|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 4, 2020 3:54:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 4, 2020 3:58:56 GMT -6
Other football teams in Sooner Athletic Conference
Arizona Christian Langston (OK) Lyon College (AR) Oklahoma Panhandle State Ottawa (AZ) SW Assemblies of God (TX) Texas College Texas Wesleyan Wayland Baptist (TX)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 10:24:23 GMT -6
Should have been done years ago. Louisiana College not having scholarships has long been a deal breaker for potential recruits.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 4, 2020 11:20:55 GMT -6
Should have been done years ago. Louisiana College not having scholarships has long been a deal breaker for potential recruits. What other options on par with D3 Louisiana College were those potential recruits pursuing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 12:35:12 GMT -6
Should have been done years ago. Louisiana College not having scholarships has long been a deal breaker for potential recruits. What other options on par with D3 Louisiana College were those potential recruits pursuing? LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent, but at the end of the day couldn’t compete with schools offering scholarships. Even the ones that seemingly slipped through the cracks would rather go JUCO. LC having scholarships would at least give them a little more bargaining power. What Dunn did before he left from there was nothing short of a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 4, 2020 12:43:00 GMT -6
What other options on par with D3 Louisiana College were those potential recruits pursuing? LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent, but at the end of the day couldn’t compete with schools offering scholarships. Even the ones that seemingly slipped through the cracks would rather go JUCO. LC having scholarships would at least give them a little more bargaining power. What Dunn did before he left from there was nothing short of a miracle. NAIA generally doesn't give full athletic scholarships..they will break them apart to build a team. Depending on the amount of $$$ LC can fundraise, I believe they can offer up to 24 equivalencies. I would be highly suspect of any "D1" talent that would ever choose a DIII school. I don't see where offering scholarships will matter with that.
|
|
|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 4, 2020 17:51:13 GMT -6
LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent, but at the end of the day couldn’t compete with schools offering scholarships. Even the ones that seemingly slipped through the cracks would rather go JUCO. LC having scholarships would at least give them a little more bargaining power. What Dunn did before he left from there was nothing short of a miracle. NAIA generally doesn't give full athletic scholarships..they will break them apart to build a team. Depending on the amount of $$$ LC can fundraise, I believe they can offer up to 24 equivalencies. I would be highly suspect of any "D1" talent that would ever choose a DIII school. I don't see where offering scholarships will matter with that. I have seen guys that were D1 talents that ended up at LC during my time there. Now when I say D1 I dont mean LSU or Alabama I mean like ULL, Grambling, McNeese, etc. Smaller G5 and FCS schools but still D1 and guys I went to LC with definitely could have played and started at those schools. Guys like Easton Melancon, Brandon Porche, Shedrick Davis, Ira Jewitt, Ryan Montague, Orel Ledet, etc. Some of those guys were looked at as "too short" or "a little too slow" or just didnt get the right exposure out of high school and showed they had the talent when they got to LC. I mean look at Jeremy Vujnovich, played at LC and has been in the NFL for several years now with the Packers, Colts, Cardinals, and Redskins and not just on the PS he started the full 16 games for the Colts in 2018. Guys fall through the cracks and end up at places like LC. Pierre Garcon was a D3 guy at Mount Union. D1 talent does exist at the D3 level, just usually not on purpose. And even though it would just be a partial scholarship it may be the difference in getting a guy to come to LC rather than walking on somewhere else, or more importantly keeping that player at an in-state school.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 4, 2020 19:50:51 GMT -6
NAIA generally doesn't give full athletic scholarships..they will break them apart to build a team. Depending on the amount of $$$ LC can fundraise, I believe they can offer up to 24 equivalencies. I would be highly suspect of any "D1" talent that would ever choose a DIII school. I don't see where offering scholarships will matter with that. I have seen guys that were D1 talents that ended up at LC during my time there. Now when I say D1 I dont mean LSU or Alabama I mean like ULL, Grambling, McNeese, etc. Smaller G5 and FCS schools but still D1 and guys I went to LC with definitely could have played and started at those schools. Guys like Easton Melancon, Brandon Porche, Shedrick Davis, Ira Jewitt, Ryan Montague, Orel Ledet, etc. Some of those guys were looked at as "too short" or "a little too slow" or just didnt get the right exposure out of high school and showed they had the talent when they got to LC. I mean look at Jeremy Vujnovich, played at LC and has been in the NFL for several years now with the Packers, Colts, Cardinals, and Redskins and not just on the PS he started the full 16 games for the Colts in 2018. Guys fall through the cracks and end up at places like LC. Pierre Garcon was a D3 guy at Mount Union. D1 talent does exist at the D3 level, just usually not on purpose. And even though it would just be a partial scholarship it may be the difference in getting a guy to come to LC rather than walking on somewhere else, or more importantly keeping that player at an in-state school. In the scope of this conversation, (players not choosing LC because of no athletic based financial aid) wouldn't "D1 talent" mean someone who was offered a scholarship at a D1 school? That is what I was referring to. I interpreted @football4160 's comment-- "LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent but in the end couldn't compete with schools offering scholarships"--- to mean that LC was losing in the recruiting game to D1 schools who were offering scholarships. I simply do not believe that is the case. As far as "walk on somewhere" or partial scholarship, A $4,000 "football" scholarship (that would have to be fundraised obviously) still leaves tuition at LC higher than most if not all of the instate FBS or FCS options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 20:35:06 GMT -6
