Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 67 of 67
  1. #41
    512taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brandon,MS
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    So from what I'm hearing, nobody has a problem with the likes of Alabama, Ohio State, etc, etc essentially cornering the market and stockpiling talent? We're good with the notion that they'll always have an army of 4-5 star talent and duke it out for the top spot year after year. While the rest of the college football landscape will just scramble and hope for a decent bowl come season's end. That's the consensus?

    As another poster said, there really hasn't been much change in the upper crust of college football for over 20 years now. So maybe the scholarship reduction would be a good way to keep talent from clustering at any handful of schools.

    Of course it's America and you can do what you want, but we do enjoy competition don't we? It's what keeps our prices low and our quality of life high. I don't see any reason why we can't figure out some way to keep it more interesting going forward.
    Granted, FSU is struggling a bit this year, but you do realize they have not always been the power program they have been recently.
    Hard work and dedication are still the ways to make yourself great.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    If you can't see the difference between scholarship limits and denying a student athlete a college choice based on some arbitrary recruiting ranking then you are part of the problem with our fan base.
    So you are arguing against limiting the number of 4* and 5* players per team. I think the vast majority of posters in this thread agree that such a limit is not a good idea.

    I think SSBGDog is confused by some of the posts in this thread . . . as am I.

    Are some posters here arguing that reducing the number of scholarships to 70 is "participation trophy" stuff? If so, then I don't understand that line of reasoning.

    If anyone is arguing that, then could you please explain?


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  3. #43
    The OP was in discussing limiting 4* and 5* players. Some posters seemed to be in favor of that. The other idea that was tossed out there was a reduction of scholarships. I am not in favor of either. Are we really at a point where we want to reduce the chances of a solid high school athlete being able to receive a college education in the interest of athletic fairness? This whole subject reeks of the "crabs in a barrel" mentality. "We can't climb out, so let'a just drag everybody else down into the barrel with us." It's a loser's mentality. Winners don't worry about what everybody else is doing around them.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  4. #44
    Well then we can just disagree. I am not for limiting the number of stars...I think that is ridiculous. I am for slight reducing of scholarships per signing period and overall for a program. I was being sarcastic earlier when I said that there should be no scholarship restrictions. That's actually what used to happen and it largely contributed to Bama's prominence under Bryant (although their program was successful before him).

    I think the evidence offered earlier that no new national champions since 1996 (Florida) is all the proof you need that the folks at the bottom need more help.

    You can call it un-American or socialism or communism or whatever....but again, if your idea has merit...why even have scholly limits at all?


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  5. #45
    So, if we honestly believe we are building a great program at Mississippi State, why are you in favor of making changes that would limit our growth potential?


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  6. #46
    I believe that a slight reduction in scholarships would help programs like ours. The larger programs (Bama, LSU, Aub, FSU, etc.) around us would be less likely to take a bluechipper away from us if they could only sign 20. It's just law of averages. Would work the same for USM....they would lose less players to State and UM.


    Overall, I believe this would level the playing field slightly....the same way that reducing scholarships to 25/85 has done. I would just go a little further.

    I am not convinced that 20/75 is the right number...it might be 22/80....but I would try this if I were the CF Czar.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  7. #47
    The concept just seems short-sighted to me. There's a reason teams like Alabama are against the idea of more scholarship limits. They worry about getting better. They don't concern themselves with making other teams worse.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  8. #48
    "Since we can't beat them let's change the rules" seems like a real poontang way to handle most things but maybe that's just me.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldogg31 View Post
    You're reading my comment about Dak and Bernardrick more literally than intended.

    Reducing the number of full football scholarships by 20 for all 130 teams that play FBS football leaves 2600 student athletes without the opportunity to play for an FBS school. Yes, they would have the opportunity to go and play for an FCS school, but then that's 2600 FCS players who don't get the opportunity to play at that level, assuming the total FCS scholarships weren't reduced as well. If they were reduced as well, then you have several thousand young men who will not be receiving scholarships, many of whom may not have the opportunity to attend college at all.

    My example of Dak and McKinney is that both were low-to-mid-level recruits that went to State because the opportunity was there, but I could have used any lower-rated or lightly-recruited player who went to an FBS school, worked very hard, and ended up making a career in the NFL. The league is full of stories like that, not to mention former players who go on to be GA's, coaches, scouts, recruiters, etc.

