Welp, looks like nonrevenue sport scholarships will be gone soon

[Izulde]

NCAA athletes can pursue television money, judge*rules | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

Now, granted, this doesn't mean the athletes will win their cases. It just means they can pursue these lawsuits if I'm reading this right. Still, I can't help but think somebody will win eventually and with that, we see the end of nonrevenue sport scholarships. Everything but football and basketball will get shifted to club level only.

[RainMaker]

Hasn't happened in the lower divisions of NCAA sports which has little to no TV money.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hasn't happened in the lower divisions of NCAA sports which has little to no TV money.

They also have fewer sports teams and with Division III, there's no scholarships.

Fair point, though. I do think you'll see a lot of sports teams cut, though.

[Groundhog]

Time to buy me some shares in an NBDL team!

[Crapshoot]

Awesome. Anything that breaks up the BS cartel that is the NCAA is a good thing.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Awesome. Anything that breaks up the BS cartel that is the NCAA is a good thing.

From a football perspective I can see this arguement, but when college soccer teams, swim teams, lacrosse, and more start getting shut down because universities can afford them, then the impact of this will be felt...

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

college football is doomed anyway. at some point a university is going to claim the high road on the head injury thing and the dominoes will start falling

[Desnudo]

If other institutions are run like Tennessee, that would be sooner rather than later.

Report: Tennessee athletics over $200 million in debt

[Young Drachma]

No tears shedded here. Intercollegiate athletics will always happen, it doesn't need to be a big business where everyone else subsidizes these kids. Plus, boosters would happily pay up at some places to pay for subsidized scholarships if it came down to it. Not everywhere, but not everywhere needs to be playing D1 sports anyway.

[kcchief19]

Unless scholarships for football and basketball go away or the NCAA reduces the requirements of the number of teams a school must field to be Division I, non-revenue sports are fine. Title IX will keep women's sports around.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

college football is doomed anyway. at some point a university is going to claim the high road on the head injury thing and the dominoes will start falling

University of Chicago did that back in the day. No dominoes.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

University of Chicago did that back in the day. No dominoes.

in 1946? if they didn't drill a hole in your head to let the demons out they would have prescribed 2 packs of lucky's unfiltered to soothe your nerves

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

in 1946? if they didn't drill a hole in your head to let the demons out they would have prescribed 2 packs of lucky's unfiltered to soothe your nerves

Funny you mention cigarettes. What do you think is more dangerous to your health -- playing football or smoking? Has smoking been banned? You can't smoke in most public buildings, but aside from that light up where ever you want, and the tobacco companies keep cashing those checks.

Who do you think is going to drop football voluntarily? Ohio State? Nobody of consequence will ever drop football. Maybe some backwater hippie school that's lost 37 games in a row. But no one with alumni or ambition will drop football.

[bhlloy]

Big difference is that smoking isn't something that requires parents to allow their 12 or 14 year olds to do in order to keep itself going. I don't necessarily agree football is doomed at any level but I do think we are going to see continued drops in the numbers of kids playing it. At least until the drama stops or somebody invents a new helmet that can stop 99% of concussions

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

academic institution : debilitating brain injury



doesn't jibe. i don't mean to thread jack but i've been banging this drum for a while and i'm shocked it doesn't get more play in the talking head-verse

plus, it's a great excuse for schools that are under water on their football programs to get out while getting a bunch of pr

[kcchief19]

On the University of Missouri campus, I lived in the Mark Twain dorm across the street from a dirty, nasty coal-fired power plant that billowed smoke directly at us when the wind blew the wrong way. When it rained, our cars were coated with a black, dirty ash. You pretty much had to wash your car anytime it rained. We also were directly down the street from the university's research nuclear reactor. By my experience, academic institutions don't have problems with risky behavior if there is money to be earned or saved or prestige to be gained.

A school that drops football now would be deemed as over reacting or deflecting from the sad state of affairs of their program. Not sure there is good PR to be earned there. That may change, but we're not there yet.

I'm not disputing any of the research into head injuries. I think there are still questions to answer. Maybe there will a breakthrough one way or another -- a solution to make the game safer, or concluding a devestating link to long-term damage. Until then, football isn't going anywhere.

[kcchief19]

The original ESPN article referenced in the SI post is a bit more detailed. This isn't much of a victory at all -- the judge only ruled that the NCAA can't get the suit dismissed on a technicality but must address the main issue of whether the class-action lawsuit should be certified at all. The good news for the NCAA is the judge has apparently indicated some doubt whether the class action should be certified.

I'm starting to get a USFL vibe for this case. I know some people think the players have a case and sloppy legal work and communication by the NCAA and the schools in the past may hurt them. I can see the players actually winning the case but receiving a pittance for a settlement.

[Daimyo]

Why is it a bad thing for non-revenue sport scholarships to disappear? If those sports contribute back to the university positive value in terms of money, mission, or prestige they'll find ways to keep them around.

If they don't add value, then why should they remain? In that case they're better off using the money for need or merit based financial aid or hiring top tier faculty (or anything else mission-contributing).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

University of Chicago did that back in the day. No dominoes.

The University of Chicago may not be the best example, as it is a university that is considered one of the best in the country in terms of academics. If Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, or Vanderbilt shut down their programs, they will still be academic powerhouses, well-endowed, and well-known brands.