🏈 As a proponent of splittling up FBS football into two divisions here's a solution I hadn't considere

[TerryP]

Two actually.

The one I've put in bold print never crossed my mind. The other I've thought about but assume that there would still be a majority of schools in the Big 5 conferences that would vote against it the proposal.

From an interview with SEC Commish Mike Slive:

There are 128 teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Technically, Idaho and Alabama are in the same weight class. However ..."We do live in different worlds," Slive said.

It's no secret that the bottom end of big-time football isn't going to be able to afford some these changes.

Cost of attendance? It will be optional, increasing the value of the current scholarship by $1,000-$6,000 per year. It would cost Idaho $440,000 per year to implement. That's going to be a tough addition to a $4 million football budget.

It may be that those who can't adopt financially may simply drop out of FBS. Slive said that's not the intent.

...


Scholarship limits: The big five could hasten the elimination of those FBS bottom feeders by increasing scholarship limits.

Those 85 scholarships in football all have to be paid for by the athletic department. What would happen, say, if the commissioners voted the max up to 95?

A simple raise in the Division I sports sponsorship minimum from 16 to 18 could have a chilling effect. None of the commissioners have even hinted at such a move.

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

There's quite a bit more if you follow this link:

SEC's Slive: Future of college sports must be all about student-athlete

 

[riz]

I'm all for the likes of Idaho and Georgia State being considered equals.:jackoff2:

 

[TheChief]

Upping football scholarships to 95 doesn't seem like it would do anything but cut 10 men's scholarships from other sports.

 

[riz]

Upping football scholarships to 95 doesn't seem like it would do anything but cut 10 men's scholarships from other sports.

Unless I'm mistaken, it would require women's schollies to increase by 10.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Unless I'm mistaken, it would require women's schollies to increase by 10.

One, the other, or a combination of both. You could just cut 10 men's scholarships. Or add 10 womens. Or cut 5 men and add 5 women. But the brutal honesty is that it will probably mean 10 men cut elsewhere. It is hard currently to find enough women to fill all available scholarships in all sports anyway. Easier to just cut 1 or 2 from a bunch of men's sports than add more to women's.

 

[TerryP]

One, the other, or a combination of both. You could just cut 10 men's scholarships. Or add 10 womens. Or cut 5 men and add 5 women. But the brutal honesty is that it will probably mean 10 men cut elsewhere. It is hard currently to find enough women to fill all available scholarships in all sports anyway. Easier to just cut 1 or 2 from a bunch of men's sports than add more to women's.

Work this out for me. How is it easier to just cut 10? And, from where?

We have to take into account the requirements for D1 status: seven sports for men and women or six for men and eight for women.

If you cut 10 scholarships from a men's program you're basically eliminating that program.

A move to 95 with the addition of a program or two for the ladies doesn't seem like that bad of an idea.

Would you consider supporting a sand volleyball team? :muahaha:

Seriously, a women's lacrosse team—I'd think—would cover the number needed for either circumstance. (Assuming a move to 16 would be a seven and nine or eight and eight.)

 

[TheChief]

I think seven schollies make up a men's track and cross country team. Terry, I hope you're right. So many schools have cut men's track and field recently. Football should not count toward the scholarship total for men, plain and simple. The point that it's difficult to find women to fill spots is accurate. I have heard of d-1 schools placing posters around campus offering scholarships for a brand new sport. That's sad when you see young men offered shoes and a thousand dollars to run d-1 track.

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=15045]TheChief[/MENTION]

The way it's split up at UA right now.

Basketball, Track and Field, Swimming and Diving, Golf, and Tennis are both men's and women's sports.

Gymnastics, Soccer, Volleyball, Rowing, and Softball are women's only.

Football and Baseball for men.

That's 10 programs for the women, seven for the men. So, if D1 were to move to a 16 team requirement it wouldn't have any affect on UA. It would on other schools. (I guess that's one of the reasons I've never thought about having so many programs other schools would have to drop a division. We've got more than required as it is.)

I've not seen anything that says the sum of mens scholarships has to equal the womens. It may be a requirement as well. I'll have to look that up sometime.

As far as track and field are concerned there is a disparity. Men are maxed out at 12.6. The women are allowed to have a total of 18.

Baseball and softball are different as well, but it's an odd difference: 11.7 versus 12

 

[TerryP]

OH, I mentioned Lacrosse because I was considering there is a possibility the numbers have to match—or at least be more for women than men.

If football added 10, the NCAA allows 12 for a women's Lacrosse team.

 

[alabama mike]

One thing the "big boys" may consider is just setting a maximum number of scholarships. Right now we have 85 for football, 13, I believe for basketball, not sure on baseball, etc... Why not just say that NCAA D I schools can give out X amount of scholarships total and not specify how many for each sport? Just a thought, probably not a real good one but it's a thought.:headscratch:

 

[TerryP]

One thing the "big boys" may consider is just setting a maximum number of scholarships. Right now we have 85 for football, 13, I believe for basketball, not sure on baseball, etc... Why not just say that NCAA D I schools can give out X amount of scholarships total and not specify how many for each sport? Just a thought, probably not a real good one but it's a thought.:headscratch:

Here's something that runs against that thought. There are different types of scholarships depending on the sport.

Some sports are "head count" sports; football and gymnastics are two examples. By "head count" they mean every athlete who receives aid receives a full scholarship.

With men's sports we have what the NCAA calls "equivalency sports." In simpler terms, it means the coach can divide the scholarships up between players (partial scholarships) as long as the total doesn't exceed the limit. (IE: Baseball gets 11.7, Track and Field get 12.6)

Then there's the issue of a school deciding they want to devote 100 scholarships for football and none for basketball.

These limits and numbers aren't something Title IX created. The NCAA did when the put a cap on scholarship numbers.

---

Changing the subject a bit: Why are there scholarship limits?

Remember when Houston Nutt signed 35+ players at Ole Miss and the SEC decided to institute the 25 rule? Same scenario except it was something Johnny Majors did. He had a class in the early '70's where he signed 90 freshmen to the football team. In 1977 Pitt won the national title. Then the NCAA made their first move on scholarship limits to ensure "equity of competition." (As they put it.)

 

[planomateo]

Adding to Terry's post, this is about the best site I've seen that list out scholarships per sport for both women & men.

http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html