Another hit to FCS. I hate this

[gofurman]

I love our FCS.

Now dam enormous scholarship changes - baseball from 11.7 scholarships now to THIRTY FOUR…


The focus on here on on football. FBS was limited to 85. Now they are going to allow a full 105. That’s horrific for FCS. we often get guys who can’t get a P5 offer (even if they deserve one) or only one P5 offer. Now the big schools that can afford 105 full scholarships will take 105 guys instead of 85 and … pretty clearly rendering FCS a lesser talented game. FBS with money (hello SEC and BIG!) will take flyers on some guys we all used to get.

And FBS doesn’t have to offer the full 105. The lesser budgets of a G5 can still offer 95 or 100. In total it appears at least ONE THOUSAND+ more players nationwide will get FBS scholarships!


I just don’t see how that doesn’t take even more of the best talent from FCS


1-Transfer portal. No one year wait to transfer - many of our teams already losing guys everywhere
2-HUGE NIL. Prove you are great at FCS? Hey, Auburn offers you $$$ and FCS loses you
3- And now this too? 20 more full rides at any FBS that can afford it.. and 10-20 more scholarships at most any g5. The guy may not even arrive at FCS AT ALL


Now, it may affect all of FCS equally. Actually it may even the landscape and create FCS parity. SDSU and NDSU will lose the Carson Wentz and NFL guys after year 2 to big SEC NIL…. Or may not get them at all as Wisconsin will now have 20 more scholarships to offer.


But the overall FCS product will definitely diminish in quality. Especially the top teams. Sure, if you are number 110 ranked in FCS then NIL and more FBS scholarships may not hit you This is Yet another hit to REAL STUDENT ATHLETES at FCS.


Heck. This eliminates parity in FBS. Alabama etc will just have room to get more 5 star athletes that used to may have gone elsewhere…

oh and now FBS can offer partial scholarships next year to try and find a way to get more guys from us. FBS offer a 3/4 scholarship and see if a guy pans out



Thoughts? I just love Furman and all of old FCS and this sucks. If it were just one thing ok. But transfer portal… and NIL…. And now up to 20 more scholarships per FBS school ? It Starts next year in 2025. .

be interested in yalls thoughts !!

[atthewbon]

One other thing to consider about this is the new scholarship limit is also the roster limit. So while there are more scholarships there are actually less roster spots. 120 vs 105. There were programs who were able to offer NIL to players not on scholarship but now with less roster spots these players will have to find somewhere else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

It's not all bad for the FCS - while FBS schools will be able to have 20 more scholarship players (if they so choose) they will have their overall roster limit reduced from 120 to 105. So 15 guys (or more - many FBS schools would go above the roster limit in the spring since it only applied in the fall) who used to be on that FBS roster will no longer be.

Many FBS schools aren't going to increase to 105 full scholarship players since this change also allows partial scholarships at the FBS level. In this article Boston College's head coach goes on record saying they "probably won't" offer 105 full scholarships: https://247sports.com/article/coaches-roster-experts-unpack-new-ncaa-roster-limits-for-football-as-scholarships-swell-walk-ons-in-peril-234157994/. I'd assume many G5 schools won't increase scholarships at all but will still have their roster limits reduced so more players will trickle down to the FCS level who would've been on FBS rosters with the old rules.

[caribbeanhen]

Are there enough good players to fill all these scholarships ?

[Laker]

Are there enough good players to fill all these scholarships ?

I'd rather go somewhere that I played rather than being a backup. But do kids think the same way today?

[Redbird 4th & short]

Seems like 20 more schollies by itself will only partly detract from FCS ... with FBS essentially going from a full ride 4 deep at 85 to a 5 deep at 105 .. it sounds like. In the end, most kids want to play sooner than later. So getting an FBS schollie and landing on the 5 deep won't be real attractive to many .. kids want to play and be validated. The era of top FBS schools filling their 4 deep with guys willing to wait 3 or 4 years to get their shot are over for most HS kids. The home state dreamers may give it a shot for a year or 2 before they drop back to where they will play sooner than later .. certainly if they can play on a top 25 FCS program or a quality G5 program. Most kids still want to play .. and I don't imagine the 5th deep level player isnt anything more than a practice player/body. Good for them they will now get a schollie for getting pounded on scout team all week.

But NIL over an above tax free schollie money ... that can change a kids perspective, where they lose sight of real priorities of playing a sport they used to play for free because they loved it. Very hard to gauge impact of NIL on quality players who could otherwise play/start for quality FCS program, once the money flows. The schollie is a given, money they don't even see ... while NIL can alter a kids perspective about simply wanting to play and contribute on a team that wins. NIL will corrupt some kids' thinking ... but not all or even most IMO.

We got QB Zach Annextsad in 2022 from Minnesota. RB Mason Blakemore/King in 2023 from NIU. And QB Jake Rubley this past offseason. These are all quality tweeners that just want to play and prove themselves.

It's like the saying ... all water will seek its own level .... and usually find it.

[nodak651]

There's a chance fcs goes to 105 as well isn't there? I was reading the settlement and I'm pretty sure it said all of d1 will have no scholly limits for any sport.

[caribbeanhen]

I'd rather go somewhere that I played rather than being a backup. But do kids think the same way today?

totally agree on going to a level that gets you on the field

some of these money teams are going to have stacked depth charts

[Redbird 4th & short]

There's a chance fcs goes to 105 as well isn't there? I was reading the settlement and I'm pretty sure it said all of d1 will have no scholly limits for any sport.

except I believe you have to balance schollies with mens and womens sports. If you add 20 for mens football. you need to add 20 to womens. Which could mean adding to existing women's sports or adding a new sport .. way more expensive. But it still costs real money to add to existing sports.

[DFW HOYA]

except I believe you have to balance schollies with mens and womens sports. If you add 20 for mens football. you need to add 20 to womens. Which could mean adding to existing women's sports or adding a new sport .. way more expensive. But it still costs real money to add to existing sports.

One doesn't "have" to balance scholarships but it's one of three ways to steer clear on Title IX--and for schools trending to higher enrollment rates for women, a 50/50 split may not be enough.

I've read nothing which suggests FCS would go to 105... because if it did, why would it not be FBS at that point. That said, the number of FCS schools which could legitimately go that high on football grants is probably less than eight and almost exclusively in the Big Sky and Missouri Valley.

[UAalum72]

I've read nothing which suggests FCS would go to 105... because if it did, why would it not be FBS at that point. That said, the number of FCS schools which could legitimately go that high on football grants is probably less than eight and almost exclusively in the Big Sky and Missouri Valley.I suppose you could mimic the current setup, raising FCS to about 73 equivalencies over 105 counters

[gofurman]

I'd rather go somewhere that I played rather than being a backup. But do kids think the same way today?

I mean I think the thing here is NIL - some guys will get an initial FBS NIL worth more than a basic FCS scholarship before realizing they aren’t going to play much at FBS. Then you have to ask yourself… do I take the next two years NIL which may exceed the FCS partial scholarship or go for a chance to play some more at FCS.

I admit it’s really NIL and the dam transfer portal which are the primary two killers. Super star FCS player develops and shines as a sophomore the SEC can PAY $$ that’s going to take most of the FCS stars away by their junior year or so.

Furman - like I know the Dakotas have etc - lost a great basketball player this year (maybe best in conference) to Auburn to BIG $$. We are all becoming the minor leagues for the SEC and BIG etc to mine ….

One I recall last year in basketball was to Grant Nelson at NDSU. Left and was a huge help to evil Alabama in the NCAA basketball tourney - we are all becoming minor league teams even at basketball which is full D1. MONEY talks. I heard average mid major basketball has 500-1 million in money to try and keep basketball players. AVERAGE P5 team has 2.5 million plus. Places like Bama have 3 to 4 million. If they want an NDSU player in basketball they’ve got him. Just offer 700k. All the P5 basketball teams are taking top all conference players from our conferences. Heck I would leave and tell my son too also. No hesitation. You might never make a dime after college. Get that 500k now! Maybe for two years making it over a MILLION. That’s a HUGE start on your financial life. can’t turn that down. The Damian Lillards etc would not be at Weber State by year 2 or 3

[NY Crusader 2010]

I'd rather go somewhere that I played rather than being a backup. But do kids think the same way today?

According to Nick Saban, yes. But they both a) want to get paid and b) play right away as a freshman. The earlier in your career you earn a starting spot, the earlier you can start leveraging more NIL $ both from your own program and others.

[McCowboys]

I'd rather go somewhere that I played rather than being a backup. But do kids think the same way today?

I think a good many do. McNeese hauled in quite a few with experience from the portal this offseason, and with some it was coaching changes and with others it was a chance to play right away and not sit on the bench while real great studs played. A couple of very talented local (to Lake Charles) athletes came back home for a chance to play and make a difference, one from Purdue and one from Miami.

[Uncle Rico]

My take is that there's still 11 guys on the field. You can add more scholarships, but you can't create more playing time. The guys the FCS will lose are the ones that are content with taking up a scholarship and not getting much PT. Not a huge loss there, IMO. The guys that are hungry to play will end up back in the FCS via the portal. We were already losing the top FCS talent to the portal.

I definitely miss the old FCS, but I think the unrestricted transfer portal is more to blame for its demise than increased scholarship limits.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW using Tapatalk

[atthewbon]

I mean I think the thing here is NIL - some guys will get an initial FBS NIL worth more than a basic FCS scholarship before realizing they aren’t going to play much at FBS. Then you have to ask yourself… do I take the next two years NIL which may exceed the FCS partial scholarship or go for a chance to play some more at FCS.

I admit it’s really NIL and the dam transfer portal which are the primary two killers. Super star FCS player develops and shines as a sophomore the SEC can PAY $$ that’s going to take most of the FCS stars away by their junior year or so.

Furman - like I know the Dakotas have etc - lost a great basketball player this year (maybe best in conference) to Auburn to BIG $$. We are all becoming the minor leagues for the SEC and BIG etc to mine ….

One I recall last year in basketball was to Grant Nelson at NDSU. Left and was a huge help to evil Alabama in the NCAA basketball tourney - we are all becoming minor league teams even at basketball which is full D1. MONEY talks. I heard average mid major basketball has 500-1 million in money to try and keep basketball players. AVERAGE P5 team has 2.5 million plus. Places like Bama have 3 to 4 million. If they want an NDSU player in basketball they’ve got him. Just offer 700k. All the P5 basketball teams are taking top all conference players from our conferences. Heck I would leave and tell my son too also. No hesitation. You might never make a dime after college. Get that 500k now! Maybe for two years making it over a MILLION. That’s a HUGE start on your financial life. can’t turn that down. The Damian Lillards etc would not be at Weber State by year 2 or 3

I feel like top players jumping up levels has been a bigger thing in basketball. I can echo much of what you were saying for college basketball. SDSU lost two star players this year, one to UCLA, and another to Kansas, on what I imagine are big NIL deals. On the other side as a big Maryland basketball fan, from what I've heard, top basketball players are making around 750k a year and budgets for P5 basketball teams like Maryland are in the $3-4 million range and can be even higher for the blue bloods like Kansas. I don't have the numbers on it, but I feel like a higher percentage of college basketball players are transferring up than football. Maybe I'm biased as SDSU has seemed to be pretty lucky in avoiding these move ups. I can't fault anyone for taking what is life changing money and I'm glad that these athletes now have access to it, but it'll be interesting to see how this affects the FCS moving forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Scholarship limits used to be over 100.

There is nothing new under the sun.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

All these rules ignore the basic inequity that certain players/positions carry different NIL value than others. College used to be an educational hybrid for its athletes - it was, in effect, a developmental league, where QBs can develop themselves academically (to get a college degree) and athletically (pushing themselves to their athletic limits, possibly to play professionally). When you add professionalism and corporate sponsorship to athletes, corporations are interested in marketability (i.e. quarterbacks, preferably white, or white girls with T&A) that can be spokespeople for their products (usually stuff like casinos, ED medication, useless energy drinks, fast food, etc). This marketability is not evenly distributed among mostly Black defensive backs, linebackers, big man OL and DL, etc. In fact, such marketability runs exactly counter to the team goals of football. A great marketable QB won't make it far if he has crap blocking for him and no receivers to throw to. Additionally, the system almost encourages shopping around mid-season for new schools, effectively neutering any education or synergy a QB has with their offense or receivers, etc.

To me, roster limits are not so much the problem as NIL clarity. NIL is a cancerous tumor on college sports right now and rules and enforcement desperately need to be put in place so that the educational mission of sports can be re-established. To me, NIL can be seen as the cult of the individual and it runs counter to the lessons of sport, which emphasize being a member of a team working together for a common goal.

[Redbird 4th & short]

One doesn't "have" to balance scholarships but it's one of three ways to steer clear on Title IX--and for schools trending to higher enrollment rates for women, a 50/50 split may not be enough.

I've read nothing which suggests FCS would go to 105... because if it did, why would it not be FBS at that point. That said, the number of FCS schools which could legitimately go that high on football grants is probably less than eight and almost exclusively in the Big Sky and Missouri Valley.

thanks .. good stuff

[nodak651]

One doesn't "have" to balance scholarships but it's one of three ways to steer clear on Title IX--and for schools trending to higher enrollment rates for women, a 50/50 split may not be enough.

I've read nothing which suggests FCS would go to 105... because if it did, why would it not be FBS at that point. That said, the number of FCS schools which could legitimately go that high on football grants is probably less than eight and almost exclusively in the Big Sky and Missouri Valley.
https://i.ibb.co/gdJW5Wq/Screenshot-20240728-225915-Drive.jpg

[DFW HOYA]

https://i.ibb.co/gdJW5Wq/Screenshot-20240728-225915-Drive.jpg

That doesn't mean no scholarship limits in Division II. (Or for that matter, Division III.) It means limits in the class affected in the settlement. largely, the P4. It is not clear about FCS.

[nodak651]

The reason there hasn't been any clarification for FCS could very well be because, like every single other D1 sport, the scholarship limit will equal the roster limit. I didn't read anything in the settlement that mentioned an exception for FCS. My original post said there was a chance of this being the case - I didn't say it was the case, but just because it hasn't been reported on doesn't mean it isn't true. FCS reporting sucks.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1816944819731882068/photo/1

[FUBeAR]

Could be wrong (as is always the case for a Bear of very little brain), but FUBeAR believes the term “Scholarship Limits” is no longer valid.

There are, essentially, NO scholarship limits. NIL made them irrelevant because Texas could pay 105 kids $400k each (just an example, prolly low), and just “gross up” for tuition / room & board, etc. for the 20 that weren’t “on scholarship.”

So…Roster number is what actually makes sense (hard to believe anything from the NCAA making sense) to manage to TRY to maintain some measure of parity / competitive balance … when Players are paid-to-come, paid-for-play, and paid-to-stay … with no draft, no salary cap, and no compensatory picks / players to be named later coming out of the portal morass.

Had some hope they would try to maintain some fiscal sanity - as the NFL does - with their 53 man rosters …. Was thinking they might go with 75 or 85…but nope. And, believe they can exceed the 105 in the pre-season - think it was about up to 120 that FUBeAR saw … which, it seems to FUBeAR, is going to necessitate creation of an August Waiver Wire (and a corresponding opening of the Portal).

So…let’s all start thinking / talking about “Roster Limits” instead of “Scholarship Limits” and get excited about our Teams picking up that lock-down Cornerback on August 28th - the one we REALLY needed - off of waivers from South Alabama.

FUN TIMES!

[nodak651]

I agree, except I think it's unlikely there will ever be any cuts in August. The participation of 120 fb players in fall camp is being allowed by a waiver, for this fall only. The 105 roster limit doesn't go into effect until next season. The NCAA tabled the legislation that would have made 120 participants in fall camp permanent.

