NCAA to increase scholarships

[AFCAT]

I wonder what this means for FBS. Does more scholarships for FBS mean fewer athletes willing to go FCS? I'm guessing FCS will see an increase too though.
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-t ... 00598.html

[snowxlt]

This could make recruiting much more difficult in future for us:

From 85 full ride scholarships to 105 = gain of 20

Another key change to the scholarship structure: All sports will be considered “equivalency sports,” meaning partial scholarships can be distributed to players. Football, basketball and other sports are currently considered “head-count sports,” which require players on scholarship to receive a full grant.

So now I'm assuming they can split those 105 scholarships from 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 to full. Currently FBS is all Full rides unlike FCS.

Of course the rich college programs can handle this sort of cost increases: "For the most elite power programs, the total cost of both the scholarship additions and the sharing of revenue with athletes will exceed $30 million a year." the other 80% of programs not so much

College sports in general is going to have to change where we have the Pro Level programs of college sports and then the other level which would be managed like things used to be in olden days or semi closer.

[kennethnoisewater]

This could make recruiting much more difficult in future for us:

From 85 full ride scholarships to 105 = gain of 20

Another key change to the scholarship structure: All sports will be considered “equivalency sports,” meaning partial scholarships can be distributed to players. Football, basketball and other sports are currently considered “head-count sports,” which require players on scholarship to receive a full grant.

So now I'm assuming they can split those 105 scholarships from 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 to full. Currently FBS is all Full rides unlike FCS.

Of course the rich college programs can handle this sort of cost increases: the other 80% not so much


College sports in general is going to have to change where we have the Pro Level programs of college sports and then the other level which would be managed like things used to be in olden days or semi closer.

I agree but fortunately for MSU and the rest of the FCS, the big programs are still putting 11 guys on the field at a time. Even with more full rides, you'll get a bunch of guys who just want to play, and hopefully it ends up leveling out. I still hate it for the FCS, don't get me wrong...but I think it's a silver lining.

[coloradocat]

A few things to keep in mind:

The number of scholarships is going up from 85 to 105 but the 105 is now also the roster limit. In the past FBS teams could have more players on the roster than this, they just couldn't have more than 85 scholarship players. They can now split scholarships but their max in-season roster number is 105.

The FBS has already decreased it's high school recruiting to focus more in the direction of the transfer portal so scholarship/roster limit changes shouldn't have much impact on our ability to recruit guys. There may be a couple cases a year where we lose a guy that we were willing to give a full scholarship to because he picks a MWC team that gives him a partial but that's about it.

From what I remember leading up to this decision, the changes don't have any impact on the FCS and there are no expected changes to FCS roster rules. That makes sense as the stratification between the haves and have nots in the FCS is probably even greater than the FBS. Just look at the BSC. There's a wide gap between the top third and bottom third and that bottom third would be competitive in most of the other conferences in the country.

The one point in this final decision that is a little disappointing, compared to earlier proposals, is the change from head count to equivalency. One earlier proposal was to make every roster spot a scholarship spot. This would have been great for us as FBS teams would have gotten rid of all non-scholarship roster spots and we would have been able to pick those guys up. However, as I said above, the changes enacted shouldn't have much of an impact on us.

[Montanabob]

i wonder how many G5 schools will get to 105 players and not 105 scholarships. look at Idaho during it's time in FBS. They didn't use all their scholorships.

[RICO CAT]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

[allcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

Oh good, more men's title IX scholarships. Just need to grow their hair and make a few statements

[MSU01]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

It will definitely play a role, and the new rule affects more than just football. Baseball, softball, and volleyball are also getting significant increases to their scholarship limits and men's and women's basketball will both increase to 15. One would assume that schools planning to increase their football scholarships will offset that with similar increases for the women's sports.

[Montanabob]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

[allcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

[coloradocat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

[allcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

[coloradocat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

I may just be getting further away from the point but D1 sports cost money, for scholarships, staff and events. So as long as we have to pay for those things, money is always involved, even if they don't actually bring any revenue in. I guess I just don't understand why we need so many D1 teams that cost the school money. Demoting them to club status wouldn't be taking opportunities away.

Outside of counting towards the BOTW series title, which could still happen if both sides have club teams, does anyone really care if we have a golf team on scholarship? The hockey team doesn't have scholarships and they did just fine. I don't know if rodeo is on scholarship now that they are in the athletic department but they clearly don't need to be, although there are obvious benefits. MSU isn't going to take away sports opportunities for girls if T9 ever goes away, they'll just have to find another way to fund their college costs like the hockey team did. This isn't the 50s. I'm sure they could figure it out.

[coloradocat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

A clever P4 school would recruit specific athletes for their "women's" teams and dominate all those sports.

[allcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

I may just be getting further away from the point but D1 sports cost money, for scholarships, staff and events. So as long as we have to pay for those things, money is always involved, even if they don't actually bring any revenue in. I guess I just don't understand why we need so many D1 teams that cost the school money. Demoting them to club status wouldn't be taking opportunities away.