    I would think of all the people that post here that you would be sensitive to the lost opportunities for young people that a scholarship reduction would bring. I believe in the big picture the scholarships and life opportunities they bring are more important than us being able to beat Bama.
    I guess i read it more literally than intended...but to be fair i read it and responded to what it said. If you didnt mean what you posted, then i get it...but that isnt me misreading anything.

    You are correct- there would be less overall scholarship players in FBS. Many would then go to FCS. That would push some FCS players down to DII where 36 scholarships are offered per team. And yup- that would mean some DII players arent on scholarship who otherwise would have been.

    Perhaps 65 per team is too low. Maybe 70 is better. or 75.
    Or, perhaps more partial scholarships would be given out.


    As for your comments about how more scholarships benefit the social good due to the opportunities scholarships present...well damn this is a first- i am being told I am the cold hearted one on this board. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS are for ATHLETICS. Shit, why not expand em to 95 in football and make an equal expansion on the women's side for Title9 compliance? Thatll add 20 more people for each college to 'help'. It shouldnt be done because athletic scholarships dont exist to provide upward mobility to the less privileged in society. Sure, its a side benefit and a very valuable one, but it isnt why scholarships exist.
    I would absolutely support the idea of expanding scholarships to those who need it and not just base them on academics(so the scholarships target the type of student who is typically recruited for football). Non-academic based scholarship expansion where qualifications are based on life experience and the intended goal of upward mobility could be great. But that isnt for athletics to create and solve.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    Or, just continue to do things the American way.
    What a meaningless comment. The American way is to limit scholarships to an arbitrary 85 but not an arbitrary 75 or 70 or 65? Why is that?
    This entire system was set up and works, but its hardly infallible. Adjustments to every system and setup should be discussed and made as necessary. That doesnt mean Socialism is running rampant or anything of the sort. And if sticking to how something has been even if it isnt the best way is the 'American way', then i will happily disagree with the 'American way' as it stifles growth and improvement.

    The product on the field- competition for entertainment- should always be evaluated and ways to improve the product should always be considered.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  11. #51
    aTotal360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    9,229
    And let's put term limits on head coaches while we're at it. It's not fair Bama get's Saban or that we get Mullen.
    90 percent of college football teams do not cheat...the other 10 percent are ranked.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    The concept just seems short-sighted to me. There's a reason teams like Alabama are against the idea of more scholarship limits. They worry about getting better. They don't concern themselves with making other teams worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldogg31 View Post
    "Since we can't beat them let's change the rules" seems like a real poontang way to handle most things but maybe that's just me.

    The NBA and NFL, the two most popular leagues in the US and the best leagues in their respective sports in the world, are set up for restricting the collection of talent and force teams to spread the wealth.
    College teams already have a limit to keep teams from collecting all the talent they want and the wealth is spread as a result.
    Simply thinking that the current process isnt as well set up as it could be to do what its intended to do isnt being 'poontang' (<---i didnt realize that was still popular to say as an adult. cool.), its simply encouraging a higher level of competition and an improved product.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  13. #53
    aTotal360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    9,229
    What if your kid wants to play for your hometown university and instead has to go to play for Baylor?
    90 percent of college football teams do not cheat...the other 10 percent are ranked.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    If you can't see the difference between scholarship limits and denying a student athlete a college choice based on some arbitrary recruiting ranking then you are part of the problem with our fan base.
    I think using recruiting rankings in this way is a stupid idea, so I'm not supporting the OP, but as I pointed out above this type of plan would NOT deny a student athlete his choice of college. He could go to any school that he wanted (if he qualified), but he would only be allowed to play football a the school the NCAA designated. If the NCAA said he could only play football at Auburn, and he really wanted to attend MSU, he would be free to enroll and pay his own way. He just couldn't play football (or maybe he could be a walk on?)

    While I wouldn't want to see this type of recruiting restriction, I don't have a problem with the theory of making the choices for the athletes. When I was in High School, MSU was the only school to offer me a full academic scholarship. I might rather have gone to a more prestigious university, but I didn't have any money. No one FORCED me to go to State, though, that was my choice.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  15. #55
    People don't think about the human aspect of this. They forget that we aren't talking about professional athletes making millions of dollars. These are young amateurs making a decision about where to go to school. Of course we want the competition among programs to be as fair as is feasible, but there will always be haves and have nots. The system is probably as fair as it can be right now. The rules are the same for everyone, therefor they are fair. Other schools are just doing a better job of managing their resources than we are or they are capitalizing off of a larger, wealthier alumni base. Kudos to them. We can build our way to that level, but a rule change that negatively affects the type of program we are trying to be doesn't help us reach our long term goals.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by 512taylor View Post
    This sounds just like what I hate about some of the politicians we have in DC. They, too, want to share the wealth which in turn punishes those that bust their hump in order to make their own situation stronger.
    Think about it like this: say that the NCAA collapsed and colleges could pay players. Each year, 5 stars would cost the most, then 4 stars, then 3 stars, etc.

