I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

That's a great idea. 55-65 athletic scholarships max (unlimited academic schollies) would ease the burden caused by Title 9 and would create a more level playing field.

Overall, a cap in the amount of money that can spent on athletics would also be a good idea.

Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

I am not sure how forcing the P5 schools to secede from the NCAA would improve college football. And make no mistake about it, that would be the result of the result of this suggestion.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

We have that. It's called FCS and no one cares about it.

(07-22-2013 09:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

In striking down the NCAA TV contract, the Supreme Court said that the contract failed to effectively further the stated goal of providing balanced competition and therefore the limit on the marketplace was improper and noted that the NCAA could if chose to could limit spending or the amount raised from donors.

The courts have told companies that they can be limited on their spending when it is designed to reduce competition.

(07-22-2013 09:50 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

We have that. It's called FCS and no one cares about it.

Yet interest in college football and the market value (even adjusted for inflation) is higher than when there was no limit on scholarships. The value increased after a 100 scholarship limit and a 95 limit and now we are at 85 so the evidence tends to suggest that scholarship limit is not indicative of fan interest.

(07-22-2013 10:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 09:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

In striking down the NCAA TV contract, the Supreme Court said that the contract failed to effectively further the stated goal of providing balanced competition and therefore the limit on the marketplace was improper and noted that the NCAA could if chose to could limit spending or the amount raised from donors.

The NCAA is a voluntary association.

Sure, the "smaller schools" could theoretically outvote the "big boys" and vote in limits of 50 football scholarships, maximum football budget of $9 miilion/year including salaries, no more Phil Knight or T. Boone Pickens money, each donor limited to donating a maximum of $500/year, Nike and Adidas can only donate equipment and not pay money to the schools or the coaches, and whatever else they can think of to cut the Goliaths down to David size.

How long do you think the SEC would remain in the NCAA after those rules were passed? I'd put the over/under at 10 minutes.

(07-22-2013 10:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 09:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

In striking down the NCAA TV contract, the Supreme Court said that the contract failed to effectively further the stated goal of providing balanced competition and therefore the limit on the marketplace was improper and noted that the NCAA could if chose to could limit spending or the amount raised from donors.

The NCAA is a voluntary association.

Sure, the "smaller schools" could theoretically outvote the "big boys" and vote in limits of 50 football scholarships, maximum football budget of $9 miilion/year including salaries, no more Phil Knight or T. Boone Pickens money, each donor limited to donating a maximum of $500/year, Nike and Adidas can only donate equipment and not pay money to the schools or the coaches, and whatever else they can think of to cut the Goliaths down to David size.

How long do you think the SEC would remain in the NCAA after those rules were passed? I'd put the over/under at 10 minutes.

10 minutes? try immediately after the vote tally was announced

(07-22-2013 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 09:50 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

We have that. It's called FCS and no one cares about it.

Yet interest in college football and the market value (even adjusted for inflation) is higher than when there was no limit on scholarships. The value increased after a 100 scholarship limit and a 95 limit and now we are at 85 so the evidence tends to suggest that scholarship limit is not indicative of fan interest.

The 85 scholarship limit allows schools to make more mistakes in recruiting and still be good. SEC West schools had been effectively working with more than that by skirting the 25/year rule and, in Alabama's case, doing medical scholarships.

Given that most freshman and some others redshirt, they would have no problem at 75. I think it would be better for the players than having 44-50 people playing and 85 slots (most teams have around 100 players counting walk-ons).

There was an article about a line coach who helped his players lose weight after their playing career was over. The weight, particularly on the linemen is not healthy. Getting hit by 350 pounders isn't healthy.

Saban complains about no huddle offenses. Football players ought to be in shape to play 10 plays of 6-10 seconds with 10-15 seconds rest between. Its ridiculous how quickly they get winded.

So, make them in better cardiovascular shape and reduce concussions and the severity of injuries by making them play both ways. Go back to limited substitution. It would also limit cheap hits if the guy could come back at you when the ball switched sides. Imagine if you have a matchup of two top receivers playing each other on both sides of the ball. The players simply wouldn't be able to be 350 lbs and play 60 minutes.

It would reduce the cost as you would need less players.

This isn't anything new. That is the way football was in the pre-war years and to some extent into the 60s before unlimited substitution came fully in. As for size, the Texas 1969 MNC team had ONE lineman over 200 lbs (yes, that's one over TWO hundred). Refrigerator Perry was considered amazing for his size in the 80s would be a normal lineman now.

You would need a transition period, but you could set it up, not like soccer where someone who leaves is out, but have a limit of 2 or 3 substitutions a play except at halftime and quarters. You could have a kicker or QB as specialists, but most players would be on offense and defense. What other sport has you play only one way? Have injuries count as one of your substitutions so people don't fake injuries.

