Reduce scholarship maximums due to economy?

[MplsBison]

Do you think we'll see a push to reduce scholarship maximum levels due to the slumping economy, football or elsewhere?

[Bull Fan]

Yes. No doubt. I personally think this is being discussed in the ivory towers of most universities, despite what anyone says, and what any media outlet reports. As corporate America cuts jobs, I can't imagine the intellectuals aren't talking about taking measures that are slightly akin to job cuts themselves.

It comes down to self-preservation; the first thing you cut are your variable expenses, and I would believe scholarships are variable in the big picture. When all variable costs are trimmed, they move onto staffing costs. Trust me, they look at anything to cut before they will cut heads, or in this case, professorships.

Doesn't mean you cut scholarships forever, you just adjust with the times... we're in the third inning of this nightmare, if you're putting it in baseball parlance.

[danefan]

I think he is saying will schools be increasing scholarships? Right?

I think they will actually increase scholarships. See press release from my law school yesterday:



Albany Law School Announces That It Will Not Raise Tuition Next Year
Institution Will Increase Scholarship Money Awarded to Students

Albany, N.Y. - Albany Law School today announced that it will not increase tuition for the 2009-2010 school year. Recognizing the significant financial stress that students and prospective students are under, the Board of Trustees accepted the Administration's recommendation that tuition not be increased next year.

"We are pleased that our current and incoming students will not face any tuition increases next year," said President & Dean Thomas F. Guernsey. "Costs, however, continue to rise due to inflationary pressures - from library acquisitions to health care to routine building maintenance - so we need to be diligent in our cost savings moving forward."

Guernsey continued: "Staff members of the law school are working to identify areas where we can reduce spending to offset these inflationary pressures without undercutting academic programming."

A survey of other law schools shows sharp tuition increases, from three percent to as much as 15 percent, as well as double-digit budget cuts and the possibility of faculty salary cuts at some law schools.

"We think this is the time, more than ever, to support students," said Guernsey. To that end, he plans to increase the scholarship money awarded next year, up from $4.3 million this year.

Albany Law School's tuition is currently $38,900, the third-to-lowest tuition rate of the 13 private law schools in New York state.

[Bull Fan]

This is certainly going to be the exception and not the rule. Also, Albany being a state U you will have the benefit of folks economizing rather than applying to the privates. I'm slightly confused, or naive, about the last sentence... private law school?

[danefan]

This is certainly going to be the exception and not the rule. Also, Albany being a state U you will have the benefit of folks economizing rather than applying to the privates. I'm slightly confused, or naive, about the last sentence... private law school?

Albany law is a private law school - they aren't affiliated with UAlbany.

My posting that was an example of the measures I believe many private schools will be taking (both undergrad and post-grad). I think you'll see a lot of schools dipping into their reserves.

[Bull Fan]

Does UAlbany have their own law school, or is Albany Law "the" law school up there? Hadn't known this....

[89Hen]

Do you think we'll see a push to reduce scholarship maximum levels due to the slumping economy, football or elsewhere?
I hope not. Just like the interview with Jim Calhoun the other night.

[Bull Fan]

Calhoun: It WAS an embarrassment- to himself, the university, students, the state and anyone who makes 1.6mm+ a year (outside the athletics / entertainment industries....). He was baited hook, line and sinker, and he failed. There's a way he should have handled that, and he did anything but.

[DFW HOYA]

Another scenario--reducing rosters. A team would like to have 100 on the squad, but 85-90 may work just as well.

[89Hen]

Calhoun: It WAS an embarrassment- to himself, the university, students, the state and anyone who makes 1.6mm+ a year (outside the athletics / entertainment industries....). He was baited hook, line and sinker, and he failed. There's a way he should have handled that, and he did anything but.
The salary is an embarrassment? The fact that the person asked the question? How he answered?

[Bull Fan]

The salary is an embarrassment? The fact that the person asked the question? How he answered?

I have no problem with his salary, and could care less if he made 100mm... that's between him and the U. I'm all for what the market will bear an individual.

The question asked (and I won't call him a reporter) was in the wrong forum, and was poorly placed. He was grandstanding, as supposedly is his nature...

My beef is with Calhoun. He's not a kid, this isn't his first rodeo. He's a seasoned coach who should be on his best behavior at all times... he's a figurehead and ambassador to that university. He should be conducting his behavior with more class and dignity than he did that night... essentially acting like you've got cameras and microphones in your face, and what you say is going to be broadcast and repeated many times over.

Where his salary comes into play is yes, he gets paid a handsome rate, plus other comp from outside endeavors. I'd think that the university, athletic department and his other funding sources probably slumped over with that display. For the money (and I'm not complaining about it), he should be acting accordingly... The appropriate response could've been to not answer the question, tell the 'reporter' he'll speak with him offline in a different setting.

