This is getting interesting (in a bad way)
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/550...shared-article
Printable View
This is getting interesting (in a bad way)
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/550...shared-article
I don't understand how 27 vs 4 can lose. Tell the P4 to eat ____ and to pay 90% of the bill.
If many of the things the ncaa had done, once challenged, falls down like a house of cards. Why not sue for schools to get equal cuts of the tv money, sue for equal airtime (which they had at one time) and sue for lost playoff revenue when teams were left out of bracket based on later proven wrong meteics such as RPI, might as well throw in bowl bids too
It's getting time to tear the whole damn thing down and rebuild from the ground up! Find out who is in and who is out and get back to a reasonable approach to college athletics.
A complete rebuild of college football begins with promotion/relegation between leagues. No more private clubs. No more snobbery. Everything gets settled on the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duggie35
except the money, the Supreme Court has already ruled on thatQuote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
I have been screaming this since NIL started! UL needs to go all in and get a private equity investor…. We have a unique and great brand all we need is a leader with balls and an infusion of money from a private equity firm and we can build a great product. Money isn’t everything, but it can carry you a long way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson
For the love of God, no. This screams "blood in the water" and predatory PEs naturally swimming towards it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson
If college athletics were less about the student athletes and more about money right now, imagine when PEs get involved.
“I deeply personally believe in college athletics,” Weatherford said. “As an ex-athlete, I owe a lot to it and so does my family. We believe in college athletics. I don’t like the fact that 10 to 15 teams have a chance to win a national title every year. I’d like that to be 40-50. It’s not a level playing field. Not everyone has the resources to compete.”
under current market and financial conditions and even under the most optomistic financial conditions for Louisiana in the future, does anyone here realistically believe that Louisiana could be in the 40-50
please practice intellectual and financial honesty in your response
Unlimited scholarships on the way. Every player gets paid, current, future and former.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...aa-settlement/
If there are unlimited scholarships there will be less teams, as wont be enough players left to fill out the schools deemed low on totem pole.
Not exactly unlimited; the number of scholarships will be governed by the roster limit, which is expected to be reduced [in football] from the current 120 to 100. A more serious problem for UL is the proposal to make baseball [and presumably softball] into head count sports, i.e. one scholarship per player. One would think there would also be reductions in roster limits for the affected sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad04
As proposed, football would increase from 85 to 100. Men's basketball increases from 13 to 15. Those increases in scholarships are likely to lead to schools dropping men's sports like golf and tennis to stay in compliance with Title 9. Track/Field/Cross country will be devastated by this if it also becomes head count.
Look for the required number of sponsored sports to remain FBS to drop from 16 to 14 or less, with similar reductions in lower divisions as well.
I won't be surprised to see some schools drop diamond sports altogether. Ark State or MAC schools make sense in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
So no walkons? Some would say The actual student athlete, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Sucks for those people in those sports, but dropping men's golf and men's tennis would be a very small price to pay to deal with these new rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
It is not clear whether walk-ons will be allowed. I would assume that a school could elect not to fund all 100 scholarships [football] and have walk-ons fill the unfunded roster spots. Head count sports cannot have players on partial scholarships.Quote:
Originally Posted by R1Letterman
Easy to drop baseball; not so easy to drop any Title 9 protected sport [e.g. softball]Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson
Rosters are limited, yes. Everybody gets full ride every sport thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Golf and tennis are more or less club sports. No live audience and little publicity, if any.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
Baseball and softball whether higher limit or not should ve head count and do away with partial.... i doubt seriously all those partials are ever audited.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
True, not sure what we gain with it. Especially if there are pros in those sports younger than college participants. But if a set number of teams is needed to stay up in division1 it is likely cheaper than lacrosse or soccer or the likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Dad04
NCAA should lower number of sports members are required to carry to help offset this new expense/revenue reduction. Maybe down to 10 or 12 since all this payback money is the consequence. Our ticket prices shouldn't increase to pay for this turd sandwich of a deal.
As for the mostly non-spectator sports administration will need to evaluate which are most costly to operate for possible elimination. For example do you have to cut two men's sports to cut one women's sport? So if men's tennis and cross country were offed, can you then cut off women's soccer? Imagine its complicated no matter what is decided upon.
as long as we keep volleyball, I’m ok with the moves.
Eliminating cross country wouldn't lower your scholarship costs; you would still need those distance runners for Track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckster