Get rid of scholarships in the NCAA.

It would solve a lot of problems.

This is something I've touched on in the past, but a far more complex idea. Relates much to Title IX.

The basics are these:

I personally feel that scholorships should be eliminated for all sports with the exception of revenue producing sports. A dollar ammount can be set to qualify as revenue. For X dollars made would equal 1 scholorship.

Money to maintain programs, travel and compete would come from saving money from scholorships.

Title IX would be eliminated since sholorship restrictions for wither gender would be eliminated. If there is a desire by a group to maintain a sport, then the school can offer to sponsor that sport. Gender would have no relevence anymore. Sports wouldn't be cut because of Title IX.


Regarding Title IX, another version would be:
Maintain the existing Title IX criteria, but also seperate the sports into different categories.

Revenue producing sports should be exempt from having their scholorships numbers added towards the schools count. These sports produce revenue that in many cases pays for the rest of the athletics.

If basketball and football athletes aren't getting paid while generating millions for the school, it seems strange that the field hockey player or indoor track student gets the same free scholorship as the athlete producing the money that pays for his education.


College athletics are great for a university and community. But there is no reason to pay for ones academics when no revenue will be generated through their sport. In the end, it is at the expense of the students who don't participate in sports,

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

It's much simpler if you get rid of all scholarships for all sports.

Then title IX is reduced to having an equal number of sports for men and women.


The top schools will still be able to recruit the elite athletes based on coaches, facilities, and preparing them for the NFL/NBA.

How would the "education" of most of these "student-athletes" be funded?

How are the educations of normal students funded?

Good luck with that...

That's the best you got?

You don't think football players (esp. poor ones from the inner city) will qualify for financial aid, scholarships, loans?!

Get real.

You're right BF. In the revenue sports, it would probably make NO difference. Almost all the players would qualify for financial aid.

Of course, Quinn, there is the definition of a revenue sport. At Hawaii, volleyball is a revenue sport. At a lot of schools, football and basketball are not revenue sports. At Texas, football, basketball, baseball, women's basketball and women's volleyball are all revenue sports.

My position, as I have posted on other threads earlier, is similar to Quinn's. However, there is a variant that would be a compromise between his and Bisonfan01234.

Remove scholarships, but allow corporate or booster club groups to sponsor student athletes. The accounting profession already has scholarships for minorities, why not a scholarship for an athlete? Booster clubs are already a major part of the revenue stream of successful programs. The difference between division 1A, 1AA and division 2 would be on how many scholarships the school could raise. NCAA rules could still be applied.

Of course, the opportunity to purchse season tickets and get preferred parking spaces at the game would be would depend on how much (tax deductible) "scholarship money" was contributed.

Another variant on this would only have athletes who got their scholarships in this maner not count with non-revenue still being under Title IX. This would probably take Congressional approval. :'(

FBfan

The NCAA won't let anyone "pay" the athletes because it away from their "amatuer" status.

And as soon as you start compensating male athletes Title IX will find a way to make sure those dollars are matched on the female side.

The simplest way is to just get rid of them.

Removing scholarships will change NOT ONE THING about Title IX requirements. Rulings have already been put forth to ensure that the total number of opportunities are factored in.

Not even the Republican Party has the will to make changes... even the incoming class. They don't like the thought of creating some political gender warfare, because they know they'll lose. Bank on it. Learn to deal.

Brigham Young men's soccer, playing in the almost semi-professional Premier Development League, I understand, is an exception. The trick in learning that lesson is to de-affiliate from the school (considered a club sport- and, yes, only students are eligible)... but I suspect that a widespread implementation will probably get "regulated into line" eventually.

North Dakota State College of Science, NJCAA, and bound by title IX like any college, has only 4 sports: football, volleyball, and men's/women's bball. I don't believe they offer scholorahips (does any NJCAA school?). And yet, that equates to around 100 male athletes and only 30 female athletes.

"Equal oppertunity" is a loose wording, obviously. What does that really come down to?

If scholarships are included then it means equal scholarships for both sides.

If scholarships aren't included then it only means you have to have an equal number of sports for both sides.

Title IX, as has been interpreted by many, means equal participants. Many schools have limited walk-ons on men's teams in order to keep numbers in line with women's teams.

You're telling me that football and bball has the same number as vball and bball?

Sorry, your wrong.

Div. I fb schools all (or almost all) now have more women's sports than mens so they can get close to equal numbers. Sports other than fb are often limited in the number of walk-ons. Women's softball and track may have unlimited walk-ons, but men's baseball and track may be limited.