    Would you be in favor of a 'salary cap'?


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  17. #57
    Nope.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    What a meaningless comment. The American way is to limit scholarships to an arbitrary 85 but not an arbitrary 75 or 70 or 65? Why is that?
    This entire system was set up and works, but its hardly infallible. Adjustments to every system and setup should be discussed and made as necessary. That doesnt mean Socialism is running rampant or anything of the sort. And if sticking to how something has been even if it isnt the best way is the 'American way', then i will happily disagree with the 'American way' as it stifles growth and improvement.

    The product on the field- competition for entertainment- should always be evaluated and ways to improve the product should always be considered.
    Reducing the number of scholarships is not un-American. The reason you are wanting to do so is un-American. You are making lower tiered schools better by penalizing the bigger schools. You're also limiting options for recruits who may want to play at bigger schools.

    I hate Alabama as much as the next guy but the rules are the same for everybody.....they can sign 25 5 stars a year, and we can too if we are fortunate enough to convince them to come here. That's the way it ought to be. It's stupid to penalize them to benefit everyone else because nobody can beat them otherwise.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    People don't think about the human aspect of this. They forget that we aren't talking about professional athletes making millions of dollars. These are young amateurs making a decision about where to go to school.
    I havent forgotten that im not talking about pro athletes making millions of dollars. I fully understand I am talking about COLLEGES making millions of dollars.
    Im fully aware these are young amateurs making a decision about where to go to school. Some could even call them...student athletes.

    Your comments so far are accurate and in alignment with my opinions. Your comments so far also dont show why a reduction in scholarships isnt acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    Of course we want the competition among programs to be as fair as is feasible, but there will always be haves and have nots.
    Agreed here too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    The system is probably as fair as it can be right now. The rules are the same for everyone, therefor they are fair.
    Totally disagree here. If scholarships were reduced to 70 per program, the rules would still be the same for everyone and therefore(by your view) also fair. See how arbitrary your position is? It can apply to the very thing you are disagreeing with.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    Other schools are just doing a better job of managing their resources than we are or they are capitalizing off of a larger, wealthier alumni base. Kudos to them. We can build our way to that level, but a rule change that negatively affects the type of program we are trying to be doesn't help us reach our long term goals.
    It doesnt negatively affect the type of program we are trying to be. It could very well HELP perennially good programs. They have less $ going to scholarships and other program costs due to less players and that money could be dedicated to updating facilities or paying coaches more. Both could help them sustain the competitive advantage they have. Furthermore, If Bama went from 60 5 and 4* players with 25 3* players to a roster with 60 5 and 4* players and only 5 3* players, how does that hurt Bama? The 20 3* players are no longer on Bama's roster and are dispersed among other programs. Bama still retains the elite of the elite talent in that scenario. MSU could do this too, if we reach the level of perennial contender.




    Right now, baseball scholarships arent enough in many people's eyes. Fans want more baseball scholarships. Using your argument, everyone is even right now in baseball and therefore its fair and no change should be made.
    uh...what?


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    'poontang' (<---i didnt realize that was still popular to say as an adult. cool.),
    Oh it's still a word and a thing! One of my favorites of each in fact!


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  21. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Reducing the number of scholarships is not un-American. The reason you are wanting to do so is un-American. You are making lower tiered schools better by penalizing the bigger schools. You're also limiting options for recruits who may want to play at bigger schools.

    I hate Alabama as much as the next guy but the rules are the same for everybody.....they can sign 25 5 stars a year, and we can too if we are fortunate enough to convince them to come here. That's the way it ought to be. It's stupid to penalize them to benefit everyone else because nobody can beat them otherwise.
    Damn this is hilarious. So many here are clinging to 85 total scholarships as if it has some sort of infallible meaning. Its simply a number that the NCAA has arrived at.