Again, I have zero gripe with his compensation. But to act as he did ("Not a dime back") comes across as boorish and out of touch with the general state of affairs, and he instantly went defensive. Not a good vision, and I could imagine the first impression that would make on anyone seeing that footage. Not good for UConn, from top to bottom....

[bluehenbillk]

Hard to believe you'd see scholarships get cut today. Didn't you guys listen to Obama, his 3 big pushes were energy, health care and EDUCATION.

If a school is having financial issues they can always pimp themsleves out like Furman did.

[MplsBison]

Another scenario--reducing rosters. A team would like to have 100 on the squad, but 85-90 may work just as well.

Well that's another one I was thinking of, but more along the lines of title IX.


The NFL rosters are what, 60?


Why are FBS schools allowed to have 85 scholarship players, no less walkons?


Maybe 63 should be the maximum period?

[danefan]

Does UAlbany have their own law school, or is Albany Law "the" law school up there? Hadn't known this....

Albany Law is the law school in Albany - UA doesn't have any professional schools.

Albany law is the oldest independent law school in country but many dual Alumns (myself included) have been pushing for a merger of the two. There are joint degree programs available now and most people think the two schools are the same now anyway.

[MplsBison]

Does SUNY have a law school?

[Bull Fan]

There are joint degree programs available now and most people think the two schools are the same now anyway.

Exactly, that was my thinking xsmhx

[danefan]

Does SUNY have a law school?

Yes - Buffalo has a law school.

Stony Brook is in the process of literally buying a crappy law school and Binghamton is in the process of studying whether they will open one themselves.

Opening new law schools make no sense, especially in NY where there already a lot of the nation's top law schools (Cornell, Columbia, NYU, etc...).

[MplsBison]

Yes - Buffalo has a law school.

Stony Brook is in the process of literally buying a crappy law school and Binghamton is in the process of studying whether they will open one themselves.

Opening new law schools make no sense, especially in NY where there already a lot of the nation's top law schools (Cornell, Columbia, NYU, etc...).

Apparantly, not everyone in NY is rich and can afford private law school.


I should have guessed Buffalo has a public law school, flagship campus of SUNY and all.

[danefan]

Apparantly, not everyone in NY is rich and can afford private law school.


I should have guessed Buffalo has a public law school, flagship campus of SUNY and all.

You don't need to be rich to afford private law school - you just need to be smart (scholarships are plentiful) or willing to take on a ton of loans.

But NY definitely needs another public law school - it just doesn't need to build one. SBU's purchase of an already existing law school or UAlbany's merger with Albany Law makes infinitely more sense than Binghamton building a new law school. It makes more sense to have Albany Law merged into the SUNY system when compared to buying Touro law (which SBU is trying to do). Touro law is not a good law school - Albany Law has a storied history with many succesful alumns.

And CUNY does have a law school as well - but I don't consider that SUNY - even though CUNY falls under the SUNY budget.

And BTW - SUNY has 4 Flagship campuses (University Centers) each of which offers something distinct. UB does have professional schools (law, dental, etc.) but Albany, Bing and SBU offer post-graduate and doctoral degrees as well.

[89Hen]

Again, I have zero gripe with his compensation. But to act as he did ("Not a dime back") comes across as boorish and out of touch with the general state of affairs, and he instantly went defensive. Not a good vision, and I could imagine the first impression that would make on anyone seeing that footage. Not good for UConn, from top to bottom....
That's your opinion. I like the fact that he embarrassed the jackass that asked the question. THAT's who was embarrassed IMO and rightfully so. xpeacex

[Bull Fan]

That's your opinion. I like the fact that he embarrassed the jackass that asked the question. THAT's who was embarrassed IMO and rightfully so. xpeacex

Duly noted... but put yourself in the position of his employers, and the folks that he represents. This is by no means a highlight for Calhoun....

[89Hen]

Duly noted... but put yourself in the position of his employers, and the folks that he represents. This is by no means a highlight for Calhoun....
Agreed. I think I'd be equally pissed at the lackey that gave that "reporter" a press credential to the Dunkin Donuts Center (sorry, that name cracks me up). :p

[JayJ79]

I think he is saying will schools be increasing scholarships? Right?

I think they will actually increase scholarships. See press release from my law school yesterday:

Wasn't the original question in regards to reduction in ATHLETIC scholarships?
And you counter with an example of a law school increasing scholarships (none of which would be athletic scholarships).

That is two different scenarios.

[danefan]

Wasn't the original question in regards to reduction in ATHLETIC scholarships?
And you counter with an example of a law school increasing scholarships (none of which would be athletic scholarships).