The concussion issue and the extreme size is, over time, going to put a damper on participation, which could hurt popularity over the long run. Of course, playing both ways limits playing time for marginal players, but there could be more B squads in HS. And more kids would be encouraged that they had the size to participate.

Would be hard to ever imagine the BCS P5 giving up what they have accumulated without some major reason.
Too much money, too much power to even think of it. They are in the driver's seat and they know it.
Back years ago when there were not so many rules any college could compete if they wanted to and had
the resources and were lucky enough to do so. Not really that way anymore.

What can be done and what will be done are never the same.

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

By better it would mean that colleges would provide more opportunities for student athlete participation which is their supposed charter as a non-profit.

With that in mind I would institute the following changes:

1) Implement an expense cap in all sports. This would include all expenses related to the sport including coaching salaries; dedicated facilities, training tables, recruiting costs etc. Schools could divide them as they see fit but must submit audited financials on all expenses to insure they stay within the cap to an accounting firm at the end of the year.

2) Implement an expense and sport minimum by division which means to be in D1 you must have annual expenses of a certain amount and you sponsor a minimum amount of sports.

3) Put scholarships at the true cost of attending school. This would include a stipend for living expenses.

4) Create a medical fund that could be used by athletes who have injuries that can be traced back to the playing of their sport. This helps primarily football players who have injuries graduate and are cut lose.

5) Eliminate Football from counting for all schools using participation rates to meet Title IX guidelines.

(07-22-2013 10:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 10:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 09:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

In striking down the NCAA TV contract, the Supreme Court said that the contract failed to effectively further the stated goal of providing balanced competition and therefore the limit on the marketplace was improper and noted that the NCAA could if chose to could limit spending or the amount raised from donors.

The NCAA is a voluntary association.

Sure, the "smaller schools" could theoretically outvote the "big boys" and vote in limits of 50 football scholarships, maximum football budget of $9 miilion/year including salaries, no more Phil Knight or T. Boone Pickens money, each donor limited to donating a maximum of $500/year, Nike and Adidas can only donate equipment and not pay money to the schools or the coaches, and whatever else they can think of to cut the Goliaths down to David size.

How long do you think the SEC would remain in the NCAA after those rules were passed? I'd put the over/under at 10 minutes.

True but since any limit would likely need Congressional approval you simply state that any member must be part of the NCAA or the revenue from their sports will be considered taxable as will any donations made for the purposes of sports. Problem solved.

I'd like to see higher character standards for players. I believe that players should be suspended much quicker and for longer periods of time for their criminal acts. I find it difficult to cheer for players who have choked their girlfriends, stolen laptops and thrown them out the window their dorm and much more.

(07-22-2013 09:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe we can get Apple to spend less money so that Asus can compete with them on a level playing field.

Agreed. I feel as though I just awoke from a coma and realized our form of government is one step closer to China, and has been completely taken over by the soccer generation. My WWII veteran grandfather that died in the South Pacific is rolling over in his grave.

But hey, everyone gets a trophy!

At the FBS level:

- Return to 11-game regular season.
- Expand championship tournament from 4 to 16: auto bids for 10 conference champs, plus six at-large bids selected by a committee that has no currently active coaches or ADs.
- Play first round tournament games in December bowls.
- Play Final Four tournament games in New Year's Bowls.
- Use increased TV dollars from expanded tournament to reimburse schools for loss of one OOC game.

The SEC should love this scheme since it could theoretically get seven teams in the tournament...

(07-23-2013 10:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 08:09 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  I believe lowering the number of scholarships a school can offer would create a more level playing field and make the sport more competitive and exciting.

Any thoughts or suggestions

By better it would mean that colleges would provide more opportunities for student athlete participation which is their supposed charter as a non-profit.

With that in mind I would institute the following changes:

1) Implement an expense cap in all sports. This would include all expenses related to the sport including coaching salaries; dedicated facilities, training tables, recruiting costs etc. Schools could divide them as they see fit but must submit audited financials on all expenses to insure they stay within the cap to an accounting firm at the end of the year.

2) Implement an expense and sport minimum by division which means to be in D1 you must have annual expenses of a certain amount and you sponsor a minimum amount of sports.

3) Put scholarships at the true cost of attending school. This would include a stipend for living expenses.

4) Create a medical fund that could be used by athletes who have injuries that can be traced back to the playing of their sport. This helps primarily football players who have injuries graduate and are cut lose.

5) Eliminate Football from counting for all schools using participation rates to meet Title IX guidelines.

Your #1 is unconstitutional and your #5 would require an act of Congress. The SEC advocating my limited substitution proposal in the next year is more likely than getting that act of Congress. The only way I see going back to limited substitution is some combination of scandals (more widespread than just Miami and UNC), O'Bannon type lawsuits and concussion studies showing really bad results. Presidents might want to limit their liability and limit the pro sports influence. Still would be pretty remote, but wouldn't take any law changes.