BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Topic: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Author

Message

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,710

Status: Offline

Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 10:31:26 AM

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-to-increase-scholar...

Back to the days when the big boys could harvest players at whatever rate they wanted. And kids can spend their way into relevance if they choose.

shabamon
General User

Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 6,344

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 10:51:18 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

The transfer portal is still going to work both ways. A power conference program offering 105 scholarships is going to result in even more players not satisfied with their place and moving to the MAC so they can actually get on the field. Does the increase in scholarships mean an increase in NIL funds? Or does the pot get spread a little more thin.

How many players actually get on the field in a typical game? 40? 50? IMO 85 is more than plenty.

Where I do see the issue is if we choose to honor 105 football scholarships, can we afford to honor an increase in sports like volleyball, women's basketball, etc?

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 11:27:27 AM

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,106

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 12:32:17 PM

Yeah, BLSS. That's what this is all about, a college education.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 12:47:41 PM

bobcatsquared wrote:

Yeah, BLSS. That's what this is all about, a college education.

You're right -- it's not about education. And it hasn't been for a long time. yet people here pretend that's what they care about when it is helpful for them to do so.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,710

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 12:54:48 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

Again, where is funding coming from? And we’ve done this model before and it didn’t work then, so let’s try it again. This is just another nail going into the coffin of Olympic sports and women’s athletics.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,174

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 3:07:39 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

There won't necessarily be more athletes getting full scholarships. There will be more FOOTBALL players getting full scholarship, and more in four others as well. Note this kicker at the end:

Yahoo wrote:

...But not all programs can afford to add so many additional scholarships. Some administrators are in the process of “tiering” their sports by decreasing investment on certain programs and increasing investment in others. This includes staff and salary cuts as well as the reduction in scholarships from Olympic sports, especially those that generate little to no revenue.

We will have to see how it all sorts out in the end, which may take awhile. With most athletic departments bleeding money, if they have to spend more on sports like football, it would not be any surprise to see them cut some sports that produce little or no revenue.

BillyTheCat wrote:

Last Edited: 7/26/2024 3:08:42 PM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 6:11:09 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

If you don't have the money, you don't spend it. I'm not sure I understand what's complicated about this.

The G5 -- and many of its fans -- seem to think the NCAA and P5 are going to legislate competitive balance. Why they would, and why people think they will, is beyond me.

The G5 needs to learn how to exist without the P5s welfare, and the days of keeping up are well behind us.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 6:31:31 PM

L.C. wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

There won't necessarily be more athletes getting full scholarships. There will be more FOOTBALL players getting full scholarship, and more in four others as well. Note this kicker at the end:

Yahoo wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Should universities lose money to fund athletic programs? At the D3 level, someone here pointed out that athletics are actually sources of revenue in the sense that players tend to pay full tuition and there are a lot of them. Wouldn't that model actually work better for non-revenue sports at the D1 level? I'm not clear on why the way it's been done is the right way.

Miami, Toledo, Kent eliminated huge portions of their humanities departments and cut or consolidated tons of majors. If the humanities aren't worth losing money for, how is cross country? I'm hard-pressed to see the argument that foreign language programs are less a part of a university's mission than scholarship athletics.

Don't get me wrong; I wish the money were there for all of it. But it's not, even after making students pay expensive fees to fund athletic budgets. Choices have to be made. Isn't this the logical one?

Last Edited: 7/26/2024 6:33:16 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,509

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 7:07:45 PM

Other than a small percentage of D1 football and basketball, I believe athletics are very much still about education. This will cut down on those opportunities. Even at the D-1 level, walk-ons and partial scholarship players have been an important recruiting arm for universities.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,174

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/26/2024 10:53:37 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

There won't necessarily be more athletes getting full scholarships. There will be more FOOTBALL players getting full scholarship, and more in four others as well. Note this kicker at the end:

Yahoo wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

You argue that this will lead to more people getting scholarships, and that that is a good thing. Then you argue that it will lead to less people getting scholarships, and that that is a good thing.

My position is that it is not clear whether it will mean more people getting scholarships, and that, while more football players may get them, it most likely will come at the expense of other athletes. I'm neither saying that it is a good thing or a bad thing, only that it is inevitable.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 6:04:22 AM

L.C. wrote:

You're right -- I don't know if it will lead to net more individuals getting scholarships. At some schools, it absolutely will. At others, it won't. How that shakes out in the aggregate, I don't know.

But the isn't exactly that "that's good." It's that there's a segment of people who insist that college sports should be about education, but think it's a "body blow" to the G5 if P5 schools can offer more full scholarships. Because what matters most to them is competitive balance in athletics, and they'd happily keep more kids at Texas or Ohio State or UNC or wherever from getting a full scholarship in exchange for a system that doesn't disadvantage the G5 further relative to programs we're not actually competitive with.

The question of "where does the money come from" suggests that school spending on academics for athletes should be uniform and restricted, and have no relationship with resources and budget. I don't understand why.

And I hardly said "it would be a good thing" if fewer kids fit scholarships. In fact, I said I would prefer it if the money was there for more. But there is a financial reality, and I'm not sure why it's so universally accepted that Olympic sports should necessarily be scholarship sports given the financial realities at many schools.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,710

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 7:29:46 AM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I would have thought more athletes getting full scholarships would be seen as a good thing. So we want fewer kids to get their education paid for?

