F Dillon!
It may have changed, but when spring sports were canceled, our paper ran a story about how it would impact the local college softball team. The players were granted another year of eligibility, but the school doesn't have the money to pay for room and board, so the players would be on the hook for that. Obviously apples and oranges as it's a smaller sport and certainly not Notre Dame, but FYI.
If the season is completely cancelled, it's reasonable to assume that scholarship numbers will be increased next season (to account for next year's freshmen) and that all players (not just seniors) will be granted an extra year of eligibility (essentially six years to play four instead of the current five years to play four). That's based on the NCAA's decision in regards to the spring sports. To what extent the number of scholarships will be increased, for how many years and how they'll be decreased is uncertain. (My guess is it'll be something like 100 in 2021, decreasing by five each year until it's down to 85 again in 2024.)
I think it's also likely the roster limit (currently 105) will be increased to be 20 above whatever the scholarship limit is. That's also based on a spring sport, baseball, which had its roster size for next year increased.
As far as #2, my guess would be freshmen would be bound to their LOI, and similarly transfers would be forced to sit out a season. However, if a player transfers in the next six weeks, he presumably would be eligible next fall. The other thing to keep in mind is the NCAA was rumored to be extremely close to essentially allowing any player the opportunity to transfer once without having to sit out a year and if that happens, that renders the discussion a bit moot.
until January. They originally were supposed to rule on the matter in June.
We’ve already seen that with what Wisconsin told its athletes, which was basically “Move on with your life; you aren’t coming back here for that extra year of eligibility.”
and there would be a likely reduction of available teams for those guys to transfer to.
It would be a mess.
The current rule is that athletes have 5 years to complete their 4 year eligibility with the clock starting Freshman year. The NCAA should just make it 6 years to complete the 4 years for every student enrolling this fall. Let the schools decide if they want to renew a scholarship for a player. Let them explore the transfer portal. I really don't see the issue. It actually seems like a good lead-in to the NIL and letting the players get a taste of the "what have you done for me lately" mindset that exists throughout business and professional ranks.
but gee, I wonder if the number of schools actually offering scholarships will decrease? Gee, I wonder if the schools can all afford to keep all of these extra guys around.
It's almost as if you didn't read anything else in the thread prior to responding, gregmorrissey.
And yes why can't it be that simple, but the NCAA and schools are interested in making things more complicated. They want and need the control
Most schools have extremely bloated administrative staffs if financials are the main concerns. Maybe Paul Chryst can sacrifice some of his $4.5M he's set to make for those kids at Wisconsin.
It's already not fair for the small schools so give it a rest on that front. They don't care about the small schools and never have. Just like they don't care about the students or the student athletes. If they did, tuition wouldn't be up 500+% over the last 25 years.
...Athletic departments are already running in red. Schools, ADs, and Coaches do not want an extra year (for the most part).
schools are already dropping other sports.
ND just added a $400M dollar renovation to the stadium. LSU multi-million dollar renovation to their locker-room. Baylor built a brand new stadium this decade. The money is there.
They don't want the money to actually go to the kids. I'll listen to that argument all day, but don't tell me the money isn't there.
one of which (baseball) they just added last year.
There are reports of Athletic Departments being in the red nationwide, and that's with the tv contracts and sponsorship dollars. It would get even worse.
...for one year.
Many of the smaller schools fund the athletics programs from the student budgets. The NCAA put some decent charts out on this earlier in the year.
Probably 40-50 of the 130 D1 schools are self-sustaining w/ TV revenue, admissions, endorsements, etc. The remaining schools simply aren't.
Check the link out...you can see the difference between the Power 5 schools and the non-power five schools (first two graphs on the left)
but those charts are interesting.
$18B industry as a whole - 19.1% is coaches comp and 16.1% is admin comp and severances.
19.3% is athletic student aid. A combined 28% makes up facility and game and travel expenses. 12.8% is lumped into other which I assume is marketing and whatever else.
I understand that for the non-p5 they receive 36.7% revenue from Institution and Government supports. I just think it seems like there's plenty to go around, it just depends on how you cut up the pie. Like any other business. It's easy to tell the line worker sorry there's not enough for you to get a raise, the CEO needed a bit more so there wasn't any left.
Now if we're going to fully operate as business that's fine. Pay the players and if you want to tell them to kick rocks after 5 years then fine. But this bs about there not being enough money is a joke. Tell the fat ass in the administration office who keeps calling me about my final payment for my season tickets that we outsourced her job to the Philippines to help save some money so we could grant Timmy another year of eligibility.