    HISTORY LESSON TIME-
    There used to be no limit on scholarships for any sport. Then the NCAA limited football to 105 scholarships in 1972. The NCAA reduced it further in 1978 to 95 scholarships. Guess what happened in 1992- scholarships were again reduced to the present 85 limit.

    Its not like this suggestion is unprecedented- it was done 3 times in a 20 year span of the modern era.

    There is absolutely nothing unAmerican about adjusting scholarship limits in a sport to improve competition. Good lord- read that last sentence again and if anyone is honest with themselves, they will laugh at the thought that its unAmerican to change the number of scholarships a sport receives so competition improves.
    We(colleges under the NCAA) have done it 3 times so far in our recent history- so clearly its American!

    As for Bama- i know they have been mentioned in this thread and they are the recent tough loss so its easy to reference them, but this isnt about Bama. I like the idea of improved competition all around across the sport and not just within MSU's division.


    If reducing scholarships to improve competition is unAmerican, then do you support getting rid of limits altogether? So each university can choose how many they want to offer and just has to comply internally with Title9? Would that be 'American'?(...even though the most popular 3 sports in the US have limits right now to encourage competition.)


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  22. #62
    aTotal360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    9,229
    So you want less kids across the country to get D1 scholarships because your team isn't good enough.
    90 percent of college football teams do not cheat...the other 10 percent are ranked.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  23. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    Damn this is hilarious. So many here are clinging to 85 total scholarships as if it has some sort of infallible meaning. Its simply a number that the NCAA has arrived at.

    HISTORY LESSON TIME-
    There used to be no limit on scholarships for any sport. Then the NCAA limited football to 105 scholarships in 1972. The NCAA reduced it further in 1978 to 95 scholarships. Guess what happened in 1992- scholarships were again reduced to the present 85 limit.

    Its not like this suggestion is unprecedented- it was done 3 times in a 20 year span of the modern era.

    There is absolutely nothing unAmerican about adjusting scholarship limits in a sport to improve competition. Good lord- read that last sentence again and if anyone is honest with themselves, they will laugh at the thought that its unAmerican to change the number of scholarships a sport receives so competition improves.
    We(colleges under the NCAA) have done it 3 times so far in our recent history- so clearly its American!

    As for Bama- i know they have been mentioned in this thread and they are the recent tough loss so its easy to reference them, but this isnt about Bama. I like the idea of improved competition all around across the sport and not just within MSU's division.


    If reducing scholarships to improve competition is unAmerican, then do you support getting rid of limits altogether? So each university can choose how many they want to offer and just has to comply internally with Title9? Would that be 'American'?(...even though the most popular 3 sports in the US have limits right now to encourage competition.)
    You didn't even come close to grasping my point, which is not at all surprising, so I'm not going to try to explain it any further.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  24. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    You didn't even come close to grasping my point, which is not at all surprising, so I'm not going to try to explain it any further.
    Your point is that its unamerican to penalize successful programs by limiting how many players they can sign.

    I get it and am saying its actually quite american, as evidenced by history.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  25. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by aTotal360 View Post
    So you want less kids across the country to get D1 scholarships because your team isn't good enough.
    Hardly. That isnt close to what I've said.
    This isnt because my team isnt good enough. Its a view formed from an overall observation of thw sport across the country combined with the success of this same approach in pro sports.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  26. #66
    No bc it would corrupt the ppl who give out the *'s. Communism doesn't work in anything,....nothing.


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

  27. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Indndawg View Post
    No bc it would corrupt the ppl who give out the *'s. Communism doesn't work in anything,....nothing.
    What the 17 does Communism have to do with this? Restricting a school from signing a certain number of players(whether just total or based on perceived talent) isnt communism.
    The SEC has a yearly cap on how many recruits can sign with a school- that isnt communism.
    The NCAA has a yearly cap on how many players can be on scholarships with a school- that isnt communism.

    There are already limits set up and communism has nothing to do with any of this. Changing the limits, which is the theme of this thread regardless of how its done(2 possible ways have been discussed) wouldnt suddenly be communist in nature.



    I do find it funny though that communism is brought up since the NCAA is basically a body that the collective created and gave up its individual power to for the greater good of the whole. Somehow that setup has brought MSU a lot of success and benefits thru the years, but i digress...


    Boston Marathon | Boston Creme Pie Yes | No

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SixPack Sponsors









Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.


Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties