Scholarship Limit

[BARRYBLUE1]

I would like to see scholarship limits reduced to 18 per year and 65 total. Would reduce possibility of Alabama and others poaching players and relegating them to 3/4 team, when original school would have them playing.One player I’m thinking of is Mac Jones.

 

[fuzz77]

I would like to see scholarship limits reduced to 18 per year and 65 total. Would reduce possibility of Alabama and others poaching players and relegating them to 3/4 team, when original school would have them playing.One player I’m thinking of is Mac Jones.

Cheating a lot of kids out of opportunities for a college education.
About 2700 kids at any one time that wouldn't have that free ride and for many of those kids that free ride is only chance they have at getting a college education.

Mac Jones made his decision knowing the odds. Also likely we never see Josh Allen at UK.

 

[bthaunert]

If you can't beat them, limit them!

 

[seccats04]

Either way their 65 will be better than 99% of everybody else.

 

[rupp876]

Either way their 65 will be better than 99% of everybody else.

Didn't they cut around 15 scholarships back in the early 90's?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I disagree. I like that UK can recruit kids that have potential and can be developed. While a lower amount of scholies may increase the talent available to UK, it also would greaten the need to get it right. There would be very little margin for error, which probably would benefit Bama and the other traditional powers.

Finally, Title 9 would probably require schools increase male opportunities elsewhere, if football scholarships were reduced, or reduce female scholies. Unlikely.

 

[UKSanders]

I disagree. I like that UK can recruit kids that have potential and can be developed. While a lower amount of scholies may increase the talent available to UK, it also would greaten the need to get it right. There would be very little margin for error, which probably would benefit Bama and the other traditional powers.

Finally, Title 9 would probably require schools increase male opportunities elsewhere, if football scholarships were reduced, or reduce female scholies. Unlikely.

Truthfully, football should've been excluded from Title IX as far as numbers are concerned.

 

[vhcat70]

College teams aren't deep enough to cover injuries now. They can't replace players injured like pros can.

If you want to even things up a bit, give an extra scholly or two to teams that finish under 500 in their conference. Or, take same away from those that finish over 500.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Truthfully, football should've been excluded from Title IX as far as numbers are concerned.

Or, it was a chief factor in the creation of Title IX.

 

[K_TIME]

Until college football has some serious financial shortcomings....it would be nearly impossible to justify taking that many schollies away. Tons of kids get a crack at football and education....hard to sell that as realistic given how popular college football is today.

 

[KingsportKat]

I would like to see scholarship limits reduced to 18 per year and 65 total. Would reduce possibility of Alabama and others poaching players and relegating them to 3/4 team, when original school would have them playing.One player I’m thinking of is Mac Jones.

We already have that. It's called the FCS (Football Championship Subdivision), the old 1-AA.

 

[mrschwump]

I remember when schools could sign like 40 per year. Crazy.

 

[TBCat]

The current numbers are about right. Limiting scholarships further would be a disastrous mistake. And it would affect teams like UK more than it would Bama if you did it. There really isn't a way to force a level playing field in college. The only real way to do that would be to have a draft, which of course isn't possible in college. Even then as we've seen with the Patriots vs someone like the Browns, a draft would still leave an unbalanced playing field because most teams wouldn't be good at drafting nor would they know what to do with a top level talent.

 

[fuzz77]

Didn't they cut around 15 scholarships back in the early 90's?

"The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was established in 1906 as the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States. The name was changed to its current name in 1910. There was no control over scholarships for any sport, but there was a requirement that a school's athletes had to be enrolled in the school they played for. Football schools could offer as many scholarships as they could afford and many had 150 players or more.

1973 brought about the first limitations on football scholarships in order to free up money for women's sports after Title IX was passed by Congress in 1972 as part of the Equal Opportunity in Education Act. This caused the NCAA schools' presidents and athletic directors to push through a limit of 105 football scholarships. Additional reductions were made in 1978 (95) and again in 1992 which brought the limit to its present number of 85 and 63 for Division I-AA."

