NCAA to increase scholarships for sports, including football limit going from from 85 to 105

[RedZone]

That's sort of a big deal.

I was ok with 85.

[Ga96]

Good on face value but it's just making the rich richer. Teams like UGA don't need anymore players. 

[AztecPadre]

On 7/25/2024 at 10:03 AM, Ga96 said:

Good on face value but it's just making the rich richer. Teams like UGA don't need anymore players. 

No, they just need better ones. lol

[HooverOutlaw]

On 7/25/2024 at 12:03 PM, Ga96 said:

Good on face value but it's just making the rich richer. Teams like UGA don't need anymore players. 

Scholarship limits were put in place to to keep black kids out of football IMO.  

[Ga96]

1 hour ago, HooverOutlaw said:

Scholarship limits were put in place to to keep black kids out of football IMO.  

Definitely but in my opinion it worked into the favor of smaller schools and helped with balancing. Kind of how the transfer portal and extra covid year did. Kids had to go to smaller schools or their second, third, fourth, and even 5th choice school. Now schools like UGA will have the room and possiblity of getting an entire class of 5 stars.

[TruthSerum]

Football isn't even going to see much of a change here 

Many teams don't even use their entire roster now in a season so you have scholarship players who will sit the bench all year 

I look at a sport like softball going from 13 to 25 and see that a sport that had very few roster players with full rides before will now have full rides for most of the roster (only the very large FBS schools typically have more than 25 on a roster)

Athletes in general in sports that typically had partial scholarships are the ones who will benefit the most from the change 

[CaliNorth]

17 hours ago, HooverOutlaw said:

Scholarship limits were put in place to to keep black kids out of football IMO.  

In ca , and I don't know about rest of country , they have to limit due to the equal rights for women's athletics.  Meaning they have to give out equal amount of scholarships to women's sports, which is beyond reason. Men's football and basketball practically finance all athletic depts in colleges. Women's sports are non self supporting and quite frankly drain the finances of these athletic depts. It's wokeness to the fullest degree .  This why many capable male athletes get left out in cold while women's lacrosse players can get full rides, etc.  

[HooverOutlaw]

4 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

In ca , and I don't know about rest of country , they have to limit due to the equal rights for women's athletics.  Meaning they have to give out equal amount of scholarships to women's sports, which is beyond reason. Men's football and basketball practically finance all athletic depts in colleges. Women's sports are non self supporting and quite frankly drain the finances of these athletic depts. It's wokeness to the fullest degree .  This why many capable male athletes get left out in cold while women's lacrosse players can get full rides, etc.  

They started limits in the early 70's.  

[Fred]

They also changed that football doesn't have to give full ride scholarships.  They can now give partial awards.

[Fred]

On 7/26/2024 at 5:30 PM, AztecPadre said:

No, they just need better ones. lol

UGA needs players that can drive better and smarter.

[JCGIII]

On 7/26/2024 at 6:37 PM, HooverOutlaw said:

Scholarship limits were put in place to to keep black kids out of football IMO.  

Source?

[HooverOutlaw]

2 hours ago, JCGIII said:

Source?

It did not happened till blacks kid started going to all schools in the late 60's early 70's.  You can't tell me it was just by chance.

[JCGIII]

7 hours ago, HooverOutlaw said:

It did not happened till blacks kid started going to all schools in the late 60's early 70's.  You can't tell me it was just by chance.

Title IX was a factor.Plus the northern schools pushed for the limitations.They wanted more time and opportunity to recruit the South. Joe Paterno was a proponent of dropping scholarships to 105, which was the limit after the 1973 rules change. And moving signing day to February. Signing Day wasn’t always in February. Coaches from outside of the South had to work harder to recruit Black kids who now had the choice to play where they wanted. The Big-10 and the major independents were no longer the only choice. The reductions were designed to penalize Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, and a few other schools. Johnny Majors first year at Pittsburgh was the last year for unlimited scholarships. Pitt signed nearly 90 that year, nearly half were Black kids from all over the country. Oklahoma signed 77 for 1973. How the limits hurt Black players is that it didn't. Later on numbers were dropped to 95 and then 85. That hurt teams depth, but has spread the talent around to some degree. Which was the given reason for scholarship reductions. Schools like Clemson, FSU, Miami and others could now afford to play since Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia, while not giving as many as Alabama or Texas,  would hit 45-50 some years. This did free  up opportunities for other schools to compete for talent. The motive for what you suggest is incorrect. 