Legislative Action -- Playing and Practice Seasons -- Football -- Preseason Practice --Limit on the Number of Participants -- Increase from 110 to 120. The committee tabledNCAA Division I Proposal No. 2024-10, in bowl subdivision football. The committee noteda blanket waiver was approved on March 13, 2024, that increases football’s preseasonparticipant limit from 110 to 120 for the 2024-25 academic year (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/fbsfboc/May2024D1FBSOC_May16Report.pdf)

Proposed legislation listed as tabled here: https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=107835

[MUHAWKS]

My take should be well known- I am ANTI all of this *****. I was/am in favor of "true letter of the law NIL" meaning, those athletes good enough for Nike or Adidas or a Car dealership to pay, have at it. Or a Lacrosse player who can make 30k over the Summer running his own camp, GREAT! Or if your jersey truly makes money you get a large % of it.. Pay to play though= BS. Portal sux, needs to be more regulated when combined with NIL- meaning- Rutgers gets transfer from Monmouth and pays him 300k they need to pay Monmouth 25% as well etc etc.. I agree the scholarship thing will hurt but not as much as NIL/Portal which leads me to my ultimate question:

Does anyone who donated to Collectives care about their ROI? Lets get real- In FBS Football there are at the MOST 4-5 schools that even have a legitimate chance at winning a national Title and in reality it is like 2-3. In FCS it is maybe 6-8 historically but more like 1-3 lately. In Hoops we are talking maybe 5-6 schools a year. What are people getting for their money? This is not like a political PAC where you do everything in your power to get someone elected, that is Binary only one person can win, one loses- I will give an example I am familiar with- my own program, Monmouth:

People are like "man we need NIL, we need NIL".. Really? for what? I say we need a real stadium with lights first, but lets play that game. IN Football the last 3 years we were subpar- 7-4, 5-6 and 4-7. We lost a ton of our talent to the portal/NIL. Tony Muskett got over 100k to go to UVA. Dymere Miller got over 200k to go to Rutgers. Lets pretend for a second that Shirden did not enter draft and entered portal- he would have gotten 250-500k I am guessing. So that is 500k-1mm in NIL player talent yet we were 7-4 with all those guys against lesser comp in 2021, 5-6 with ALL those guys in 2022 and 4-7 with 2 of the 3 and it sure was not our QB play that made us 4-7 so Muskett did not matter. My point? Lets say we had a bunch of rich dudes that said " I want to be a top 10 FCS team here is $ 3 million now go beat Nova, UH, Delaware etc".. It wouldnt change anything, we HAD those players and were not good. In Hoops, we had an ok year just above .500 after being awful in 2022/2023 and our best player was our HC' King Rices son, Xander Rice. He was very good and turned down power 5 offers as a grad transfer to play for his Dad- I have no reason to believe he was lying when he said he had NIL offers from anywhere between 250-500k. FOR ONE YEAR. So kudos to him for being a real one, but say we "matched" that 250-500k, what would it have gotten us? 18-15 and 2nd round CAA tourney exit. These are examples just at the school I know- there are dozens if not hundreds of others. Like if you are West Virginia you have ZERO chance of being a top 5 or 10 team right now or probably anytime in the near future- maybe even not a top 25 team, we can use a lot of schools- so WTF are the donors getting? I really don't understand it. IMO, it will come full circle (for the 90% of the others who have no shot) and dry up, especially if poor economic times arise (they will).. Maybe I am an idiot, but I see no value in NIL for the donors or even the programs as it relates to WINNING. Sure, here and there it can help but overall, it does not and will not.. I am losing my last true passion (other than friends, family, job) and that is FCS Football (for now)... Not to mention why does nobody talk about the LARGE amount of kids who had scholly money at a school who enter portal and have no team? They messed this up with pay to play instead of TRUE "NIL"/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The reason there hasn't been any clarification for FCS could very well be because, like every single other D1 sport, the scholarship limit will equal the roster limit. I didn't read anything in the settlement that mentioned an exception for FCS. My original post said there was a chance of this being the case - I didn't say it was the case, but just because it hasn't been reported on doesn't mean it isn't true. FCS reporting sucks.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1816944819731882068/photo/1

What on Earth are you talking about? FCS rosters aren't 63 players. They're 63 equivalencies divvied up to whatever the maximum roster size is. FCS will determine themselves if/when they will impose any roster limits, but I don't see that as very likely. It's likely to stay what it is right now - 63 scholarships divvied up however. Same with D-II for that matter (up to the D-II limit).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My take should be well known- I am ANTI all of this *****. I was/am in favor of "true letter of the law NIL" meaning, those athletes good enough for Nike or Adidas or a Car dealership to pay, have at it. Or a Lacrosse player who can make 30k over the Summer running his own camp, GREAT! Or if your jersey truly makes money you get a large % of it.. Pay to play though= BS. Portal sux, needs to be more regulated when combined with NIL- meaning- Rutgers gets transfer from Monmouth and pays him 300k they need to pay Monmouth 25% as well etc etc.. I agree the scholarship thing will hurt but not as much as NIL/Portal which leads me to my ultimate question:

Does anyone who donated to Collectives care about their ROI? Lets get real- In FBS Football there are at the MOST 4-5 schools that even have a legitimate chance at winning a national Title and in reality it is like 2-3. In FCS it is maybe 6-8 historically but more like 1-3 lately. In Hoops we are talking maybe 5-6 schools a year. What are people getting for their money? This is not like a political PAC where you do everything in your power to get someone elected, that is Binary only one person can win, one loses- I will give an example I am familiar with- my own program, Monmouth:

People are like "man we need NIL, we need NIL".. Really? for what? I say we need a real stadium with lights first, but lets play that game. IN Football the last 3 years we were subpar- 7-4, 5-6 and 4-7. We lost a ton of our talent to the portal/NIL. Tony Muskett got over 100k to go to UVA. Dymere Miller got over 200k to go to Rutgers. Lets pretend for a second that Shirden did not enter draft and entered portal- he would have gotten 250-500k I am guessing. So that is 500k-1mm in NIL player talent yet we were 7-4 with all those guys against lesser comp in 2021, 5-6 with ALL those guys in 2022 and 4-7 with 2 of the 3 and it sure was not our QB play that made us 4-7 so Muskett did not matter. My point? Lets say we had a bunch of rich dudes that said " I want to be a top 10 FCS team here is $ 3 million now go beat Nova, UH, Delaware etc".. It wouldnt change anything, we HAD those players and were not good. In Hoops, we had an ok year just above .500 after being awful in 2022/2023 and our best player was our HC' King Rices son, Xander Rice. He was very good and turned down power 5 offers as a grad transfer to play for his Dad- I have no reason to believe he was lying when he said he had NIL offers from anywhere between 250-500k. FOR ONE YEAR. So kudos to him for being a real one, but say we "matched" that 250-500k, what would it have gotten us? 18-15 and 2nd round CAA tourney exit. These are examples just at the school I know- there are dozens if not hundreds of others. Like if you are West Virginia you have ZERO chance of being a top 5 or 10 team right now or probably anytime in the near future- maybe even not a top 25 team, we can use a lot of schools- so WTF are the donors getting? I really don't understand it. IMO, it will come full circle (for the 90% of the others who have no shot) and dry up, especially if poor economic times arise (they will).. Maybe I am an idiot, but I see no value in NIL for the donors or even the programs as it relates to WINNING. Sure, here and there it can help but overall, it does not and will not.. I am losing my last true passion (other than friends, family, job) and that is FCS Football (for now)... Not to mention why does nobody talk about the LARGE amount of kids who had scholly money at a school who enter portal and have no team? They messed this up with pay to play instead of TRUE "NIL"/

While I largely and wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, I think the donors think of it in two ways, both erroneously. 1) "With $3 million, we could be the Alabama of FCS!" (No.) 2) "We need that $3 million to keep those guys that would have gone to Alabama!" (No; there are no cops, and if Bama wants to buy your player, they will buy your player.). It will most likely take another decade, but the next generation will be crying for a central authority to make play and recruiting more fair and equitable. Unless everything gets unionized, which will bring everything to an end.

[nodak651]

There's a chance fcs goes to 105 as well isn't there? I was reading the settlement and I'm pretty sure it said all of d1 will have no scholly limits for any sport.


What on Earth are you talking about? FCS rosters aren't 63 players. They're 63 equivalencies divvied up to whatever the maximum roster size is. FCS will determine themselves if/when they will impose any roster limits, but I don't see that as very likely. It's likely to stay what it is right now - 63 scholarships divvied up however. Same with D-II for that matter (up to the D-II limit).
Where the hell did I mention anything about the number 63?

And why are you being so abrasive? I mentioned a scholly/roster limit of 105 as a possibility and cited a source, because we still havent recieved any clarification one way or the other. Don't be a fn jerk.

[WestCoastAggie]

The bigger concern are new scholarship maximums for sports like Baseball and Softball on top of the fact that schools and conferences can cut the number of sports they sponsor.

So if this somehow, someway comes to FCS, we could end up seeing some schools and conferences cutting non-rev sports just to keep Basketball and Football afloat. Heck, you're going to see that amongst G5 schools once the House settlement is approved.

[WestCoastAggie]

Could be wrong (as is always the case for a Bear of very little brain), but FUBeAR believes the term “Scholarship Limits” is no longer valid.

There are, essentially, NO scholarship limits. NIL made them irrelevant because Texas could pay 105 kids $400k each (just an example, prolly low), and just “gross up” for tuition / room & board, etc. for the 20 that weren’t “on scholarship.”

So…Roster number is what actually makes sense (hard to believe anything from the NCAA making sense) to manage to TRY to maintain some measure of parity / competitive balance … when Players are paid-to-come, paid-for-play, and paid-to-stay … with no draft, no salary cap, and no compensatory picks / players to be named later coming out of the portal morass.

Had some hope they would try to maintain some fiscal sanity - as the NFL does - with their 53 man rosters …. Was thinking they might go with 75 or 85…but nope. And, believe they can exceed the 105 in the pre-season - think it was about up to 120 that FUBeAR saw … which, it seems to FUBeAR, is going to necessitate creation of an August Waiver Wire (and a corresponding opening of the Portal).

So…let’s all start thinking / talking about “Roster Limits” instead of “Scholarship Limits” and get excited about our Teams picking up that lock-down Cornerback on August 28th - the one we REALLY needed - off of waivers from South Alabama.

FUN TIMES!

Question: WHAT ABOUT THE CLEARINGHOUSE!?

This August "waivers" thing is fine and dandy but school would have started for the most of us by August 15th. How are going to get a kid properly enrolled in time for them not to bite the school in the butt, APR-wise?

[FUBeAR]

Question: WHAT ABOUT THE CLEARINGHOUSE!?

This August "waivers" thing is fine and dandy but school would have started for the most of us by August 15th. How are going to get a kid properly enrolled in time for them not to bite the school in the butt, APR-wise?
School? Rules?

https://ecitybeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RULES.jpg

This is College Athletics!

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

While I largely and wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, I think the donors think of it in two ways, both erroneously. 1) "With $3 million, we could be the Alabama of FCS!" (No.) 2) "We need that $3 million to keep those guys that would have gone to Alabama!" (No; there are no cops, and if Bama wants to buy your player, they will buy your player.). It will most likely take another decade, but the next generation will be crying for a central authority to make play and recruiting more fair and equitable. Unless everything gets unionized, which will bring everything to an end.

Well, yourself and others decried the previous central authority (NCAA) as outdated and tyrannical.

Reap what you sow.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

All these rules ignore the basic inequity that certain players/positions carry different NIL value than others. College used to be an educational hybrid for its athletes - it was, in effect, a developmental league, where QBs can develop themselves academically (to get a college degree) and athletically (pushing themselves to their athletic limits, possibly to play professionally). When you add professionalism and corporate sponsorship to athletes, corporations are interested in marketability (i.e. quarterbacks, preferably white, or white girls with T&A) that can be spokespeople for their products (usually stuff like casinos, ED medication, useless energy drinks, fast food, etc). This marketability is not evenly distributed among mostly Black defensive backs, linebackers, big man OL and DL, etc. In fact, such marketability runs exactly counter to the team goals of football. A great marketable QB won't make it far if he has crap blocking for him and no receivers to throw to. Additionally, the system almost encourages shopping around mid-season for new schools, effectively neutering any education or synergy a QB has with their offense or receivers, etc.

To me, roster limits are not so much the problem as NIL clarity. NIL is a cancerous tumor on college sports right now and rules and enforcement desperately need to be put in place so that the educational mission of sports can be re-established. To me, NIL can be seen as the cult of the individual and it runs counter to the lessons of sport, which emphasize being a member of a team working together for a common goal.

Can't resist the dose of White guilt. And why do you capitalize Black but not White? Be consistent.

Yeah, people would rather look at Livvy Dunne. How dare people have a particular taste?

The QB has been the star since the 1950s. Before that the halfback ruled the world. Before that the best kicker and end were prized. I don't see Sanders hurting for endorsements. Rattler earned $1 million in NIL money. Caleb Williams loaded up on deals.

America was built on individualism and the Great Man principle.

College football has celebrated the individual since the 1800s (All-America teams, Ivy League teams playing players under the table). We have had individual awards for decades.

NIL is the natural extension of schools earning millions, coaches collecting large paychecks, and conferences signing massive deals.

If you want to cast blame, look at the NFL for never following in the MLB's footsteps and creating a minor league system. College football became the NFL's de facto minor league system decades ago. As long as millions are generated, players will receive a cut and boosters will bid for ultimate success.

[Sitting Bull]

This whole issue is not a big surprise but to me, just makes a more sensible case for FCS level football. The smack here is really aimed at thinning the herd, ie, G5. If there was strain prior on trying to be part of the big boys, the big boys just raised the ante. Not sure why FCS should be that hot and bothered.

G5 will have to eventually figure out what in the hell they are and want to be. No question they all think they’re laughably big boy football programs, or positioned for same. It’s like watching a balloon getting ready to burst.

But again, I don’t think FCS members overall have any such aspirations. There’s a good thing there in FCS and a solid membership.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

This whole issue is not a big surprise but to me, just makes a more sensible case for FCS level football. The smack here is really aimed at thinning the herd, ie, G5. If there was strain prior on trying to be part of the big boys, the big boys just raised the ante. Not sure why FCS should be that hot and bothered.

G5 will have to eventually figure out what in the hell they are and want to be. No question they all think they’re laughably big boy football programs, or positioned for same. It’s like watching a balloon getting ready to burst.

But again, I don’t think FCS members overall have any such aspirations. There’s a good thing there in FCS and a solid membership.

Membership in the FCS is so solid that teams have refuted FBS invitations and remained instead of joining the higher level.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Can't resist the dose of White guilt. And why do you capitalize Black but not White? Be consistent.

I said no lies.


Yeah, people would rather look at Livvy Dunne. How dare people have a particular taste?

If Livvy Dunne wants to ply her trade on OnlyFans or become a paid sponsor of ED medication, that's fine with me, but the school should have the right to decline her participation in their sports programs.


The QB has been the star since the 1950s. Before that the halfback ruled the world. Before that the best kicker and end were prized. I don't see Sanders hurting for endorsements. Rattler earned $1 million in NIL money. Caleb Williams loaded up on deals.

America was built on individualism and the Great Man principle.

College football has celebrated the individual since the 1800s (All-America teams, Ivy League teams playing players under the table). We have had individual awards for decades.

NIL is the natural extension of schools earning millions, coaches collecting large paychecks, and conferences signing massive deals.

If you want to cast blame, look at the NFL for never following in the MLB's footsteps and creating a minor league system. College football became the NFL's de facto minor league system decades ago. As long as millions are generated, players will receive a cut and boosters will bid for ultimate success.

The QB has been the star since the 50s, etc., and you're right here on all counts. And while I'd put it differently, I agree the genesis of the NIL issue was that TV money ended up going to conferences and schools after some conferences and schools sued in order to kick the NCAA out of the TV business (and the SCOTUS agreed). I'm becoming quite convinced if the schools back then were only marginally less greedy, distributed more of the TV revenue to all NCAA schools and athletes (while keeping the lion's share for themselves), we'd have avoided a lot of this mess. SCOTUS set up the Power conferences by ruling they could negotiate their own TV contracts.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Well, yourself and others decried the previous central authority (NCAA) as outdated and tyrannical.

Reap what you sow.

My criticism of the NCAA is that since Myles Brand died, it has been a Group of 4 Puppet Show of leadership, and the House settlement is an utter travesty and should cause the non-P4 membership (including all the basketball schools) to leave and form their own athletics organization. They no longer represent 80% of the membership IMO. But a central authority that properly considers all of its members is desperately needed.

[ElCid]

Well, yourself and others decried the previous central authority (NCAA) as outdated and tyrannical.

Reap what you sow.

I'm thinking there will be a big change in the near future. The NCAA will go the way of the dodo. A new association will take it's place for those schools who want to have rules for "student athletes" and, abide by them. The entire NIL, portal/transfer rules, paying players other than by having a scholarship, abysmal graduation rates, etc., is not conducive to amateur athletics. Those belong to professional organizations. Maybe it all falling apart is what is needed to fix it. We are heading in that direction, unfortunately.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

My criticism of the NCAA is that since Myles Brand died, it has been a Group of 4 Puppet Show of leadership, and the House settlement is an utter travesty and should cause the non-P4 membership (including all the basketball schools) to leave and form their own athletics organization. They no longer represent 80% of the membership IMO. But a central authority that properly considers all of its members is desperately needed.

Genius idea.

Walk away and watch all revenue dry up. There is a reason why the non-P4 haven't left and eagerly cling to whatever access they are given. Casuals fans don't care about FDU. They care about FDU when the Knights upset Purdue. FDU vs. SFU draws 800 people. The P4 doesn't need the other conferences. They already own 95% or more of the interested fans.

Depart from the P4 and hundreds of teams and thousands of jobs vanish. And guess what? The P4 want the other conferences to leave. They prefer us to be silly enough to leave on our own, so they don't have to do the dirty work of ripping away. Why do their bidding? So you and others can sit on a moral high horse?

March Madness can survive as a P4 creation as long as Duke-Kentucky occurs. We already discussed this. The ratings are larger for big name matchups, not Cinderella teams.

Here is the most important aspect. Break away and recreate a new NCAA and a new "P4" will arise.

[nodak651]

Genius idea.

Walk away and watch all revenue dry up. There is a reason why the non-P4 haven't left and eagerly cling to whatever access they are given. Casuals fans don't care about FDU. They care about FDU when the Knights upset Purdue. FDU vs. SFU draws 800 people. The P4 doesn't need the other conferences. They already own 95% or more of the interested fans.

Depart from the P4 and hundreds of teams and thousands of jobs vanish. And guess what? The P4 want the other conferences to leave. They prefer us to be silly enough to leave on our own, so they don't have to do the dirty work of ripping away. Why do their bidding? So you and others can sit on a moral high horse?

March Madness can survive as a P4 creation as long as Duke-Kentucky occurs. We already discussed this. The ratings are larger for big name matchups, not Cinderella teams.

Here is the most important aspect. Break away and recreate a new NCAA and a new "P4" will arise.

Biggest issue, IMO, is the NCAA have anything to do with FBS FB. NCAA is spending 60-65 million a year right now on different aspects of FBS FB according to the knight commission, not including the House settlement. Yet the FBS provides ZERO fb revenue to the FBS, and they have weighted votes, at that. Complete joke. And now the non P5 schools will have their NCAA distributions cut, only to have 80+ % of the settlement money go to former P5 FB players. Complete joke the non p5 schools allow the NCAA to be involved with anything FBS FB related when they play in non NCAA affiliated post season games.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I said no lies.



If Livvy Dunne wants to ply her trade on OnlyFans or become a paid sponsor of ED medication, that's fine with me, but the school should have the right to decline her participation in their sports programs.



The QB has been the star since the 50s, etc., and you're right here on all counts. And while I'd put it differently, I agree the genesis of the NIL issue was that TV money ended up going to conferences and schools after some conferences and schools sued in order to kick the NCAA out of the TV business (and the SCOTUS agreed). I'm becoming quite convinced if the schools back then were only marginally less greedy, distributed more of the TV revenue to all NCAA schools and athletes (while keeping the lion's share for themselves), we'd have avoided a lot of this mess. SCOTUS set up the Power conferences by ruling they could negotiate their own TV contracts.

The issue wasn't lying; it was your gross inconsistency. Either capitalize both or none. By only capitalizing Black, you are saying Whites are inherently inferior. That is racist. Be better.

OnlyFans. Really? How sexist. Why should LSU boot her out for capitalizing on her fame?

The SCOTUS made the correct decision in the landmark case. The NCAA was artificially limiting conferences and teams. I vastly prefer the more free market approach of letting conferences and schools sell their rights. Watching CFB from noon to midnight has been incredible and grew the game. Did it drastically attendance for FCS-level schools? Yes, but those attendance marks were artifically boosted by the NCAA's dinosaur TV policy.