My guess is that if ever there were another cut in the number of football scholarships that it would be done in concert with an increases in other areas. Baseball for example is limited to 11.7 and soccer 9.9 scholarships for men.

 

[Poetax]

Didn't they cut around 15 scholarships back in the early 90's?

It looks like before 1973, you could have as many as you could afford, and some schools had as many as 150. In ‘73 it went to 105, changed again in ‘78 to 95, and changed in ‘92 to 85.

 

[WildCard]

It looks like before 1973, you could have as many as you could afford, and some schools had as many as 150. In ‘73 it went to 105, changed again in ‘78 to 95, and changed in ‘92 to 85.

1973 was the last year of "unlimited scholarships" for football. New Pitt coach Johnny Majors (EDIT) brought in 76 scholarship FR in 1973, a class that included some guy named Dorsett.

Peace

 

[fuzz77]

Finally, Title 9 would probably require schools increase male opportunities elsewhere, if football scholarships were reduced, or reduce female scholies. Unlikely

Actually the increase would likely go to female sports because very few if any schools are truly Title IX compliant.

The "three prong test" for compliance (as determined by the US Supreme Court) is:

1. Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
3. Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

UK for example has a undergraduate enrollment of 22,425. 12,298 (55%) is female yet only 40% of the athletes at UK are female. So because UK fails test #1 it must continue to expand athletic opportunities for females. Most every school finds themselves in the same boat.

 

[cat888]

I would be more in favor of letting players sign a couple weeks after Commitment.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I would like to see scholarship limits reduced to 18 per year and 65 total. Would reduce possibility of Alabama and others poaching players and relegating them to 3/4 team, when original school would have them playing.One player I’m thinking of is Mac Jones.

This one is simple to achieve, drop down to FCS and you get a 63 limit.

 

[fabcat]

Actually the increase would likely go to female sports because very few if any schools are truly Title IX compliant.

The "three prong test" for compliance (as determined by the US Supreme Court) is:

1. Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
3. Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

UK for example has a undergraduate enrollment of 22,425. 12,298 (55%) is female yet only 40% of the athletes at UK are female. So because UK fails test #1 it must continue to expand athletic opportunities for females. Most every school finds themselves in the same boat.

Football skews the numbers and always will. With having 85 scholarships it will always drive percentages down. There’s not a woman’s sport that can offset that number. IMO if schools are offering equal opportunity in other sports it should make them compliant. Obviously no one cares about my opinion and common sense never comes into play when dealing with government mandates

 

[WildCard]

FWIW, 19 schools (you know who) have secured 241 (59%) of the top 410 2019 prospects (i.e., Rivals 4* and 5* prospects). Pretty much like that every year. Tough being in that "bottom 111".

Peace

 

[rupp876]

Actually the increase would likely go to female sports because very few if any schools are truly Title IX compliant.

The "three prong test" for compliance (as determined by the US Supreme Court) is:

1. Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
3. Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

UK for example has a undergraduate enrollment of 22,425. 12,298 (55%) is female yet only 40% of the athletes at UK are female. So because UK fails test #1 it must continue to expand athletic opportunities for females. Most every school finds themselves in the same boat.

What if there are not more females who wish to play sports? Does this not factor in?

 

[why_not_kentucky]

This class is finished. Save the other two or three scholarships for next year.

 

[sfvol76]

1973 was the last year of "unlimited scholarships" for football. New Pitt coach Jackie Sherrill brought in 76 scholarship FR in 1973, a class that included some guy named Dorsett.

Peace

That coach was Johnny Majors, Jackie Sherrill was an assistant to Majors who was promoted to HC when Majors took the UT job.

 

[WildCard]

That coach was Johnny Majors, Jackie Sherrill was an assistant to Majors who was promoted to HC when Majors took the UT job.

You are absolutely right. I misread my "original source" of that history.

Peace