That is two different scenarios.

OK first of all - I asked what he meant and he didn't respond that I misinterpreted his comment.

I interpreted his question asking as whether or not scholarship maximums would go away (meaning no limits).

My post was about the increase in scholarships in general - my example was something that was clearly relevant to that topic.

And if you take the time to post - why don't you add a comment yourself, instead of just critiquing another's comments?

[mebisonII]

Universities certainly are looking at cutting jobs and so on, but I can't imagine most of them cutting fb scholarships.

Reducing rosters or dropping smaller-profile sports I could definately see.

[Bull Fan]

With all due respect danefan, you veered off topic in the first place. MplsBison's initial post was clearly about athletic schollies.

[danefan]

With all due respect danefan, you veered off topic in the first place. MplsBison's initial post was clearly about athletic schollies.

Point taken. My post was just about the economy being a catalyst to increasing scholarships. Whether athletic or not, I thought that was relevant.

[MplsBison]

I guess I had imagined a discussion on if the NCAA would lower the maximum scholarships offerable in DI athletics due to the slumping economy.

Anyone think the NCAA will take action?

[danefan]

I guess I had imagined a discussion on if the NCAA would lower the maximum scholarships offerable in DI athletics due to the slumping economy.

Anyone think the NCAA will take action?

Thanks for the clarification - I misunderstood your question. xpeacex

I don't think that will happen. Schools are free to give whatever they want to give. If a school can't afford to give the max, then so be it. They'll have to live with whatever consequences that entails.

Somewhat similar to what I posted before - I could see private schools giving more scholarships (academic and athletic) than before because of the slumping economy to avoid the potential of students chosing state schools instead.

[JayJ79]

OK first of all - I asked what he meant and he didn't respond that I misinterpreted his comment.

I interpreted his question asking as whether or not scholarship maximums would go away (meaning no limits).

My post was about the increase in scholarships in general - my example was something that was clearly relevant to that topic.

And if you take the time to post - why don't you add a comment yourself, instead of just critiquing another's comments?

Reducing scholarship maximums means lowering the maximum number of allowable scholarships. For instance, lowering the 85 (or whatever) allowable FBS football scholarships down to 80 or something.

Schools aren't going to make such reductions on their own, because it would reduce their ability to compete with other institutions (that didn't reduce their scholarships). But the NCAA could change the overall number of scholarships allowed for a sport and have it apply to all programs in that particular division/subdivision, thus keeping things equal.


Now it is important to maintain our EDUCATIONAL system even through times of economic recession and whatnot, because without a strong educational system, the overall quality of our workforce suffers, and that hurts us economically.

However, let's be honest here, a large percentage of football players go to college primarily to play football. Sure, many of them do manage to get an education while they are at it, but that is not their primary focus, and they tend to stick to less intense academic majors. (again, there are notable exceptions).

Thus, cutting athletic scholarships doesn't impact the overall EDUCATIONAL level. But it could free up a sizable amount of funding for the colleges and universities, which could apply that money towards the actual educational needs. But since it is only a scholarship reduction, the football program can still continue to bring in the revenue (as opposed to completely cutting the program, which cuts off that revenue stream)

[MplsBison]

Reducing scholarship maximums means lowering the maximum number of allowable scholarships. For instance, lowering the 85 (or whatever) allowable FBS football scholarships down to 80 or something.

Schools aren't going to make such reductions on their own, because it would reduce their ability to compete with other institutions (that didn't reduce their scholarships). But the NCAA could change the overall number of scholarships allowed for a sport and have it apply to all programs in that particular division/subdivision, thus keeping things equal.


Now it is important to maintain our EDUCATIONAL system even through times of economic recession and whatnot, because without a strong educational system, the overall quality of our workforce suffers, and that hurts us economically.

However, let's be honest here, a large percentage of football players go to college primarily to play football. Sure, many of them do manage to get an education while they are at it, but that is not their primary focus, and they tend to stick to less intense academic majors. (again, there are notable exceptions).

Thus, cutting athletic scholarships doesn't impact the overall EDUCATIONAL level. But it could free up a sizable amount of funding for the colleges and universities, which could apply that money towards the actual educational needs. But since it is only a scholarship reduction, the football program can still continue to bring in the revenue (as opposed to completely cutting the program, which cuts off that revenue stream)


Thanks for the post, this is more along the lines of what I was thinking as well.


Also, endowments and booster funding will be down. A lot of schools depend on that money to fund scholarships. Athletic departments are going to be looking for cash from somewhere.


The NCAA could take care of that by reducing the maximums.



You're exactly right when you point out that schools will give the maximum in order to stay competitive.