Scholarship limits should remain exactly where they are currently. If schools can't afford the scholarships then they either do what Wisconsin did and let the kids know or they try to get creative with partial scholarships. Scholarships are one year renewable agreements. If they lose their scholarship but want to stay at the school then they can borrow or apply for financial aid just like every other student. Otherwise, they transfer to another school that might give them a scholarship, transfer to another school that is cheaper, or they drop out. Nobody really worries when this happens to a non-football player that might be on scholarship.
Is it going to be a change? Yes. Is it going to be messy? Yes. Are some kids going to get screwed? Yes. Happens all the time. To use a phrase that everyone here enjoys "Get used to it."
shit out of luck, no scholarship for you!
Maintaining eligibility for guys and keeping the scholarship limits the same is a fool's errand.
Roster management is a challenge as well. Another reason the coaches don't want it.
I'm quite torn on this because I recognize that the athletes are really getting screwed over in this situation, but allowing an extra year would tremendously imbalance the competitive landscape in all sports; well-heeled schools (such as Notre Dame) would be able to afford the cost while smaller schools and many state schools likely would / could not.
It also basically mocks the educational aspect of this. 99% of people should not be in college for six years.
there won't be a spot for most people from a scholarship perspective.
Schools can't afford it and kids will likely have to go on aid (if they can get it at all). The transfer portal will explode, and it will be musical chairs.
There's a reason (besides TV money, though of course that is a driving factor) why they're trying to exhaust all options prior to just canceling the season. I would agree that it isn't looking good.
Competition sucks
I think my suggestion is the easiest to implement and fairest plan to everyone involved. As with most things, fair is relative, and it sure won't feel fair to that Sophomore who was expecting to start or that borderline scholarship guy that would have ended up being the 85th man on the roster that doesn't have a scholarship now.
Seems certainly as fair as telling someone good enough to play that they don't get 4 years of eligibility because of the virus. And has been stated multiple times, the money and appetite to spend it aren't there for more scholarships, and even if the money was there, most coaches don't want to carry larger rosters.
-Kids get 6 years to complete 4 years of eligibility. That's it. If next year goes down then too bad. As has been stated, nobody should need more than 6 years to complete undergrad and masters.
-transfer without sitting out a year for any kid losing a scholarship
-current transfer rules apply to anyone with scholarship choosing to transfer due to competition
-6 for 4 only applies to students enrolled for 2020-2021 academic year
I concede that there is the possibility for transfer musical chairs though I'm uncertain of the harm. At least to the extent that the harm exceeds that of "life lesson about competition".
I concede that coaches/schools will need to make hard decisions and balance between short-term competitive interests and long-term reputation. But, again, these kind of calculations currently happen every year.
Have I thought of everything? Of course not. This is a message board conversation about a hypothetical of which none of us probably have any influence.
nice.
Good to know that this is all for your entertainment.
All of these life lessons that will be given out to kids who lose a scholarship will be valuable as they move on in life, and all of these schools that drop the sport (as well as other sports) will surely just chalk it up to "life lessons about competition."
Maybe you did and I missed it. If so then happy to check it out.
In my opinion, playing this Fall is not a real alternative. And playing in the Spring has a whole other list of problems that are seemingly being glossed over.
If you are on the side of do nothing if they lose a year then I don't really have a problem with it, but I'm arguing that still sucks for the current Seniors as well as every kid losing a year of eligibility.
The rest of your post is ridiculous. I was told my entire life playing sports were about learning life lessons so not sure what's different about this. And we are bickering on a message board dedicated for the most part to Notre Dame football which seems like it is for our entertainment.
If you have a dog in the fight then I understand you might be more emotional about it. I don't. I want them to be smart and make the safest, most reasonable, and fairest decision for both the short-term and long-term health and opportunities of the players, universities, and the individual sports.
because the system as we know and understand it now will likely come collapsing down if there is no football nor college basketball in 2020-2021.
Schools will not be able to afford having the sport; basketball will likely make it, but other non-revenue sports would be cut. Discussing 6 to play 4 will likely end up being a non-starter, as I would imagine that most seniors will either leave on their own or not be offered an opportunity to come back.
If I had to come up with a solution if they cannot play and yet schools were still able to offer the sport, I would not recommend keeping seniors around as it would clog up the system for years. The best case scenario would likely be agents and/or the NFLPA offering some type of camp structure for guys whose eligibility expired as a way to get them additional scouting, reps against other guys, etc. They can form teams and have one on one practice reps, demonstrate ability in a classroom setting to break down schemes, etc.