There won't necessarily be more athletes getting full scholarships. There will be more FOOTBALL players getting full scholarship, and more in four others as well. Note this kicker at the end:

Yahoo wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Should universities lose money to fund athletic programs?

They already DO!

And we’ve already went non scholarship in our own model, worked so well we cut the spots. The point is, it’s getting to where there may be no space for these programs and educational opportunities for people who have benefitted from opportunity.

LC, I’m glad you understand what is potentially happening here and the overall effects this will have on thousands of young people.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 8:22:49 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

They already DO!

And we’ve already went non scholarship in our own model, worked so well we cut the spots.

I'm curious what happened and why it didn't work? At the D3 level, a poster here made the very good point that D3 schools rely heavily on revenue created by athletes paying full-price to "chase the dream" -- wouldn't that be an easier sell at the D1 level with a higher level of competition?

BillyTheCat wrote:

The point is, it’s getting to where there may be no space for these programs and educational opportunities for people who have benefitted from opportunity.

LC, I’m glad you understand what is potentially happening here and the overall effects this will have on thousands of young people.

Which scholarship sports do you think open up the most educational opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn't have had them?

I'd venture to guess that football is far and away number one. Do you think the demographic of scholarship golf athletes wouldn't otherwise have had educational opportunity? Youth soccer in the US -- even at the very highest levels -- is pay to play. Demographically, top college soccer athletes are rarely unlocking an otherwise unattainable academic opportunity because of their talent. Where else does it happen regularly? Gymnastics? Tennis? Lacrosse? Hockey? Swimming? Fencing? Maybe Track & Field? Remember the massive college admissions scandal at top universities? There are lessons there.

And this is really my point here -- you cite education and educational opportunities -- but only when it's convenient and advantageous to do so in pursuit of your actual top priority: making it possible for G5 schools like Ohio to compete at as high a level as possibly athletically.

You didn't post here to say "this is bad. Fewer kids will get an education." You posted this to say the G5 won't be able to keep up with how other schools fund education. And your complaint was solely through the lens of athletics and competitive balance.

This change creates fewer restrictions on how schools can spend on academics, and increases their budgets to do so. Your first post is very obviously about how that will allow deep pocketed schools to sign better players, and how that will impact college football on the field. That you're now desperately trying to pretend you're just looking out for the academic best interests of field hockey players is the exact hypocrisy my first post here was calling out.

At least own what you think, man. Instead you're pretending you said something else altogether and are pathetically pandering to L.C. so he can make a coherent point that you can actually stand behind.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,710

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 8:50:27 AM

BLSS the DIII model works for very small schools who need the enrollment. There is one hell of a difference between Muskingham and Kent State. They are two totally different models!

Why didn’t it work? Because schools grabbed up all the talent, recruiting kids who they knew would never play, just so someone else didn’t get them. Yes the portal will help that to an extent. Also, when we had this model, there was no women’s sports on the whole and definitely no move for equality, and they are the ones that will suffer from this.

People who will also suffer? If schools take that partial scholarship route, some kids may not be able to afford it. At the end of the day, I have extensive exposure to college athletics at the DI and DII, DIII levels. I speak with coaches and administrators daily. Why you refuse to even think that these moves are not potentially bad for many schools and students, then I do not know what to tell you.

FYI, save your multi-quote text box response, because I will not spend anymore time on you with this topic.

LC, thanks for your thoughts and input.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 1:44:26 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Oh, I see. So this was in a very different landscape that it didn't work.

BillyTheCat wrote:

People who will also suffer? If schools take that partial scholarship route, some kids may not be able to afford it. At the end of the day, I have extensive exposure to college athletics at the DI and DII, DIII levels. I speak with coaches and administrators daily. Why you refuse to even think that these moves are not potentially bad for many schools and students, then I do not know what to tell you.

Don't doubt there would be some people who couldn't afford it with partial scholarships. But om average, athletic scholarships go to students from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds. Remove the football players, and I suspect that data is even more pronounced.

And I'll decide what I respond to, dude. You don't have to engage -- I know you don't when people disagree with you. But in your words the future of Ohio Athletics are at risk, so it seems like a conversation worth having.

Last Edited: 7/27/2024 1:46:51 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,710

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/27/2024 4:27:27 PM

For anyone interested, at a National Conference right now with leadership from many mid major conferences. None seem overly excited about the future with this court forced settlement. Been an interesting 24 hours of workshops listening to them.

Pete Chouteau
General User

Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: You Can't See Me
Post Count: 1,620

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/28/2024 1:16:52 PM

With no legal knowledge, I wonder if the MAC (and mid/low-major brethren) is able (and its members are interested) to set a scholarship limit lower than the NCAA standard. IIRC, this is the case in football travel numbers for conference games.

It's not a death knell or a body blow, because our ilk have been walking dead for quite some time. Our football has been meaningless for generations at this point.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,424

Status: Offline

RE: Can’t believe no one has picked up on this - another body blow to G5

Posted: 7/28/2024 2:51:44 PM

Pete Chouteau wrote:

I think it's really hard to do. Ultimately the new scholarship set up is about removing artificial caps on compensation -- and the settlement considers both educational benefits and revenue share payments to be compensation. I don't think a group of schools could re-cap without risking legal action.

That said, nobody has to pay anything more than what they pay now. The G5 can choose to do nothing differently without any issue legally.

Showing Replies:	1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 167 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

163 Guests
4 Registered Users:
	OUs LONG Driver, greencat, Deciduous Forest Cat, Maddog13

There are no other users looking at this page.