Hey, Nick Saban, the NCAA is coming to limit the size of your football staff

#5
#5
GoBigOrangeUT said:
If there is a limit on the amount of players a program can have, then why not coaches?
Click to expand...

I don't believe there should be a limit on either, since the players are supposed to be "amateurs" and "students."

But even then the two aren't mutually exclusive. The NFL limits the number of players, but a franchise can employ as many coaches as they see fit.
 
#6
#6
bamawriter said:
I don't believe there should be a limit on either, since the players are supposed to be "amateurs" and "students."

But even then the two aren't mutually exclusive. The NFL limits the number of players, but a franchise can employ as many coaches as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Great, want to compare NFL to college? How do you think a player salary cap would effect Bama's recruiting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
I don't see a problem with the analysts. If a school wants them and can afford them, do it. The argument of some schools not being able to afford as many is a BS argument. Might as well argue that Michigan can't pay Harbaugh whatever he is making because Iowa St. can't afford it.

Now should these analysts be more limited on Saturdays? Sure. there should be a limit for the on the field guys during the game. (or at least I could see the NCAA having some jurisdiction over that)
 
#8
#8
bamawriter said:
I don't believe there should be a limit on either, since the players are supposed to be "amateurs" and "students."
Click to expand...

There is a limit on scholarships, not total players, correct?

Either way, for the precise reason you gave, I'm surprised more people don't make an argument against scholarship limits.

If you support scholarship limits for competitive reasons, then can't limits on all sorts of other things logically follow? Limits on coaches (which they are doing now), how "nice" the facilities can be, how big the stadium can be, how often you can appear in a prime time slot? All of these are competitive advantages that some schools have over others.
 
#9
#9
05_never_again said:
There is a limit on scholarships, not total players, correct?

Either way, for the precise reason you gave, I'm surprised more people don't make an argument against scholarship limits.
Click to expand...

And therein lies my issue. The NCAA wants to paint college athletics as this wonderful, blessed avenue by which students can gain access to higher education that they might not otherwise have. They love to emphasize the "student" part of "student-athletes" in those commercials that proudly proclaim that the majority of student-athletes will "go pro in something other than sports."

It bugs me that they spout this stuff, but then place limits on scholarships. If a school is willing to provide a scholarship and grant access to higher education, why should that be limited?

In the same sense, why should a school be limited as to how many coaches a team can employ? Is it a bad thing to employ as many people as possible? Is it a bad thing to provide athletes, particularly student-athletes, as much instruction as possible?

The obvious answer to all of the above questions is that the NCAA, and most of its membership, doesn't give a crap about the "student" end of the "student-athlete" combination.

If you support scholarship limits for competitive reasons, then can't limits on all sorts of other things logically follow? Limits on coaches (which they are doing now), how "nice" the facilities can be, how big the stadium can be, how often you can appear in a prime time slot? All of these are competitive advantages that some schools have over others.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
#11
#11
bamawriter said:
It bugs me that they spout this stuff, but then place limits on scholarships. If a school is willing to provide a scholarship and grant access to higher education, why should that be limited?
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I suppose the NCAA would retort by saying something like the scholarship limits are there for competitive and/or "fairness" reasons - so the big schools with more resources can't have more scholarship players than a smaller school, or so different sports at the same school are treated more equally - and after all since these athletes are "amateurs" it is in the interest of the student-athlete to level the playing field and have things be more "fair."

A quick Google search turns up that scholarship limits for football were first instituted in 1973 to free up money for women's sports because of Title IX. The current level of 85 has only been around since 1992:

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/6/11...a-brief-history-of-ncaa-football-scholarships
 
#15
#15
05_never_again said:
There is a limit on scholarships, not total players, correct?

Either way, for the precise reason you gave, I'm surprised more people don't make an argument against scholarship limits.

If you support scholarship limits for competitive reasons, then can't limits on all sorts of other things logically follow? Limits on coaches (which they are doing now), how "nice" the facilities can be, how big the stadium can be, how often you can appear in a prime time slot? All of these are competitive advantages that some schools have over others.
Click to expand...
I think the roster is limited to 105 total including walk ons.
 
#16
#16
bamawriter said:
And therein lies my issue. The NCAA wants to paint college athletics as this wonderful, blessed avenue by which students can gain access to higher education that they might not otherwise have. They love to emphasize the "student" part of "student-athletes" in those commercials that proudly proclaim that the majority of student-athletes will "go pro in something other than sports."

It bugs me that they spout this stuff, but then place limits on scholarships. If a school is willing to provide a scholarship and grant access to higher education, why should that be limited?

In the same sense, why should a school be limited as to how many coaches a team can employ? Is it a bad thing to employ as many people as possible? Is it a bad thing to provide athletes, particularly student-athletes, as much instruction as possible?

The obvious answer to all of the above questions is that the NCAA, and most of its membership, doesn't give a crap about the "student" end of the "student-athlete" combination.



Spot on.
Click to expand...

yeah because the schools are just giving out full ride scholarships all over the place outside of sports. Maybe that is what the Bear was doing having over 100 people on his team. just making sure everyone got a degree.

you can cut the crap that removing the limits on numbers is for the good of the student/athlete. especially when it comes to getting an education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
LouderVol said:
yeah because the schools are just giving out full ride scholarships all over the place outside of sports. Maybe that is what the Bear was doing having over 100 people on his team. just making sure everyone got a degree.

you can cut the crap that removing the limits on numbers is for the good of the student/athlete. especially when it comes to getting an education.
Click to expand...

Nice job angrily rephrasing the post you quoted.
 
#18
#18
LouderVol said:
yeah because the schools are just giving out full ride scholarships all over the place outside of sports. Maybe that is what the Bear was doing having over 100 people on his team. just making sure everyone got a degree.

you can cut the crap that removing the limits on numbers is for the good of the student/athlete. especially when it comes to getting an education.
Click to expand...

Who is instituting the limits good for, then?
 
#19
#19
Overreaction as always. You can't level the playing field when there are certain football programs with built-in advantages in recruiting, brand, coaching, etc. No amount of silly legislation will be a worthy substitute for hard work, talented players, great coaching, and a predetermined mindset not to fail. If any football program can come up with that combo-recipe, welcome to the club.
 
#22
#22
05_never_again said:
Who is instituting the limits good for, then?
Click to expand...

Small schools not able to afford it, some would shut down their programs as costs became issues. We assume every school could afford to have 200 players as we are in the SEC. But most schools can hardly afford the 85. and any of the players who would end up at a large school to ride the bench and never get exposure they would have elsewhere.
 
#23
#23
I'd be fine with getting rid of the scholarship limit so long as scholarships become a 4 year contract that the school cannot revoke. Sign a hundred if you want but you should have to pay for them to get a degree.
 
#24
#24
The NCAA is tearing itself apart. It wants NFL level talent but not NFL level operations. This is, after all, about student athletes. They want top tier games on the tv but want that top tier talent to be coached by aw shucks head coaches and a couple reliable assistants. Too much personnel and people may figure out this is sort of a money making operation and not really the education first oriented nonsense they attempt to portray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top