That's just in about 10 minutes of thinking about it. I'm not sure that there are any good solutions, but keeping more kids around or just getting rid of kids aren't great ideas.
1 - 6 to play 4 is irrelevant to the sports landscape collapsing. If all non-revenue sports are dropped then it doesn't matter if it was 20 to play 4 as there wouldn't be a sport to play. The original question was how to handle scholarships in the event sports are cancelled this year.
2 - you keep addressing seniors as if Fresh/Soph/Juniors aren't also losing a year of eligibility. If seniors/anyone with eligibility decides to leave before exhausting eligibility then that is their choice. If they aren't offered the opportunity to continue at their current school then they have the option to transfer. If no other school wants them either then they move on with life. 6 to play 4 is simply increasing the options for exhausting their eligibility.
3 - Your "solution" only addresses football which is fine for a football board, but you are also quick to bring up the non-revenue sports that are set to be sacrificed. Hard to have it both ways. The NFLPA can certainly follow with your suggestion. Not sure how it applies to the vast majority of the athletes that aren't going to the NFL, haven't completed 4 years of play, and whose universities/coaches still want them on the team because of the value they bring.
4 - As it pertains to clogging up the system, the demand side (140,000 scholarships available) stays exactly the same while the supply side (athletes competing for those scholarships) increases. There is nothing to clog up. Some athletes that would have received scholarships previously will not due to the increased competition. The same thing has happened throughout the last 50 years as men's sports were dropped for Title IX and football scholarship limits were enacted. Most likely you would have smaller Freshman classes for 2021 to 2026 and then things would return to how they are now. It would probably be sooner than that but that looks like the max year based on my quick calculation.
There would be increased transfers and roster management which has been the trend for awhile.
What other issues could there possibly be?
As an example, Brian Cardinal was at Purdue for almost 10 years I believe. It wasn't because he was guaranteed the opportunity but because the staff at Purdue felt it was better to retain him after another medical redshirt than it was to recruit another Freshman. Were you complaining that it wasn't fair that another kid that would have otherwise had a scholarship to Purdue didn't because Brian Cardinal was on his fifth medical redshirt?
The numbers are much larger than one athlete, but the calculation is the same. But you have to decide pretty much in the next 8 weeks so everyone can plan accordingly as it pertains to the early signing period.
I can't help you if you don't want to listen.
The supply/demand would not stay the same. The amount of available scholarships would likely decrease and the amount of players needing and/or wanting them would increase.
And I don't know if you are having this conversation in good faith or just bored on a Friday and enjoy the back and forth on a board that's been mostly dead for at least a month now.
I thought I made it clear, but apparently I didn't. I'm purposely not taking into consideration the ramifications of no football on available scholarships. But regardless, my point is still that I don't consider it fair to count an abandoned season against a player's eligibility. And it certainly isn't fair relative to doing it just because you are trying to limit the competition for those available scholarships. But, for reasons I don't really understand yet, you seem to think it is 1) worth the players' risking illness to potentially avoid a long-simmering collegiate sports catastrophe or 2) okay to tell current athletes to pound sand on losing a year of eligibility as opposed to letting "market dynamics" dictate the awarding of scholarships based on merit. I'll just have to disagree on both accounts because I don't think any college athlete should take risk "for the greater good", and I don't think they should be unnecessarily punished because the alternative is some "hard choices" about telling an end of the bench player that things have changed and there isn't a scholarship available for them.
And, honestly, I don't want to come across as "post-hunting", but you are definitely spouting nonsense throughout the board today. You want to argue definitive repercussions if no games but shut down every comment that there definitely won't be games/fans this year with a "let's wait and see" approach. You're talking about TV ratings and the contract as if they are set in stone. You nor I have any certainty as to the NBC contract or any other TV contract, but it is possible that there is clawback/earnout language in at least some of the contracts for diminished games and poor ratings. Lastly, is reference to sponsorship within the stadium. I know it's fun to hate on ND here about all things stadium-related, but I don't recall any advertising being blasted over the jumbotron or anywhere else within the stadium for that matter which is exactly what was promised. Perhaps you were referring to other universities.
you don't understand the financial impact, you don't understand the impact on recruiting, you don't understand the impact on the remaining athletic programs, you just don't seem to understand much of anything.
Most schools will just let their seniors go on to other pastures if there is no season this year, especially the guys who've already graduated and/or are in their 5th year. They aren't going to cut younger guys with 4 years to go in favor of keeping a middle of the road guy for 1 (stipulated that the better players will just take their chances on the NFL draft).
