RaceToTheTop

Big 12 adopts guidelines for when a team has to forfeit due to lack of players. So long as they have 53 eligible, including seven OL, 4 DL, and 1 QB, they must play or the game will be considered a forfeit. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29812654/big-12-guidelines-call-53-players-1-quarterback-7-o-linemen

Sorry for venturing a little off topic here, but this isn’t political — meant to be informative as I expect this isn’t that uncommon in Indiana schools right now. I was told by the head of HR in my district that typically we have a sub pool of 50 potential subs in our district to pull from. This year we have 8.

I'm not sure why people are getting offended by the notion that 85 scholarships is not a hard number of minimum required scholarships to field a football team. In the 1960s, there was no scholarship limits. And after the first limitations were set at 105, just twenty years later it was down to 85. In the past ten seasons, 85 times FCS teams have beaten D1 FBS teams. The FCS scholarship limit is 63.

Point is, I’m sure they were saying the same thing when the number was 105 and 95. Teams would adjust.

So did you notice a drop off in play in 1992 when scholarships were reduced from 95 to 85? When I am talking about a better product, I am talking about division 1 football being more competitive. Let's take a look at MAC teams playing Big Ten teams. From 1978 to 1992, teams were allowed to carry 95 scholarships. The Big Ten went 35-3 against the MAC for a 92% win percentage. Since 1992, when scholarships were reduced by 10 per team, the Big Ten has gone 233-43 against the MAC for an 84% win percentage. So the reduction of scholarships did see the chances of a MAC team beating a Big Ten double -- still a low chance, but now 1 in 6 as opposed to 1 in 12. http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/big10/mac.shtml

I'm sure that teams made the same argument in 1972 when the NCAA put a limit on football scholarships for the first time (105), and in 1978 when the scholarship limit was lowered from 105 to 95 and again in 1992 when it was lowered from 95 to 85. In all cases it was done to free up scholarships for other sports, in part to satisfy Title IX. The fact is that what I am suggesting -- reducing football scholarships -- has already been done when there was need to not eliminate non-revenue sports. You don't think it could be lowered to 65? Fine. Pick another number below 85, say 75. My point remains the same: there are creative ways to satisfy Title IX. The fact is that because there are so many football scholarships at this point that the first sports on the chopping block are the non-money making men's sports. https://www.sapling.com/8144923/history-sports-scholarships

To be fair, when you look across the Big Ten states there are as many teams not playing as there are that are. Illinois moved to the spring, Ohio shortened their season to six games, Michigan is just now starting practice, Wisky moved to the spring, Iowa and Nebraska are playing, Minnesota moved to the spring. Indiana is mostly playing but there are quite a few holes in the schedule for local schools that suspended or cancelled their seasons.

Pac 12 and Big 10 have discussed looking at synchronizing their restarts. Nothing imminent as the four California and two Oregon schools do not have approval from public health authorities to begin again. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29804035/pac-12-partnership-allow-daily-covid-19-testing-athletes

Not doubting this, but could you link to either the tweet this came from or an article quoting him?

I was going to address your post, but we are starting to venture away from sports here. To redirect the conversation, what is everybody's opinion of the most likely scenario of the Big Ten season? IMO, a spring start is the least likely. Two many players would be projected to opt out. The late November start makes the most sense to me, but I don't know that it is more likely than a January start.

Good read. I don’t have any idea either but at least it does discuss a possible issue with the analysis.

I think it would also be informative to know the rates of myocarditis in football players with covid compared to those in other sports. What was said was that it was 30 to 35% for all athletes. It the numbers were similar regardless of sport, it might say something different than if it was higher in particular sports. to mr it would be more indicative of a problem if we were seeing the same rates across sports as it would not be related to anything football specific.

In the spring, the power five conferences basically cancelled within minutes of each other. I think that was pretty much a joint decision and they were in communication of each other. I think if the Big Ten cancelled first it was by a couple of minutes and others had already reached that decision and were making their press releases. I guess I don't get why the hatred of the decision is pointed so heavily at Warrant and not at the University Presidents. It's not like he overturned a consensus to play. Quite the opposite.