LC loses plenty of recruits wanting to stay home due to not having any scholarships, trust me. They recruit well within their means, but guys still choose to walk on at bigger schools that offer scholarships. It’s cheaper for them to go that route than to go to LC and end up $60k+ in debt. I’m not saying it guarantees better recruits, but at least it gives them a better bargaining chip when presenting their offer as opposed to maybe a grand off their tuition from getting books paid for.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 4, 2020 21:03:34 GMT -6
LC loses plenty of recruits wanting to stay home due to not having any scholarships, trust me. They recruit well within their means, but guys still choose to walk on at bigger schools that offer scholarships. It’s cheaper for them to go that route than to go to LC and end up $60k+ in debt. I’m not saying it guarantees better recruits, but at least it gives them a better bargaining chip when presenting their offer as opposed to maybe a grand off their tuition from getting books paid for. The "football" scholarships probably won't be much higher than a few grand. The MAX they can give is 24 equivalencies (which they have to fund, most likely via fundraising at least $500,000 for tution only) My point was that if a recruit had the opportunity to play at an FCS or FBS school, for the same cost if not cheaper (even with a schollie from LC, I think most instate options would be cheaper) and they chose LC, it would raise some questions as to how important football was to them. That said, I do applaud LC for doing what they think is best for their students instead of just maintaining the status quo
|
|
|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 4, 2020 22:17:56 GMT -6
I have seen guys that were D1 talents that ended up at LC during my time there. Now when I say D1 I dont mean LSU or Alabama I mean like ULL, Grambling, McNeese, etc. Smaller G5 and FCS schools but still D1 and guys I went to LC with definitely could have played and started at those schools. Guys like Easton Melancon, Brandon Porche, Shedrick Davis, Ira Jewitt, Ryan Montague, Orel Ledet, etc. Some of those guys were looked at as "too short" or "a little too slow" or just didnt get the right exposure out of high school and showed they had the talent when they got to LC. I mean look at Jeremy Vujnovich, played at LC and has been in the NFL for several years now with the Packers, Colts, Cardinals, and Redskins and not just on the PS he started the full 16 games for the Colts in 2018. Guys fall through the cracks and end up at places like LC. Pierre Garcon was a D3 guy at Mount Union. D1 talent does exist at the D3 level, just usually not on purpose. And even though it would just be a partial scholarship it may be the difference in getting a guy to come to LC rather than walking on somewhere else, or more importantly keeping that player at an in-state school. In the scope of this conversation, (players not choosing LC because of no athletic based financial aid) wouldn't "D1 talent" mean someone who was offered a scholarship at a D1 school? That is what I was referring to. I interpreted @football4160 's comment-- "LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent but in the end couldn't compete with schools offering scholarships"--- to mean that LC was losing in the recruiting game to D1 schools who were offering scholarships. I simply do not believe that is the case. As far as "walk on somewhere" or partial scholarship, A $4,000 "football" scholarship (that would have to be fundraised obviously) still leaves tuition at LC higher than most if not all of the instate FBS or FCS options. Ok so let me clarify. When I say D1 talent I dont mean someone who is a clear D1 caliber recruit, I mean someone who in hindsight once they have been on the field you realize that they had the talent to play at a D1 school. LC would never directly compete with a D1 school for an athlete but they have had guys who in hindsight should have been D1 players
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 5, 2020 7:39:29 GMT -6
In the scope of this conversation, (players not choosing LC because of no athletic based financial aid) wouldn't "D1 talent" mean someone who was offered a scholarship at a D1 school? That is what I was referring to. I interpreted @football4160 's comment-- "LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent but in the end couldn't compete with schools offering scholarships"--- to mean that LC was losing in the recruiting game to D1 schools who were offering scholarships. I simply do not believe that is the case. As far as "walk on somewhere" or partial scholarship, A $4,000 "football" scholarship (that would have to be fundraised obviously) still leaves tuition at LC higher than most if not all of the instate FBS or FCS options. Ok so let me clarify. When I say D1 talent I dont mean someone who is a clear D1 caliber recruit, I mean someone who in hindsight once they have been on the field you realize that they had the talent to play at a D1 school. LC would never directly compete with a D1 school for an athlete but they have had guys who in hindsight should have been D1 players