[Bull Fan]

I think reading stories about Ohio State's athletic department seeing red is a HUGE indication, and the top of the iceberg. If you think they're the only troubled school out there, boy, that's an optimistic view of life....

Don't think for a minute that universities aren't meeting with their conference peers, who in turn will meet collectively with the NCAA. We're in troubled times- boosters are going to start to give a little bit less, endowments have shrunk, and will continue to shrink since they're tied to the financial markets, and across the board, pain is going to be felt in damn near EVERY budget across this country, no matter what industry you're talking about. College athletics are not immune to cutbacks....

That's my .02....

[henfan]

How about schools start dipping deeper into their endowments to reduce tuition rates due to the economy? What are the chances of that happening at any university?

[danefan]

How about schools start dipping deeper into their endowments to reduce tuition rates due to the economy? What are the chances of that happening at any university?

I think there is a greater chance of that happening than a reduction in scholarships.

[89Hen]

How about schools start dipping deeper into their endowments to reduce tuition rates due to the economy? What are the chances of that happening at any university?
I'm always hoping Maryland decides to increase their tuition at record pace. I did the prepaid tuition thing in MD, so I want them to be as high as possible when I send my kids out of state. :p

[danefan]

Reducing scholarship maximums means lowering the maximum number of allowable scholarships. For instance, lowering the 85 (or whatever) allowable FBS football scholarships down to 80 or something.

Schools aren't going to make such reductions on their own, because it would reduce their ability to compete with other institutions (that didn't reduce their scholarships). But the NCAA could change the overall number of scholarships allowed for a sport and have it apply to all programs in that particular division/subdivision, thus keeping things equal.


Now it is important to maintain our EDUCATIONAL system even through times of economic recession and whatnot, because without a strong educational system, the overall quality of our workforce suffers, and that hurts us economically.

However, let's be honest here, a large percentage of football players go to college primarily to play football. Sure, many of them do manage to get an education while they are at it, but that is not their primary focus, and they tend to stick to less intense academic majors. (again, there are notable exceptions).

Thus, cutting athletic scholarships doesn't impact the overall EDUCATIONAL level. But it could free up a sizable amount of funding for the colleges and universities, which could apply that money towards the actual educational needs. But since it is only a scholarship reduction, the football program can still continue to bring in the revenue (as opposed to completely cutting the program, which cuts off that revenue stream)


Good post, but I think you are way wrong on your comment that I've bolded.

Sure it happens at major FBS programs, but contrary to what you say, I believe the excpetion is those who go to school just to play football. Many kids don't have the opportunity (money) to go to the school they go to without football, but a lot of those kids would still go to school if they couldn't play. Just a less expensive alternative.

A very small percentage of kids go to school to further their football career. Think about the vast number of kids playing football on scholarship at FBS, FCS, DII and NAIA and compare that to the number of kids playing after college.

[Retro]

It really doesn't make any sense for the NCAA to make any scholarship rule changes in a knee-jerk reaction to the economy.. It's a maximum rule, not a minimum rule, so schools can reduce the amount of scholarships they have voluntarily to save money, but most won't so they can remain competitive in Div I football..

If a school like Ohio State is in the red financially, it probably has more to do with over-spending and trying to keep up with the jones's in the conference.. School's can save more by not over-extending themselves by cutting back on unnecessary athletic perks and improvements just to out do another school in conference...

If Ohio State can't balance the books considering the success they've had in recent years, they are clearly wasting money or paying for stuff they don't need, be it coaches, newer faciltiies, extended travel costs and so on...

The FCS is cost containment football at the D-I level and most schools do a good job of financial responsibilty.. The ones that don't are usually those as stated above who over-spend for unnecessary reasons or in the case of some Swac schools rely on big classic games in major markets just to break even and probably shouldn't be offering 63 Scholarships to begin with.. Other's probably need to be in D-II if they constantly struggle to stay above the mendoza line.

[Ronbo]

Well that's another one I was thinking of, but more along the lines of title IX.


The NFL rosters are what, 60?


Why are FBS schools allowed to have 85 scholarship players, no less walkons?


Maybe 63 should be the maximum period?

If FBS went to 65 we would go to 50. I'd guarantee it.

[MplsBison]

If FBS went to 65 we would go to 50. I'd guarantee it.


THat may be correct.


Is it wrong though, given the economy we have now? And it will get worse.


Maybe football needs to think about cutting back?

[MplsBison]

What if we simply got rid of the redshirt program?


You say that all football players have 4 year to play 4 seasons and that's it.


That would reduce numbers by around 20 and you could cut max scholarships by 20.