LSU getting hit hard with the caliber of players they've had opt out -- two likely first round picks. They only return five of their twenty-two starters from last year. Also dealing with covid issues. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29786905/lsu-coach-ed-orgeron-says-more-players-considering-opting-football-season

I'm saying that the presidents of the Big Ten have more influence on decisions regarding the Big Ten than POTUS does. Doesn't matter who the POTUS is.

Have to say their are fourteen other presidents that have more influence on that decision.

When did I say it was easy? The power five football teams control the NCAA in terms of any changes that would be examined. You aren't going to see a power five team unilaterally not use twenty of their own scholarships to give to their non-money programs while the rest of their conference stayed at eighty-five. And the power five conferences aren't going to push for it because they don't want the smaller D1 schools to be competitive with them. And the power five conference teams aren't looking to have lower division one schools benefit from a reduction of football scholarships that shifts talent to lower levels. I'm sure Purdue and Indiana aren't interested in losing twenty scholarships that could move some of their players to, say, MAC level teams. I'm not arguing that it is going to happen, because it's not going to. I am stating that it would produce a more balanced D1 football and higher quality lower division football as players filter down and it would help save some 'expendable' sports programs. If 85 scholarship is such a magical number to field a team, then why in the FCS divionsion 1 subdivision is the scholarship limit 63 (those 63 scholarships can be split among 85 players, but you may not exceed a total of scholarship amounts exceeding 63)?

Their basketball revenue would have been higher if Will Wade hadn't overspent on his player's salaries. :)

The point was that we get a better product in division one as a whole as the those scholarships lost in the power five mean better players in the non-power five conferences. In terms of a scout team, remember that Indiana has 85 players on scholarship plus an additional 32 walk ons. 20 less scholarship players still leaves them with an gawdy 97 players. I think they can put a scout team together without the extra scholarships.

I would reallocate those scholarships to other sports. But I would also contend that 65 scholarships per D1 team as opposed to 85 per team would produce more competitive non-conference games and better balance overall.....twenty less scholarship in the power five means quite a bit of talent that is sitting on the sidelines in power five conferences will trickle down to the mid and low D1 teams (or D1A). The fact is that a non-power five school has an incredibly small chance of competing with the power five schools as it is now. That's not true in basketball, though. Think about this: NBA rosters are limited to 15 players. NFL rosters are 46 plus a practice squad of 9 (new this season, it was 7 before) for a total of 55 players. So in comparison: NBA: 15 man roster; NCAA basketball, 13 scholarships NFL: 55 man roster, NCAA football, 85 scholarships.

Dave Koch Sports is running a special season disk for their college football PC game this year that includes the projected ratings for each power five conference player and team for the 2020 season to allow a fictional season to be played. I've pre-ordered it and it is going to be released in early September. I can post Big Ten results like I did for basketball if there is interest.

Two games on set for September 12th openers have been rescheduled; Va Tech/NC State moved to the 26th and East Carolina v Marshall postponed without a new scheduled date, both due to covid concerns.

And they went on to beat Chesterton. In week 1, Chesterton played Hobart (which entered week two as the #1 team in 4A before losing to 6A #6 Merrillville 23-7 in week two). Chesterton led Hobart at halftime 7-3 and had an early fourth quarter drive down 10-7 that would have given them the lead end in a 98 yard pick 6 before falling 24-10. Chesterton is a decent 6A team -- they went 6-4 last year and their quarterback -- a junior this season -- threw for over 2,400 yards last year. A school the size of Pioneer beating Chesterton is unheard of, but Pioneer has put together an incredible run.

If he picked up four packs of white claw, I hope they rescind his scholarship.

I grew up in Union City, a team that plays in Cambridge City and Union County’s conference. I will say that cancelling a TEC game isn’t bad thing, LOL. Brutal to watch. :) Anyway, from an article I read on it, it sounded like no students at school were quarantined, only football players as they said there precautions at school eliminated close contacts. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a case of the coach not following the school’s covid protocol at practice that made them not able to determine who or how many were at risk.