• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Reverend Dabo Swinney (HC Clemson Tigers - GSCS), random mid-century cars, and steroids

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
DaddyBigBucks said:
With the length of a playoff season, the blue bloods do need more scholarships

Everyone else gets more too, so that amounts to over 2600 more kids on football scholarships. And with Title IX, that means 2600+ more athletic scholarships for women too
Click to expand...
Zurp said:
These are the players on our roster who will play for us....
....and these are the players we keep around so they won't play for UC or Indiana or Akron or Marshall.
Click to expand...
That’s my point. Would a kid be better off going to Kent State and playing for 3-4 years or coming to OSU for 2 years and then transferring? I think game film is worth it.

Also I don’t think we need 15 more scholarships per year. Teams just need to play who they have better.

Go through our roster and look at the snaps played and how it falls off a cliff about half way through. Just need to actually play who we have and stop running our 1st team into the ground.

The 100+ scholarships will just reduce parity and IMO opportunity for kids.
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
With the length of a playoff season, the blue bloods do need more scholarships

Everyone else gets more too, so that amounts to over 2600 more kids on football scholarships. And with Title IX, that means 2600+ more athletic scholarships for women too
Click to expand...
On the bright side hey that maybe lands my kids a scholarship one day lol.

I suppose I’ll reframe what I’m saying.

Would it be cool to have extra scholarships? Yes and especially for the extra opportunities for thousands of kids a year.

Do we need the extra scholarships? No we don’t. We already don’t play most of our players.
 
Upvote 0
Captain Buckeye said:
The 100+ scholarships will just reduce parity and IMO opportunity for kids.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you mean by "opportunity".
I'm all-in on getting more scholarships to kids. The 100+ scholarships gives at 15-20 more scholarships per team x 130-whatever teams in FBS. That's at least 1,950 more scholarships at the FBS level, maybe as high as 2,800 more, depending on the exact numbers.
The real "victims" here (and I don't think they're actually victims) might be FCS and lower schools, since many of the players they're targeting will have more spots at the FBS level.

Since I started typing that, you came back with this:

Captain Buckeye said:
I suppose I’ll reframe what I’m saying.

Would it be cool to have extra scholarships? Yes and especially for the extra opportunities for thousands of kids a year.

Do we need the extra scholarships? No we don’t. We already don’t play most of our players.
Click to expand...
I think you and I are on the same page.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Agreed.
Let me clarify that I do believe that all of the top-tier teams will have players on their rosters that they won't ever play. More players will be in this category than they already do. Maybe they'll pan out, but many will not. And these are players who would normally go to Akron or BG or WMU or the like. So this will create a bigger difference between the top dogs and the rest. And I was joking that the intent to those scholarships was to keep them off the smaller teams' rosters. I don't think Ryan Day or any other coach is going to give anyone a free ride.
But, I do support it, as more scholarships is a good thing for the athletes. I don't know that I agree that the blue bloods "need" more scholarships. But you and others probably know more than I do, so I won't argue it.
Click to expand...
The part of this I take issue with is the bit where you say I probably know more than you do

In the twenty years I’ve been on this board I don’t recall ever seeing any evidence of that
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
The part of this I take issue with is the bit where you say I probably know more than you do

In the twenty years I’ve been on this board I don’t recall ever seeing any evidence of that
Click to expand...
Ha!
So take someone with an average knowledge base. If he meets someone, that new dude has a 50/50 chance to be smarter than him. He can flip a coin and get the same odds. Or roll a 6-sided die - 4-6 result means the new guy knows more, and 1-3 means the new guy knows less.
I've come to decide that when I'm talking with someone, the result of 2-6 on that die means he knows more than I do.
In my whole post, that statement is the one I'm most confident in.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top