And now for something completely different....

ramblinwise1

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,349
As we consider how to reform the NCAA and college football, how about a proposal that the NCAA adopt a rule that the scholarship funding granted to a player be no greater than if he were an in-state recruit. That way, out of staters still have to pay the premium over in-state tuition. There would seem to be strong legal basis for this rule, it would make the teams roster more representative of the states they represent and would cut out all of this national recruiting that is pseudo-free agency for recruits.

The downside seems to be that bigtime sports states would reduce or eliminate a differential between in-state and out-of-state tuition but that would open the doors to non-athletes to attend these universities at low cost and create a budget crisis or an outcry from common students who saw their in-state tuition bloom to subsidize the out of state.
 
If this starts getting pushed through it will be one hell of a ride, thats for sure... but even at the most "semi pro sports U" I don't think the athletics would have enough pull to cause the massive fee increase that would happen to equalize in/out of state.

If this does happen though, would mean that we had a lot better shot at a lot of kids, for the most part it would be a case of rich getting richer, but may help us out.

In reality though, the kids will get the money somehow and it will be business as usual as soon as everyone figures out how to beat the system.
 
Yes they (coaches, athletic associations & alumni) would find a way to beat the system...Plus I believe that there would be more high school athletes moving from state to state (private schools/prep schools/ high schools w/ big time football programs) to where they intended to play their college sports to establish state residency...I mean it almost happens now in Basketball w/ the like of Oak Hill Acad...for basketball...etc... Just hard to find perfect solution...Personally I would like to see something happen. But w/ an opportunity such as college sports and the MONEY it generates it's more and more difficult to keep it PURE (force everyone to play fair & be on equal playing fields)
JUST MY OPINION. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twocents.gif
 
Sounds great unitl we decide to field a Div 1 Hockey Team /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif. It would also probably be the last time we beat a school in basketball from NC.
 
I have to admit I can't see any advantage in doing this. Consider the situations in NC and GA as examples. In GA there are only 2 D-1A football programs. Where would all those kids play? In NC there are 5. They would be forced to convince kids to pay out of state tuition difference or have sorry teams. Just doesn't make any sense to me and I can't figure out any possible benefit.

Besides, what about private schools? Would you just suggest they get out of the business all together or would they have an advantage because they would be the only schools that could offer free rides to all and recruit nationally?
 
Texas would have an over run of players, as would Florida, but not as much any more with the addition of FAU and FIU, and California.

I think it would hurt more athletes than it would help. I'm sure there is some pressure within some athletic associations to get in state kids for the reasons you mentioned.

GT this year appears to have a renewal of getting the instate players (it doesn't hurt that there are a lot of good players this year with good academics).
 
It would be the last time that a school from NC would be us! Georgia is now loaded with basketball talent and Tech had a lot to do with that. Georgia, year in and out has at least as much talent as NC but with fewer schools to fill.
 
As for the financial impact - you should be aware that the state of NC just changed the tuition for any scholarship student - including athletic scholarships - to in state tuition. So the NCSU/UNC/ECU athletic department pays in state tuition for every football/baseball/basketball/etc. player regardless of where they come from.

If NC can (and did) do this then every other state could if they had to in order to keep up their recruiting.
 
Speaking of tuition costs, when we recruit an instate players, does GTAA actually pay tuition cost or does the state pay through the Hope scholarship?
 
Not sure about that but there are a few reforms I would like to see that I think would make a huge difference.

1. Dramatically lower the scholarship limit to 65 with no more than 70 on a team with walkons. This would lower the cost of football to all athletic programs. It would create a parity situation. It would increase participation by the player which in reality for most kids who will never play pro ball is what it is all about.
2. Heavy testing for steroids an illegal drugs. For those who think steroids are not around college football you have your head in the sand. Steroids are used in high school football. We need to clean up sports in America top to bottom.
3. Make graduation rate really important. A program that does not graduate 85% of its players subtracting true transfers and the few that go pro early loses 5 to 8 scholarships a year.
 
I like the lower limit for schollies but I would allow 10-15 walk-ons, that would really make it more of a college team.
 
That is a valid argument for more walkons. A squad size of 110 is just too much. In my mind more kids actually playing equates to more kids staying in college and graduating across the board.
 
Agree with 1 and 2 but not 3, exactly. Grad rates for the athletic teams should be comparable to the student body for that school. You underestimate the number of diploma mills out there that are glorified high schools. Schools like GT should not penalized for having real academics for athletes.
 
I disagree on this. If you allow transfers not to effect the rate, a key strategy for the coach would to be recognizing those recruits that may not fit in academically and making sure to get them transferred to an institution that fits them better. Remember the program should be doing the right thing by the person. Lets bring intergrity back to athletics.
 
Why would graduation rates equate to brining integrity back? Graduating players has never been a big deal with college athletics. Just read "Dodd's Luck" if you don't believe me. In fact, I would be willing to bet that graduation rates today are higher than they were in the 30s, 40s etc.
 
Just because it never has doesn't mean it shouldn't be. These are young men. They bring in big money to the athletic department. We should be making every effort to see that they have the opportunity to get though school. That is why I want to limit scholarships selfishly because I know it will level the playing field dramatically in 1-A football. I am surprised they haven't done it because of TV revenue anyhow. Parity in football would send TV revenue though the roof.
 
My post we because you seemed to be trying to bring things back to where it had been before. I was simply saying that I don't believe it's ever been that way. If what you're proposing is something new that's cool.

BTW, I don't think parity would help TV ratings. TV wants the big names imo. No one wants to watch Utah and Marshall play no matter how good they are. But Notre Dame - USC will draw attention no matter their records. So the bonanza for TV is when the big name schools are good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top