“Mr. Emmert, I have a Mr. Saban on line six for you.”

I predict this will go over like a lead balloon in certain quarters.

… 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.

Oh, and if you think this is somehow about benefiting the noble student-athlete, guess again.

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)[Emphasis added.]

What a bunch of cheap bastards.

************************************************************************************

UPDATE:  John Infante shares some related thoughts about splitting the pie.

About these ads

14 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

14 responses to ““Mr. Emmert, I have a Mr. Saban on line six for you.”

  1. Always Someone Else's Fault

    The NCAA needs to guarantee a 4 year scholarship and split that requirement from being a part of the 85 (or 80) person roster. Yes, that means a coach like Saban might have 80 former players wandering campus at the expense of the athletic department, but that’s Alabama’s choice.

    It’s a one-way move, which prevents coaches from hoarding players. Players can still transfer, which gives them two good options if they get cut. As for the notion that kids won’t work on football if you threaten their scholarship, I don’t buy it. Kids want playing time. If they don’t, then you shouldn’t have recruited them to begin with.

    The big schools can afford this. I’d much rather see this than a pay-scale, which so many people demand.

  2. The other Doug

    Michael Adams is an embaressment.

  3. Dog in Fla

    “Mr. Emmert, I have a Mr. Saban on line six for you.”

    Upon hearing news of that incoming call, RAW Group Chair Michael Adams knows he will again finish second to Mark Emmert

    http://blog.al.com/bamabeat/2010/04/mark_emmert_–_a_friend_of_nic.html

  4. Danny P

    Would they also cut ticket prices and minimum donation amounts since there would be less talent and fewer games?

    Didn’t think so.

  5. Mayor of Dawgtown

    Saban will get around this just like he gets around everything. Other coaches who live by the spirit of the new rule as well as the letter of the new rule (read: CMR) will be at an even greater disadvantage because their teams will now have fewer players whereas Saban will still run the same number of players through his program using oversigning, greyshirting, blueshirting and other devices to screen more players, throwing away the ones that are replaced with better players the next round of recruiting. Query: Why don’t we actively recruit Bama’s rejects? Some of those kids are damn good but were thrown away by Saban because, for example, he needed another LB more than a DE. The DE he ran off may very well have been a better player than the LB he brought in but he already had enough DEs and he needed another LB more. So the DE is actually a good player but SOL under the Saban way of doing things.

    • Bryant Denny

      So are you for a reduction to 80 or not?

      • The other Doug

        5 scholarships x 115 division 1A schools would be 575 fewer kids that get to go to college on football scholarships in DI.

        How can you be for that?

        • Always Someone Else's Fault

          x2. Title 9.

          Talk about tone deaf. All the public hears about are the collective TV contracts worth, oh, $25 to $30 billion, coaches and ADs pulling down 7 figures annually, and how do these morons make headlines? Cut costs, at the expense of the athlete. The sanctity of amateurism.

          I have no problem with the scholarship being the sole compensation. But the BCS schools could easily support a larger scholarship fund, through a variety of mechanisms.

          • Go Dawgs!

            Absolutely. And if I was an executive at ESPN or somewhere else, I’d look into my options for negotiating down my contract. After all, there’s no way this does anything beyond diluting the product. If they reduce the schedules? Well, then we’re really going to be dropping the price.

  6. watcher16

    Why am I not surprised ol’ Mikey is behind this?

    • S.E. Dawg

      Yeah, I’ll bet that ol’ Mikey is behind our game start times in Athens too. I know the record may have something to do with it but ol’ Mikey does not want late games on his campus. Notice I said his campus.

  7. Go Dawgs!

    I don’t give even half a damn about whether the little guys can afford to compete in the environment of cost of attendance, etc. and I think it’s stupid to reduce scholarships just so the little guys can keep up. It is also stupid to reduce the amount of games in any sport for economic reasons. The big sports make a lot of money for big schools, and no matter the sport, these athletes work hard for a limited number of competition dates already, reducing the schedule only hurts them.

    It’s time, SEC, Big 12, Pac 12, etc. It’s time to really start to think about leaving the party and setting up your own party.

  8. Pumpdawg

    Michael Adams is not only an embarassment to the University of Georgia,he makes me ashamed to be a man.