If guys want to transfer somewhere else to play their last year without losing eligibility, that's already available via a transfer down to D2 or D3. They don't have to 5/4 rule. I would imagine that the NCAA likely would give guys an extra year, but that doesn't mean that the schools will want them back.
Now, the overall problem really boils down to--what programs will still be around if there is no season this year? How would that affect D2 and D3 schools (would some just go out of business?)? What sort of options would actually be available?
There has to be some benefit to you to let athletes -- all 140,000 scholarship athletes and not just seniors -- lose a year of eligibility. You seem to give it away with the transfer to D2/D3 suggestion.
I am purposely not considering the financial impact of no football/basketball revenue because it's impossible to predict the impact and just how much the current landscape will change. Also, because it wasn't the purpose of the original question posed? And, it is completely and totally irrelevant to whether you want to let athletes use their full four years. If there are only 70,000 scholarships (50% reduction) come Fall 2021, who do you think will get them? Only those kids at schools that didn't drop their programs while the 70,000 from programs that were dropped are out in the cold? Or do you think there will be a mad rush of roster management (grayshirting/blackshirting/moving former scholarships to preferred walk-ons) so that the top 50% of those 70,000 can be brought into a program on scholarship?
Here is a simple hypothetical...
Clemson and Alabama both drop their football programs. 170 top tier athletes are now available. Are you suggesting there isn't a coach at another program willing to "understand the financial impact, ... understand the impact on recruiting, ... understand the impact on the remaining athletic programs" in order to try to get some of those athletes on their team? Surely, you will concede they will. And, I'd bet they'd be just fine dropping the scholarships of their bottom 4 or 5 guys to accommodate them.
Now, to continue with this hypothetical, will all of the Clemson and Alabama players find a home? Probably not. Some will decide to stay at Clemson/Alabama as non-athletes because they enjoy the university. Some may have to transfer down to D2/D3 because there aren't any D1 schools that want them or have scholarships for them. Some may choose to transfer to another D1 school as a preferred walk-on. And the rest may be ready to start their adult lives and just move on.
Now, to try to bring it back to my original point, I don't think it is fair to penalize the 140,000 current D1 scholarship athletes a year of eligibility because of COVID. I have already conceded multiple times that "most schools will let their seniors go" and "they aren't going to cut younger guys in favor of a middle of the road guy". No shit, Sherlock! My point is that maybe that middle of the road guy that Notre Dame doesn't want can land at Illinois or Northwestern and get an MBA from a top tier school while still playing a game they love. What do you find so difficult about giving them that option?
Okay.
If they were working towards a Master's degree. Just asking.
...but that isn't the reality right now for most student athletes that aren't Grad Transfers. At ND, 5th years must be pursuing a Master's (I believe), that isn't the case at other universities.
Look, I'm not arguing this as if it is obviously the right plan. I don't know the right answer more than anyone else. No matter which plan you choose someone is going to get hurt. You can't experience something like this pandemic without some pain. I just think this is the simplest and fairest plan.
Again, my point in the 6 for 4 is not to add an extra 20 scholarships. The limits stay where they are. If anything it helps the smaller schools because they are going to be able to pick up some high quality transfer talent. There will be a lot of transfers, and a lot of "lesser" athletes will probably lose scholarships entirely. As with anything of this nature, there are unforeseen consequences as well. But, personally, I like this idea better than the other two options:
1 Do nothing. I'm sorry you lost a year of eligibility but that's life
2 Let schools carry an extra 20 or 25 scholarships for a certain number of years which of course helps the bigger schools way more and puts additional financial stress on the whole system.
As far as educational, my understanding is that most students are pursuing masters in their 5th years. I might be completely wrong and that might only be happening at places like Notre Dame.
which is why they're doing everything they can to try and play this year, either in the fall (becoming increasingly unlikely) or winter/spring.
eligibility might not be right. Any good player that wants to play in the NFL leaves after 3 years, redshirt or not. Many top players would go pro after their freshman or soph seasons if it were allowed.
In addition, at most schools, players buried in the depth chart end up transferring. Why would they want to be further buried by another level with 100 players on a team?
ND is a bit of an aberration in the P5 in that most of our guys are 4+ year players, even if they have NFL aspirations. But that's not necessarily the case elsewhere.
having the schools financially able to pay for extra guys on scholarship something else entirely.
In short, talking to people actually in this situation, I can promise you that it isn't as straightforward as you outline.
the primary question and priority is how will JS make money off people wanting to touch the "Play Like a Champion Today" sign