Expendable IU sports

[RaceToTheTop]

I still contend that 85 football scholarships is way too many a lesser amount — say 65 — would create a better product.  There would be no real loss in revenue — could be an increase with fewer players on scholarship — and 20 fewer scholarships would allow for fewer cuts to sports to satisfy title IX.

[Brass Cannon]

7 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

I still contend that 85 football scholarships is way too many a lesser amount — say 65 — would create a better product.  There would be no real loss in revenue — could be an increase with fewer players on scholarship — and 20 fewer scholarships would allow for fewer cuts to sports to satisfy title IX.

Aren’t those approximately 20 players we never see in a given year basically the scout team?  If so I doubt it would give us a better product. 

[IUc2016]

I still contend that 85 football scholarships is way too many a lesser amount — say 65 — would create a better product.  There would be no real loss in revenue — could be an increase with fewer players on scholarship — and 20 fewer scholarships would allow for fewer cuts to sports to satisfy title IX.

Well as long as those 20 scholarships are reallocated to scholarships to others sports then yes maybe.

But to cut 20 scholarships for a “better product” is not a good take.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[RaceToTheTop]

On 8/22/2020 at 8:06 AM, IUc2016 said:

Well as long as those 20 scholarships are reallocated to scholarships to others sports then yes maybe.

But to cut 20 scholarships for a “better product” is not a good take.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

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.

[RaceToTheTop]

On 8/22/2020 at 7:07 AM, Brass Cannon said:

Aren’t those approximately 20 players we never see in a given year basically the scout team?  If so I doubt it would give us a better product. 

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.

[RaceToTheTop]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:09 PM, Magnanimous said:

Not sure what IU’s breakdown is, but LSU’s net profits and losses by sport were posted on Twitter a few months ago. Figures are from the 2016-17 year. Link

Football: +$56m

Men’s Basketball: +$1.6m

Baseball: $500k

Rest of LSU sports: -$23m

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

[Brass Cannon]

21 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

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.

If it’s so easy why haven’t they done it already?

[RaceToTheTop]

On 8/31/2020 at 3:47 PM, Brass Cannon said:

If it’s so easy why haven’t they done it already?

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)?

[IUc2016]

On 8/30/2020 at 7:33 PM, brumdog45 said:

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.

You're still eliminating scholarships for "a better product" and that's an interesting take. Those loss in 20 scholarships/team adds up to be quite a bit each year in the FBS. While you can redistribute them to other sports within the university, you still lose that amount of scholarships for collegiate football. IMO that is ridiculous just to see a better product. 

[Brass Cannon]

10 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

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)?

You make it sound really easy.  
 

And it’s not practical to still have a scout team with a reduction of 20 scholarship players.  You can’t just field walkons to be the scout team. 

[RaceToTheTop]

13 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

You make it sound really easy.  
 

And it’s not practical to still have a scout team with a reduction of 20 scholarship players.  You can’t just field walkons to be the scout team. 

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

[RaceToTheTop]

14 hours ago, IUc2016 said:

You're still eliminating scholarships for "a better product" and that's an interesting take. Those loss in 20 scholarships/team adds up to be quite a bit each year in the FBS. While you can redistribute them to other sports within the university, you still lose that amount of scholarships for collegiate football. IMO that is ridiculous just to see a better product. 

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

[CSP]

On 8/30/2020 at 7:33 PM, brumdog45 said:

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.

There's nothing gawdy about 97. Literally.. at worst you'd need 88. But then you factor in injuries.... where they are at numbers wise is about perfect. Maybe knock it to 80? Idk. There's nothing wrong with the number now. 

[RaceToTheTop]

4 hours ago, btownqb said:

There's nothing gawdy about 97. Literally.. at worst you'd need 88. But then you factor in injuries.... where they are at numbers wise is about perfect. Maybe knock it to 80? Idk. There's nothing wrong with the number now. 

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

[CSP]

25 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

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

I guess.. why not give them 40 scholarships then? Teams would adjust. 

[RaceToTheTop]

6 hours ago, btownqb said:

I guess.. why not give them 40 scholarships then? Teams would adjust. 

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.  

 

[Magnanimous]

Minnesota is dropping four sports.

[LamarCheeks]

The Minnesota sports, BTW, are ... men's tennis, men's gymnastics, men's indoor track and men's outdoor track. 

[WayneFleekHoosier]

#LetThemPlay


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

[Magnanimous]

8 hours ago, LamarCheeks said:

The Minnesota sports, BTW, are ... men's tennis, men's gymnastics, men's indoor track and men's outdoor track. 

Men’s gymnastics is going way of the dodo at this rate.