Jump to content
ugarte

Goodbye 9.9?

Recommended Posts

Interesting changes being proposed... However, it does not mean that the school will foot the bill for more scholarships, it just means you can have more scholarships. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronChef said:

The idea to eliminate restrictions on the number of coaches is interesting as well. Would that be the end of the volunteer coach? 

Good question - I suspect that the school will say you can now  have as many as you want...but we are still only paying for 2. Could change the name of the volunteer coach since it's  not really volunteer anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IronChef said:

The idea to eliminate restrictions on the number of coaches is interesting as well. Would that be the end of the volunteer coach? 

As I recall from early to mid-90s, the volunteer coach (as a specific NCAA term) arose shortly after the 10% cut in scholarships and the limitations in coaches from around 91/92 through around 96. They were originally going to have even fewer coaches- like maybe one full-time and one part-time. They realized it could be unsafe if the head coach was out recruiting to leave a restricted earnings coach in charge of the room. They also eliminated the restricted earnings issue eventually as it wouldn't have made it past a court case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9.9 scholarships for 10 weights.

If they cut Basketball to 4.9 for 5 starters and 10.9 for 11 starters (or 21.8 - offence & defence) Football schools would protest and quit the NCAA and form their own leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boompa said:

So.....the top programs will get more scholarships and coaches while the rest of the programs (about 45) will see zero change.

The others will see a change.  More programs will be dropped.  The PSAC schools will end up going D2.  
 

Though it will solve the RTC issue as the RTCs won’t be necessary anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Casper said:

9.9 scholarships for 10 weights.

If they cut Basketball to 4.9 for 5 starters and 10.9 for 11 starters (or 21.8 - offence & defence) Football schools would protest and quit the NCAA and form their own leagues.

Soccer has 11 on the field at a time and gets 9.9.  
 

Volleyball has 7 starters (with Libero) and they get 4.5.  
 

Wrestling’s limit of 9.9 for 10 starters is reasonable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

As I recall from early to mid-90s, the volunteer coach (as a specific NCAA term) arose shortly after the 10% cut in scholarships and the limitations in coaches from around 91/92 through around 96. They were originally going to have even fewer coaches- like maybe one full-time and one part-time. They realized it could be unsafe if the head coach was out recruiting to leave a restricted earnings coach in charge of the room. They also eliminated the restricted earnings issue eventually as it wouldn't have made it past a court case.

It’s interesting that the proposal for baseball and softball to expand their coaching staffs to elevate the volunteer coach to a paid position just failed. 
 

This seems to be a push from the top few conferences to ensure they can dominate the other conferences.  Which could be a start to a split into a new division which would cripple wrestling.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

The others will see a change.  More programs will be dropped.  The PSAC schools will end up going D2.  
 

Though it will solve the RTC issue as the RTCs won’t be necessary anymore.  

Might reduce the number and evolve their roles, but I'd guess they still have a big role to play for olympic style development at many competitive programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

Soccer has 11 on the field at a time and gets 9.9.  
 

Volleyball has 7 starters (with Libero) and they get 4.5.  
 

Wrestling’s limit of 9.9 for 10 starters is reasonable.  

Even if reasonable, is it the right # and would a few more be better overall for all of these sports excpet football?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Elevator said:

Might reduce the number and evolve their roles, but I'd guess they still have a big role to play for olympic style development at many competitive programs.

The RTC rule is simply to get around coaching limits.  
 

If Olympic hopefuls can now be on staff there is no reason to have RTCs. They Senior athletes can join the college workouts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Elevator said:

Even if reasonable, is it the right # and would a few more be better overall for all of these sports excpet football?    

Better for who?

In all of these sports, less than half of the D1 programs are currently offering the maximum number allotted.  
 

So the majority of the programs are already at a disadvantage and offering fewer scholarships.  With the limit raised there will be even fewer programs offering the maximum as some of the schools currently offering the maximum will choose not to raise their investment.  
 

It also isn’t clear it will help athletes.  
 

It would allow for programs to over recruit.  
 

Penn State and Iowa can bring in multiple top recruits at every weight each year and give them a full ride.  Then see which one works out and the one that doesn’t will simply quit the sport or transfer.  Or maybe stay with the program if the school doesn’t mind carrying the athlete on scholarship.  
 

It is great for Iowa and Penn State.  Think how great those rooms would be with even more top recruits and a third of all Olympic Hopefuls in the room too!

Of course, I am not sure why Maryland and Indiana would continue to have a wrestling program when their best shot at landing quality recruits would be from the transfer portal picking up the guys that couldn’t cut it at their first school.  
 

Without parity and rules that foster competitive balance, it would be hard to justify the investment in the sport.   
 

If this did play out… Personally, I would rethink the donations I make to scholarship funds every year.  At that point the money would be better going to D3 programs to support kids who wanted to wrestle and didn’t have a shot at the top level rather than going to lower tier D1 programs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

Without parity and rules that foster competitive balance, it would be hard to justify the investment in the sport.   

