Should the NCAA change the FBS scholarship limit?

[Hilltop]

21 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

Right, but those are all guys who have already walked on. Nobody is recruiting 4-stars and stashing them as walk-ons with above-market NIL deals or anything. This can keep walk-ons from leaving, but how many of them would have been put on scholarship anyway - 2? 3? 

Of course- nobody was claiming that.  We are discussing scholarship limits and how it pertains to the Huskers currently being way over limit.  The reality is we can keep 105 guys if we want to- just need the 1890 to pay the additional 20 guys tuition instead of UNL.

 

The schools with deep enough pockets are already selectively recruiting the borderline 2-3 star guys who would maybe get a scholarship at a lesser school and trying to talk them into NIL tuition deals to come as a walk on.  This isn't happening everywhere yet but it will be standard within the next few years.  

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

Of course- nobody was claiming that.  We are discussing scholarship limits and how it pertains to the Huskers currently being way over limit.  The reality is we can keep 105 guys if we want to- just need the 1890 to pay the additional 20 guys tuition instead of UNL.

 

The schools with deep enough pockets are already selectively recruiting the borderline 2-3 star guys who would maybe get a scholarship at a lesser school and trying to talk them into NIL tuition deals to come as a walk on.  This isn't happening everywhere yet but it will be standard within the next few years.  

We aren't going to keep 20 guys that should be on scholarship somewhere here with NIL.

[JJ Husker]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

We aren't going to keep 20 guys that should be on scholarship somewhere here with NIL.

Yep. Those guys get a scholarship AND NIL dollars.

 

And while we’re on the subject. I thought the players had to do a little something other than simply being on the team to get NIL dollars. Spokesperson, advertising, appearances…something. Maybe I’m wrong and I know it’s an extremely low hurdle but I don’t think they can receive money simply because they’re on the team.

 

The other deals of tuition being paid look to be a reward for a track record of contributing, much like when we reward a walk-on with a schollie after 2-3 years. I think NIL could be used in place of that, so yeah it may help expand the 85 limit a bit but I’m very doubtful it will be used to effectively raise the number into the 105 range.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

And while we’re on the subject. I thought the players had to do a little something other than simply being on the team to get NIL dollars. Spokesperson, advertising, appearances…something. Maybe I’m wrong and I know it’s an extremely low hurdle but I don’t think they can receive money simply because they’re on the team.

 

Yeah....that seems to be something that has been forgotten by everyone involved.

 

Again...how do you police it?

[Red Five]

It all sounds great, but its not that feasible in practice to give kids a scholarship based on NIL.

 

Tuition/housing + books + meals + football stipend has to be close to $60k/year.  Then that would also be taxable, so now you're up to about $80k/year.  Say you want to do this for 5 guys, so that is $400k.  The money is finite.  Wouldn't that $400k be better used to get 1-2 top players than to use on projects (numbers 86-90 on your roster)?

 

Also, no kid is going to choose a NIL scholarship over a real scholarship.  Real scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years per B1G rules.  If you get hurt or don't want to play football anymore, a real scholarship can still let you go to school for free.  Do you think if you get hurt and can't play anymore that there is still going to be a NIL scholarship for you?

 

 

[JJ Husker]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah....that seems to be something that has been forgotten by everyone involved.

 

Again...how do you police it?

IDK but it sounds like the NCAA is maybe becoming interested…finally. Seems the burden is now on the school and player to prove it.
 

18 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 

[runningblind]

17 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

IDK but it sounds like the NCAA is maybe becoming interested…finally. Seems the burden is now on the school and player to prove it.
 

 

I feel like when the NCAA starts trying to enforce that, the top conferences will finally just break away and be done with them. 

[JJ Husker]

4 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I feel like when the NCAA starts trying to enforce that, the top conferences will finally just break away and be done with them. 

If not sooner… But until that happens we should probably at least pretend that the NCAA actually matters.

[gobiggergoredder]

1 hour ago, Hilltop said:

I never said they were meaningless - I said they are meaning less than they previously did due to NIL.  In other words, the scholarship cap doesn't matter nearly as much as it previously did because schools have a way to get tuition paid for their walk on players.  This is already happening at many schools.  The school is allowed to pay 85 directly but then the collectives can pay the tuition of an additional 20 making the cap pointless really.  

Understand.  Don’t disagree.

 

you could have the entire team go to school for free and the 12-17th guy is going to transfer.  Some of the smaller schools are getting their top talent stolen.

[Toe]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This.

Title IX is exactly why the scholarship limit will not be eliminated or raised.

 

Title IX might impose some practical limitations, but that's about it. They'll figure out a make the numbers work.

[BigRedBuster]

38 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I feel like when the NCAA starts trying to enforce that, the top conferences will finally just break away and be done with them. 

OK, I get that people think that.  But, what really do they gain?  They still will need to have a governing body that brings structure and organization to the sport.  More than there is now anyway.

 

If they don't like the NCAA, they have all the power to change it.  

[hskrpwr13]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK, I get that people think that.  But, what really do they gain?  They still will need to have a governing body that brings structure and organization to the sport.  More than there is now anyway.

 

If they don't like the NCAA, they have all the power to change it.  

 

Youre correct that they would still need governance. However, NCAA rules have to account for all sports at all levels. I could see the top football/basketball conferences establishing their own governance outside the NCAA. The other sports could still reside under the NCAA umbrella.

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, hskrpwr13 said:

 

Youre correct that they would still need governance. However, NCAA rules have to account for all sports at all levels. I could see the top football/basketball conferences establishing their own governance outside the NCAA. The other sports could still reside under the NCAA umbrella.

I don't see that happening.  If a school takes football or basketball (or both) out of the NCAA, all their sports will be taken out.

 

But, hey....I never thought they would produce the s#!t show we have now.

[hskrpwr13]

Me either

[sho]

I think the NCAA is already planning on allowing both additional scholarships and coaches.   The driving force is fear of another lawsuit and limiting right to choose...if the school wants to give player X a scholarship and that player wants to go there, the NCAA shouldn't prevent that as it's limiting opportunities and opens up lawsuits that NCAA believes they would lose.   There is a growing belief among compliance directors is that schools will soon be able to have 100+ kids on scholarship for football, if they'd like and 20+ kids on scholarship for basketball if they'd like.  They would just have to balance the scholarship numbers to the Title IX federal guidelines, which means most likely more scholarships available for female athletes.   The growing belief is scholarships will only be limited by budget constraints at schools and not based on arbitrary caps placed on them by the NCAA.   Some fear this will lead to a power imbalance but the counter argument being made is kids will go where they will play and will transfer out so small schools will still get good/great athletes.  I can see the day where there will be unlimited transfers, scholarships and coaches in the next 5-10 years or so