[RichH2]

gIVEN THE LOSSES MOST ENDOWNMENTS HAVE SUFFERED UNLIKELY THAT SCHOOLS WHICH ALREADY USE SOME PORTION TO COVER OPERATING EXPENSES WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE LADLE TO SUPPORT ATHLETIC AID AT OUR LEVEL. IVIES EXCEPTED AS THEY COULD AFFORD TO GIVE FULL SCHOLARSHIPS TO ALL OF OUR SCHOOLS' SQUADS

[Seawolf97]

Schools are already dropping entire programs such as UNI and Vermont-both are dropping baseball and Vermont will also drop softball. I suspect whatever funds were used for these sports will either prop up the marquee sports such as football, basketball etc or just be used to balance the budget.
Reducing scholarships in football or in other sports may be more of reality than we may like if this recession deepens over time.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

Agreed. I think I'd be equally pissed at the lackey that gave that "reporter" a press credential to the Dunkin Donuts Center (sorry, that name cracks me up). :p


Do they call it "The Munchkin?"

FWIW I liked the way he handled the "reporter".

[Go...gate]

Albany Law is the law school in Albany - UA doesn't have any professional schools.

Albany law is the oldest independent law school in country but many dual Alumns (myself included) have been pushing for a merger of the two. There are joint degree programs available now and most people think the two schools are the same now anyway.

This happened to Dickinson School of Law (where I got my JD - it was the oldest independent law school in the country (1803) which is now merged with Penn State. I had mixed feelings about it. Dickinson worked us to death but we got a marvelous education. Penn State, however, poured a lot of $$ into Dickinson, which really helped the law school. I'm betting Albany would realize the same benefits.

[danefan]

This happened to Dickinson School of Law (where I got my JD - it was the oldest independent law school in the country (1803) which is now merged with Penn State. I had mixed feelings about it. Dickinson worked us to death but we got a marvelous education. Penn State, however, poured a lot of $$ into Dickinson, which really helped the law school. I'm betting Albany would realize the same benefits.

I agree.....and Albany couldn't use its "oldest independent law school" slogan until Dickenson merged into Penn State. xlolx Now they love to use it.

[Bull Fan]

Do they call it "The Munchkin?"

FWIW I liked the way he handled the "reporter".

I have a friend who graduated from PC, and still follows them closely on all accounts. He affectionately refers to the joint as "The Dunk". Much in the same way that when we gather for coffee every so often in the city, we say to each other, "let's head for the Dunk for some joe".... ;)

[NDB]

As soon as I strike it rich, I'm endowing an independent law school across the street from NDSU.

Lucky Lotto here I come...

[AppMan]

That's your opinion. I like the fact that he embarrassed the jackass that asked the question. THAT's who was embarrassed IMO and rightfully so. xpeacex

I totally agree.

[AppMan]

This talk of reducing scholarships, cutting Redshirts, ect appears to be more of an attempt to level the playing field than anything else.

[Bull Fan]

I totally agree.

He could have come out smelling like a rose on this had he handled it differently.

By diffusing the questioner, and by diplomatically offering to have an at-length discussion, he could have certainly expanded on his position. Calhoun's facts certainly support his stance, but literally with all eyes and ears on him, he just fired a cannon where he should have offered the proverbial olive branch.

...Though blowing off steam and giving the heave-ho to your antagonist at times does feel good ;)...

[Bull Fan]

This talk of reducing scholarships, cutting Redshirts, ect appears to be more of an attempt to level the playing field than anything else.

You could read into that way, but this is going to be more of an economic issue. I-AA teams just don't have the revenue to support their programs to begin with, and it's going to get tougher.

[Hansel]

This talk of reducing scholarships, cutting Redshirts, ect appears to be more of an attempt to level the playing field than anything else.

Maybe schools like App St/Montana/Delaware could pay for scholarships at PFL schools

it would create more parity within the division and be more fair

[MplsBison]

You could read into that way, but this is going to be more of an economic issue. I-AA teams just don't have the revenue to support their programs to begin with, and it's going to get tougher.

Yes, this is generally what I was trying to get at.


As I've pointed out, NFL teams have 53 man roster, why do FBS and FCS teams need 85 players with some form of scholarship?

[JayJ79]

Yes, this is generally what I was trying to get at.


As I've pointed out, NFL teams have 53 man roster, why do FBS and FCS teams need 85 players with some form of scholarship?

53 on the gameday roster, perhaps.

How many are on the practice and reserve squads?

[MplsBison]

53 on the gameday roster, perhaps.

How many are on the practice and reserve squads?

53 man active and 8 man practice squad.


I think the point is still that NCAA football roster sizes could be trimmed and perhaps eliminate the redshirt program to free up the need for about another 20 scholarships and have a 4 class team vs. a 5 class team.

[UAalum72]

Of course the NFL can cut a player in midseason and hire a free agent if needed, colleges can't.