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/25400/10.1177.1527002502239655.pdf;jsessionid=66319F72DCBE0DBABC3D00A32A696BBC?sequence=1

[HooverOutlaw]

53 minutes ago, JCGIII said:

Title IX was a factor.Plus the northern schools pushed for the limitations.They wanted more time and opportunity to recruit the South. Joe Paterno was a proponent of dropping scholarships to 105, which was the limit after the 1973 rules change. And moving signing day to February. Signing Day wasn’t always in February. Coaches from outside of the South had to work harder to recruit Black kids who now had the choice to play where they wanted. The Big-10 and the major independents were no longer the only choice. The reductions were designed to penalize Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, and a few other schools. Johnny Majors first year at Pittsburgh was the last year for unlimited scholarships. Pitt signed nearly 90 that year, nearly half were Black kids from all over the country. Oklahoma signed 77 for 1973. How the limits hurt Black players is that it didn't. Later on numbers were dropped to 95 and then 85. That hurt teams depth, but has spread the talent around to some degree. Which was the given reason for scholarship reductions. Schools like Clemson, FSU, Miami and others could now afford to play since Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia, while not giving as many as Alabama or Texas,  would hit 45-50 some years. This did free  up opportunities for other schools to compete for talent. The motive for what you suggest is incorrect. 

Remember prior to the 70's freshman were not eligible. 

[JCGIII]

Just now, HooverOutlaw said:

Remember prior to the 70's freshman were not eligible. 

1973 was the first year of freshman eligibility 

[HooverOutlaw]

16 hours ago, Fred said:

UGA needs players that can drive better and smarter.

Or not abuse kids.

[Fred]

On 7/27/2024 at 12:16 PM, CaliNorth said:

In ca , and I don't know about rest of country , they have to limit due to the equal rights for women's athletics.  Meaning they have to give out equal amount of scholarships to women's sports, which is beyond reason. Men's football and basketball practically finance all athletic depts in colleges. Women's sports are non self supporting and quite frankly drain the finances of these athletic depts. It's wokeness to the fullest degree .  This why many capable male athletes get left out in cold while women's lacrosse players can get full rides, etc.  

By your logic, if it isn't positive revenue producing, it shouldn't be played as it detracts from football and basketball.  Goodbye track and field, weightlifting, swimming, diving, gymnastics, baseball, golf, and more.  That would apply to both men's and women's sports.  If you only want to apply it to women and not equally to the men's sports that are drains on resources, then you are clearly stating your misogynistic viewpoints and are missing out on the skill sets of half the population.  Other than a head to head competition involving physical skills where body mass/strength is the deciding factor, there is *nothing* women can't do that men can and they deserve that opportunity as much as the men.  That's not being woke.  That's being real.

[Fred]

On 7/26/2024 at 6:37 PM, HooverOutlaw said:

Scholarship limits were put in place to to keep black kids out of football IMO.  

 

8 hours ago, HooverOutlaw said:

It did not happened till blacks kid started going to all schools in the late 60's early 70's.  You can't tell me it was just by chance.

Racist much?

[TruthSerum]

1 hour ago, Fred said:

By your logic, if it isn't positive revenue producing, it shouldn't be played as it detracts from football and basketball.  Goodbye track and field, weightlifting, swimming, diving, gymnastics, baseball, golf, and more.  That would apply to both men's and women's sports.  If you only want to apply it to women and not equally to the men's sports that are drains on resources, then you are clearly stating your misogynistic viewpoints and are missing out on the skill sets of half the population.  Other than a head to head competition involving physical skills where body mass/strength is the deciding factor, there is *nothing* women can't do that men can and they deserve that opportunity as much as the men.  That's not being woke.  That's being real.

What I find ironic is how many people see baseball as a big 3 sport and yet softball numbers as of late have been in the same ballpark as baseball at the college level 

Only reason people try to fight against that notion is BECAUSE of the stigma of softball being a women's sport and many of the population refuse to see any women's sport in the same discussion as any mens sport even if the numbers would suggest they are 

[HooverOutlaw]

2 hours ago, Fred said:

 

Racist much?

Not me but the NCAA damn sure is.

[CaliNorth]

6 hours ago, TruthSerum said:

What I find ironic is how many people see baseball as a big 3 sport and yet softball numbers as of late have been in the same ballpark as baseball at the college level 

Only reason people try to fight against that notion is BECAUSE of the stigma of softball being a women's sport and many of the population refuse to see any women's sport in the same discussion as any mens sport even if the numbers would suggest they are 

Do you happen to turn in and watch the LPGA by any chance ?  No one gives a damn . Women's soccer, unless it is a world cup big matchup, no one watches women's league soccer . I would go so far as to say, the numbers would be way down for women's tennis if not for them piggy backing off the men at the Grand slams . If only the LPGA could piggyback off of the Men's Grad slam events . Other than the initial Catlen buzz in womens Pro B-ball, do you actually waste a couple hours of your precious  time watching that ? Women's track and field , swimming, Simone Biles  in Olympics is  worth while watching to me .  I think I'm in the majority of people when they really want to see athletics at the highest levels most of the time . That's why women's sports don't make money . Has nothing to do with the value of women, just not when it is compared to men in sports the majority of the time .