And why should the major conferences share TV revenue with those conferences that don't deserve it? You do realize that the small conferences would have kept barking for more? No one is satisfied with their share when someone obtains more. That is why clueless socialists exist. If I'm the SEC, why would I distribute more money at the Southern Conference?

We would never have avoided this mess. When are people/conferences/companies satisfied with a set sum? If you give a mouse a cookie, he will want milk to go with it. NCAA athletes would take the TV money and then demand the opportunity to capitalize off their name.

Everything happening today was the inevitable outcome of millions of dollars being pumped into the sport. What is amazing is long the NCAA and society prevented the dam from breaking. For gosh sakes, schools were building modern Coliseums in the 1920s, paying coaches large sums, and licensing out rights. Big time college football stopped being amateurish in the late 1800s.

Now we can stop pretending that the star Ohio State QB wants a good degree and accept his major is football. Fans don't want to admit it because as Chris Fowler said in 2006 to love college football you have to turn a blind eye to things. Fans want to pretend that players are there to fight for State U. NIL checks ruin that illusion. CFB lives and thrives on that illusion. Division III is pure as it can get, but it lacks interest because the talent level isn't elite.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Biggest issue, IMO, is the NCAA have anything to do with FBS FB. NCAA is spending 60-65 million a year right now on different aspects of FBS FB according to the knight commission, not including the House settlement. Yet the FBS provides ZERO fb revenue to the FBS, and they have weighted votes, at that. Complete joke. And now the non P5 schools will have their NCAA distributions cut, only to have 80+ % of the settlement money go to former P5 FB players. Complete joke the non p5 schools allow the NCAA to be involved with anything FBS FB related when they play in non NCAA affiliated post season games.

I agree but the P4 FBS schools are the power players and they carry the public's interest.

We can break away but the public isn't watching us play on CBSSN or regional sports channels when the big boys carry network TV. We are the leeches trying to suck whatever blood we can.

[nodak651]

I agree but the P4 FBS schools are the power players and they carry the public's interest.

We can break away but the public isn't watching us play on CBSSN or regional sports channels when the big boys carry network TV. We are the leeches trying to suck whatever blood we can.

I agree for the most part, except non P5 schools could leave and the P5 would be responsible for the entire house settlement since none of the schools are named in the House lawsuit. Not saying there's any likelyhood whatsoever that happens, at all, though. I just don't think I'd necessarily classify non P5 members as leaches... the NCAA tourney field isn't as large as it is without the non-P5, and the non FBS schools aren't leaching away money from the ncaa for FB while purposely making millions, outside the NCAA, in the FBS post season, like the FBS schools are. P5 schools have and are using the non P5 to maintain the guise of amateurism, and now they are using the non P5 to help pay for their settlement.

[nodak651]

The reason there hasn't been any clarification for FCS could very well be because, like every single other D1 sport, the scholarship limit will equal the roster limit. I didn't read anything in the settlement that mentioned an exception for FCS. My original post said there was a chance of this being the case - I didn't say it was the case, but just because it hasn't been reported on doesn't mean it isn't true. FCS reporting sucks.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1816944819731882068/photo/1


What on Earth are you talking about? FCS rosters aren't 63 players. They're 63 equivalencies divvied up to whatever the maximum roster size is. FCS will determine themselves if/when they will impose any roster limits, but I don't see that as very likely. It's likely to stay what it is right now - 63 scholarships divvied up however. Same with D-II for that matter (up to the D-II limit).


Where the hell did I mention anything about the number 63?

And why are you being so abrasive? I mentioned a scholly/roster limit of 105 as a possibility and cited a source, because we still havent recieved any clarification one way or the other. Don't be a fn jerk.

I'm pretty confident I was right, in that FCS schools will now be able to offer more than 63 scholarships if they want. If they choose to do this, they would be bound to the 105 roster limit. If schools choose not to increase scholarships above existing limits, or if participate in any revenue sharing, I believe in ANY sport, only then they would be able to roster more than 105 FB players. That's my interpretation at least. Feel free to correct me if you disagree, but cite the settlement, which can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OXMiUg_2MwczV-pBKdnt12WDn_SXtjLS/view?ts=66a415b7

[Bill]

I'm pretty confident I was right, in that FCS schools will now be able to offer more than 63 scholarships if they want. If they choose to do this, they would be bound to the 105 roster limit. If schools choose not to increase scholarships above existing limits, or if participate in any revenue sharing, I believe in ANY sport, only then they would be able to roster more than 105 FB players. That's my interpretation at least. Feel free to correct me if you disagree, but cite the settlement, which can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OXMiUg_2MwczV-pBKdnt12WDn_SXtjLS/view?ts=66a415b7

Nodak,

I think FCS is still bound by the rules of FCS (63/65 scholarship equivalencies), because FCS schools are not a part of the "damage settlement class". On page 5, it specifically stated FBS and the conferences plus ND by name as those being involved in the suit. I could be wrong though...

[nodak651]

Nodak,

I think FCS is still bound by the rules of FCS (63/65 scholarship equivalencies), because FCS schools are not a part of the "damage settlement class". On page 5, it specifically stated FBS and the conferences plus ND by name as those being involved in the suit. I could be wrong though...

I get where you're coming from. I believe the FCS schools can essentially opt in, if they choose. The picture below directly mentions non settlement schools. The NCAA was a member of the suite, and I believe in the settlement, the NCAA was forced to forgo all scholarship limits, which is why the roster limit reduction was implemented.

https://i.ibb.co/GsMHvZw/Capture.jpghttps://ibb.co/mvyNCns

[gofurman]

Scholarship limits used to be over 100.

There is nothing new under the sun.

1. Just because it’s not new doesn’t make it good
2. actually they used to be UNLIMITED scholarships. However many you could fund. Friend was an ACC ref in 80s etc. and hated this as Alabama etc could afford to take players just to keep them off of other teams!

[gofurman]

I feel like top players jumping up levels has been a bigger thing in basketball. I can echo much of what you were saying for college basketball. SDSU lost two star players this year, one to UCLA, and another to Kansas, on what I imagine are big NIL deals. On the other side as a big Maryland basketball fan, from what I've heard, top basketball players are making around 750k a year and budgets for P5 basketball teams like Maryland are in the $3-4 million range and can be even higher for the blue bloods like Kansas. I don't have the numbers on it, but I feel like a higher percentage of college basketball players are transferring up than football. Maybe I'm biased as SDSU has seemed to be pretty lucky in avoiding these move ups. I can't fault anyone for taking what is life changing money and I'm glad that these athletes now have access to it, but it'll be interesting to see how this affects the FCS moving forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that SO FAR it’s been more of a basketball issue …. Agree. It’s already decimated mid-major basketball. Huge hits there. just watch March madness. Almost Every P5 team and sweet sixteen team has a guy that was first team all conference at a SoCon or Big Sky or MVFC or wherever. Why not. It’s much safer taking a guy who scored 18 vs D1 comp then a high school stud
Who might be a bust…. example - UNC took Cade Tyson from Belmont thus summer.
As others said P5 have 3 million to offer. Elite P5 have 4 million plus. How can our FCS conferences compete with that. Maybe the Big East as it’s a power in basketball - Villanova Georgetown etc. But SoCon, Big South, Big Sky can’t pay to compete. shame is the Steph Curry or Florida Atlantic (Final Four!!!) may not happen again or much more infrequently…. Guys will be siphoned off by money. and the upsets caused by a star or two on a mid major were a big part of the March madness fun


though my Furman guys now have football players at Tulane and UCONN etc where I suspect they got a little money.
will be interesting to watch how it develops in football. The hit to basketball has been more but it’s creeping in our FCS football too

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

1. Just because it’s not new doesn’t make it good
2. actually they used to be UNLIMITED scholarships. However many you could fund. Friend was an ACC ref in 80s etc. and hated this as Alabama etc could afford to take players just to keep them off of other teams!

1. Absolutely true.
2. Well, players didn't have to pick Alabama.

[FUBeAR]

actually they used to be UNLIMITED scholarships. However many you could fund. Friend was an ACC ref in 80s etc. and hated this as Alabama etc could afford to take players just to keep them off of other teams!

1. Absolutely true.
2. Well, players didn't have to pick Alabama.
Scholarship limits began in 1973, after Johnny Majors signed about 80 kids in his ‘72 signing class at Pitt, so your ACC-Ref-in-the-80’s friend seems to be confused. Maybe it was the 60’s.

“In 1973, the first scholarship limits were imposed, capping them at 105, largely to meet the demands of the new Title IX law. In 1978, they were cut again, from 105 to 95. From 1992 to 1994, they were cut once more, from 95 to the current limit of 85.”

Alabama & ACC schools were limited to 95 Football Scholarships throughout the 80’s.


OFF-TOPIC - Interestingly, when Furman whipped ACC/SEC Schools 4 straight years from ‘82-‘85, we Paladins were working with 55 scholarship equivalencies. So, these ACC/SEC Teams had 72% more scholarships than we did. If we compare that with today (or recent years) when most FCS Schools have funded 63 scholarships, it would be like the FBS schools had 101 instead of 85. FUBeAR would argue that Furman run of scalps was more impressive and challenging than NDSU’s ‘10-‘14 5 consecutive years FBS wins streak because the the FBS Teams’ scholarships were only 35% more than NDSU’s. The disparity was more than 2x during FU’s run vs. NDSU’s run. FUBeAR is certain all bizuns and MVFC (and Big Sky, for some reason) fans will understand and agree with FUBeAR’s assertion in this regard.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Now we can stop pretending that the star Ohio State QB wants a good degree and accept his major is football. Fans don't want to admit it because as Chris Fowler said in 2006 to love college football you have to turn a blind eye to things. Fans want to pretend that players are there to fight for State U. NIL checks ruin that illusion. CFB lives and thrives on that illusion. Division III is pure as it can get, but it lacks interest because the talent level isn't elite.

You've nailed it. NIL makes college football minor league sport, the USFL. How has the USFL done? Is doing? Excited about that Birmingham/Philadelphia Stars rivalry?

If you're inducing and paying the players (through the fig leaf of NIL), it's a matter of time before it's said that education isn't necessary at all. Ohio State will be a logo on a cap and nothing more. If education's not part of the mission, it's all over. I won't watch. Most won't watch.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

You've nailed it. NIL makes college football minor league sport, the USFL. How has the USFL done? Is doing? Excited about that Birmingham/Philadelphia Stars rivalry?

If you're inducing and paying the players (through the fig leaf of NIL), it's a matter of time before it's said that education isn't necessary at all. Ohio State will be a logo on a cap and nothing more. If education's not part of the mission, it's all over. I won't watch. Most won't watch.

College football has been the de facto minor league for generations.

USFL 1.0 died because it couldn't compete with the NFL for star players, and so, went the path of all other defeated leagues: death or merger. No competing leagues signed a peace treaty without one dying since the AA and the NL back in the 1880s.

CFB doesn't compete with the NFL. The NFL is perfectly fine with CFB turning the wheat into bread.

The UFL (that was the likely intention of our USFL reference) also doesn't compete for players. They celebrate NFL signings. However, its growth is ultimately restricted by talent lowel. NFL rejects simply aren't exhilarating to anyone but football junkies. Yet, the UFL is returning for 2025 and obtained solid ratings.

Education? The NFL has allowed for players to declare before receiving their degree for decades now and interest hasn't waned. Most casual fans DON'T CARE about a player's degree or GPA. They want to watch talented players in packed stadiums with the best coaches. Cardale Jones uttered his famous declaration and the CFB fandom shrugged.

You and a select minority can depart on your moral high horse. Millions of fans will still watch.

[DFW HOYA]

College football has been the de facto minor league for generations.
Education? The NFL has allowed for players to declare before receiving their degree for decades now and interest hasn't waned. Most casual fans DON'T CARE about a player's degree or GPA. They want to watch talented players in packed stadiums with the best coaches. Cardale Jones uttered his famous declaration and the CFB fandom shrugged.


Depends on the school.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

College football has been the de facto minor league for generations.

USFL 1.0 died because it couldn't compete with the NFL for star players, and so, went the path of all other defeated leagues: death or merger. No competing leagues signed a peace treaty without one dying since the AA and the NL back in the 1880s.

CFB doesn't compete with the NFL. The NFL is perfectly fine with CFB turning the wheat into bread.

The UFL (that was the likely intention of our USFL reference) also doesn't compete for players. They celebrate NFL signings. However, its growth is ultimately restricted by talent lowel. NFL rejects simply aren't exhilarating to anyone but football junkies. Yet, the UFL is returning for 2025 and obtained solid ratings.

Education? The NFL has allowed for players to declare before receiving their degree for decades now and interest hasn't waned. Most casual fans DON'T CARE about a player's degree or GPA. They want to watch talented players in packed stadiums with the best coaches. Cardale Jones uttered his famous declaration and the CFB fandom shrugged.

You and a select minority can depart on your moral high horse. Millions of fans will still watch.

What college football is to you is not what college football is to me, an Alabama alum/fan, LFN, NW Missouri State alum/fan, U Chicago alum/fan, or a Notre Dame alum/subway alum (aka tshirt fan). This is not a question of morality, rather differentiating the 5% from the 95%. I have long enjoyed FCS, D2 and D3 football because these classifications offer a refreshing simplicity/alignment with the greater mission of higher education. My energy is invested in ensuring these subgroups/individuals who participate in collegiate athletics do not lose their opportunity as the result of the laws/social ignorance allowing the 5% to dictate the course of institutionally sponsored sports.

I'm pretty sure LFN is looking at this from a similar angle....

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Depends on the school.

I met with a key cog in the UChicago Athletic fundraising efforts last spring (2023) about the changing dynamics of college sports and the impact of dominant perception (college athletics viewed through the 5%) on giving trends/concerns. The basic response was that as long as the UChicago athlete does not deviate from the "traditional Chicago student" maintaining external financial support is not an issue. Stakeholders/benefactors want confirmation the UChicago football or tennis player is focused on personal excellence and values their relationship with the institution. There's a competitive spirit that permeates through each department at an institution of UChicago's pedigree that is tangible. This Maroon Pride is why athletics (and the individuals who compete) remains a vital appendage of who UChicago is as an institution decades after Robert Hutchins led the crusade to leave the Big 10/"big time" college sports.

[ngineer]

You've nailed it. NIL makes college football minor league sport, the USFL. How has the USFL done? Is doing? Excited about that Birmingham/Philadelphia Stars rivalry?

If you're inducing and paying the players (through the fig leaf of NIL), it's a matter of time before it's said that education isn't necessary at all. Ohio State will be a logo on a cap and nothing more. If education's not part of the mission, it's all over. I won't watch. Most won't watch.

Excellent post. I noticed that I stopped watching almost all FBS games over the past couple years. Watched portions of some of the 'major' bowl games. Being a serious football lover for 67 years (my father was a longtime high school coach, so I grew up on the bench from the age of 5) and find it depressing as to what has happened.

[ngineer]

I met with a key cog in the UChicago Athletic fundraising efforts last spring (2023) about the changing dynamics of college sports and the impact of dominant perception (college athletics viewed through the 5%) on giving trends/concerns. The basic response was that as long as the UChicago athlete does not deviate from the "traditional Chicago student" maintaining external financial support is not an issue. Stakeholders/benefactors want confirmation the UChicago football or tennis player is focused on personal excellence and values their relationship with the institution. There's a competitive spirit that permeates through each department at an institution of UChicago's pedigree that is tangible. This Maroon Pride is why athletics (and the individuals who compete) remains a vital appendage of who UChicago is as an institution decades after Robert Hutchins led the crusade to leave the Big 10/"big time" college sports.

I dated a girl at U of Chicago back in the mid'70's and when I visited, I visited old "Stagg Field". Got a kick out of the fact they were having a spring film festival in the stadium which they promoted as "Stagg Flicks". D-3 football is truly the 'last bastion' of what college athletics was supposed to be. I admire the Patriot League's model of trying to have its school's athletes to mirror the student body. We will never be able to challenge for an NCAA championship, again, in the present climate; but, I like the fact that we still try. And, isn't that what life's about?

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

What college football is to you is not what college football is to me, an Alabama alum/fan, LFN, NW Missouri State alum/fan, U Chicago alum/fan, or a Notre Dame alum/subway alum (aka tshirt fan). This is not a question of morality, rather differentiating the 5% from the 95%. I have long enjoyed FCS, D2 and D3 football because these classifications offer a refreshing simplicity/alignment with the greater mission of higher education. My energy is invested in ensuring these subgroups/individuals who participate in collegiate athletics do not lose their opportunity as the result of the laws/social ignorance allowing the 5% to dictate the course of institutionally sponsored sports.

I'm pretty sure LFN is looking at this from a similar angle....

I'm not declaring for myself. I prefer a CFB world where Bobby Dodd's beliefs reign supreme. I'm speaking from how the top-tier CFB world actually operates.

LFN said most wouldn't watch if education was fully removed. That is a laughable claim. As clenz noted before, this board is a bubble. We are the extreme minority. Most SFU fans, for example, are current students sprinkled in with a select group of engaged alums and a couple dozen townspeople. Most of those current students once they graduate cease to follow the team. I would wager except for the NDSU-level programs, most FCS teams are in the same boat for fans. We are generally the second option behind the local P5 squad again unless you are NDSU or Montana where geographic isolation helps.

An Ohio State t-shirt fan isn't going to walk away because the next CJ Stroud officially majors in football and stops pretending to advance three years at Communications. He doesn't care what field the players declare for majors, only the 100-yard field. He watches because of cultural connection and for elite football.

Like it or not, the big boys (the 5%) subsidize the NCAA. Casual fans watch for the top-tier. Why should those schools pay to ensure a Chicago student (at a massive wealthy institution) has the opportunity? I doubt Rockefeller would agree. Casual fans aren't interested in anything FCS or lower. The FCS playoffs start on FBS Rivalry Week, are shuttered to ESPN+, and play in mostly empty caverns as fans watch Alabama-Auburn.

LFN acting as if folks are going to just walk away from the FBS makes no logical sense. Those fans already know many degrees are excuses hence the basketweaving jokes.

LFN can take whatever view he wants. Just don't pretend he is the next Moses leading a grand exodus.

