National Signing Day

[darvon]

I don't think we need to rehash this discussion from a previous forum, but claiming that a scholarship is a reasonable barter rate is ludricous, because not all kids care about the scholarship and they have almost no bargaining power in their bargaining rate.

I don't mean to imply I think the number is a reasonable or unreasonable rate. I do mean to STATE that it IS a barter rate, the players ARE employees and are getting shafted by the courts supporting the school's pretense that they aren't. If they simply were treated by the courts as employees, a TON of things would radically change.

[wxwax]

@wxwax holding everyone to the same standard may make it "fair" , but saying it wouldn't decrease the level of the product on the field is crazy. Teams would have 30%+ of their roster populated with injury issues, guys who never lived up to the recruiting hype, with a very few guys who panned out fully. Kind of sounds like the redskins roster doesn't it? But its worse! You can't hide cap money and be creative and cut guys to make room. You're stuck with them for 4 full years. No creative way out of the deal..

Is that the the ncaa product you'd like to see on the field?

Never said it wouldn't affect the quality of play. Go back and read it. I said I didn't care. The average fan wouldn't even notice a drop-off.

As for this notion of "NCAA product" -- I remind you again this isn't the pros. It's college football. The scholastic thing should be more than a PR fig leaf. A different kind of morality is at work, or should be.

[mikesteelnation1]

Hello Mike,

It is reasonable that the Cost Of Attendance (COA) that each school calculates for its self for all students is pretty close to a reasonable number. If the NCAA allows COA payments that would be good.

And I agree that the ability to "cut" players within the 4 (or 5) years is crucial to concentrating the most productive, healthy players at the top schools. Each player that is injured/underperforms at a top school is now cut and replaced with another talent from either rookies or transfers from lesser schools or Jucos. Right now teams like Bama get to sign 35 players each year, keep 25 as rookies and have only 85 over the 5 year eligibility. Obviously holding players for 4 years would require Bama to only sign 20 players per year, a reduction of almost 50%. Releasing all those players to second tier teams, increasing their level of play, but radically decreasing Bama's.

4 year scholarships obviously would DECREASE the level of play at the Big Boys and INCREASE it at the second tiers, just like reducing scholarships to 85 did. You are absolutely correct.

Your last question is germaine

Do you want highly concentrated talent in the Big Boys and what costs to the student are you willing to pay to get it? An interesting question. But the same issue is wrapped in the 85 scholarship decision, were you against that also?


I am probably AGAINST much cost to the student, FOR cost to the school and would take less concentration. I enjoy more drama over level of play, even at the cost of less concentration of talent. It may be that I am not enough of a sophisticated consumer that diffused talent doesn't reduce my enjoyment as much as others. I also like rewarding smart GM and coaching, diffusion places a higher premium on player evaluation and coaching.


@Tubbs, could you provide some links with data. I don't know if NCAA infractions follow poverty/racial lines. There are some obvious counter examples. Reggie Bush, Chris Webber. But I don't have the data. If you can supply some links, I am sure we can discuss it.

Your first question is an enigma wrapped in a riddle. I'm not sure how to answer it. If I go full tilt and say what I think, the 85 scholarships limit is ruined by title IX. College sports is a business, not an academic endeavor. That much is fact. Were it academic at heart, the graduation rates would be higher. I'm not a sexist, but the fact men's sports and women's sports need to offer the same # of scholarships rubs me the wrong way. Spend the money where it nets the most profit. That's the American way. If we pandered less for pc reasons, and focused on making money, to further the academic institutions everyone would be better off. There's no equity in academic scholarships, where women out pace men. The fact men's sports get cut eventhough they make more money, simply bc of adhering to title IX is ridiculous.

Why is it legislated in sports? Give the scholarship to the most apt person given what its given for. Maximize the colleges $$$. Our society too often tries too hard to make things equal. Give the smartest kids the academic scholarships according to their intelligence. Give the athletes the scholarships based on their athleticsm, and the value that program earns $$ for the university. The system is so messed up in correlation to the real world, I don't have words...

In the business world I always hire the best candidate. No regard given to any other socioeconomic strata.

[darvon]

Put TItle IX aside.

How much do you want to screw the students to get talent concentration in the Big Boys? Is concentration preferable? Some would say no. If yes, then you have to answer at what student cost? It's CBA time.

I am not sure I prefer concentration of talent in the big boys and I abhor student cost, because I hate the farce of volunteer football in the courts.

I also would like to treat it like a business more, but I see the worst infraction in the "employee" issue by far. And the second worse issue is that D1 isn't run like a league. D1 itself is a farce.

But would you concentrate the talent if you could decide it?

[wxwax]

College sports is a business, not an academic endeavor. That much is fact.

No, it's not.

College football and basketball are business. The rest of college sports is about what college sports has always been about: a well-rounded, healthy education. Nobody makes money on men's tennis or gymnastics. The vast majority of college sports make no money. Yes, at big schools they need to revenue from football to support other programs -- at big schools. But what about the rest of the schools? You think Fordham doesn't have sports teams other than football?

[mikesteelnation1]

No, it's not.

College football and basketball are business. The rest of college sports is about what college sports has always been about: a well-rounded, healthy education. Nobody makes money on men's tennis or gymnastics. The vast majority of college sports make no money. Yes, at big schools they need to revenue from football to support other programs -- at big schools. But what about the rest of the schools? You think Fordham doesn't have sports teams other than football?

You're correct, wxwax. I should be stoned for saying that. But way more years as fan has made me ignore my roots as to the ncaa scholarship program. I got a full ride for a sport that doesn't generally generate revenue. It did at my school, only bc so few had scholarships and we sold out every game. That's why I abhor title IX. Our team had 3 full scholarship guys, while the softball team that sucked that no one watched got 12.

I chose the best academic school that offered me a full ride, in any of the 3 sports I got an offer. Princeton did too, but its not a full ride. It's a deal with the devil. Read into what an ivy league offers a student athlete and you'll see what i mean. they don't offer athletic scholarships, but they offer a "deal".

Being part of the system has left me with views that cannot be changed. The poverty the ncaa makes the athletes live with is untenable to me. Thank god I played a sport that they don't often use their oversight to investigate.

No tattoo scandal for me, but I made way more than allowed at a legit job during my scholarship years. That job turned into my career, that paid for my masters.

Sports got me a chance to advance my academics. That's how I approached the recruiting process. Use my ability to play a sport to get a degree. Most don't approach it that way. They attend college simply to advance their ability to go pro. I used my abilities to get a free education, as hollow as saying a "free" education rings..

[wxwax]

You smart man!