proposal by NCAA for 2014

H

herbyhawk

Banned
didn't see this posted but they are proposing to drop scholarships to 80 total; personally it won't do much good unless they also get the guarentee on scholarship money up to a 5 year guarentee,which is also up for a vote, rather than a 1 year renewal and finally put a solid no exception cap on signings
 
Last edited:
I like it. More parity is a good thing. This will help the mid-tier BCS teams compete with the bluebloods. It also puts a greater premium not making mistakes in recruiting.
 
There is no doubt something like this hurts those at the top more than those not at the top. Iowa is not at the top.

So programs like Ohio State would have five fewer four or five stars they could take...same with about 20 other programs...where this really helps is in a footprint like the Big Ten. They can't go to Ohio State or Michigan, but mama still wants to watch em play...so an Iowa has more of a shot.

Hayden Fry's success in the 1980's, prior to the 85 man scholarship limit, is still freaking remarkable. People want to talk about Bill Snyder performing the biggest college football resurrection and he certainly is to be applauded. He did some work pre-1994, having a nine-win year in 1993 which was unheard of there so I don't want to discount his efforts. But most of his career was in line with the 85-man limit...plus the less than stellar academic standards at Kansas State and pre-APR era.

What Fry did, going toe to toe with Michigan and Ohio State prior to the 1994 move to 85 scholarships...historic.
 
The only thing that is going to bring true parity is when the NCAA enforces uniform rules that prevent oversigning.
 
i am fine with dropping the scholly to 80 and not allowing oversigning but i think 1 yr renewal should stay. it is a contract and you must meet requirements. academic scholly is the same you arent guaranteed each year. go and earn it again. and before anyone says anything about me not understanding about this i actually had a baseball scholly to go to college and did use it. nothing wrong with the 1 yr renewal.
 
Foval21 said:
i am fine with dropping the scholly to 80 and not allowing oversigning but i think 1 yr renewal should stay. it is a contract and you must meet requirements. academic scholly is the same you arent guaranteed each year. go and earn it again. and before anyone says anything about me not understanding about this i actually had a baseball scholly to go to college and did use it. nothing wrong with the 1 yr renewal.
Click to expand...

So if the requirements are that Saban needs to make room for his new 5* recruit, is that fair? Or where do you draw the line?
 
be better and you dont get replaced that is life. you dont keep grades up you lose your academic scholly. you dont pan out why not lose your scholly for sports. trust me each year i had to sign mine and it was something i knew could happen. deal with it.
 
big10fan said:
Foval21 said:
i am fine with dropping the scholly to 80 and not allowing oversigning but i think 1 yr renewal should stay. it is a contract and you must meet requirements. academic scholly is the same you arent guaranteed each year. go and earn it again. and before anyone says anything about me not understanding about this i actually had a baseball scholly to go to college and did use it. nothing wrong with the 1 yr renewal.
Click to expand...
So if the requirements are that Saban needs to make room for his new 5* recruit, is that fair? Or where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

when you say fair what you rally mean is equal. fair is that you do what you must to get the job done and so does the other person but sometimes you have to do more because you are better. that is fair.
 
There should be predetermined guidelines the student has to meet. If he does not meet these guidelines then the scholarship can be broken, if he meets the requirements then the school must honor his scholarship.

If a student goes to class and gets good grades, works hard on the practice field, but maybe doesn't perform quite as well on Saturdays he has done nothing to deserve losing a scholarship.
 
no, it was a serious question. so there are absolutely no rules then? you can just cut anyone, even if they are a model student and a great teammate? that's not the way i want iowa run. in academics there are rules, i get that, its just that there's way too much gray area, and that's when the kids are just pawns for the machine of college football.
 
I'd cut schollies to 20 a year with no oversigning. Allow a total of 100 overall so you can still redshirt freshmen. With normal attrition teams would still have a roster around 85. This would reward teams for keeping kids in school and developing them. Too many teams benefit now from scholarship churning by running off marginal players and bringing in more kids.
 
Take football out of the equation for a sec. This is 5 fewer kids that will get full ride to go to school. While the blue chip athletes will find places to go, somewhere down the line there will be kids not getting a scholarship. Perhaps some will still be able to go to school but there will be some that get left out.
 
I work at a school that may get a top 15 caliber player because he couldn't qualify for an SEC school? Yep, you heard me right. That is the Boise way. Believe me, just like Boise we will find a way to keep the kid eligible for his three year run. If they really want to make a difference, they will leave college to kids who belong in college.

This is a straight up money saving move and will lead to more kids getting cut than spreading the wealth.

All this being said, "I am going to see some awesome offense next year!"
 
it can be settled by putting requirements on both the student and the school,by putting rules in place to keep your scholly; academics should be 1st if you are doing the work in the classroom and are a good citizen you cannot be cut because of not living up to the expectation on the field
then the athletes being cut can appeal to the NCAA, this is a valid point as it is supposed to be academics football is just a sport,
this will make coaches do a better job of evaluating the players in all areas
 
JonDMiller said:
(1) There is no doubt something like this hurts those at the top more than those not at the top. Iowa is not at the top.

(2) So programs like Ohio State would have five fewer four or five stars they could take...same with about 20 other programs...where this really helps is in a footprint like the Big Ten. They can't go to Ohio State or Michigan, but mama still wants to watch em play...so an Iowa has more of a shot.
Click to expand...

(1) Last I checked, we had a better record than OSU in 2011 AND we have beaten Michigan 3 straight times, along with like a 10 or 11 year bowl eligible streak. We are by definition, at the top. Stop your Ferentz bashing.

(2) Disagree that it will give Iowa more of a shot. Demographically speaking, the South, Texas and California are where all the talent is, the Rust Belt is thinning out. I would say this will help the marginal Florida schools (Central Florida, etc.), schools like Ole Miss in talent-rich SEC country that aren't at the top and schools like Arizona and ASU who can pull another kid a year away from USC, Cal or UCLA. Sure, I guess it gives Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Illinois or Purdue a crack at the number 19 kid from Ohio who neither OSU nor Michigan wants, but I think we've already struck our gold mine over there with Stanzi and Terry Stross and I ain't expecting lightning to strike again for a long time.
 
okeefe4prez said:
(1) Last I checked, we had a better record than OSU in 2011 AND we have beaten Michigan 3 straight times, along with like a 10 or 11 year bowl eligible streak. We are by definition, at the top. Stop your Ferentz bashing.

(2) Disagree that it will give Iowa more of a shot. Demographically speaking, the South, Texas and California are where all the talent is, the Rust Belt is thinning out. I would say this will help the marginal Florida schools (Central Florida, etc.), schools like Ole Miss in talent-rich SEC country that aren't at the top and schools like Arizona and ASU who can pull another kid a year away from USC, Cal or UCLA. Sure, I guess it gives Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Illinois or Purdue a crack at the number 19 kid from Ohio who neither OSU nor Michigan wants, but I think we've already struck our gold mine over there with Stanzi and Terry Stross and I ain't expecting lightning to strike again for a long time.
Click to expand...

Boom. Headshot.

Well done Ken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top