[MUHAWKS]

This St Francis dude writes well- You are good, regardless of whether I agree/disagree with some/all-- Good stuff.

[MUMD]

I love our FCS.

Now dam enormous scholarship changes - baseball from 11.7 scholarships now to THIRTY FOUR…


The focus on here on on football. FBS was limited to 85. Now they are going to allow a full 105. That’s horrific for FCS. we often get guys who can’t get a P5 offer (even if they deserve one) or only one P5 offer. Now the big schools that can afford 105 full scholarships will take 105 guys instead of 85 and … pretty clearly rendering FCS a lesser talented game. FBS with money (hello SEC and BIG!) will take flyers on some guys we all used to get.

And FBS doesn’t have to offer the full 105. The lesser budgets of a G5 can still offer 95 or 100. In total it appears at least ONE THOUSAND+ more players nationwide will get FBS scholarships!


I just don’t see how that doesn’t take even more of the best talent from FCS


1-Transfer portal. No one year wait to transfer - many of our teams already losing guys everywhere
2-HUGE NIL. Prove you are great at FCS? Hey, Auburn offers you $$$ and FCS loses you
3- And now this too? 20 more full rides at any FBS that can afford it.. and 10-20 more scholarships at most any g5. The guy may not even arrive at FCS AT ALL


Now, it may affect all of FCS equally. Actually it may even the landscape and create FCS parity. SDSU and NDSU will lose the Carson Wentz and NFL guys after year 2 to big SEC NIL…. Or may not get them at all as Wisconsin will now have 20 more scholarships to offer.


But the overall FCS product will definitely diminish in quality. Especially the top teams. Sure, if you are number 110 ranked in FCS then NIL and more FBS scholarships may not hit you This is Yet another hit to REAL STUDENT ATHLETES at FCS.


Heck. This eliminates parity in FBS. Alabama etc will just have room to get more 5 star athletes that used to may have gone elsewhere…

oh and now FBS can offer partial scholarships next year to try and find a way to get more guys from us. FBS offer a 3/4 scholarship and see if a guy pans out



Thoughts? I just love Furman and all of old FCS and this sucks. If it were just one thing ok. But transfer portal… and NIL…. And now up to 20 more scholarships per FBS school ? It Starts next year in 2025. .

be interested in yalls thoughts !!

If you research why Bobby Dodd led Georgia Tech out of the SEC, it was Bear Bryant doing this kind of crap at Alabama. He strong-armed Tech then and the P5 will strong arm everyone else now. It's underhanded and disgusting. So many of these kids will be robbed of ever getting on the field at the expense of being able they were on the team at a big program.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

I'm not declaring for myself. I prefer a CFB world where Bobby Dodd's beliefs reign supreme. I'm speaking from how the top-tier CFB world actually operates.

LFN said most wouldn't watch if education was fully removed. That is a laughable claim. As clenz noted before, this board is a bubble. We are the extreme minority. Most SFU fans, for example, are current students sprinkled in with a select group of engaged alums and a couple dozen townspeople. Most of those current students once they graduate cease to follow the team. I would wager except for the NDSU-level programs, most FCS teams are in the same boat for fans. We are generally the second option behind the local P5 squad again unless you are NDSU or Montana where geographic isolation helps.

An Ohio State t-shirt fan isn't going to walk away because the next CJ Stroud officially majors in football and stops pretending to advance three years at Communications. He doesn't care what field the players declare for majors, only the 100-yard field. He watches because of cultural connection and for elite football.

Like it or not, the big boys (the 5%) subsidize the NCAA. Casual fans watch for the top-tier. Why should those schools pay to ensure a Chicago student (at a massive wealthy institution) has the opportunity? I doubt Rockefeller would agree. Casual fans aren't interested in anything FCS or lower. The FCS playoffs start on FBS Rivalry Week, are shuttered to ESPN+, and play in mostly empty caverns as fans watch Alabama-Auburn.

LFN acting as if folks are going to just walk away from the FBS makes no logical sense. Those fans already know many degrees are excuses hence the basketweaving jokes.

LFN can take whatever view he wants. Just don't pretend he is the next Moses leading a grand exodus.

I will theorize that if Notre Dame, Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, USC, Virginia, North Carolina, Rice, Tulane, Miami (FL), Boston College, Rutgers, Army, Navy, Air Force, Minnesota, (plus another 10 or so) opted to re-imagine the principle concept of the student-athlete a large following would ensue. People value the academic connection far more than many are willing to acknowledge. There's obviously context that causes the variance (school/region/alum vs fan/institution's academic reputation) when it comes to the importance of academics. With that in mind, I state with staunch conviction the educational component is innate to college athletics at a "significant" number of P4/longstanding FBS institutions. Enough to create a rival "upper tier" subdivision? Maybe in time depending how the chips eventually fall during the formal transition to the "Pay for Play Era".....

These are two pictures I took when I visited the University of Nebraska in November of 2022. I took the pictures because they reflected an image/stereotype the university/fans/community/state wanted to convey of Husker Football; the University of Nebraska is synonymous with academic excellence. I think an argument can be made the number of Academic All-American stands out/is more proudly displayed than the number of National Titles at Memorial Stadium. The Academic All-American plaque stares you right in the face when you enter the West Atrium (home side) of Memorial Stadium.

https://scontent.fagc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/313424604_6023603684338679_3979238643936682660_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=b7SnjD8pArQQ7kNvgFQzDM-&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc1-1.fna&oh=00_AYDf0hX2X7aJCuiJbU1jpBlQ24K7nidh600DVuH07qAE CQ&oe=66B3A1C8

https://scontent.fagc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/313411764_6023603021005412_489797189035224010_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=81X_lUIJ0DQQ7kNvgErRJ8z&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc1-1.fna&oh=00_AYDC8xLr-sqfdEEVDbfG7kNIRdBdEJIRE7jWXVn6xfFmDw&oe=66B37B0E

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I will theorize that if Notre Dame, Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, USC, Virginia, North Carolina, Rice, Tulane, Miami (FL), Boston College, Rutgers, Army, Navy, Air Force, Minnesota, (plus another 10 or so) opted to re-imagine the principle concept of the student-athlete a large following would ensue. People value the academic connection far more than many are willing to acknowledge. There's obviously context that causes the variance (school/region/alum vs fan/institution's academic reputation) when it comes to the importance of academics. With that in mind, I state with staunch conviction the educational component is innate to college athletics at a "significant" number of P4/longstanding FBS institutions. Enough to create a rival "upper tier" subdivision? Maybe in time depending how the chips eventually fall during the formal transition to the "Pay for Play Era".....

These are two pictures I took when I visited the University of Nebraska in November of 2022. I took the pictures because they reflected an image/stereotype the university/fans/community/state wanted to convey of Husker Football; the University of Nebraska is synonymous with academic excellence. I think an argument can be made the number of Academic All-American stands out/is more proudly displayed than the number of National Titles at Memorial Stadium. The Academic All-American plaque stares you right in the face when you enter the West Atrium (home side) of Memorial Stadium.

https://scontent.fagc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/313424604_6023603684338679_3979238643936682660_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=b7SnjD8pArQQ7kNvgFQzDM-&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc1-1.fna&oh=00_AYDf0hX2X7aJCuiJbU1jpBlQ24K7nidh600DVuH07qAE CQ&oe=66B3A1C8

https://scontent.fagc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/313411764_6023603021005412_489797189035224010_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=81X_lUIJ0DQQ7kNvgErRJ8z&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc1-1.fna&oh=00_AYDC8xLr-sqfdEEVDbfG7kNIRdBdEJIRE7jWXVn6xfFmDw&oe=66B37B0E

Excellent photos, Owl. Nebraska's stadium is on my CFB bucket list.

Academic excellence has its followers. I will not disrupt but I also know that Nebraska has $80 million reasons to disregard those shining monuments. In an era of shrinking enrollment and demographics, schools are seeking funds. Athletics provides a great deal of money.

It would be easier for a Tulane to back out. They aren't risking a massive media deal. Stanford, despite all its high-minded student athlete rhetoric, raced and pleaded for a spot in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Ideals are wonderful things, but few of them and the people who hold them, hold up when money comes talking. The people who refuse the almighty dollar are generally saints. Colleges don't have saints, unless you are Siena.

The Chicago president in 1939 was a major player in the academic world and when he (incorrectly) removed the Maroons from the Big 10 athletic world, his fellow presidents congratulated him but made no large exodus to follow. Four of the teams in your list (Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC) just joined eastern and midwest based conferences over remaining together for a smaller media deal. Even Cal, a school famous for showing little athletic endeavor, decided the ACC was better than the WCC or the MWC.

North Carolina. The same academic institution that pushed fake classes for decades to protect men's basketball. They have no room to talk on academic integrity. A semipro approach has more honor than what the Tar Heels contrived to conceal. It would be a honest admittance of what players are.

Would some schools opt out? Probably. I simply do not see a mass departure. If Rice walks, who cares? Their student body doesn't care, they are located in Houston and can't draw flies.

Losing Michigan, North Carolina, Notre Dame, UCLA, and USC would hurt. The rest of the list are either nobodies, ancient regime powers, service academics (prestigious but lack top-line succees), and cupcakes. I enjoy the Army-Navy Game (I have a tangible connection to West Point) but the game was moved to its "traditional" slot because it couldn't compete with the Rivalry Week titans. Fans will watch Army-Navy when it stands alone. The matchup would be buried if it had to compete with Alabama-Auburn or Michigan-Ohio State.

Those breakaway schools could try to set-up a rival league but they won't be obtaining the same quality of players, if they attempt to install restrictions. They will only obtain elite players if they are willing to pay. That is the first rule of athletic success: the best bid lands the best talent. And that rival league would need heavy hitters. Casual fans aren't tuning in for the proposed Magnolia League. That scheme could only work in the 50s and 60s.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

An Ohio State t-shirt fan isn't going to walk away because the next CJ Stroud officially majors in football and stops pretending to advance three years at Communications. He doesn't care what field the players declare for majors, only the 100-yard field. He watches because of cultural connection and for elite football.

If there is no education, there ceases to be a cultural connection. Ohio State becomes a brand name on a hat, like rooting for Pennzoil. And we've already established by definition CFB is not elite football, a mantle that belongs to the NFL, and CFB will never have that.

Fans will not "just walk away" from the FBS instantly if that happens. It will take a decade of yearly decline, like major league baseball, watching the magic unravel, unable to change any rules to restore the magic where the athletes are students instead of mercenaries for hire. Folks on Twitter will wring their hands and say "what is wrong with the game?" when the answer will be the Supreme Court, an NCAA that gave the Power Conferences everything they wanted, and greedy bastards like Brett Yormark who will be retired on his yacht watching everything he's done burn the sport to the ground.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

North Carolina. The same academic institution that pushed fake classes for decades to protect men's basketball. They have no room to talk on academic integrity. A semipro approach has more honor than what the Tar Heels contrived to conceal. It would be a honest admittance of what players are.

I am 100,000% behind you on this. Anyone from UNC AFAIC - and I mean anyone - has a fake degree thanks to Roy. UNC should have gotten the death penalty for it. That the NCAA didn't do anything is one of the biggest travesties of justice ever.

"What if we simply poisoned and permanently discredited the academics of the entire school, not just for athletes?" was UNC's decision.

[bonarae]

It would be easier for a Tulane to back out.

I agree. But what is keeping the Green Wave afloat in D-I? Baseball? xdontknowx


The Chicago president in 1939 was a major player in the academic world and when he (incorrectly) removed the Maroons from the Big 10 athletic world, his fellow presidents congratulated him but made no large exodus to follow.

Hmm, UChicago has been quite the radical that they have been ... they are now struggling football-wise (they are currently in a Hampton-esque coaching crisis in the sport), while their 4 ex-UAA opponents (CMU, UR, CWRU and WUSTL) are consistently running for playoff spots in D-III football but have been inconsistent in making multiple consecutive bids in their playoffs.


North Carolina. The same academic institution that pushed fake classes for decades to protect men's basketball. They have no room to talk on academic integrity. A semipro approach has more honor than what the Tar Heels contrived to conceal. It would be a honest admittance of what players are.

Has there ever been a book published on this? Maybe the Owl or I can get hands on a copy if there is one?


Would some schools opt out? Probably. I simply do not see a mass departure. If Rice walks, who cares? Their student body doesn't care, they are located in Houston and can't draw flies.

Losing Michigan, North Carolina, Notre Dame, UCLA, and USC would hurt. The rest of the list are either nobodies, ancient regime powers, service academics (prestigious but lack top-line succees), and cupcakes.

The greatest question for the struggling D-I ATM is that "will we be the next Hartford or Birmingham Southern (the latter is gone academically as well, RIP)"? Or maybe they will become the first one to go back to the NAIA straight from D-I... xsighx

Rice may fit in that picture. They are like the UOP of the South, struggling with athletics...

Okay, back to the topic, are the Ivies considered "ancient regime powers" as well? Decades ago, they de-emphasized football and have somewhat tightened their grip on its influence in the eight campuses' athletic programs. While they trailblazed in some aspects (read: female coaches and tackling dummies), they do not allow graduate transfers in any sport at all, thus watering down their athletic quality in some way. xsmhx


If there is no education, there ceases to be a cultural connection. Ohio State becomes a brand name on a hat, like rooting for Pennzoil. And we've already established by definition CFB is not elite football, a mantle that belongs to the NFL, and CFB will never have that.

Fans will not "just walk away" from the FBS instantly if that happens. It will take a decade of yearly decline, like major league baseball, watching the magic unravel, unable to change any rules to restore the magic where the athletes are students instead of mercenaries for hire. Folks on Twitter will wring their hands and say "what is wrong with the game?" when the answer will be the Supreme Court, an NCAA that gave the Power Conferences everything they wanted, and greedy bastards like Brett Yormark who will be retired on his yacht watching everything he's done burn the sport to the ground.

I agree with LFN, but will there be another Supreme Court decision to force the NCAA AND the NFL to change their pipeline and/or pathway-to-the-pros mechanism a la what the CFL and NHL are both doing in their respective arenas? (a slightly unbalanced balance of college, junior league and global leagues are the pipelines in those two sports.)

[bonarae]

ICYMI...

https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1817195113396756975
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1817195113396756975?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1817195113396756975%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1817195113396756975?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1817195113396756975%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1817195113396756975?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1817195113396756975%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

If there is no education, there ceases to be a cultural connection. Ohio State becomes a brand name on a hat, like rooting for Pennzoil. And we've already established by definition CFB is not elite football, a mantle that belongs to the NFL, and CFB will never have that.

Fans will not "just walk away" from the FBS instantly if that happens. It will take a decade of yearly decline, like major league baseball, watching the magic unravel, unable to change any rules to restore the magic where the athletes are students instead of mercenaries for hire. Folks on Twitter will wring their hands and say "what is wrong with the game?" when the answer will be the Supreme Court, an NCAA that gave the Power Conferences everything they wanted, and greedy bastards like Brett Yormark who will be retired on his yacht watching everything he's done burn the sport to the ground.

The average t-shirt fan doesn't care about education.

Ohio State is already a brand. My local Boscov stocks Ohio State gear along with other major colleges.

You are the one who said walked away and suggested most would tap out. Now, the goal posts have been shifted to the event occurring over a decade. Until the NFL builds a minor league system all that 18-21 elite talent has nowhere to go. People don't divorce themselves of a cultural and emotional connection easily. Fans will justify the new order if the talent remains. See the 2016 NFL kneeling fiasco.

Folks on X and Reddit are never happy. The CFB Reddit group, the same collection who wanted unlimited transfer and NIL, are now bemoaning what myself and others who warned them about. They hit us with supporting modern slavery (a laughable analysis). The Supreme Court made rulings based on the law. NCAA amateurism was always a weird beast that never made logical sense. It's not the Supreme Court's job to engage in judicial activism. The NCAA, after decades after being the bogeyman to yourself and millions, now has to play the hero. It can't. Every rule or policy is immediately taken to court. This was the eventual outcome once the final vestiges of amaterism were removed. Anyone who thought NIL was going to be obtaining $500 by shooting a commercial for Joe's Pizza was woefully naive when bagman used to handle out cars and houses to recruits. If the NCAA caved to the P4, it is because the P4 (P5) held heavier influence in a member organization. We have 360+ teams and 30+ conferences in Division I and almost 290 programs and 25+ conferences are irrelevant to Joe Sixpack. It is easy for a mid-major to tell Ohio State to share the loot. Paul loves taking from Peter if Peter is loaded and Paul is not.

Yormark's assignment was protecting his conference from destruction and disbandment. He did it. The winds of change were happening, regardless of his existence.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I am 100,000% behind you on this. Anyone from UNC AFAIC - and I mean anyone - has a fake degree thanks to Roy. UNC should have gotten the death penalty for it. That the NCAA didn't do anything is one of the biggest travesties of justice ever.

"What if we simply poisoned and permanently discredited the academics of the entire school, not just for athletes?" was UNC's decision.

I don't recall everything behind the case but I believe UNC clammed up and the NCAA lacked subpeona power to get the juiciest material.

UNC also might have been a case of "too big to fail." Which's why I'm skeptical of even more academic-prone schools like UNC and Michigan bailing. They like to pontificate about academics but they love money and success too.

The NCAA failed in the case but it was a foreshadowing of current events.

[FUBeAR]

The average t-shirt fan doesn't care about education.

Ohio State is already a brand. My local Boscov stocks Ohio State gear along with other major colleges.

You are the one who said walked away and suggested most would tap out. Now, the goal posts have been shifted to the event occurring over a decade. Until the NFL builds a minor league system all that 18-21 elite talent has nowhere to go. People don't divorce themselves of a cultural and emotional connection easily. Fans will justify the new order if the talent remains. See the 2016 NFL kneeling fiasco.

Folks on X and Reddit are never happy. The CFB Reddit group, the same collection who wanted unlimited transfer and NIL, are now bemoaning what myself and others who warned them about. They hit us with supporting modern slavery (a laughable analysis). The Supreme Court made rulings based on the law. NCAA amateurism was always a weird beast that never made logical sense. It's not the Supreme Court's job to engage in judicial activism. The NCAA, after decades after being the bogeyman to yourself and millions, now has to play the hero. It can't. Every rule or policy is immediately taken to court. This was the eventual outcome once the final vestiges of amaterism were removed. Anyone who thought NIL was going to be obtaining $500 by shooting a commercial for Joe's Pizza was woefully naive when bagman used to handle out cars and houses to recruits. If the NCAA caved to the P4, it is because the P4 (P5) held heavier influence in a member organization. We have 360+ teams and 30+ conferences in Division I and almost 290 programs and 25+ conferences are irrelevant to Joe Sixpack. It is easy for a mid-major to tell Ohio State to share the loot. Paul loves taking from Peter if Peter is loaded and Paul is not.