Outside of counting towards the BOTW series title, which could still happen if both sides have club teams, does anyone really care if we have a golf team on scholarship? The hockey team doesn't have scholarships and they did just fine. I don't know if rodeo is on scholarship now that they are in the athletic department but they clearly don't need to be, although there are obvious benefits. MSU isn't going to take away sports opportunities for girls if T9 ever goes away, they'll just have to find another way to fund their college costs like the hockey team did. This isn't the 50s. I'm sure they could figure it out.

I would think it is the football team that has to be a club sport. If you take them out of the system, all the others would not be needed.

[coloradocat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

I may just be getting further away from the point but D1 sports cost money, for scholarships, staff and events. So as long as we have to pay for those things, money is always involved, even if they don't actually bring any revenue in. I guess I just don't understand why we need so many D1 teams that cost the school money. Demoting them to club status wouldn't be taking opportunities away.

Outside of counting towards the BOTW series title, which could still happen if both sides have club teams, does anyone really care if we have a golf team on scholarship? The hockey team doesn't have scholarships and they did just fine. I don't know if rodeo is on scholarship now that they are in the athletic department but they clearly don't need to be, although there are obvious benefits. MSU isn't going to take away sports opportunities for girls if T9 ever goes away, they'll just have to find another way to fund their college costs like the hockey team did. This isn't the 50s. I'm sure they could figure it out.

I would think it is the football team that has to be a club sport. If you take them out of the system, all the others would not be needed.

As far as T9 goes you're right. I'm thinking about a post-T9 world.

It would be interesting if the FCS decided to collectively drop down to D2 as a result of the obligations associated with being D1. If everyone, especially the top teams that aren't desirable by the FBS, moved down there might not be much of a change in spending/competition. Talk about a wild hypothetical for a new thread!

[allcat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

I may just be getting further away from the point but D1 sports cost money, for scholarships, staff and events. So as long as we have to pay for those things, money is always involved, even if they don't actually bring any revenue in. I guess I just don't understand why we need so many D1 teams that cost the school money. Demoting them to club status wouldn't be taking opportunities away.

Outside of counting towards the BOTW series title, which could still happen if both sides have club teams, does anyone really care if we have a golf team on scholarship? The hockey team doesn't have scholarships and they did just fine. I don't know if rodeo is on scholarship now that they are in the athletic department but they clearly don't need to be, although there are obvious benefits. MSU isn't going to take away sports opportunities for girls if T9 ever goes away, they'll just have to find another way to fund their college costs like the hockey team did. This isn't the 50s. I'm sure they could figure it out.

I would think it is the football team that has to be a club sport. If you take them out of the system, all the others would not be needed.

As far as T9 goes you're right. I'm thinking about a post-T9 world.

It would be interesting if the FCS decided to collectively drop down to D2 as a result of the obligations associated with being D1. If everyone, especially the top teams that aren't desirable by the FBS, moved down there might not be much of a change in spending/competition. Talk about a wild hypothetical for a new thread!

I'm actually thinking that the NCAA has less than a year left. The P4 will break off first. Then it will end up going the way of the PAC??

[coloradocat]

I wonder what role if any, Title IX will play in this? Will the increase in football scholarships translate to an equal amount of scholarships created for women’s programs? If so, could cause more financial pressure for the have-nots.

some DEI folks will kill title 9.

That would be fantastic.

I'm torn on it. In looking at the current system the money is the ruler of the roost. If you take the money away, why wouldn't you want it to be fair to everyone.

Unless you turn every sport into a club team, which I wouldn't be that opposed to outside of football, you aren't taking the money away.

I'm not sure I came across with my point. That was is you eliminate the money making aspect of the argument, then I would think it would be fair to finance equal numbers. Of course football throws everything off, just because of the amount of players.

I may just be getting further away from the point but D1 sports cost money, for scholarships, staff and events. So as long as we have to pay for those things, money is always involved, even if they don't actually bring any revenue in. I guess I just don't understand why we need so many D1 teams that cost the school money. Demoting them to club status wouldn't be taking opportunities away.

Outside of counting towards the BOTW series title, which could still happen if both sides have club teams, does anyone really care if we have a golf team on scholarship? The hockey team doesn't have scholarships and they did just fine. I don't know if rodeo is on scholarship now that they are in the athletic department but they clearly don't need to be, although there are obvious benefits. MSU isn't going to take away sports opportunities for girls if T9 ever goes away, they'll just have to find another way to fund their college costs like the hockey team did. This isn't the 50s. I'm sure they could figure it out.

I would think it is the football team that has to be a club sport. If you take them out of the system, all the others would not be needed.

As far as T9 goes you're right. I'm thinking about a post-T9 world.

It would be interesting if the FCS decided to collectively drop down to D2 as a result of the obligations associated with being D1. If everyone, especially the top teams that aren't desirable by the FBS, moved down there might not be much of a change in spending/competition. Talk about a wild hypothetical for a new thread!

I'm actually thinking that the NCAA has less than a year left. The P4 will break off first. Then it will end up going the way of the PAC??

To paraphrase Mark Twain: "the reports of the NCAA's death are greatly exaggerated".

People have assumed it's going to fall apart any minute now for years. I think it continues its downward spiral for at least the rest of the decade. The ACC mess alone is enough to muddy any attempt at a clear vision of the future for the P4. Plus the Big12 (16?) wants to continue growing by pulling from the G5 ranks so the membership of a new entity would remain in flux.