But the NFL has a longer season.

Making do with a smaller roster would also ease Title IX considerations.

[MplsBison]

Of course the NFL can cut a player in midseason and hire a free agent if needed, colleges can't.

But the NFL has a longer season.

Making do with a smaller roster would also ease Title IX considerations.

Yes I was thinking about it before for title IX, but the economy gives another excuse to get this change done.

[DFW HOYA]

Of course the NFL can cut a player in midseason and hire a free agent if needed, colleges can't.

But the NFL has a longer season.

Making do with a smaller roster would also ease Title IX considerations.

This would work if colleges maintained actual JV teams that could "call up" players in cases of injury, but it's probably easier to have them practicing with the varsity.

However, you could see teams opt for smaller traveling and gameday rosters in the future. Having 100 people on the sideline is one thing, but a lot of them never see the field.

[SoCon48]

I think the Stimulus package should cover football scholarships. It seems to cover everything else. If it's being wasted anyway, why not college football. lol

[JDC325]

First the FCS does not require scholarships and if you can not hang drop to DIV II. xcoffeex

[MplsBison]

First the FCS does not require scholarships and if you can not hang drop to DIV II. xcoffeex

That's just the problem -- many schools do try to "hang" and will continue to do so, even though it might help ease the burden to reduce scholarships.


If schools aren't going to stop offering the maximum, then perhaps the maximum should be lowered?

[jmufan999]

i think it (reducing maximum number of scholarships) would be great for schools that already have solidified themselves as national powers. think of it this way. when they initially increased the scholarships, it allowed for more parity in college football (FBS and FCS). the spread offense also helped, but that's beside the point. so anyway, it stands to reason that the opposite effect would happen if they decrease the scholarships. i'm all in favor of it, and so should schools like Montana, App State, UNI, McNeese State, etc.

[GannonFan]

Maybe schools like App St/Montana/Delaware could pay for scholarships at PFL schools

it would create more parity within the division and be more fair

Of course, the money UD makes off of football goes to pay for scholarships at UD in the non-revenue sports. If the PFL schools want that money, they'll have to ask UD's swimmers and tennis players first. xrolleyesx

[walliver]

The economic downturn should only last a year or two (Although there is the potential for it to be longer, but I don't want to get bumped to the political thread.). Schools using the economy as a reason to cut scholarships are just using this as an excuse to do something they wanted to do already. In FCS, there is are no actual scholarships requirements (although there are minimums to be considered a "counter" and play FBS money games).

The only schools who would need NCAA action to reduce scholarships are the FBS wannabes (Sunbelt and MAC) - and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. The BCS teams will find the money (and scholarships are not a big part of their budgets anyway)

Also, if you cut scholarships, does that mean you will take away scholarships from current athletes (I don't like that) or stop recruiting new players (teams would really suck in two or three years).

Of course, Mr. Obama's proposed tax changes, specifically taking away deductions for charitable donations from the people who keep many programs up and running, may have a dramatic effect on college football in the next decade. But that is not relevant to the current discussion of scholarship reductions since these changes wouldn't take effect for a few more years. [I am not trying to make this a political discussion, but this is relevant to FCS football].

[Jackman]

FBS scholarships should be reduced regardless of the economy. No other NCAA sport allows 4th string scholarship players. Some sports (notably men's soccer) aren't even allowed to cover their starting lineups.

The scholarship limit was reduced from 105 to 95 in 1978. 14 years later, they agreed to reduce the limit from 95 to 85. It's been 16 years since that reduction. The timing is right to gradually reduce the limit to 75, subtracting 2 per year for 5 years. The average FBS team only uses 55 players per game. Only 39 players get 10+ plays per game. A limit of 75 gives you 20 players beyond the amount that actually see game time, enough for almost an entire spare offensive and defensive unit, not counting walk-ons. A reduction ought to happen.

[danefan]

FBS scholarships should be reduced regardless of the economy. No other NCAA sport allows 4th string scholarship players. Some sports (notably men's soccer) aren't even allowed to cover their starting lineups.

The scholarship limit was reduced from 105 to 95 in 1978. 14 years later, they agreed to reduce the limit from 95 to 85. It's been 16 years since that reduction. The timing is right to gradually reduce the limit to 75, subtracting 2 per year for 5 years. The average FBS team only uses 55 players per game. Only 39 players get 10+ plays per game. A limit of 75 gives you 20 players beyond the amount that actually see game time, enough for almost an entire spare offensive and defensive unit, not counting walk-ons. A reduction ought to happen.

But but but then FCS teams will get even better and be able to beat us more times.........xsmiley_wix

[MplsBison]

FBS scholarships should be reduced regardless of the economy. No other NCAA sport allows 4th string scholarship players. Some sports (notably men's soccer) aren't even allowed to cover their starting lineups.

The scholarship limit was reduced from 105 to 95 in 1978. 14 years later, they agreed to reduce the limit from 95 to 85. It's been 16 years since that reduction. The timing is right to gradually reduce the limit to 75, subtracting 2 per year for 5 years. The average FBS team only uses 55 players per game. Only 39 players get 10+ plays per game. A limit of 75 gives you 20 players beyond the amount that actually see game time, enough for almost an entire spare offensive and defensive unit, not counting walk-ons. A reduction ought to happen.


Exactly right.


The NFL makes due with 53 man active rosters, FBS teams can make due with 75 scholarships.



I think Dane has it right too, BCS teams want to keep top talent stocked on their benches and off the rest of the FBS's rosters and the rest of the FBS teams want to keep that next tier of talent on their benches and off FCS rosters.

[windwalker]

I think all of the universities and colleges should cut 4 un-needed administrator jobs and that would be equal to 8 scholarships.

[McTailGator]

I think he is saying will schools be increasing scholarships? Right?

I think they will actually increase scholarships. See press release from my law school yesterday:

I agree

Enrollment in most Universities in the state of La, typically goes up when the economy is bad on the Gulf Coast. When there is a lack of jobs, kids feel that they just assume go to school because they can't find a good paying job anyway.

The economy in south Louisiana is Oil Field based, and even the oil field is now cutting jobs because the price of oil has fallen below the profit level line for the major oil companies that spend the most money and drill in the hardest and most expensive locations, which is were the highest returns on investments are.

I bet McNeese accepts more incoming Freshmen this year, and I bet many of those, will be kids that graduated from HS 2, 3, or even 4 years ago.

[McTailGator]

Exactly right.

The NFL makes due with 53 man active rosters, FBS teams can make due with 75 scholarships.

I think Dane has it right too, BCS teams want to keep top talent stocked on their benches and off the rest of the FBS's rosters and the rest of the FBS teams want to keep that next tier of talent on their benches and off FCS rosters.



We should not cut scholarships. That is dumb.

Times are tough and MORE kids need to be in school now until things pick back up again. It's like cutting out jobs in the un-employment office because too many people or out of work. xnonox

[MplsBison]

We should not cut scholarships. That is dumb.

Times are tough and MORE kids need to be in school now until things pick back up again. It's like cutting out jobs in the un-employment office because too many people or out of work. xnonox

Times are tough for universities too. That was the whole point.


It's a cost saving measure and when you analyze it, why are so many guys participating on the football team.

Do we really need 100 guys on the team?

[Jackman]

We should not cut scholarships. That is dumb.

Times are tough and MORE kids need to be in school now until things pick back up again. It's like cutting out jobs in the un-employment office because too many people or out of work. xnonox

Nothing says you can't re-distribute those scholarships to other sports, or start a new men's sport that only requires 10 scholarships to be competitive. It'd be one thing if 85 kids were actually playing, but they're nowhere near even 65. They don't even travel to away games.

[DX Man]

I hope all this ends up being is just talk.

[MplsBison]

I hope all this ends up being is just talk.

You don't like watching NFL?

[BDKJMU]

Times are tough for universities too. That was the whole point.


It's a cost saving measure and when you analyze it, why are so many guys participating on the football team.

Do we really need 100 guys on the team?

Yes. In practice when doing offense or defense vs scout teams, you're usually running 1st & 2nd string vs 2 strings of scout players. 22 players one play, soon as that play is done the next 22 are set to go, rapid fire. You need 44 guys for that. Trying to do that with just 22 would slow things down way too much.

1st string offense/defense: 11/11 + specialists= about 24 players
2nd string----------------------------------------------= about 24 players
Offensive scout players (3rd & 4th string)-------=about 22 players
Defensive scout players (3rd & 4th string)------= about 22 players
# of players missing plactice at any one time--= about10-15 players
---------------------------------------------------Total = about 100-105 players

[BDKJMU]

FBS scholarships should be reduced regardless of the economy. No other NCAA sport allows 4th string scholarship players. Some sports (notably men's soccer) aren't even allowed to cover their starting lineups.

The scholarship limit was reduced from 105 to 95 in 1978. 14 years later, they agreed to reduce the limit from 95 to 85. It's been 16 years since that reduction. The timing is right to gradually reduce the limit to 75, subtracting 2 per year for 5 years. The average FBS team only uses 55 players per game. Only 39 players get 10+ plays per game. A limit of 75 gives you 20 players beyond the amount that actually see game time, enough for almost an entire spare offensive and defensive unit, not counting walk-ons. A reduction ought to happen.

