https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/12/19/ncaa-can-create-more-college-football-parity-reducing-scholarships/2360842002/?utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/12/19/ncaa-can-create-more-college-football-parity-reducing-scholarships/2360842002/&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pac-12-hotline-nl
Well, I like the thinking that this columnist presents. I think it would be net positive for Stanford. He also presents the idea that new scholarships be limited to max 20 in any year. We already seem to be at that un-mandated limit anyway. To Stanfordsize this proposal, I would fiddle around with the rules on official visits. Give a max of two per player each year, one without parents and one with parents, or one each year, junior and senior years. There’s going to be $ savings in the reduction of 15 scholarships, so you have some $ to play with in the official visits costs. (We are already saving a good portion of the those costs by not using many of them.) To maximize the benefits of official visits, we need the opportunity to have one earlier in the HS academic cycle, so we can “grab” a recruit’s interest earlier so he can start planning his course load appropriately.
Wow, if the S.E.C. and other power5 conference teams were reduced 15 scholarships each, well that would sure start having the kids from the Southern states to start thinking of other trans-continental schools to attend, wouldn’t it?
I guess I also like his beginning premise that the top schools are dominating the landscape and we need to create more parity. I’m feeling that way. In every pro sport I like the fact that they seem to put in the rules to create more opportunities for lesser teams to “have a chance” to compete for a title, i.e., more parity. I’d like to see schools like a Purdue or a Northwestern or a WSU or an Arizona, all for example, come into the playoff picture in any given year. This Alabama/Clemson/Oklahoma dominance is very unappealing to me right now.
Well, I like the thinking that this columnist presents. I think it would be net positive for Stanford. He also presents the idea that new scholarships be limited to max 20 in any year. We already seem to be at that un-mandated limit anyway. To Stanfordsize this proposal, I would fiddle around with the rules on official visits. Give a max of two per player each year, one without parents and one with parents, or one each year, junior and senior years. There’s going to be $ savings in the reduction of 15 scholarships, so you have some $ to play with in the official visits costs. (We are already saving a good portion of the those costs by not using many of them.) To maximize the benefits of official visits, we need the opportunity to have one earlier in the HS academic cycle, so we can “grab” a recruit’s interest earlier so he can start planning his course load appropriately.
Wow, if the S.E.C. and other power5 conference teams were reduced 15 scholarships each, well that would sure start having the kids from the Southern states to start thinking of other trans-continental schools to attend, wouldn’t it?
I guess I also like his beginning premise that the top schools are dominating the landscape and we need to create more parity. I’m feeling that way. In every pro sport I like the fact that they seem to put in the rules to create more opportunities for lesser teams to “have a chance” to compete for a title, i.e., more parity. I’d like to see schools like a Purdue or a Northwestern or a WSU or an Arizona, all for example, come into the playoff picture in any given year. This Alabama/Clemson/Oklahoma dominance is very unappealing to me right now.
Last edited:
