ratio. So it wouldn't seem that far of a stretch to artificially create that imbalance to save a lot of money on women's schollies and keep the money in the revenue generating male sports, thus creating the very discrimination that TitleIX seeks to avoid.

Would be pretty easy to prove that you did that.

You are also assuming that school administrators care about athletics first. In most cases they do not.

How would you prove that? There's no way to say who applied to a school. Hell, toss every third women's app in the trash and then reject every 4th one. No one would be able to determine that and you just cut women's enrollment in half.

Also athletics isn't the issue, money is. A significantly stronger bottom line will overcome a lot academic/athletic prejudice. Skewed just a little could save hundreds of thousands a year in non-revenue generating scholarships. If my dumb ass can figure out a way to use that to my advantage (assuming you are correct) then I'm sure there are universities doing just such a thing right now.