Well, heck, using your logic then we'll be down to zero scholarships by the end of the century.

As far as football having 4th string scholarship players, with 24 per string, in I-A you have about 3.5 strings. In I-AA you have about 2.5 strings. It shouldn't be compared to minor sports like soccer that are $ losers. As far as the 4 major team sports, football, basketball, baseball & hockey, hockey is only regional at the collegiate level, and baseball keeps a lot of talent out of college through the minor leagues. Basketball has 3 strings of players on scholarship (13 men, 15 women).

The majority of I-A football teams generate positive revenue. Why should a sport that makes $ give up scholarships?

[BDKJMU]

We should not cut scholarships. That is dumb.

Times are tough and MORE kids need to be in school now until things pick back up again. It's like cutting out jobs in the un-employment office because too many people or out of work. xnonox

Ditto.

[JDC325]

That's just the problem -- many schools do try to "hang" and will continue to do so, even though it might help ease the burden to reduce scholarships.


If schools aren't going to stop offering the maximum, then perhaps the maximum should be lowered?

No I am not really in favor of socialist football. Teams that have good support should not be penalized due to some school masquerading as a DIV I. I think we should actually be raising the bar especially in football since the FCS a whole is pretty much a joke since you do not even have to offer scholarships. It is pretty simple the NCAA has many level if you can not survive then drop down but do not pull the high achievers down with you. This is like saying we are eliminating the grade A because all a bunch of lazier kids can only make a B-.
If you can not hang go away. Playing DIV I athletics is not a right it is a privilege.

[JDC325]

Times are tough for universities too. That was the whole point.


It's a cost saving measure and when you analyze it, why are so many guys participating on the football team.

Do we really need 100 guys on the team?


Universities waste plenty of money in other areas. At Least a kid is getting an education in the process. BTW aren't schollies at real DIV programs mainly paid for by donations and revenue anyway?

[danefan]

Universities waste plenty of money in other areas. At Least a kid is getting an education in the process. BTW aren't schollies at real DIV programs mainly paid for by donations and revenue anyway?

"Real DIV" programs?

What exactly do you mean by that? xconfusedx

[JDC325]

"Real DIV" programs?

What exactly do you mean by that? xconfusedx


Ones that do not have a non schollie sorry excuse for a football team in DIV I just so their basketball team can participate in march madness. I hope the NCAA sets minimum scholarship requirements for all DIV I sports.

[Jackman]

Well, heck, using your logic then we'll be down to zero scholarships by the end of the century.
How could you possibly read my post and come to that conclusion? 55 kids actually play. If you can afford it, I see no reason not to hand out 55 scholarships. But 85 kids is more than the entire travel roster. At 75 you'd still leave scholarship players home too. It's nonsense for the limit to be so far over the amount of players who actually take the field.


As far as football having 4th string scholarship players, with 24 per string, in I-A you have about 3.5 strings.
I would skip kickers every other string, but either way you're deep into the 4th string. No other NCAA men's sport even fills out a 3rd string, and as previously stated, some don't fill out a first string.


It shouldn't be compared to minor sports like soccer that are $ losers.
All sports are money losers at most universities. Particularly women's sports. But women's sports always receive more scholarships than the equivalent men's sport. Why? Because football hogs more scholarships than it ever uses, for no reason except to make life easier for the BCS programs and keep competition out. That's why FBS is the only sport that has a minimum scholarship limit as well as a maximum. The motive is purely to create an artificial economic barrier to drive other universities out without ever having to face them on the field.


The majority of I-A football teams generate positive revenue. Why should a sport that makes $ give up scholarships?
Every sport that puts a price on a ticket generates revenue, but few programs make an actual profit unless they're subsidized with donations. That isn't the measure for deciding how to limit scholarship awards.

Here's a quote you might like from former USC coach John McKay when they reduced scholarships: "Mark this day on your calendar. This day is the ruin of college football. It will only go downhill from here!"

That was when the cut the limit from 105 to 95. And as history has shown, he was completely full of crap. Just as the other coaches who whined when the limit was reduced from 95 to 85 were full of crap. Just as how they will be full of crap if/when 85 to 75 is ever put on the table. College football does not need 85 scholarship players, period. We prove that every week in FCS. College football does not need good student-athletes locked into an agreement that forces them to stay home while their teammates travel for road games, when they could be suiting up and playing for a FCS or lower level FBS program. And getting a better education while they're at it, depending on the university.

If you don't see that, then let me reverse the question: why keep the number at 85? Why not roll it back to 105, like it used to be? Why not 205? Then you'd have an entire second scholarship program to practice against. As long as the limit has no logical relationship to how many the players the sport actually uses, any number is as good as another.