GoGamecocks.com
Morris: Football's ride fails to lift others
Posted on 08.21.09
Comments
IT IS THAT time of year, again. College football coaches are peering across practice fields in search of walk-ons who can earn full scholarships.
It is as sure a sign as any that college football has too many scholarships at its disposal. To reach the maximum allowed, South Carolina will give full rides to nine walk-ons. Clemson will do the same for seven.
While well-intended, the practice reeks of excess. It is precisely why coaches in non-revenue sports should be pointing at football as the problem with scholarship limits in their sports, not at the federally mandated Title IX requirements that call for equal participation for men and women in athletics.
Steve Spurrier admits the 85-limit for scholarships is a lot. He says teams could easily operate with 70 to 75. He also admits 50 of those scholarship players participate in games each season, “60 at most.”
As he should, Spurrier defends the rewarding of scholarships to walk-ons. As long as the NCAA allows the excessive number of scholarships, there exists incentive for walk-ons to earn a full ride. Why not give them away?
“There’s enough money in college football that we can reward a lot of young men on scholarship who really are not going to play a lot,” Spurrier says. “We’re bringing in more money than we ever have. It’s a way of rewarding young men who help the football program.”
This is not intended to single out USC or Clemson. Rare is the program, such as Alabama this fall, that is forced to trim its scholarship roster to 85. Through attrition, high school recruits who do not qualify and players who leave early for the NFL, many programs are left short each season of the 85 scholarships allowed.
USC has been practicing this fall with 75 scholarship players and 30 walk-ons. Spurrier said he likes to reward one senior walk-on who has been with the program over a four-year period. This year, he also has six or seven juniors who have been practicing for three years without a scholarship.
“That’s to reward these young men for coming in, going to all the workouts and doing everything all the scholarship guys do,” Spurrier said. “That’s what brings walk-ons to your program. They have dreams that they may be a scholarship guy some day.”
Clemson’s Dabo Swinney has an equally soft spot for those who long to earn a football scholarship, as he did at Alabama when he shed his walk-on status and played on a national championship team.
Unfortunately, those dreams today are realized by walk-ons who will never play a significant down of football at the expense of non-revenue sports, which across the board must scramble to gain financial aid for their athletes.
Baseball, for example, is limited to 11.7 scholarships. Coaches in that sport spread that scholarship money over a 35-man roster. Not one USC baseball player receives a full scholarship, not even the most highly recruited athlete such as former All-American Justin Smoak.
Imagine if the NCAA trimmed its scholarship limit in football to a more reasonable 60. It would eliminate the sad practice of wholesale red-shirting. Football would be forced to return to the day when only medical redshirts were allowed, as is the case in men’s basketball.
The 25 scholarships trimmed in football could then be dispersed among the most needy of men’s sports. Baseball could increase its scholarship limit to where it should be, around 25. Wrestling, tennis and swimming programs that are being eliminated could more easily be retained.
The amount of revenue generated for football would not be reduced. USC, Clemson and most BCS schools would continue to attract the same number of fans to home games, regardless of scholarship limits. The quality of play would not be diminished one iota, because the same 50-60 players would still be participating.
As for college football being the cash cow for the remainder of the athletics program at most schools, no one would argue that. That does not mean college football should be allowed to spend excessively.
Excessive spending in football is why schools are eliminating men’s non-revenue sports at an alarming rate. Those sports fail because they cannot subsidize themselves, and football is claiming it can’t support them, either.
Instead of those failed sports pointing a collective finger at Title IX, as they invariably do, they should aim their discontent at college football. For, as long as the NCAA continues to allow football programs to pass out scholarships like Halloween candy, that sport will be the reason others such as baseball suffer a shortage of scholarships. Football’s excess will continue to be the reason wrestling, tennis, swimming, etc., are eliminated.
Unfortunately, college football continues to operate as the sacred cow on most campuses. The sport, and its large fan base, turn a blind eye to any talk concerning excess spending or necessary cuts that will benefit the remainder of the athletics program.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Eighty-five is an absurd number of scholarships for college football.
The doling out of scholarships to walk-ons who might as well be spectators on most game days proves the point.
Listen to Morris Tuesdays from 4-5 p.m. on ESPN Radio 93.1 FM
Most Viewed Stories
- Gamecocks' Gilmore wise beyond his years
- Men's pregame: USC vs. Miami
- Kentucky rallies to beat Georgia 34-27
- Parker Attends Clemson Game
- USC's Archie suffers knee injury
- Barnes Has Good Visit With USC
- Women's pregame: USC vs. Penn State
- Gamecocks' bowl bid needs 1 for the road
- Fulton Still Working On Decision
- Morris: Laval knew how to win, no matter the sport
@Nyx.CommentBody@