  Is this actually true? There are tiers in every sport. Most schools in every college sport have no chance to contend for a top national spot, but they keep going. 

22 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

If this did play out… Personally, I would rethink the donations I make to scholarship funds every year.  At that point the money would be better going to D3 programs to support kids who wanted to wrestle and didn’t have a shot at the top level rather than going to lower tier D1 programs. 

Your money is already better off going to DIII teams. A $1,000 gift to a DI school is a drop in the bucket, while it might be 5% of a DIII team's operating budget.

Edited by IronChef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

Better for who?

In all of these sports, less than half of the D1 programs are currently offering the maximum number allotted.  
 

So the majority of the programs are already at a disadvantage and offering fewer scholarships.  With the limit raised there will be even fewer programs offering the maximum as some of the schools currently offering the maximum will choose not to raise their investment.  
 

It also isn’t clear it will help athletes.  
 

It would allow for programs to over recruit.  
 

Penn State and Iowa can bring in multiple top recruits at every weight each year and give them a full ride.  Then see which one works out and the one that doesn’t will simply quit the sport or transfer.  Or maybe stay with the program if the school doesn’t mind carrying the athlete on scholarship.  
 

It is great for Iowa and Penn State.  Think how great those rooms would be with even more top recruits and a third of all Olympic Hopefuls in the room too!

Of course, I am not sure why Maryland and Indiana would continue to have a wrestling program when their best shot at landing quality recruits would be from the transfer portal picking up the guys that couldn’t cut it at their first school.  
 

Without parity and rules that foster competitive balance, it would be hard to justify the investment in the sport.   
 

If this did play out… Personally, I would rethink the donations I make to scholarship funds every year.  At that point the money would be better going to D3 programs to support kids who wanted to wrestle and didn’t have a shot at the top level rather than going to lower tier D1 programs. 

Interesting points.  It coud help the athletes who get more scholaraship funds and might cause the tide to rise overall as to atheltic aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronChef said:

  Is this actually true? There are tiers in every sport. Most schools in every college sport have no chance to contend for a top national spot, but they keep going. 

Yes, this is true.  Just because there are tiers doesn’t mean they can’t compete.  There is a big difference between losing every match and losing the majority of matches.  
 

Programs absolutely are eliminated for not being competitive.  And the more uphill the battle to be able to compete the more likely they are to be eliminated. 

4 minutes ago, IronChef said:

 Your money is already better off going to DIII teams. A $1,000 gift to a DI school is a drop in the bucket, while it might be 5% of a DIII team's operating budget.

It depends on why you give. 
 

I give to spread out the All-Americans to different programs so that smaller programs can have a high water mark that is a sense of pride.   So that they can point to individual performances as a sign of what can be done at the program.  
 

One performer alone can keep a program alive and provide opportunities for 25 other athletes.  Just ask Stanford. 
 

If funding one-half scholarship isn’t going to make a difference in this regard any longer then it is hard to justify the contribution.  And without donor support and a further widening gap in competitiveness.  Why would a school continue to invest in a program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the 'need' to increase the number of coaching positions for football is a move to hold on to a larger percentage of the money they generate by putting it back into the program as salary. 

How many coaches does an average college football team have? Are more necessary? 

I don't think that that many PLAYERS on a football team is necessary. Let alone a corresponding number of coaches to attend to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TwoPointTakeDown said:

Seems like the 'need' to increase the number of coaching positions for football is a move to hold on to a larger percentage of the money they generate by putting it back into the program as salary. 

How many coaches does an average college football team have? Are more necessary? 

I don't think that that many PLAYERS on a football team is necessary. Let alone a corresponding number of coaches to attend to them. 

Before scholarship limits the top programs recruited players and have them scholarships just so that they wouldn’t have to face them as opponents.  
 

The high number of scholarships was specifically to ensure that players didn’t go to your opponents and didn’t get developed into quality players by getting game experience over the years.  
 

That hasn’t changed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With NIL the scholarship limit doesn't really matter anyway. Agree, it will benefit the top teams and hurt the small ones (already occurring) but if kids are getting $50K - $100K they can pay for college directly. 

If the 9.9 remains, don't be surprised if we hear rumors of stud recruits "walking on" and getting $100K NIL deal just to stay under the limit. 

Ex. If Tuition is 100K (keeping the math simple), 40% scholarship + 100K NIL  = 10% scholarship + 130K NIL = 0% scholarship + 140K NIL.   

It just semantics where the money comes from at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, IronChef said:

  Is this actually true? There are tiers in every sport. Most schools in every college sport have no chance to contend for a top national spot, but they keep going. 

Your money is already better off going to DIII teams. A $1,000 gift to a DI school is a drop in the bucket, while it might be 5% of a DIII team's operating budget.

You are right but 95% of the people on this forum do not care about D2 or D3.  They don't even care about lesser D1 programs.  PSU gets tons of donations from people who never went to PSU, they just love a PA school winning nationals every year but a school like Lock Haven could really use just some money and would become a consistent top 20 program on the cheap..

You donation would also get you access to a program like that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...