The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

From SI:

"The NCAA Division I Council on Wednesday approved a proposal to grant all fall athletes an extra year of eligibility, no matter if they play a 2020–21 season or not. Final approval is expected to come Friday during a meeting among the Division I Board of Directors."

That will be costly for a lot of schools...

(08-20-2020 10:22 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  From SI:

"The NCAA Division I Council on Wednesday approved a proposal to grant all fall athletes an extra year of eligibility, no matter if they play a 2020–21 season or not. Final approval is expected to come Friday during a meeting among the Division I Board of Directors."

That will be costly for a lot of schools...

Feels like the NCAA would rather let the schools be the bad guys instead of doing it themselves unless they also change the scholarship limits. Imagine being a 4th year redshirt junior and getting your scholarship yanked because turns out Perry Young actually gets an extra year of eligibility but they need the scholarship.

Maybe Ben Mauk will finally get his sixth year.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

(08-20-2020 10:22 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  From SI:

"The NCAA Division I Council on Wednesday approved a proposal to grant all fall athletes an extra year of eligibility, no matter if they play a 2020–21 season or not. Final approval is expected to come Friday during a meeting among the Division I Board of Directors."

That will be costly for a lot of schools...

Woah...so...so does that mean we get our whole team back another year if they want to play? Like, just roll the clock back on every "Class" designation on the roster by one year? Good lord...that's both incredibly exciting and absolutely terrifying for completely different reasons.

Not sure. Go check out Ross Dellinger on twitter. He's been tweeting about a bunch of different recommendations the council is making this week.

Wow, the chaos continues. My guess is they have no more idea how the scholarship impact will sort out than they do about having a spring football season followed shortly thereafter by a fall football season.

The NCAA hasn't shown much leadership but it's probably not empowered to do so either. And any thought that the P5 was a monolithic coalition acting in the best interest of those 60+ schools is out the window too. Follow the dollars. We'll see if the rumor of six or so B10 schools playing a modified fall season creates a firestorm with the "have nots" in the B10.

(08-20-2020 11:20 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Maybe Ben Mauk will finally get his sixth year.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So do football programs get more than 85 scholarships for next year?

Schools have already made verbal commitments to class of 2021 freshmen. Hope this doesn't impact that class's ability to get scholarships.

(08-20-2020 02:02 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So do football programs get more than 85 scholarships for next year?

Schools have already made verbal commitments to class of 2021 freshmen. Hope this doesn't impact that class's ability to get scholarships.

It would take 4 years to get out of that supermax scholarship prison, not one.

(08-20-2020 02:02 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So do football programs get more than 85 scholarships for next year?

Schools have already made verbal commitments to class of 2021 freshmen. Hope this doesn't impact that class's ability to get scholarships.

What a cluster yuck. Seems you need to up 85 to 105. But how will cash strapped schools be able to afford the extra 20?

Then the backup effect on players thinking they would get playing time in a year. Will there be massive transfers?

Both good points.

Maybe this will end up whittling down the number of FBS programs? Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The number has been creeping steadily upward for a couple decades now and it's long past time to thin the herd. D-1 basketball needs the same thing to happen, too.

Adding to this, it's insane the university charges the athletic department for full tuition for each player. Figure out what the actual cost is, and only charge that. Wouldn't that help financially?

(08-20-2020 12:48 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 11:20 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Maybe Ben Mauk will finally get his sixth year.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It took mauksy to post that!

(08-20-2020 09:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Both good points.

Maybe this will end up whittling down the number of FBS programs? Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The number has been creeping steadily upward for a couple decades now and it's long past time to thin the herd. D-1 basketball needs the same thing to happen, too.

Bolded, I agree on both counts. I think FBS is starting to shrink before our very eyes, especially when we learn what percent of MAC athletic revenues are derived from its buy games against the P5.

D-1 basketball should never have been allowed to expand to its current bloated condition. I'm not sure where the cut line is but when small, private colleges are surviving in D-1 by taking to the road for two months of buy games each November and December, the model is seriously flawed.

Finally, there is a potential positive outcome for UC in my mind. If the P5 moves toward the long threatened divorce from the NCAA, there will be some expansion in order to create a pool large enough for non-conference scheduling for football and basketball. I'll guess that about a dozen, including UC, will step up and join the split. What's left of FBS and the FCS will begin to shed football programs shortly thereafter. Given the size of this new alliance, I'd expect it to run it's own basketball national championship too and include all members in the first round.

(08-21-2020 08:14 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 09:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Both good points.

Maybe this will end up whittling down the number of FBS programs? Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The number has been creeping steadily upward for a couple decades now and it's long past time to thin the herd. D-1 basketball needs the same thing to happen, too.

Bolded, I agree on both counts. I think FBS is starting to shrink before our very eyes, especially when we learn what percent of MAC athletic revenues are derived from its buy games against the P5.

D-1 basketball should never have been allowed to expand to its current bloated condition. I'm not sure where the cut line is but when small, private colleges are surviving in D-1 by taking to the road for two months of buy games each November and December, the model is seriously flawed.

Finally, there is a potential positive outcome for UC in my mind. If the P5 moves toward the long threatened divorce from the NCAA, there will be some expansion in order to create a pool large enough for non-conference scheduling for football and basketball. I'll guess that about a dozen, including UC, will step up and join the split. What's left of FBS and the FCS will begin to shed football programs shortly thereafter. Given the size of this new alliance, I'd expect it to run it's own basketball national championship too and include all members in the first round.

My concern is that the P5 only splits for football. They might feel they have enough football schools to fill the schedule, maybe throwing a bone to some "lower division" schools (like UC at the point) for a pre season game two each year. I want to be positive but, so far, that rug has been pulled out from under us when things were looking good. We're not in the club til we're in the club.

Iowa the latest men’s gymnastics, men’s and women’s swimming and diving, and men’s tennis.


https://hawkeyesports.com/news/2020/08/2...community/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding cuts at Iowa, we're witnessing college athletics being transformed right before our eyes, moment to moment.

Yep. There's no going back. I just wish some of the academic fluff in many institutions across this great nation would also make cuts. This is a topic for another board but universities have had no real incentive to run lean and teach courses that actually, you know, teach something tangible and useful. Many have become academician swamps of no return. Why no incentives? Students largely borrow the money to pay up.

(08-21-2020 12:37 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yep. There's no going back. I just wish some of the academic fluff in many institutions across this great nation would also make cuts. This is a topic for another board but universities have had no real incentive to run lean and teach courses that actually, you know, teach something tangible and useful. Many have become academician swamps of no return. Why no incentives? Students largely borrow the money to pay up.

Schools have those incentives. The consequences are just really, really long-term for schools that have billion dollar endowments or are state-sponsored.

Even state-sponsored schools like Chicago State & Wright State are in extreme danger of closing because of horrible decisions over the past 2 decades.

There's a reason that liberal arts schools like Illinois Wesleyan are dying, while engineering schools like Rose Hullman are thriving.

(08-21-2020 12:53 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 12:37 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yep. There's no going back. I just wish some of the academic fluff in many institutions across this great nation would also make cuts. This is a topic for another board but universities have had no real incentive to run lean and teach courses that actually, you know, teach something tangible and useful. Many have become academician swamps of no return. Why no incentives? Students largely borrow the money to pay up.

Schools have those incentives. The consequences are just really, really long-term for schools that have billion dollar endowments or are state-sponsored.

Even state-sponsored schools like Chicago State & Wright State are in extreme danger of closing because of horrible decisions over the past 2 decades.

There's a reason that liberal arts schools like Illinois Wesleyan are dying, while engineering schools like Rose Hullman are thriving.

I agree that there are examples [especially on the private institution side] but I was focusing on the immediacy of athletic cuts [compared to academic] that have resulted from the pandemic. I still believe that student loans have been the "lifeblood" of higher education coffers because without those widely available the number of students would've already been significantly less decades ago. Look at the rising cost of tuition over that same time period and it makes sense why many of the higher up academicians live high on the hog. Overall, students have paid for the cost gap through debt and the university system continues onward. Now, maybe that trend will finally start to reverse itself but it's gone on for far too long IMO.