Forde: Summit could spark Major NCAA change

Donate To GopherHole
CrocShots

CrocShots

Not Minnesota Nice
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
0
Points
36
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6851512/presidential-summit-spark-major-ncaa-change

Really good article about the president's meetings that are going on. They are moving fairly quickly to get stuff done, with votes even coming today. One thing I found interesting was this :

They want to do right by the athletes. Thus you will see a movement to cover the full cost of attendance in their scholarships, and a movement to make scholarships more lasting than one-year contracts between school and player.

What defines full cost of attendance? Living expenses? All four/five/six years?

I've been on the fence about paying athletes, but why do they need more money when a lot of them spend 300 bucks on Beats by Dre headphones or more on scooters instead of their rent like most broke college students would? Do we need to help subsidize the hockey team's nightly bar tab? The rest of the article is interesting and could impact how things are enforced with regards to violations and academic requirements, which should be more emphasized.

Thoughts on the changing landscape? We all know the almighty dollar is key behind everything, but what positive steps could we see? Maybe the emergence of more prep schools or better lower division schools?
 

Stinks that our president isn't involved in the discussions. But there are some very interesting things happening, that's for sure. As long as one school (in the same division) isn't given an inherent advantage in paying athletes due to revenues, I could see anything on the table.
 

That's my concern, and is very much in the concern of Texas aTm. Why on Earth should UT have the ability to have their own network and especially broadcast games of potential recruits? That's ridiculous.

Sure, Notre Dame has a TV deal with NBC, but it's nowhere near this unbalanced. If I were the rest of the NCAA I would be enraged. next up is the Roll Tide Network and so on...
 


I am suprised nobody has funded a major junior football league for the kids who want nothing to do with college academics.
 


How about you take away all athletic scholarships? Guess how many people will show up to watch Ohio State versus Michigan played at a 1-AA level? About 100k, give or take.

Oh I know, I'm the crazy one.
 

If athletic scholarships were to be eliminated, Ohio State and Michigan would not be playing at a I-AA level. They would be playing at a D-III level. Remember, I-AA has 63 scholarships. The number of scholarships is what differentiates the divisions. The caliber of athletes would also decline if scholarships were eliminated, because high school players wouldn't be pushing themselves to win a college scholarship. Eliminating scholarships would wipe out the advantage that the D-I schools had over the D-III schools. The quality of play would level out, and these giant stadiums would be mostly empty.

If people want non-scholarship football, it is available, just go across the street to Augsburg.
 

From what they've said on ESPN most of the meetings are about what rules to concentrate on, how to level enforcement, etc. The concern is that coaches are getting away nearly unscathed from violations, that rules are enforced unevenly, that the rules are confusing and contradictory etc. I know there is some talk of increasing schollie payments, but I really think that's a minor part of what's going on.

I honestly think the AFL and UFL are crazy for not drafting kids out of high school. I think they could get more fans by being a development league where "you can see the future NFL stars" rather than a league of never-will-bes (AFL) and washed up has-beens (UFL). I'm sorry, but what percentage of 4* and 5* atheletes would go to college if they could get paid to play?
 

RodentRampage said:
If athletic scholarships were to be eliminated, Ohio State and Michigan would not be playing at a I-AA level. They would be playing at a D-III level. Remember, I-AA has 63 scholarships. The number of scholarships is what differentiates the divisions. The caliber of athletes would also decline if scholarships were eliminated, because high school players wouldn't be pushing themselves to win a college scholarship. Eliminating scholarships would wipe out the advantage that the D-I schools had over the D-III schools. The quality of play would level out, and these giant stadiums would be mostly empty.

If people want non-scholarship football, it is available, just go across the street to Augsburg.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. A number of Div I players would still play football, along with a number of I-AA players. My speculation is that the talent level would, on the whole, closely resemble something along the lines of I-AA football.

Spaeth, Eslinger, Weber, Barber--these are just some of the names of people that would've likely played for us without athletic scholarships.
 



I-AA football has 63 scholarships. Division II has 36 scholarships, although some conferences like the NSIC only allow 21 scholarships. If scholarships were eliminated, there's no way the caliber of play would be at the I-AA level. 63 scholarships is 76% if what is allowed at the FBS level. The football you want is already there, at the D-III level.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom