Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on October 13, 2011, 09:02:59 PM
-
The NCAA is exploring a reduction in the number of scholarships programs can give out as part of a long-term look at reallocating various resources around the organization and at member schools.
The proposals are in a very early stage and stem from one of the four presidential working groups established by President Mark Emmert following his August Presidential Retreat. The groups are expected to recommend significant changes to the operation of Division I athletics to the NCAA Board of Directors to address the growing need for reform.
Following a six-hour meeting in late September, the Resource Allocation Working Group, chaired by Georgia President Michael Adams, agreed to consider a reduction in FBS football scholarships from the current number of 85 to 80 and a reduction in the number of FCS football scholarships from 63 to 60. The reductions would likely follow a move toward a full cost-of-attendance scholarship that is expected to be passed in early 2012. In addition to football, the group agreed to consider a reduction in the number of men's basketball scholarships from 13 to 12 and in women's basketball from 15 to 13.
The cuts are just a few of the controversal recommendations the working group is expected to pursue prior to their presentation to the Board of Directors at the NCAA Convention in January. According to a summary of the group's update, obtained by CBSSports.com, it was agreed upon to recommend eliminating all foreign travel, reduce mandatory out-of-season practice time and explore a reduction in competition (i.e. cutting the number of games for several sports).
Other presidential working groups are also examining financial costs, NCAA rules and student athlete-well being. The NCAA Legislative Council and Board of Directors will both meet next week in Indianapolis.
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32698997?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001
-
Aaaaaand Saban just slung an oatmeal cream pie through his window.
YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE PROCESS, A'IGHT!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-
Aaaaaand Saban just slung an oatmeal cream pie through his window.
YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE PROCESS, A'IGHT!?!?!?!?!?!?!
The only thing I could ever say that about the man that is nice, is his taste in snacks. Damn if they aren't delicious with a cup of coffee in the morning.
Anywho, I have no issues with this other than messing with basketball and FCS numbers. If anything raise the number of schollys a FCS school can give to 70. It will more than cover for those who get left out of going to a FBS school and it will also add a couple of more for those kids that are just good enough to play FCS level ball but can't get an offer b/c of the number of scholarships.
-
The only thing I could ever say that about the man that is nice, is his taste in snacks.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
-
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
que?
I propose getting rid of athletic scholarships all together. College isn't for everyone.
-
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Do you think maybe that they might even one day do more that he sometimes does?
-
Okay, what alternate universe have I stepped into here?
-
Okay, what alternate universe have I stepped into here?
(http://www.project-presentation.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/yoda-slide.gif)
-
Okay, what alternate universe have I stepped into here?
I think he is trying to make fun of the word "that" in my sentence that seems to be there randomly. (I had something typed out and wanted to reword it and didn't backspace far enough.)
If that is the worst thing the Grammar Nazi's see on this board then they aren't looking very hard. :fu:
-
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
-
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Words, but not sentences.
-
Words, but not sentences.
Wait...you're telling me that AUTiger1 is really...
(http://www.tigerrag.com/wp-content/uploads/miles-celebrates.jpg)
-
Wait...you're telling me that AUTiger1 is really...
(http://www.tigerrag.com/wp-content/uploads/miles-celebrates.jpg)
Hey! FUCK YOU MAN!
-
Hey! FUCK YOU MAN!
(http://www.motleycollegefootball.com/Images/LesMilesPointing.jpg)
-
(http://rigsamarole.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/owl-getting-sprayed-with-hose-water2.jpg)
-
(http://rigsamarole.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/owl-getting-sprayed-with-hose-water2.jpg)
That's one stubborn owl...
-
That's one stubborn owl...
I laughed for a good 5 minutes the first time I ever saw that. He is not amused.
-
I laughed for a good 5 minutes the first time I ever saw that. He is not amused.
I think that, as a general rule of thumb, owls aren't very easily amused creatures.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRigaVU_fc4xqACw8kVHNZYwJX40JRNkScBDHNZoNQj4r-c8t8HUDXfRTNvzg)
They're like cats with wings: generally pissed and always plotting something.
Which means they're also like tiny women with feathers.
-
I think that, as a general rule of thumb, owls aren't very easily amused creatures.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRigaVU_fc4xqACw8kVHNZYwJX40JRNkScBDHNZoNQj4r-c8t8HUDXfRTNvzg)
They're like cats with wings: generally pissed and always plotting something.
Which means they're also like tiny women with feathers.
(http://i.qkme.me/76z3.jpg) and I lol'd
-
What will they lower the per year number to?
Right now you have 25 X 4 classes = 100 scholarship guys IF you don't redshirt anyone.
It gets worse when you have 25 X 5 classes = 125 scholarship people.
If teams have to get to 80 instead of 85, the "processing" program will get even worse.
-
What will they lower the per year number to?
Right now you have 25 X 4 classes = 100 scholarship guys IF you don't redshirt anyone.
It gets worse when you have 25 X 5 classes = 125 scholarship people.
If teams have to get to 80 instead of 85, the "processing" program will get even worse.
I'm speculating, but I bet if there's a place that has the numbers, you'd find very few programs that have the full 85.
-
Which means they're also like tiny women with feathers.
How would you know? Odds are good you've been closer to an owl more recently than you've been anywhere near a woman.
-
How would you know? Odds are good you've been closer to an owl more recently than you've been anywhere near a woman.
Umm, excuse me...AWK totally has a vagina.
-
How would you know? Odds are good you've been closer to an owl more recently than you've been anywhere near a woman.
Doesn't he and AWK share an office, among other things?
-
I'm speculating, but I bet if there's a place that has the numbers, you'd find very few programs that have the full 85.
Just from a theoretical/mathematical point of view, there are 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. In order to have a first, second, and third string for each position, that's 66 players. Your special teams are often mostly made up of offensive and defensive bench warmers, but even if you add another 11 players specifically for special teams (with special teams backups being comprised of second and third string offensive and defensive players), that's 77 players total.
Now, this doesn't take into account your "rotation" in the starting offense and defense for positions which will be involved with some plays but not others, such as receivers, running backs, defensive secondary positions, etc. But it also doesn't take into account that a lot of your third stringers/walk-ons (and maybe even some second stringers) are likely not on scholarship. Nor does it take into account the fact that not every position will be three players deep. And it overestimates the number of players you have that are solely for special teams.
So, yeah...without having actual numbers in front of me, I'd also have to agree that it's unlikely that most schools are using the max number of scholarships as it is.
-
As a clarification, there's obviously going to be more than 77 players on the roster as a whole. I think teams usually have around 100, but a lot of those are so far down the list that they're just scout team fodder. Realistically, the number of players who are an active part of the regular gameplay, or are otherwise likely to have to step in if a player(s) is injured or needs a breather, is probably between 60 and 70.
I'm not an AD or a coach, but I don't think the scout team and third string backups are the players who would be getting scholarships. So I still think 77 is an overestimation of the number of players who receive athletic scholarships.
-
Just from a theoretical/mathematical point of view, there are 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. In order to have a first, second, and third string for each position, that's 66 players. Your special teams are often mostly made up of offensive and defensive bench warmers, but even if you add another 11 players specifically for special teams (with special teams backups being comprised of second and third string offensive and defensive players), that's 77 players total.
Now, this doesn't take into account your "rotation" in the starting offense and defense for positions which will be involved with some plays but not others, such as receivers, running backs, defensive secondary positions, etc. But it also doesn't take into account that a lot of your third stringers/walk-ons (and maybe even some second stringers) are likely not on scholarship. Nor does it take into account the fact that not every position will be three players deep. And it overestimates the number of players you have that are solely for special teams.
So, yeah...without having actual numbers in front of me, I'd also have to agree that it's unlikely that most schools are using the max number of scholarships as it is.
As a clarification, there's obviously going to be more than 77 players on the roster as a whole. I think teams usually have around 100, but a lot of those are so far down the list that they're just scout team fodder. Realistically, the number of players who are an active part of the regular gameplay, or are otherwise likely to have to step in if a player(s) is injured or needs a breather, is probably between 60 and 70.
I'm not an AD or a coach, but I don't think the scout team and third string backups are the players who would be getting scholarships. So I still think 77 is an overestimation of the number of players who receive athletic scholarships.
So then when you take the square of the right leg of the obtuse parallelogram times the Pythagoreum theorum, then divide by pi and add the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow, the resulting proof will still contain fewer words than any reply ever posted on the X by Vandy Vol.
It's Friday night, dude. At least I can blame my kids.
-
So then when you take the square of the right leg of the obtuse parallelogram times the Pythagoreum theorum, then divide by pi and add the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow, the resulting proof will still contain fewer words than any reply ever posted on the X by Vandy Vol.
It's Friday night, dude. At least I can blame my kids.
HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE!!! Just don't grind your feet on my damn couch...
(http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/30224/chappelleplayerhatersbasi8_medium.jpg)
-
Just from a theoretical/mathematical point of view, there are 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. In order to have a first, second, and third string for each position, that's 66 players. Your special teams are often mostly made up of offensive and defensive bench warmers, but even if you add another 11 players specifically for special teams (with special teams backups being comprised of second and third string offensive and defensive players), that's 77 players total.
Now, this doesn't take into account your "rotation" in the starting offense and defense for positions which will be involved with some plays but not others, such as receivers, running backs, defensive secondary positions, etc. But it also doesn't take into account that a lot of your third stringers/walk-ons (and maybe even some second stringers) are likely not on scholarship. Nor does it take into account the fact that not every position will be three players deep. And it overestimates the number of players you have that are solely for special teams.
So, yeah...without having actual numbers in front of me, I'd also have to agree that it's unlikely that most schools are using the max number of scholarships as it is.
Besides that, you can only dress like 60 players.
-
Besides that, you can only dress like 60 players.
Yeah, I think that's determined by the conferences. Usually the traveling team is limited to about 60 dressed players (the exact number will differ with each conference). The home team is given a little more leeway...or, at least, that's what I've heard. I've never actually seen a written rule on it.
-
BTW, I'm not saying this is a good thing. It will create just a little more level playing field for the lesser teams. Teams like Troy, UAB, USF, etc, will gain ground ever so slightly in the talent race.
-
BTW, I'm not saying this is a good thing. It will create just a little more level playing field for the lesser teams. Teams like Troy, UAB, USF, etc, will gain ground ever so slightly in the talent race.
Your 5,000th post referenced Troy, UAB, and USF football.
How does that make you feel?
-
Your 5,000th post referenced Troy, UAB, and USF football.
How does that make you feel?
Not nearly as good as when I find some wench willing to suck my dick and leave with no conversation required.
-
Not nearly as good as when I find some wench willing to suck my dick and leave with no conversation required.
That can be arranged...
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF3snzJy_8fTBgZTbNfulLqOMYLboCl6cNGaHw76g1PreX7jFpdA6_W6jvWQ)
-
Do you think maybe that they might even one day do more that he sometimes does?
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.