Yormark's assignment was protecting his conference from destruction and disbandment. He did it. The winds of change were happening, regardless of his existence.Just repped you because, though FUBeAR despises everything you are saying, you are absolutely correct.

So…since you seem sage on the subject, what are your thoughts on these newly Professional College Teams questioning their own self-inflicted ‘disposal’ of highly productive assets. Why are these Professional College Teams going to continue to send their “money-makers” away with self-determined limits on eligibility?

If Ohio State can pay Jackmerius Tacktheratrix enough to keep him from transferring to Bama, why force him to move on to the Las Vegas Raiders while he is still a productive asset?

FUBeAR sees a not-too-distant future where Players are retained by Professional College Teams for their entire Professional career. George Blanda hangs up his cleats, at age 48, after 30 seasons as the QB for the University of Kentucky Football Team, Inc.

AND FUBeAR sees a near future, as currently is the case with ‘club Teams’ in Olympic Sports, if a Hot-Shot 13 year old living in Winder, GA is good enough to turn somersaults for the UGA GymDogs, why wait until she finishes middle school? She could be making money for the Red & Black right now!

Thoughts?

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I agree. But what is keeping the Green Wave afloat in D-I? Baseball? xdontknowx



Hmm, UChicago has been quite the radical that they have been ... they are now struggling football-wise (they are currently in a Hampton-esque coaching crisis in the sport), while their 4 ex-UAA opponents (CMU, UR, CWRU and WUSTL) are consistently running for playoff spots in D-III football but have been inconsistent in making multiple consecutive bids in their playoffs.



Has there ever been a book published on this? Maybe the Owl or I can get hands on a copy if there is one?



The greatest question for the struggling D-I ATM is that "will we be the next Hartford or Birmingham Southern (the latter is gone academically as well, RIP)"? Or maybe they will become the first one to go back to the NAIA straight from D-I... xsighx

Rice may fit in that picture. They are like the UOP of the South, struggling with athletics...

Okay, back to the topic, are the Ivies considered "ancient regime powers" as well? Decades ago, they de-emphasized football and have somewhat tightened their grip on its influence in the eight campuses' athletic programs. While they trailblazed in some aspects (read: female coaches and tackling dummies), they do not allow graduate transfers in any sport at all, thus watering down their athletic quality in some way. xsmhx



I agree with LFN, but will there be another Supreme Court decision to force the NCAA AND the NFL to change their pipeline and/or pathway-to-the-pros mechanism a la what the CFL and NHL are both doing in their respective arenas? (a slightly unbalanced balance of college, junior league and global leagues are the pipelines in those two sports.)

How does one break up the paragraphs in a quote function like you did?

Well, Owl was talking in general about Tulane leaving. Tulane walked away from the SEC in the 1940s, a decision they must rue every day and twice on Saturday. There's nothing keeping them afloat except enough alums raise a stink anytime the institution has thought about dropping athletics. The Green Wave is in the Big 12 if they cared about athletics.

I said incorrectly because Hutchins allowed his personal feelings to run his emotions. His beliefs represent academica at its prejudical and ivory-tower worst.

The events occurred recently, so it might be too soon for a book. Interlibrary loan for the win! My lifeblood.

Birminghan Southern is a good example. The school no longer exists. The education bubble is popping. Schools are looking for new revenue sources and athletics provide it. If Michigan leaves the Big 10, it leaves a massive media deal and research money behind. Same with Nebraska.

Only Penn, since they were still playing a big-time schedule in the 1940s. Those Quakers teams are sadly overlooked. Otherwise, the Ivies are Medieval or Roman Empire era classification. Most Ivies were done (except for random spikes: see Dartmouth in 1970) playing at a major level by the 1950s. Yes, Princeton went undefeated and had a Heisman winner in 1951, but look at the AP Poll rankings, only three ranked Eastern teams. Eastern football had degraded fiercely by the 1930s and intersectional records proved it. Eastern football was carried for decades by Army, Navy, and the Ivies. Then, all those schools either withdrew or couldn't keep up with other schools. Only Penn State arose to consistently keep the Eastern banner. Even the Lambert Cup has ceased to be given out.

It is unfortuante the Ivies bailed out once other regions and schools wrestled away top dog status. It was hypocritical because everything that people complain about in modern football started with The Ancient Eight. Players being paid illegally (Ivy), massive stadiums (Ivy), fanatics (Ivy). A 1905 Yale fan would be shocked at 2024 Yale's attempts at "purity." The Ivy just did not like being surpassed by their academic inferiors and decided to use the cloak of athletic purity to leave the arena. Like I have told people, the billion-dollar March Madness Tournament is considered acceptable but playoffs in Cedar Falls is a bridge too far. Of course, sharp observations reveal the Ivies simply aren't interested in losing directional state university in mid-December.

[bonarae]

Only Penn, since they were still playing a big-time schedule in the 1940s. Those Quakers teams are sadly overlooked. Otherwise, the Ivies are Medieval or Roman Empire era classification. Most Ivies were done (except for random spikes: see Dartmouth in 1970) playing at a major level by the 1950s. Yes, Princeton went undefeated and had a Heisman winner in 1951, but look at the AP Poll rankings, only three ranked Eastern teams. Eastern football had degraded fiercely by the 1930s and intersectional records proved it. Eastern football was carried for decades by Army, Navy, and the Ivies. Then, all those schools either withdrew or couldn't keep up with other schools. Only Penn State arose to consistently keep the Eastern banner. Even the Lambert Cup has ceased to be given out.

It is unfortuante the Ivies bailed out once other regions and schools wrestled away top dog status. It was hypocritical because everything that people complain about in modern football started with The Ancient Eight. Players being paid illegally (Ivy), massive stadiums (Ivy), fanatics (Ivy). A 1905 Yale fan would be shocked at 2024 Yale's attempts at "purity." The Ivy just did not like being surpassed by their academic inferiors and decided to use the cloak of athletic purity to leave the arena. Like I have told people, the billion-dollar March Madness Tournament is considered acceptable but playoffs in Cedar Falls is a bridge too far. Of course, sharp observations reveal the Ivies simply aren't interested in losing directional state university in mid-December.

xsmhx xsighx What if the Ivies never lost their focus on football? A different world, perhaps? xdontknowx

xoutofrepx

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Just repped you because, though FUBeAR despises everything you are saying, you are absolutely correct.

So…since you seem sage on the subject, what are your thoughts on these newly Professional College Teams questioning their own self-inflicted ‘disposal’ of highly productive assets. Why are these Professional College Teams going to continue to send their “money-makers” away with self-determined limits on eligibility?

If Ohio State can pay Jackmerius Tacktheratrix enough to keep him from transferring to Bama, why force him to move on to the Las Vegas Raiders while he is still a productive asset?

FUBeAR sees a not-too-distant future where Players are retained by Professional College Teams for their entire Professional career. George Blanda hangs up his cleats, at age 48, after 30 seasons as the QB for the University of Kentucky Football Team, Inc.

AND FUBeAR sees a near future, as currently is the case with ‘club Teams’ in Olympic Sports, if a Hot-Shot 13 year old living in Winder, GA is good enough to turn somersaults for the UGA GymDogs, why wait until she finishes middle school? She could be making money for the Red & Black right now!

Thoughts?

I despise it as well but reality doesn't go away.

That is an excellent question. I hope Ohio State allows Jackson to head to the Raiders. My Raiders need the help! And a new coach, and a QB, and a new owner.

I believe in the boiling the frog adage. When you want to roast a frog, you don't turn the heat to high and throw the poor guy in. He will just jump out. You sit in the pot of water and slowly increase the heat. That is what the P4 has been doing for decades; slowly prepping the public for the eventual breakaway. People freaked out about the Pac 12 dying but the 2024 season doesn't face massive boycotts. Instead, fans are excited for the new matchups. We are densensitized at the FBS and FCS levels to conference realignment and lapsed rivalries.

I think colleges will slowly increase years of eligibility but they will do it in such a way that it won't result in an uproar. Remember, in the 1800s, eligilibity rules weren't standarized and some players (even Hall of Famers) recorded seven-eight years! As Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Frankly, players are only staying for more than four years if the money becomes higher than the NFL (unlikely) or they are only college good. Athletes are notoriously confident (or cocky) and guys will probably want to turn their hand at the NFL. But I do foresee some players making a mini-career at the collegiate ranks. It has happened right now with the Miami TE logging NINE years of activity.

The GymDogs situation intrigues me. Will football breakaway? If so, will Olympic sports follow? Is a 13-year-old participant a bridge too far? After all, 14-year-olds attended college in colonial (sorry, coastal) America! How does Title IX fit in?

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

xsmhx xsighx What if the Ivies never lost their focus on football? A different world, perhaps? xdontknowx

xoutofrepx

Butterfly effects are tricky because we are rewriting nearly 80-100 years of history but many Ivy football teams could have remained prominent players, at least, until the single-platoon days officially ended. Those rule changes are what ended Rice, Northwestern, Tulane etc as credible football programs for decades and allowed for giant state schools with their stockpile talent to overwhelm foes. Football, like war, generally belongs to the biggest battalions.

Eastern football is the tragic tale of self-inflicted wounds. The last hope was Penn State anchoring the Big East. Instead, folks played hardball, and set the stage for the Eastern independents to be parcel and scattered like the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Look at the carnage:

Yale: withdrew from big time football.
Harvard: same
Cornell: same
Penn: Was a powerhouse in the 1940s. 75,000+ fans, a television contract with ABC (broken by the NCAA. Grr.), diverse and deep schedules.
Colgate: Prominent team through the 1930s.
Princeton: Retained national championship caliber teams through the 1930s.
Pittsburgh: Best program from 1915-1937. Then, their chancellor in a fit of power, devastated the program. Except for 1976-1981, the Panthers have never been elite again.
Army: 1958 was the last elite year. Vietnam, the rise of the NFL, and poor decisions, sank the program. "When Saturday Mattered Most" is a great and bittersweet read on the topic.
Navy: Same boat as Army after the 1960s.
Carlisle: Closed down.
Holy Cross: Stopped competing at the highest level.

And there are other programs. Etc. Etc. No other region has suffered this much attrition. Alabama remains. USC remains. Michigan remains. They were strong in the 1920s and remain today.

Just regional pillar after regional pillar removed themselves from national prominence while other schools like Rutgers and Temple couldn't generate any lasting momentum and merely served as tuneups for Joe Pa's dynasty. Occasionally, Boston College, Syracuse, and West Virginia would make noise, but nothing substantial or lasting.

On a smaller level, FCS football in the Northeast suffered a blow when the MAAC ceased to sponsor football. Instead, teams who left the NEC were forced to join the Big South (the Mason-Dixon Line is just a surveyor's creation!) or become independent since the Patriot and Ivy Leagues certainly weren't inviting unwashed brethren.

College football started in the East and now it is distinctly second fiddle in its birth's region.

[Houndawg]

I love our FCS.

Now dam enormous scholarship changes - baseball from 11.7 scholarships now to THIRTY FOUR…


The focus on here on on football. FBS was limited to 85. Now they are going to allow a full 105. That’s horrific for FCS. we often get guys who can’t get a P5 offer (even if they deserve one) or only one P5 offer. Now the big schools that can afford 105 full scholarships will take 105 guys instead of 85 and … pretty clearly rendering FCS a lesser talented game. FBS with money (hello SEC and BIG!) will take flyers on some guys we all used to get.

And FBS doesn’t have to offer the full 105. The lesser budgets of a G5 can still offer 95 or 100. In total it appears at least ONE THOUSAND+ more players nationwide will get FBS scholarships!


I just don’t see how that doesn’t take even more of the best talent from FCS


1-Transfer portal. No one year wait to transfer - many of our teams already losing guys everywhere
2-HUGE NIL. Prove you are great at FCS? Hey, Auburn offers you $$$ and FCS loses you
3- And now this too? 20 more full rides at any FBS that can afford it.. and 10-20 more scholarships at most any g5. The guy may not even arrive at FCS AT ALL


Now, it may affect all of FCS equally. Actually it may even the landscape and create FCS parity. SDSU and NDSU will lose the Carson Wentz and NFL guys after year 2 to big SEC NIL…. Or may not get them at all as Wisconsin will now have 20 more scholarships to offer.


But the overall FCS product will definitely diminish in quality. Especially the top teams. Sure, if you are number 110 ranked in FCS then NIL and more FBS scholarships may not hit you This is Yet another hit to REAL STUDENT ATHLETES at FCS.


Heck. This eliminates parity in FBS. Alabama etc will just have room to get more 5 star athletes that used to may have gone elsewhere…

oh and now FBS can offer partial scholarships next year to try and find a way to get more guys from us. FBS offer a 3/4 scholarship and see if a guy pans out



Thoughts? I just love Furman and all of old FCS and this sucks. If it were just one thing ok. But transfer portal… and NIL…. And now up to 20 more scholarships per FBS school ? It Starts next year in 2025. .

be interested in yalls thoughts !!

I've quit watching NFL and FBS because of the boredom of 3hrs of advertising to watch 15 minutes of football. Football needs to do something about that because they're losing badly to soccer.

There's money to be made selling views of game film

[DFW HOYA]

And there are other programs. Etc. Etc. No other region has suffered this much attrition.

California has entered the discussion. Here is a list of programs lost since 1972 (Division I schools in bold):

Azusa Pacific University (2019)
University of California, Riverside (1976)
University of California at San Diego (1969)
University of California at Santa Barbara (1992)
California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt (2018)
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (1983)
California State University, Chico (1997)
California State University, Fullerton (1993)
California State University, Hayward (1993)
California State University, Long Beach (1992)
California State University, Los Angeles (1978)
California State University, Northridge (2001)
California State University, Sonoma (1997)
California Institute of Technology (1977)
Menlo College (2015)
Occidental College (2020)
Saint Mary's College (2004)
Santa Clara University (1993)
University of San Francisco (1972)
San Francisco State University (1995)
University of the Pacific (1996)
U.S. International University (1980)
Whitter College (2022)

Excepting US International, which closed in 2001, that's 2,200 kids a year not enrolled and playing football at these various universities.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Eastern football is the tragic tale of self-inflicted wounds. The last hope was Penn State anchoring the Big East. Instead, folks played hardball, and set the stage for the Eastern independents to be parcel and scattered like the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Getting off topic here a little, but IMVHO Eastern Football was done in by the move to divisions orchestrated by Joe Paterno and the CFA. The Eastern schools thrived in that gray area between "University" and "College" division (see: Yankee Conference) and there were a plethora of schools that freely competed in "University" basketball and "College" football (as opposed to Penn State's level). The CFA, led IMO by Paterno, sought to define Division I by the size of schools' football programs, goosing the Division I definition to try to kick out the Ivy League and many of the Eastern football independents that were independent in football and University level basketball.

For a decade the CFA (borrowing your term) boiled the frog until they mostly got what they wanted - I-A football and autonomy to control their TV contracts. In its wake were a ton of small- and mid-size programs, largely in the East, who were now in limbo. Paterno had incredible leverage over these schools. If he scheduled home-and-homes with them, that would determine whether they would end up I-A or I-AA. Rutgers, Boston College, and especially Syracuse has Paterno to thank for their D-I status. Paterno's playing God with the Eastern independents forced some schools into I-AA (all the Ivies, ultimately the YankCon schools, Colgate, throw William & Mary in there).

Ever since Eastern football schools have been in a pickle. With college basketball the most important thing, there was no way to reorganize effectively with an all-sports conference in football because there never was one. One day it was advantageous to be independent in football, then the power structure made it advantageous to be in conferences over independence. This is true in both FCS and FBS - ask any Temple fan. The Big East came closest, but even it could not survive the structural issues at play and the diversity of its membership football-wise. So if you want to blame anyone for why Eastern football has declined in the last 50 years, I'd blame Paterno.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Getting off topic here a little, but IMVHO Eastern Football was done in by the move to divisions orchestrated by Joe Paterno and the CFA. The Eastern schools thrived in that gray area between "University" and "College" division (see: Yankee Conference) and there were a plethora of schools that freely competed in "University" basketball and "College" football (as opposed to Penn State's level). The CFA, led IMO by Paterno, sought to define Division I by the size of schools' football programs, goosing the Division I definition to try to kick out the Ivy League and many of the Eastern football independents that were independent in football and University level basketball.

For a decade the CFA (borrowing your term) boiled the frog until they mostly got what they wanted - I-A football and autonomy to control their TV contracts. In its wake were a ton of small- and mid-size programs, largely in the East, who were now in limbo. Paterno had incredible leverage over these schools. If he scheduled home-and-homes with them, that would determine whether they would end up I-A or I-AA. Rutgers, Boston College, and especially Syracuse has Paterno to thank for their D-I status. Paterno's playing God with the Eastern independents forced some schools into I-AA (all the Ivies, ultimately the YankCon schools, Colgate, throw William & Mary in there).

Ever since Eastern football schools have been in a pickle. With college basketball the most important thing, there was no way to reorganize effectively with an all-sports conference in football because there never was one. One day it was advantageous to be independent in football, then the power structure made it advantageous to be in conferences over independence. This is true in both FCS and FBS - ask any Temple fan. The Big East came closest, but even it could not survive the structural issues at play and the diversity of its membership football-wise. So if you want to blame anyone for why Eastern football has declined in the last 50 years, I'd blame Paterno.

Paterno bears some fault, but those schools were choosing the path of irrelevance long before his Penn State program became a power broker. The Ivies withdrew in the 1950s, Colgate's rivalry with Syracuse developed into a farce, William & Mary could have joined the ACC but declined, etc

That gray area was never going to last; the NCAA constantly was trying to create two distinct levels. You can't serve two masters and Eastern football teams should have picked a lane. Rutgers and Temple were terrible but they decided to stay at the highest level. The Ivies, like most old money, demanded respect from the nouveau rich, because they have been around forever.

If Paterno's actions did anything, they hastened the inevitable outcome. There needed to be clarity. If I recall correctly, the great split in 1982 was determined by attendance, right? If those schools didn't have the attendance, how is that Paterno's fault? Because he didn't want to play in Hamilton? The MAC didn't desire a drop to I-AA, and so, they fought it. The Eastern teams accepted their fallen status.

Temple's football was boosted out of the Big East because it was a joke program not even trying to compete. If Temple tried, instead of leeching off the Big East, it might have been selected for the ACC in 2012. Most of the Eastern programs failed themselves. They picked basketball over football or didn't fund football at an acceptable level. I have dealt with WVU fans who bemoaned how Paterno would have 30 more players on the sidelines. Which was perfectly legal by the rules. PSU cared about football while a bunch of other programs wanted to coast along like it would be 1962 forever.

Most failure stems from programs refusing to try or making foolish mistakes. I will use SFU as an example. The program joined I-AA in 1993 (due to the new rules). At the time, it was performing well in Division III. However, basketball received all the funding and football was left with scraps. The program didn't record a winning season in the I-AA/FCS until 2015. Lots of excuses were offered; Penn State is nearby; Albany was too good in the NEC; bad luck; remote location; etc. The truth? The program wasn't being funded even to NEC levels. A program doesn't have a 16% winning percentage for a decade because of bad luck or location. It fails because baseline support wasn't provided. Once, funding met supportable levels; we won two titles, upset a ranked Liberty team, and played Akron to a double overtime loss.

If Eastern football failed, it is because its teams refused to follow along with progress. College football rapidly changed and those programs didn't.

[caribbeanhen]

I've quit watching NFL and FBS because of the boredom of 3hrs of advertising to watch 15 minutes of football. Football needs to do something about that because they're losing badly to soccer.

There's money to be made selling views of game film

In Puerto Rico, if the bar is flying a Dominican flag outside that's code for we aint watching no NFL or soccer in here..... only baseball.

love it

[DFW HOYA]

Temple's football was boosted out of the Big East because it was a joke program not even trying to compete. If Temple tried, instead of leeching off the Big East, it might have been selected for the ACC in 2012. Most of the Eastern programs failed themselves. They picked basketball over football or didn't fund football at an acceptable level. I have dealt with WVU fans who bemoaned how Paterno would have 30 more players on the sidelines. Which was perfectly legal by the rules. PSU cared about football while a bunch of other programs wanted to coast along like it would be 1962 forever.

Most failure stems from programs refusing to try or making foolish mistakes. I will use SFU as an example. The program joined I-AA in 1993 (due to the new rules). At the time, it was performing well in Division III. However, basketball received all the funding and football was left with scraps. The program didn't record a winning season in the I-AA/FCS until 2015. Lots of excuses were offered; Penn State is nearby; Albany was too good in the NEC; bad luck; remote location; etc. The truth? The program wasn't being funded even to NEC levels. A program doesn't have a 16% winning percentage for a decade because of bad luck or location. It fails because baseline support wasn't provided. Once, funding met supportable levels; we won two titles, upset a ranked Liberty team, and played Akron to a double overtime loss.

If Eastern football failed, it is because its teams refused to follow along with progress. College football rapidly changed and those programs didn't.

1. Temple was booted out of the Big East over facilities and attendance, which at one point was below announced crowds of 5,000 a game. It squandered the old Temple Stadium property and could not marshal any community support for a facility of its own. Yes, the record was bad (some numbers I can empathize with) but Temple wasn't under any unusual restrictions on recruiting.

2. "Most failure stems from programs refusing to try or making foolish mistakes." Disagree. Every program tries but are often burdened by constraints, either within their university, their community, or their general ability to attract recruits.

3. "If Eastern football failed, it is because its teams refused to follow along with progress." Eastern football failed, in no small part, because of the absence of flagship state school programs. While you had schools like Alabama and Georgia and Ole Miss, larger states with bountiful recruiting areas like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were mostly forgotten.

[TribeNomad1]

In Puerto Rico, if the bar is flying a Dominican flag outside that's code for we aint watching no NFL or soccer in here..... only baseball.

love it


baisball ben berry, berry good to me.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Paterno bears some fault, but those schools were choosing the path of irrelevance long before his Penn State program became a power broker. The Ivies withdrew in the 1950s, Colgate's rivalry with Syracuse developed into a farce, William & Mary could have joined the ACC but declined, etc

That gray area was never going to last; the NCAA constantly was trying to create two distinct levels. You can't serve two masters and Eastern football teams should have picked a lane. Rutgers and Temple were terrible but they decided to stay at the highest level. The Ivies, like most old money, demanded respect from the nouveau rich, because they have been around forever.

If Paterno's actions did anything, they hastened the inevitable outcome. There needed to be clarity. If I recall correctly, the great split in 1982 was determined by attendance, right? If those schools didn't have the attendance, how is that Paterno's fault? Because he didn't want to play in Hamilton? The MAC didn't desire a drop to I-AA, and so, they fought it. The Eastern teams accepted their fallen status.

You call it chosen irrelevance, but the Ivies were one of several factions of failed reformers within the NCAA. The Ivy Presidents got together in 1948 to come up with Ivy League principles (mostly applicable to football, Penn reluctantly joining late). From 1948 to the 1970s they tried to rein in the big colleges with proposals to ban scholarships. The bigger schools hated it, and when Penn State's Ed Czekaj (with Paterno whispering in his ear, no doubt) had to come up with a definition for what a Division I football program is to the CFA, they purposely created a definition (30,000 seat stadium, 20,000 average attendance) that would cleave the Ivy League in two. Far from choosing irrelevance, the Ivies had it hoisted upon them. In fact, they jousted from 1977 to 1981 trying to keep stadium size/attendance out of the definition, but in 1981 the frog got boiled, and the Ivies were forced to be reclassified.

I don't think that fact gets emphasized enough that the Ivies fought hard to remain Division I - and were successful for some time!

Ironically, Rutgers, Temple and possibly Syracuse would not be FBS today if it wasn't for the Ivy Amendment. Syracuse's stadium only barely and technically met the 30,000 limit, and so did Rutgers'. They needed the time for Penn State and the CFA to goose the rules to make sure they were I-A. In 1982, the CFA made some creative rule changes meaning that a school only had to average 20,000 fans a game home and away - a huge change that meant the large programs like Penn State became difference makers. I'd bet a duck dinner it was to get Syracuse and Rutgers in (two very, very common Penn State opponents). Syracuse and Rutgers only got into FBS with a lot of creativity to meet the CFA's completely arbitrary attendance/stadium rules and a huge dose of luck that Penn State liked beating them to a pulp every year and needed them to be FBS to make sure Penn State stayed FBS.

The MAC's case was different. They had to jump through major hoops to stay I-A, in some cases with boosters buying seats to make the CFA's arbitrary numbers. They almost famously didn't make it, and the CFA programs wanted no part of them making it, but they couldn't stop them from skunking their way in. Ultimately the CFA accepted the other schools, and when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, the CFA schools didn't have to share anymore any TV revenue with the MAC anyway, so it didn't matter.

It was never about picking a lane, or philosophy. It was about money. The CFA schools thought they were generating most of the revenue from football on TV, and wanted to greedily keep all of it to themselves and not give any to the rest of the NCAA membership. They created Divisions so they could control the TV money, they then made subdivisions to try to control the TV money, then when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, conferences became the controllers of TV rights, not the NCAA or any factions within. This idea that schools in 1950, 1960, 1970 had any agency to "pick a lane" is absurd. The big schools invented rules designed to exclude them - in fact bonded with the basketball-only schools to jam the rules down the membership's throats - and all the other schools were left to figure out if they could abide by them.


Temple's football was boosted out of the Big East because it was a joke program not even trying to compete. If Temple tried, instead of leeching off the Big East, it might have been selected for the ACC in 2012. Most of the Eastern programs failed themselves. They picked basketball over football or didn't fund football at an acceptable level. I have dealt with WVU fans who bemoaned how Paterno would have 30 more players on the sidelines. Which was perfectly legal by the rules. PSU cared about football while a bunch of other programs wanted to coast along like it would be 1962 forever.

You are right, but it is pretty ironic that one of the very first things Division I-A did was impose scholarship limits on the membership - 105. This was to rein in SWC schools like Texas which sometimes had 200 kids on scholarship!


Most failure stems from programs refusing to try or making foolish mistakes. I will use SFU as an example. The program joined I-AA in 1993 (due to the new rules). At the time, it was performing well in Division III. However, basketball received all the funding and football was left with scraps. The program didn't record a winning season in the I-AA/FCS until 2015. Lots of excuses were offered; Penn State is nearby; Albany was too good in the NEC; bad luck; remote location; etc. The truth? The program wasn't being funded even to NEC levels. A program doesn't have a 16% winning percentage for a decade because of bad luck or location. It fails because baseline support wasn't provided. Once, funding met supportable levels; we won two titles, upset a ranked Liberty team, and played Akron to a double overtime loss.

If Eastern football failed, it is because its teams refused to follow along with progress. College football rapidly changed and those programs didn't.

I definitely defer to you for the SFU story. I'm sure you're right about it being underfunded and once that was rectified competitiveness happily resumed. However, SFU's situation has nothing to do with the history of NCAA divisions.

You say this as if programs all had any choice. Yes, Harvard could have thrown the rest of the Ivies to the curb, scheduled CFA teams and remained FBS. But let's say you're William & Mary in 1977. You have a 15,000 seat stadium. How do you quickly get up to a 30,000 seat stadium to make the CFA's number? It would cost millions of 1970 dollars - if you had the room to do it - if you had the money - if you could even get it online in time to make a difference to meet the attendance requirements. Some actually did this - not surprisingly, in the South, with cheap real estate and loads of room on large, suburban campuses!

Stadium size as a requirement was meant to codify what had already been. Alabama's stadium was already bigger than that. North Carolina's was. The Rose Bowl was. Wake Forest's wasn't - but the 60% rule meant the ACC as a conference could all be I-A schools, so Wake Forest became a I-A school - yet another case of the CFA making exceptions to their own rules to allow the schools they wanted to be I-A. It was a huge uphill battle for the other schools, who had to either be lucky (Rutgers, Syracuse) or cheat (the MAC schools) to make the arbitrary numbers.

Crucially, none of these actors had any idea that the SCOTUS would bust up the NCAA's TV monopoly in 1984. At a stroke conferences added TV rightsholders to their duties and thus became much, much more powerful.

Richmond and William and Mary were University division schools, played ACC schools as peers, and pretty much were doing fine as independents until the CFA came along and put a completely arbitrary requirement on them that was impossible for them to meet. I refuse to believe that they "refused to follow along with progress." William and Mary helped the Ivy League immensely with the Ivy Amendment to waive the attendance requirement for a time. Richmond tried everything in the book to remain I-A - their board essentially required them to keep it - but they were saddled with a city stadium not under their control, so their path to expansion was extremely difficult. Both were actively trying to go through the proper channels to remain I-A, even thinking creatively.

[Go...gate]

You call it chosen irrelevance, but the Ivies were one of several factions of failed reformers within the NCAA. The Ivy Presidents got together in 1948 to come up with Ivy League principles (mostly applicable to football, Penn reluctantly joining late). From 1948 to the 1970s they tried to rein in the big colleges with proposals to ban scholarships. The bigger schools hated it, and when Penn State's Ed Czekaj (with Paterno whispering in his ear, no doubt) had to come up with a definition for what a Division I football program is to the CFA, they purposely created a definition (30,000 seat stadium, 20,000 average attendance) that would cleave the Ivy League in two. Far from choosing irrelevance, the Ivies had it hoisted upon them. In fact, they jousted from 1977 to 1981 trying to keep stadium size/attendance out of the definition, but in 1981 the frog got boiled, and the Ivies were forced to be reclassified.

I don't think that fact gets emphasized enough that the Ivies fought hard to remain Division I - and were successful for some time!

Ironically, Rutgers, Temple and possibly Syracuse would not be FBS today if it wasn't for the Ivy Amendment. Syracuse's stadium only barely and technically met the 30,000 limit, and so did Rutgers'. They needed the time for Penn State and the CFA to goose the rules to make sure they were I-A. In 1982, the CFA made some creative rule changes meaning that a school only had to average 20,000 fans a game home and away - a huge change that meant the large programs like Penn State became difference makers. I'd bet a duck dinner it was to get Syracuse and Rutgers in (two very, very common Penn State opponents). Syracuse and Rutgers only got into FBS with a lot of creativity to meet the CFA's completely arbitrary attendance/stadium rules and a huge dose of luck that Penn State liked beating them to a pulp every year and needed them to be FBS to make sure Penn State stayed FBS.

The MAC's case was different. They had to jump through major hoops to stay I-A, in some cases with boosters buying seats to make the CFA's arbitrary numbers. They almost famously didn't make it, and the CFA programs wanted no part of them making it, but they couldn't stop them from skunking their way in. Ultimately the CFA accepted the other schools, and when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, the CFA schools didn't have to share anymore any TV revenue with the MAC anyway, so it didn't matter.

It was never about picking a lane, or philosophy. It was about money. The CFA schools thought they were generating most of the revenue from football on TV, and wanted to greedily keep all of it to themselves and not give any to the rest of the NCAA membership. They created Divisions so they could control the TV money, they then made subdivisions to try to control the TV money, then when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, conferences became the controllers of TV rights, not the NCAA or any factions within. This idea that schools in 1950, 1960, 1970 had any agency to "pick a lane" is absurd. The big schools invented rules designed to exclude them - in fact bonded with the basketball-only schools to jam the rules down the membership's throats - and all the other schools were left to figure out if they could abide by them.



You are right, but it is pretty ironic that one of the very first things Division I-A did was impose scholarship limits on the membership - 105. This was to rein in SWC schools like Texas which sometimes had 200 kids on scholarship!



I definitely defer to you for the SFU story. I'm sure you're right about it being underfunded and once that was rectified competitiveness happily resumed. However, SFU's situation has nothing to do with the history of NCAA divisions.

You say this as if programs all had any choice. Yes, Harvard could have thrown the rest of the Ivies to the curb, scheduled CFA teams and remained FBS. But let's say you're William & Mary in 1977. You have a 15,000 seat stadium. How do you quickly get up to a 30,000 seat stadium to make the CFA's number? It would cost millions of 1970 dollars - if you had the room to do it - if you had the money - if you could even get it online in time to make a difference to meet the attendance requirements. Some actually did this - not surprisingly, in the South, with cheap real estate and loads of room on large, suburban campuses!

Stadium size as a requirement was meant to codify what had already been. Alabama's stadium was already bigger than that. North Carolina's was. The Rose Bowl was. Wake Forest's wasn't - but the 60% rule meant the ACC as a conference could all be I-A schools, so Wake Forest became a I-A school - yet another case of the CFA making exceptions to their own rules to allow the schools they wanted to be I-A. It was a huge uphill battle for the other schools, who had to either be lucky (Rutgers, Syracuse) or cheat (the MAC schools) to make the arbitrary numbers.

Crucially, none of these actors had any idea that the SCOTUS would bust up the NCAA's TV monopoly in 1984. At a stroke conferences added TV rightsholders to their duties and thus became much, much more powerful.

Richmond and William and Mary were University division schools, played ACC schools as peers, and pretty much were doing fine as independents until the CFA came along and put a completely arbitrary requirement on them that was impossible for them to meet. I refuse to believe that they "refused to follow along with progress." William and Mary helped the Ivy League immensely with the Ivy Amendment to waive the attendance requirement for a time. Richmond tried everything in the book to remain I-A - their board essentially required them to keep it - but they were saddled with a city stadium not under their control, so their path to expansion was extremely difficult. Both were actively trying to go through the proper channels to remain I-A, even thinking creatively.

Well said. BTW, Rutgers was VERY late to the party, as they were not at all unanimous toward bigger-time athletics.

- - - Updated - - -


You call it chosen irrelevance, but the Ivies were one of several factions of failed reformers within the NCAA. The Ivy Presidents got together in 1948 to come up with Ivy League principles (mostly applicable to football, Penn reluctantly joining late). From 1948 to the 1970s they tried to rein in the big colleges with proposals to ban scholarships. The bigger schools hated it, and when Penn State's Ed Czekaj (with Paterno whispering in his ear, no doubt) had to come up with a definition for what a Division I football program is to the CFA, they purposely created a definition (30,000 seat stadium, 20,000 average attendance) that would cleave the Ivy League in two. Far from choosing irrelevance, the Ivies had it hoisted upon them. In fact, they jousted from 1977 to 1981 trying to keep stadium size/attendance out of the definition, but in 1981 the frog got boiled, and the Ivies were forced to be reclassified.

I don't think that fact gets emphasized enough that the Ivies fought hard to remain Division I - and were successful for some time!

Ironically, Rutgers, Temple and possibly Syracuse would not be FBS today if it wasn't for the Ivy Amendment. Syracuse's stadium only barely and technically met the 30,000 limit, and so did Rutgers'. They needed the time for Penn State and the CFA to goose the rules to make sure they were I-A. In 1982, the CFA made some creative rule changes meaning that a school only had to average 20,000 fans a game home and away - a huge change that meant the large programs like Penn State became difference makers. I'd bet a duck dinner it was to get Syracuse and Rutgers in (two very, very common Penn State opponents). Syracuse and Rutgers only got into FBS with a lot of creativity to meet the CFA's completely arbitrary attendance/stadium rules and a huge dose of luck that Penn State liked beating them to a pulp every year and needed them to be FBS to make sure Penn State stayed FBS.

The MAC's case was different. They had to jump through major hoops to stay I-A, in some cases with boosters buying seats to make the CFA's arbitrary numbers. They almost famously didn't make it, and the CFA programs wanted no part of them making it, but they couldn't stop them from skunking their way in. Ultimately the CFA accepted the other schools, and when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, the CFA schools didn't have to share anymore any TV revenue with the MAC anyway, so it didn't matter.

It was never about picking a lane, or philosophy. It was about money. The CFA schools thought they were generating most of the revenue from football on TV, and wanted to greedily keep all of it to themselves and not give any to the rest of the NCAA membership. They created Divisions so they could control the TV money, they then made subdivisions to try to control the TV money, then when the SCOTUS ruined college sports in 1984, conferences became the controllers of TV rights, not the NCAA or any factions within. This idea that schools in 1950, 1960, 1970 had any agency to "pick a lane" is absurd. The big schools invented rules designed to exclude them - in fact bonded with the basketball-only schools to jam the rules down the membership's throats - and all the other schools were left to figure out if they could abide by them.