[TruthSerum]

14 minutes ago, CaliNorth said:

Do you happen to turn in and watch the LPGA by any chance ?  No one gives a damn . Women's soccer, unless it is a world cup big matchup, no one watches women's league soccer . I would go so far as to say, the numbers would be way down for women's tennis if not for them piggy backing off the men at the Grand slams . If only the LPGA could piggyback off of the Men's Grad slam events . Other than the initial Catlen buzz in womens Pro B-ball, do you actually waste a couple hours of your precious  time watching that ? Women's track and field , swimming, Simone Biles  in Olympics is  worth while watching to me .  I think I'm in the majority of people when they really want to see athletics at the highest levels most of the time . That's why women's sports don't make money . Has nothing to do with the value of women, just not when it is compared to men in sports the majority of the time .

Based on what I've seen I would watch softball at the college level over baseball any day 

Maybe it's because softball is different enough from baseball that it can build it's own audience? though I never have any excitement to watch college baseball when I could find better pacing and excitement from high school and better quality from pro baseball 

If I want emotion I'll watch high school baseball 

If I want quality of play I'll watch major league baseball 

College baseball isn't good enough to get by on the "enthusiasm" and the quality of play isn't good enough to be worth watching on its own 

 

So if I'm comparing those two then absolutely I'm watching softball over baseball because college softball is the highest proper organization of that sport and the play as a result is significantly better than what college baseball has been as of late 

 

It's why college football is becoming less exciting to watch for me because it's just a weaker version of the NFL now and if I want to watch the emotion of the sport I'll watch high school (well until certain states ruin that then I'll probably just watch a different sport) 

 

 

[TruthSerum]

21 minutes ago, CaliNorth said:

Do you happen to turn in and watch the LPGA by any chance ?  No one gives a damn . Women's soccer, unless it is a world cup big matchup, no one watches women's league soccer . I would go so far as to say, the numbers would be way down for women's tennis if not for them piggy backing off the men at the Grand slams . If only the LPGA could piggyback off of the Men's Grad slam events . Other than the initial Catlen buzz in womens Pro B-ball, do you actually waste a couple hours of your precious  time watching that ? Women's track and field , swimming, Simone Biles  in Olympics is  worth while watching to me .  I think I'm in the majority of people when they really want to see athletics at the highest levels most of the time . That's why women's sports don't make money . Has nothing to do with the value of women, just not when it is compared to men in sports the majority of the time .

But you still didn't address why softball isn't seen on the same level as baseball at the college level even with similar drawing power as of late 

[CaliNorth]

1 hour ago, TruthSerum said:

But you still didn't address why softball isn't seen on the same level as baseball at the college level even with similar drawing power as of late 

College baseball is an outlier , Never has been big due to the fact a large amount of talent goes strait to the minor leagues. I have no opinion of college women's softball except the Ca and norcal H.S girls have been exceptional over the years . Baseball it appears to me, I may be wrong, that it is in a decline. I loved it as a youngster and excelled in it but I can't watch it anymore except maybe for playoffs a game or 2 .  Like you said, H.S. football, some college ( but that is now changing with no more pac 12 ) , Pro football ( The King ) and NBA playoffs ( March madness also ). Olympics, world track and field championships , some Men's wcup soccer , Too bad boxing is shit these days . I remember the glory days . Nothing like those sugar ray leonard - Duran-Hearns Pryor- Ali, Tyson, etc. Thats a sport I miss.

[TruthSerum]

7 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

College baseball is an outlier , Never has been big due to the fact a large amount of talent goes strait to the minor leagues. I have no opinion of college women's softball except the Ca and norcal H.S girls have been exceptional over the years . Baseball it appears to me, I may be wrong, that it is in a decline. I loved it as a youngster and excelled in it but I can't watch it anymore except maybe for playoffs a game or 2 .  Like you said, H.S. football, some college ( but that is now changing with no more pac 12 ) , Pro football ( The King ) and NBA playoffs ( March madness also ). Olympics, world track and field championships , some Men's wcup soccer , Too bad boxing is shit these days . I remember the glory days . Nothing like those sugar ray leonard - Duran-Hearns Pryor- Ali, Tyson, etc. Thats a sport I miss.

There's several reasons for that 

1) the warm weather has allowed those athletes to play year round (it's also why Texas and Florida also has done well with softball talent) 

2) prior to Oklahoma City, they did hold the world series for softball in CA so the sport grew in pac 12 country 

3) the success of Arizona and UCLA in softball led to PAC 12 country being the first portion of the country to actually take the sport seriously and it made the athletes in those states better and with California being the largest state in PAC 12 country it only makes sense California would be the biggest benefactor of that