You are right, but it is pretty ironic that one of the very first things Division I-A did was impose scholarship limits on the membership - 105. This was to rein in SWC schools like Texas which sometimes had 200 kids on scholarship!



I definitely defer to you for the SFU story. I'm sure you're right about it being underfunded and once that was rectified competitiveness happily resumed. However, SFU's situation has nothing to do with the history of NCAA divisions.

You say this as if programs all had any choice. Yes, Harvard could have thrown the rest of the Ivies to the curb, scheduled CFA teams and remained FBS. But let's say you're William & Mary in 1977. You have a 15,000 seat stadium. How do you quickly get up to a 30,000 seat stadium to make the CFA's number? It would cost millions of 1970 dollars - if you had the room to do it - if you had the money - if you could even get it online in time to make a difference to meet the attendance requirements. Some actually did this - not surprisingly, in the South, with cheap real estate and loads of room on large, suburban campuses!

Stadium size as a requirement was meant to codify what had already been. Alabama's stadium was already bigger than that. North Carolina's was. The Rose Bowl was. Wake Forest's wasn't - but the 60% rule meant the ACC as a conference could all be I-A schools, so Wake Forest became a I-A school - yet another case of the CFA making exceptions to their own rules to allow the schools they wanted to be I-A. It was a huge uphill battle for the other schools, who had to either be lucky (Rutgers, Syracuse) or cheat (the MAC schools) to make the arbitrary numbers.

Crucially, none of these actors had any idea that the SCOTUS would bust up the NCAA's TV monopoly in 1984. At a stroke conferences added TV rightsholders to their duties and thus became much, much more powerful.

Richmond and William and Mary were University division schools, played ACC schools as peers, and pretty much were doing fine as independents until the CFA came along and put a completely arbitrary requirement on them that was impossible for them to meet. I refuse to believe that they "refused to follow along with progress." William and Mary helped the Ivy League immensely with the Ivy Amendment to waive the attendance requirement for a time. Richmond tried everything in the book to remain I-A - their board essentially required them to keep it - but they were saddled with a city stadium not under their control, so their path to expansion was extremely difficult. Both were actively trying to go through the proper channels to remain I-A, even thinking creatively.

Well said. BTW, Rutgers was VERY late to the party, as they were not at all unanimous toward bigger-time athletics.

[The Boogie Down]

I think if I went out for drinks with LFN and KRF, I'd probably have more in common with the EngineHawk than the Flasher. But in this latest back-&-forth I gotta agree w/the St. Francis guy.

I did love LFN's deep dive into Richmond's football history and the struggles they faced to remain relevant in a CFA-dominated world. Obviously, although with a very different backstory, it was a struggle the Ivies faced as well. The same could be said for smaller "almost-Ivies," like Holy Cross and Colgate and I appreciate LFN for showing where these other schools were coming from when talking about Richmond. All those "little guy" struggles are especially timely today as the P-4 (eventual P-2) levels anything and everything around it.

But while it's sad to see so many small privates with rich histories fall by the wayside while in the "big state school world" we're currently in, I can't truly ever feel bad for the Ivies. As KRF stated, they choose to take themselves out of the game nearly 100 years ago. Aside fro Penn, who probably went in kicking and screaming, they cemented their decision by creating their little bubble 70 years ago. To me that's very different from say Villanova, who tried fighting the good fight year-after-year until finally having to wave the white flag in 1980.

Since then Villanova has had 2 maybe even 3 offers to move back up into the "big time." Problem is it remains too much of a financial gamble. The Ivies OTOH, could become a Power Conference tomorrow if they wanted. They just don't want to and thumb their noses at schools that do. Too bad. If they did decide to be a Power Conference but still maintained some ethics, it really could give the public a choice between some connection to amateurism and what we have now. Putting the work and money to make an Ivy Power Conference could also inspire other schools to create their own "Magnolia Leagues."

This would never happen but if it did, I know I'd be much more interested in watching old time football (played at a high level) than wherever the soon-to-be P-2 goes next.

For now though, let me correct a couple of things...




Only Penn, since they were still playing a big-time schedule in the 1940s. Those Quakers teams are sadly overlooked. Otherwise, the Ivies are Medieval or Roman Empire era classification. Most Ivies were done (except for random spikes: see Dartmouth in 1970) playing at a major level by the 1950s. Yes, Princeton went undefeated and had a Heisman winner in 1951, but look at the AP Poll rankings, only three ranked Eastern teams. Eastern football had degraded fiercely by the 1930s and intersectional records proved it. Eastern football was carried for decades by Army, Navy, and the Ivies. Then, all those schools either withdrew or couldn't keep up with other schools. Only Penn State arose to consistently keep the Eastern banner. Even the Lambert Cup has ceased to be given out.


The part about the Ivies is true. Except for Penn and some other passing moments here-and-there, the Ivies were out by the early 1930s. That's not to say, however, that Eastern football was out. Nor was Penn State the only post-Ivy Eastern power. Not by a long shot! More in my next post...

[The Boogie Down]

Butterfly effects are tricky because we are rewriting nearly 80-100 years of history but many Ivy football teams could have remained prominent players, at least, until the single-platoon days officially ended. Those rule changes are what ended Rice, Northwestern, Tulane etc as credible football programs for decades and allowed for giant state schools with their stockpile talent to overwhelm foes. Football, like war, generally belongs to the biggest battalions.

Eastern football is the tragic tale of self-inflicted wounds. The last hope was Penn State anchoring the Big East. Instead, folks played hardball, and set the stage for the Eastern independents to be parcel and scattered like the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Look at the carnage:

Yale: withdrew from big time football.
Harvard: same
Cornell: same
Penn: Was a powerhouse in the 1940s. 75,000+ fans, a television contract with ABC (broken by the NCAA. Grr.), diverse and deep schedules.
Colgate: Prominent team through the 1930s.
Princeton: Retained national championship caliber teams through the 1930s.
Pittsburgh: Best program from 1915-1937. Then, their chancellor in a fit of power, devastated the program. Except for 1976-1981, the Panthers have never been elite again.
Army: 1958 was the last elite year. Vietnam, the rise of the NFL, and poor decisions, sank the program. "When Saturday Mattered Most" is a great and bittersweet read on the topic.
Navy: Same boat as Army after the 1960s.
Carlisle: Closed down.
Holy Cross: Stopped competing at the highest level.

And there are other programs. Etc. Etc. No other region has suffered this much attrition. Alabama remains. USC remains. Michigan remains. They were strong in the 1920s and remain today.
College football started in the East and now it is distinctly second fiddle in its birth's region.


I agree with you that for many teams, including the Ivies, you're talking about self-inflicted wounds. But as LFN detailed, that wasn't the case with Richmond. As I mentioned in my previous post, it wasn't the case for Villanova either. But my main problem is you're mixing a bunch of different schools from what, for all intent and purpose, were different groupings and painting them all with the same brush. The history of Eastern football comes with an array of diversity unlike any other region in the land.

Here's how I'd quickly break it down:

I - Schools That Would Later Become the Ivies
These schools (all private) built college football and then dominated college football from its start to the pre-WWI years. They slowed down in the 1920s and by the early '30s were no longer players.

From (roughly) North to South these schools are:
Dartmouth
Harvard
Brown
Yale
Cornell
Columbia
Princeton
Penn


II - The Eastern Seven
These schools (a mix of private, state and federal) had been around for almost as long as the Ivies. I made up "Eastern 7" b/c that sounds like the type of name they would have had had they united to form a league. They often scheduled each other and played at what we would today call the FBS level. Until WWI they were mostly in the shadows of the Ivies. Afterwards, they took the lead when it came to Eastern football. Also, according to some, Army and Navy were more in the pre-Ivies grouping.

From (roughly) North to South these schools are:
Syracuse
Colgate
Army
Penn State
Navy
Pitt
West Virginia



III - Schools That Shoulda Become the Original Big East
These schools spent the early decades playing at what I'd call the D-II level. They're mostly Catholic, mostly urban schools that like the Big East would later do in hoops, decided to play in pro venues and suddenly took the country by storm. Of all the groupings this is the one that was truly "independent." They scheduled nationally and aside from local rivalries (like BC-HC or Fordham-NYU), lost enough of a regional connection to keep from ever forming a league. Too bad b/c it would have been one helluva collection. Instead, much like Notre Dame, they each went their own respective ways. Ironically, many of these schools were led by coaches with Notre Dame ties. Along with Detroit and Marquette in the Midwest as well as St. Mary's and Santa Clara out West, they all seemed to be chasing the dream South Bend built during the golden age of radio, newsreels and newspapers.

And make no mistake, except for Manhattan College which was too small to really compete and NYU which just wasn't that good, every school listed below had a period of dominance. From my signature you can see how many times Fordham was ranked in the UP and early AP polls.

From (roughly) North to South these schools are:
Boston College
Holy Cross
Fordham
Manhattan
NYU
Temple
Villanova
Georgetown
Carnegie Tech
Duquesne

Immediately after WWII this group (really this list of individual schools) began taking hits. Almost overnight they went from dominating rankings and bowl season to slipping below Ivy levels of play. Maybe it was that these "new jacks" simply lacked the tradition and cultural following of the establishment, maybe it was the cost of the platoon system, maybe it was TV, maybe it was simply that these schools, mostly in urban centers, had to deal w/the NFL in ways the ACC, SEC, SWC, Big 8 and Pac 8 didn't, but whatever the reason, except for Villanova who was still "decent" after the war, they all slipped. In an odd twist, while they faltered, the pre-Ivy collection (especially Penn, Princeton and Columbia) had a bit of a resurgence.

That resurgence didn't last as by the mid '50s the Ivy League was officially created and they bubbled themselves out of the "big time." Meanwhile, one-by-one the usurpers of the 1930s began dropping their programs entirely. Of the 10 only 4 (BC, HC, Villanova + Temple but downgraded to a smaller level) made it into the 1955 season.

Around that time HC, like Colgate, slipped into an Ivy-type schedule. BC and Villanova began scheduling more of the other remaining "Eastern 7" schools. Eventually they informally formed into one group referred to as "Major Eastern Indies." They never dominated but did have their moments. Army was great up until the late 1950s. Navy was great up until the early 1960s. Syracuse was great up until the mid 1960s. Penn State went beyond that. For a few years, the early Paterno era, they stood alone. Other schools however, like Pitt and later West Virginia, came and went to add stiff competition for most of the 1970s. Syracuse (and for one magical season, BC) filled that void in the 1980s.

It was only after Penn State announced their move to the Big Ten and the subsequent creation a clumsy looking Big East football conference, that things really started heading south. That's when, aside from Syracuse, all Northeastern schools were dominated by Miami and Va Tech until several followed Miami and Va Tech into the ACC and the rest were indeed scattered like the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Some can blame Penn State's move for the fall. Some can blame the odd makeup of Big East football. As well as their initial reluctance to take in Penn State when given the chance. Me? I blame a lack of earlier leadership. From the mid 1950s (starting with the formation of an official Ivy League as well as the demise of the third grouping of schools listed above) to Penn State's move, the "Major Eastern Indies" had 30 years to create a true league. Even before the Big East was ever formed I have no idea why the Major Eastern Indies never created their own league to begin with. By 1955, or '65, or '75 it just seemed like such an obvious move.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'd like to respectfully disagree with the characterization that the Ivies "tuned out" in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or 1970s. The Ivies came up with an agreement to not offer football scholarships and have certain competitive principles, and expected the rest of the college football world to listen to them and follow suit. It may seem ridiculous now, but the Ivies had their own vision of football and college sports and thought others would follow. (A few did.) And for quite a while some top Ivy teams were worthy AP Top 25 teams, even without "scholarships". Similar to Army or Navy, Harvard and Yale had occasional forays in the Top 25. Then like now, they agreed to no postseason games, which affected their ranking and perception nationally.

Like other Northeastern schools, the Ivy League as a whole didn't "fit in" in terms of a traditional athletics conference. They were more united academically than athletically. In football, Harvard, Yale, Penn and Princeton (in old Palmer Stadium) had fairly large stadiums and Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown had tiny stadiums. (For decades Dartmouth would only play at Harvard!) This is why I said the rules developed by the CFA seemed to be designed to cleave the Ivy League in two - four schools who could probably remain I-A, and four that would have to reclassify to I-AA.

If the Ivies didn't care, why did they fight so hard to remain I-A, especially in 1978? It wasn't bowl revenue, NCAA basketball access, or even TV money. People don't realize the stops they had to pull out to get the "Ivy Amendment" passed over a powerful CFA that had it in for them from the get-go. Again, the fact that the big schools won the war and made college football in their image obscures the fact that the Ivy League believed in what they were doing. They may have been horrible salesmen at it, and had a heaping Ivory Tower way about it, but they believed in it and thought that it was the amateur ideal. You may disagree, but that's what they thought.

[The Boogie Down]

I'd like to respectfully disagree with the characterization that the Ivies "tuned out" in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or 1970s. The Ivies came up with an agreement to not offer football scholarships and have certain competitive principles, and expected the rest of the college football world to listen to them and follow suit. It may seem ridiculous now, but the Ivies had their own vision of football and college sports and thought others would follow. (A few did.) And for quite a while some top Ivy teams were worthy AP Top 25 teams, even without "scholarships". Similar to Army or Navy, Harvard and Yale had occasional forays in the Top 25. Then like now, they agreed to no postseason games, which affected their ranking and perception nationally.

Like other Northeastern schools, the Ivy League as a whole didn't "fit in" in terms of a traditional athletics conference. They were more united academically than athletically. In football, Harvard, Yale, Penn and Princeton (in old Palmer Stadium) had fairly large stadiums and Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown had tiny stadiums. (For decades Dartmouth would only play at Harvard!) This is why I said the rules developed by the CFA seemed to be designed to cleave the Ivy League in two - four schools who could probably remain I-A, and four that would have to reclassify to I-AA.

If the Ivies didn't care, why did they fight so hard to remain I-A, especially in 1978? It wasn't bowl revenue, NCAA basketball access, or even TV money. People don't realize the stops they had to pull out to get the "Ivy Amendment" passed over a powerful CFA that had it in for them from the get-go. Again, the fact that the big schools won the war and made college football in their image obscures the fact that the Ivy League believed in what they were doing. They may have been horrible salesmen at it, and had a heaping Ivory Tower way about it, but they believed in it and thought that it was the amateur ideal. You may disagree, but that's what they thought.

Lemme just close tonight by making clear that when I said the Ivies stopped being a player, I meant on the field. By the early '30s they were performing at a very low level of what we'd today call FBS. Far lower than the rest of the Northeast.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I'd like to respectfully disagree with the characterization that the Ivies "tuned out" in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or 1970s. The Ivies came up with an agreement to not offer football scholarships and have certain competitive principles, and expected the rest of the college football world to listen to them and follow suit. It may seem ridiculous now, but the Ivies had their own vision of football and college sports and thought others would follow. (A few did.) And for quite a while some top Ivy teams were worthy AP Top 25 teams, even without "scholarships". Similar to Army or Navy, Harvard and Yale had occasional forays in the Top 25. Then like now, they agreed to no postseason games, which affected their ranking and perception nationally.

Like other Northeastern schools, the Ivy League as a whole didn't "fit in" in terms of a traditional athletics conference. They were more united academically than athletically. In football, Harvard, Yale, Penn and Princeton (in old Palmer Stadium) had fairly large stadiums and Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown had tiny stadiums. (For decades Dartmouth would only play at Harvard!) This is why I said the rules developed by the CFA seemed to be designed to cleave the Ivy League in two - four schools who could probably remain I-A, and four that would have to reclassify to I-AA.

If the Ivies didn't care, why did they fight so hard to remain I-A, especially in 1978? It wasn't bowl revenue, NCAA basketball access, or even TV money. People don't realize the stops they had to pull out to get the "Ivy Amendment" passed over a powerful CFA that had it in for them from the get-go. Again, the fact that the big schools won the war and made college football in their image obscures the fact that the Ivy League believed in what they were doing. They may have been horrible salesmen at it, and had a heaping Ivory Tower way about it, but they believed in it and thought that it was the amateur ideal. You may disagree, but that's what they thought.

Their "vision" was ridiculous then as it was now. The best chance to "save" CFB was in the late 1920s with the Carnegie Reformers, and even then, the recent construction of massive cathedrals ensured no devoutees were about to change faith. The Rutgers professor in 1869 was right; college football did come to no Christian end.

The Ivies behaved then as they behave now. As if they are the sole keepers of what should be football's Holy Grail standards and everyone else is deemed secular heretics for not following them. Their isolation is/was silly, and by the 1970s, their leaders should have realized the best of both worlds staddling wasn't going to work. The CFA, for all its heavy-handedness, had a clear vision, while the Ivies wanted to remain a patchwork of small stadiums, large arenas, geographical isolation, and minor schedules.

I'm a Raiders fan. Al Davis was a football genius. He was also a crazy maverick who never understood that belonging to a league means obeying its rules. His move to LA made him and the franchise an outcast. The repercussions are still being felt to this day. (Look at how the Raiders were penalized from 1983 compared to the rest of the league. I can provide a link to a study.) The Ivies had every right to follow their beliefs but those thoughts didn't fit with how college football was developing. They wanted to remain "pure" while retaining prestigious D-I status.

Those later Ivy teams in the AP Poll probably weren't top 25 quality. They played regional schedules in the weakest region and refused, unlike Penn State and Pitt, to test themselves in bowl games. Penn State overcame the East's justified poor reputation by scheduling out-of-region foes and winning bowl games. 1970 Dartmouth didn't. Were they top 25 quality? Their wins over teams with winning records were three Ivy teams, none of which won a single non-conference game against a winning team. They landed in the top 25 because the voters were simpletons (still are) who decided by straight record instead of analyzing talent level, regional quality, and opponents. In Dartmouth's defense, they won every game by a touchdown, which is a sign of talent. But I would still have taken every team below them in the top 25 on a neutral field. If a 2024 NEC team only played PL, Ivy, a Division II, and conferences foes and went undefeated, AGS isn't voting them top 10. Nor should they.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree with you that for many teams, including the Ivies, you're talking about self-inflicted wounds. But as LFN detailed, that wasn't the case with Richmond. As I mentioned in my previous post, it wasn't the case for Villanova either. But my main problem is you're mixing a bunch of different schools from what, for all intent and purpose, were different groupings and painting them all with the same brush. The history of Eastern football comes with an array of diversity unlike any other region in the land.

...

It was only after Penn State announced their move to the Big Ten and the subsequent creation a clumsy looking Big East football conference, that things really started heading south. That's when, aside from Syracuse, all Northeastern schools were dominated by Miami and Va Tech until several followed Miami and Va Tech into the ACC and the rest were indeed scattered like the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Some can blame Penn State's move for the fall. Some can blame the odd makeup of Big East football. As well as their initial reluctance to take in Penn State when given the chance. Me? I blame a lack of earlier leadership. From the mid 1950s (starting with the formation of an official Ivy League as well as the demise of the third grouping of schools listed above) to Penn State's move, the "Major Eastern Indies" had 30 years to create a true league. Even before the Big East was ever formed I have no idea why the Major Eastern Indies never created their own league to begin with. By 1955, or '65, or '75 it just seemed like such an obvious move.

Pretty good summary!

It's important IMO to remember that there were a lot of benefits to being an independent in football in the 50s, 60s, and even into the 70s. Schools were not defined and delineated by football the way they are today. The divisions were loose ("College" or "University") and many schools had some sports in "College" and some in "University". In fact there were many "College" division teams in football and other sports that played "University" in hoops. That's where UMass lived.

It was only after - you guessed it - the CFA schools first created Division I (which effectively ended the regime of splitting sports across divisions), then I-AA (which forced smaller schools like UMass, Colgate and Richmond out of I-A) where being in a conference became a necessity. By then, the definitions on "what is a conference" had also shifted - there were an increased number of sports that were required to be sponsored. This made it next to impossible for Eastern schools to bond together. The way Eastern conferences were forming were around basketball - the Atlantic 10 and the Big East - and that was the only practical way to create any new all-sports conference at the time, a long, drawn-out process that only became harder and more impossible as conference became the keepers of TV rights and money.

You know the story of those two conferences. The A-10 chose not to sponsor football, then did (at the I-AA level) then the CAA took that over. The Big East eventually tried to cobble together something, but ultimately failed. Other upstarts like Conference USA tried too.

Penn State I think was in large part to blame for the fall, but more for kicking off the series of events that ultimately caused them a lot of problems. Penn State surely got into the CFA for the money and protecting their turf, and maybe Paterno even believed at first that they could handle the NCAA's problems better than the NCAA, but Paterno didn't foresee the SCOTUS breaking up the NCAA's monopoly over TV, and he probably overplayed his hand in the creation of an Eastern all-sports league with football, causing that to collapse at the exact time being in a conference became a necessity. That's when Paterno went to the Big 10.

Some other notes. BC was a part of the CFA as more of an aspiring I-A team rather than an established power, and I think the vision was to have them be "Notre Dame of the East". They never achieved that but they got Flutie. I think they got in the club with some help from Notre Dame, but I'm not certain about that. BC was one of a few very odd additions of Eastern independents to the CFA mix, notably Syracuse and Rutgers (but not Temple). Curiously, Penn State didn't play BC regularly until 1981, just when BC needed to meet the I-A scheduling requirements (and like Syracuse and Rutgers, they barely made the grade with their stadium size). Based on this, it didn't seem like Paterno had an Eastern college football league as a part of their plan, just other Eastern football independents with which Paterno could do business. As I documented, the qualifications for D-I (and I-A later) seemed to shift just enough and subtly enough so that schools like BC and Syracuse could make it. But because making an Eastern football conference wasn't a part of the CFA's plan, it wasn't ever going to be possible. The CFA's stadium qualifications and approach are what wrecked Eastern football, which I believe to be Paterno's idea.

My other recollection is that many Catholic schools abandoned football in the 1940s and 1950s citing cost as an issue, but a lot of private universities were dropping football because college Presidents didn't like the direction of college football. When U of Chicago did it right before WWII it was very influential. It's worthy of note that the Ivies did not join U of Chicago nor the other private Universities but kept playing the sport.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Their "vision" was ridiculous then as it was now. The best chance to "save" CFB was in the late 1920s with the Carnegie Reformers, and even then, the recent construction of massive cathedrals ensured no devoutees were about to change faith. The Rutgers professor in 1869 was right; college football did come to no Christian end.

The Ivies behaved then as they behave now. As if they are the sole keepers of what should be football's Holy Grail standards and everyone else is deemed secular heretics for not following them. Their isolation is/was silly, and by the 1970s, their leaders should have realized the best of both worlds staddling wasn't going to work. The CFA, for all its heavy-handedness, had a clear vision, while the Ivies wanted to remain a patchwork of small stadiums, large arenas, geographical isolation, and minor schedules.

I'm a Raiders fan. Al Davis was a football genius. He was also a crazy maverick who never understood that belonging to a league means obeying its rules. His move to LA made him and the franchise an outcast. The repercussions are still being felt to this day. (Look at how the Raiders were penalized from 1983 compared to the rest of the league. I can provide a link to a study.) The Ivies had every right to follow their beliefs but those thoughts didn't fit with how college football was developing. They wanted to remain "pure" while retaining prestigious D-I status.

Those later Ivy teams in the AP Poll probably weren't top 25 quality. They played regional schedules in the weakest region and refused, unlike Penn State and Pitt, to test themselves in bowl games. Penn State overcame the East's justified poor reputation by scheduling out-of-region foes and winning bowl games. 1970 Dartmouth didn't. Were they top 25 quality? Their wins over teams with winning records were three Ivy teams, none of which won a single non-conference game against a winning team. They landed in the top 25 because the voters were simpletons (still are) who decided by straight record instead of analyzing talent level, regional quality, and opponents. In Dartmouth's defense, they won every game by a touchdown, which is a sign of talent. But I would still have taken every team below them in the top 25 on a neutral field. If a 2024 NEC team only played PL, Ivy, a Division II, and conferences foes and went undefeated, AGS isn't voting them top 10. Nor should they.

You're not wrong about any of this, however evidently 1970's Dartmouth team fooled a few "simpletons" who voted that the Indians win the Lambert Trophy that year (over Penn State).

But I agree, Ivy scheduling was (and is) insular, their ban on postseason games harmed both their standing in polls and consideration nationally (and still does), and certainly pissed off the CFA schools who didn't like being lectured by Northeast schools that didn't offer scholarships (which doesn't happen now, but also the Ivies have never embraced I-AA/FCS). You could argue that the Ivies didn't realize TV was changing everything and the advent of cable TV seemed like it would be a cash machine for the CFA schools, and as the financial stakes increased the Ivies stuck intransigently to tradition. But up until the 1970s they held a lot of power within the NCAA. The loss of their stranglehold came over time and coincided with the increase in money from TV.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

There is also a conspicuous political/sociopolitcal component to this that I believe is being hinted at but not fully broached. That said, I will lean on others who are more adept to expand upon the relationship between state/public higher education/state legislature/federal government. I'll offer a summary of relevant thoughts...

- From the late 18th century through the mid 20th century Ivy League grads wielded significant political influence at all levels of government. Socially, having the ability to influence public policy, international relations, commerce etc by controlling the democratic process was valued. Then post WWII individual capitalism/the American dollar emerged as the perspicuous vehicle for social control. Thus, Ivy League grads and other grads from the elite privates now pursue careers in the financial, medical, and legal sectors far more than formal political positions.

- Since a large swath of political positions (low, mid and even top ranking positions) were overtaken by graduates of public higher education it became far easier for State U to expand/improve their athletic infrastructure (public zoning), gain public support (what school is more "relatable"?), curtail policies to favor their ambitions etc relative to the Ivy League institutions.

- Paterno was the perfect blend of Ivy League grad (ideology) and successful public employee (head football coach of State U). The combination of the two allowed JoePa to ascend to a Godlike figure at Penn State and within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And because of the state's historical prominence in the Northeast, an entire region of the country. Rather than being humble with the power/influence he held, Paterno instead operated as if he were an Italian Don overseeing a college football racket. He strong-armed Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, and to a lesser extent Boston College into submission. BTW, what DID happen to DA Ray Gricar?

[Go...gate]

There is also a conspicuous political/sociopolitcal component to this that I believe is being hinted at but not fully broached. That said, I will lean on others who are more adept to expand upon the relationship between state/public higher education/state legislature/federal government. I'll offer a summary of relevant thoughts...

- From the late 18th century through the mid 20th century Ivy League grads wielded significant political influence at all levels of government. Socially, having the ability to influence public policy, international relations, commerce etc by controlling the democratic process was valued. Then post WWII individual capitalism/the American dollar emerged as the perspicuous vehicle for social control. Thus, Ivy League grads and other grads from the elite privates now pursue careers in the financial, medical, and legal sectors far more than formal political positions.

- Since a large swath of political positions (low, mid and even top ranking positions) were overtaken by graduates of public higher education it became far easier for State U to expand/improve their athletic infrastructure (public zoning), gain public support (what school is more "relatable"?), curtail policies to favor their ambitions etc relative to the Ivy League institutions.

- Paterno was the perfect blend of Ivy League grad (ideology) and successful public employee (head football coach of State U). The combination of the two allowed JoePa to ascend to a Godlike figure at Penn State and within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And because of the state's historical prominence in the Northeast, an entire region of the country. Rather than being humble with the power/influence he held, Paterno instead operated as if he were an Italian Don overseeing a college football racket. He strong-armed Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, and to a lesser extent Boston College into submission. BTW, what DID happen to DA Ray Gricar?

Sadly, you are more correct about Paterno than you may realize. He held outsized power and influence after the 1982 National Championship and things only got worse.

[The Boogie Down]

Rather than being humble with the power/influence he held, Paterno instead operated as if he were an Italian Don overseeing a college football racket. He strong-armed Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, and to a lesser extent Boston College into submission. BTW, what DID happen to DA Ray Gricar?


Sadly, you are more correct about Paterno than you may realize. He held outsized power and influence after the 1982 National Championship and things only got worse.

I think, with help from one NECer, Patsy fans are back to in-season form. Yet another successful threadjacking and we're not even in September yet xthumbsupx

Extra cred to us for not talking up some snowed out Palmer Stadium game back in 1971 and instead touching on the history of FBS football in the Northeast. So, since, we're here, I'd like to know more about Paterno's influence over the region. From what I've heard, back in the early 1980s, he wanted to get Penn State into the Big East. He probably wanted the league to add football too. Instead they went with Pitt and later that decade Paterno looked towards the Big Ten. That move then doomed Big East football before it was even born. But from the comments above, it feels as if there's more to the story. What am I missing?xdontknowx

[SDFS]

I have found the thread drift very interesting. I have learned a lot about the history of New England football. I thought that this was interesting. It sounds like the Yankee Conference Championship is back.

https://sacredheartpioneers.com/news/2024/8/21/shu-merrimack-football-to-play-for-the-yankee-conference-championship.aspx?utm_source=www.extrapointsmb.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=the-yankee-conference-is-back&_bhlid=68b41d11c08e2b19b3f1a67dbb82a45971210bd9

Sacred Heart and Merrimack jointly announced today their football programs will compete for The Yankee Conference Championship presented by LEONA on Nov. 16 at Merrimack.

[Baron Sardonicus]

I have found the thread drift very interesting. I have learned a lot about the history of New England football. I thought that this was interesting. It sounds like the Yankee Conference Championship is back.

https://sacredheartpioneers.com/news/2024/8/21/shu-merrimack-football-to-play-for-the-yankee-conference-championship.aspx?utm_source=www.extrapointsmb.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=the-yankee-conference-is-back&_bhlid=68b41d11c08e2b19b3f1a67dbb82a45971210bd9

Sacred Heart and Merrimack jointly announced today their football programs will compete for The Yankee Conference Championship presented by LEONA on Nov. 16 at Merrimack.

I would have thought someone else owned rights to the Yankee Conference name.

[MR. CHICKEN]

I would have thought someone else owned rights to the Yankee Conference name.

33422



.....AH'M THINKIN'......SOMEBODAH.....OMITTED "DOODLE"........BRAWK!

[DFW HOYA]

I would have thought someone else owned rights to the Yankee Conference name.

About as relevant as UIW playing Houston Christian in the "SWC Classic".

[MR. CHICKEN]

There is also a conspicuous political/sociopolitcal component to this that I believe is being hinted at but not fully broached. That said, I will lean on others who are more adept to expand upon the relationship between state/public higher education/state legislature/federal government. I'll offer a summary of relevant thoughts...

- From the late 18th century through the mid 20th century Ivy League grads wielded significant political influence at all levels of government. Socially, having the ability to influence public policy, international relations, commerce etc by controlling the democratic process was valued. Then post WWII individual capitalism/the American dollar emerged as the perspicuous vehicle for social control. Thus, Ivy League grads and other grads from the elite privates now pursue careers in the financial, medical, and legal sectors far more than formal political positions.

- Since a large swath of political positions (low, mid and even top ranking positions) were overtaken by graduates of public higher education it became far easier for State U to expand/improve their athletic infrastructure (public zoning), gain public support (what school is more "relatable"?), curtail policies to favor their ambitions etc relative to the Ivy League institutions.

- Paterno was the perfect blend of Ivy League grad (ideology) and successful public employee (head football coach of State U). The combination of the two allowed JoePa to ascend to a Godlike figure at Penn State and within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And because of the state's historical prominence in the Northeast, an entire region of the country. Rather than being humble with the power/influence he held, Paterno instead operated as if he were an Italian Don overseeing a college football racket. He strong-armed Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, and to a lesser extent Boston College into submission. BTW, what DID happen to DA Ray Gricar?

.....SUICDE.....MURDERED....OR......OFF TA START UH NEW LIFE......THERE WERE ENOUGH CLUES.....THAT ANYONE OF THOSE.....COULD'VE HAPPENEND..........HIS BROTHER ROY COMMITTED SUICIDE.........HE REFUSED TA PROSECUTE SANDUSKY.....MAYBE UH PARENT OF HIS VICTIMS....TOOK JUSTICE INTA THEIR OWN HANDS.....OR.....AN OFF-DUTY COP..... SAW GRICAR.....IN UH BAR.....NOT LONG AFTER REPORTED MISSIN'....HE'D BE CLOSE TA 80 YEARS OLD NOW.........DATELINE........DID UH SHOW ON HIS CASE..........BRAWK!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Gricar's case is fascinating. His Mini Cooper with his DNA and cigarette ashes in it (which were not his) was found in, of all places, Lewisburg, PA, home of Bucknell University.

https://www.northcentralpa.com/news/crime/the-case-for-missing-centre-county-da-is-still-open-18-years-after-his-disappearance/article_bd9c8842-059a-11ee-bcc4-f36812feeaba.html


The laptop could be a key piece to the puzzling case. Fisherman found Gricar's laptop in late July 2005 lodged against a bridge support in the Susquehanna River several hundred yards from where his car was found. Investigators determined the hard drive had been removed before the computer was thrown in the river. They also determined the laptop had been in the water for a long time, possibly since the time of Gricar's disappearance. His family told police Gricar didn't typically take the laptop on trips with him.

More than six months after Gricar's disappearance, in October 2005, his laptop's hard drive was found on the banks of the Susquehanna River. It was so badly damaged that investigators could not recover information from it. Later on, investigators found that someone had conducted searches from Gricar's home computer for "how to wreck a hard drive" and "water damage to a notebook computer," according to Crimestoppers.

To me, this takes "starting over a new anonymous life" off the table. One theory I haven't seen floated was that someone found him (maybe a member of organized crime) at his home address, kidnapped him, an murdered him. (Probably unrelated to the Sandusky case.) I do believe the delays and botch of the investigation of the murder was helped along by Tom Corbett, who may have thought Gricar had some stuff on Sandusky that would reflect badly on Corbett. But I don't believe his murder and that to be related directly.

I bet, though, the laptop had incriminating evidence about Sandusky on it.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Gricar's case is fascinating. His Mini Cooper with his DNA and cigarette ashes in it (which were not his) was found in, of all places, Lewisburg, PA, home of Bucknell University.

https://www.northcentralpa.com/news/crime/the-case-for-missing-centre-county-da-is-still-open-18-years-after-his-disappearance/article_bd9c8842-059a-11ee-bcc4-f36812feeaba.html



To me, this takes "starting over a new anonymous life" off the table. One theory I haven't seen floated was that someone found him (maybe a member of organized crime) at his home address, kidnapped him, an murdered him. (Probably unrelated to the Sandusky case.) I do believe the delays and botch of the investigation of the murder was helped along by Tom Corbett, who may have thought Gricar had some stuff on Sandusky that would reflect badly on Corbett. But I don't believe his murder and that to be related directly.

I bet, though, the laptop had incriminating evidence about Sandusky on it.




....GRICAR WAS....SOMEWHAT UH LADIES MAN.....MARRIED TWICE AND HAD UH GIRLFRIEND WHEN HE WENT MISSIN'........HIS DAUGHTER & GIRLIE....BOTH PASSED UH LIE DETECTOR EXAM......WAS HE RUNNIN' ANOTHER WOMAN?.....THAT COOD PROMPT......UH NEW LIFE?

The third theory is that Gricar wished to start a new life and therefore engineered his disappearance. He allegedly expressed interest in the case of a Cleveland police chief who had disappeared in order to start a new life. Multiple sightings of Gricar were reported after his disappearance, most notably in a bar in Wilkes-Barre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkes-Barre), where both the bartender and an off-duty police officer claimed to have seen him watching a baseball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball) game.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Gricar#cite_note-23) It has also been suggested that Gricar may have taken off to central Europe; he was semi-fluent in Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language) and fluent in Slovenian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_language). He had relatives in Slovenia and had made trips to this region of the world in the past.

[SU DOG]

I haven't kept up with this thread, so I may be repeating somebody, but I don't want to go back through 10 pages. If a football team increases their schollys to 105 wouldn't there be a large group of malcontents on their team? I mean even at 85 there is often a large number of these guys that are convinced that they deserve much more playing time. We have seen this in P4 and G group Portal entries for some time. There are only so many players that can reach the field in a game and it's nowhere near 105. Could it be that Portal entry numbers and possible FCS signings will not be affected very much?

My apologies if this thought has been covered.