Sure, there are guys like that everywhere. Guys who "slip through the cracks" as people like to say. Late bloomers, guys who couldn't put it together etc, are found in the Group of 5, in FCS, in Ncaa DII, in NCAA DIII, and in NAIA. My question was just asking why someone would think that being able to offer a small amount of money via "athletic" scholarship as opposed to any of the other financial aid options available to Louisiana College would somehow entice a student who is also being recruited to play d1/d2 based on the comment "LC has gone after plenty of D1/D2 talent but at the end of the day couldn't compete with schools offering scholarships. " That just doesn't seem to fit. It would be different if the kids LC is recruiting are deciding to go to Culver Stockton, or Cumberland University because they were offered "football scholarships". But that comment seemed to claim that if LC was NAIA and able to offer aid based solely on football, it would be able to jump into the recruiting pool with NCAA Div 1 and Div 2 schools. I don't believe that would be a successful strategy. The biggest benefit of the move will most likely be that NAIA schools are much more uniform. The NCAA is an organization with policies that regulate Ohio State, Michigan, LSU as well as Louisiana College, Stetson, Sewannee etc. where as the NAIA seems to be promoting a plan to create a monetary return on athletic investment for those smaller schools that are members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 10:07:31 GMT -6
Okay, here’s a recruiting scenario that could play out:
NSU recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. We’ll take you on as a preferred walk-on, and you MIGHT get an opportunity at a scholarship down the road. What do you say?”
LC recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools, you’ll be paying almost full tuition and you still might not get a scholarship. What do you say?”
Now which school’s offer looks more enticing? Even a just partial athletic scholarship gives LC a leg up on schools offering “walk-on” spots. No doubt you take the full ride if you get offered. But, if LC offers a scholarship, you’d turn it down in favor of maybe never getting one?
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 5, 2020 10:59:08 GMT -6
Okay, here’s a recruiting scenario that could play out: NSU recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. We’ll take you on as a preferred walk-on, and you MIGHT get an opportunity at a scholarship down the road. What do you say?” LC recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools, you’ll be paying almost full tuition and you still might not get a scholarship. What do you say?” Now which school’s offer looks more enticing? Even a just partial athletic scholarship gives LC a leg up on schools offering “walk-on” spots. No doubt you take the full ride if you get offered. But, if LC offers a scholarship, you’d turn it down in favor of maybe never getting one? In the situation you just described, why wouldn't the student be eligible for Tops at Northwestern State? Thus making the situation : “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools with lower tuition costs, [ WITH YOUR TOPS and any other awards] you’ll be paying very little if anything so even if you don't get scholarship it would be the same if not cheaper than attending LC, but playing Div 1 football. What do you say?” Because chances are even with football money, going to NSU would be cheaper for the hypothetical student. LC base tuition is $8750 a semester. NSU's is $3,900. Cost isn't going to be the recruiting point. I want to be clear that I am not disparaging NAIA or D3 football. I am simply saying the argument that now as an NAIA school LC will get players they previously "lost" to NCAA Div 1 schools because of a lack of "scholarship" is probably not a very sound one. That argument would only hold if you said that LC was missing on recruits who chose to go to an NAIA school with a scholarship as opposed to an NCAA D3 school.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 7, 2020 10:07:28 GMT -6
Okay, here’s a recruiting scenario that could play out: NSU recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. We’ll take you on as a preferred walk-on, and you MIGHT get an opportunity at a scholarship down the road. What do you say?” LC recruiter: “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools, you’ll be paying almost full tuition and you still might not get a scholarship. What do you say?” Now which school’s offer looks more enticing? Even a just partial athletic scholarship gives LC a leg up on schools offering “walk-on” spots. No doubt you take the full ride if you get offered. But, if LC offers a scholarship, you’d turn it down in favor of maybe never getting one? In the situation you just described, why wouldn't the student be eligible for Tops at Northwestern State? Thus making the situation : “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools with lower tuition costs, [ WITH YOUR TOPS and any other awards] you’ll be paying very little if anything so even if you don't get scholarship it would be the same if not cheaper than attending LC, but playing Div 1 football. What do you say?” Because chances are even with football money, going to NSU would be cheaper for the hypothetical student. LC base tuition is $8750 a semester. NSU's is $3,900. Cost isn't going to be the recruiting point. I want to be clear that I am not disparaging NAIA or D3 football. I am simply saying the argument that now as an NAIA school LC will get players they previously "lost" to NCAA Div 1 schools because of a lack of "scholarship" is probably not a very sound one. That argument would only hold if you said that LC was missing on recruits who chose to go to an NAIA school with a scholarship as opposed to an NCAA D3 school. First you have to look at how many athletes coming out of the public school system qualify for TOPS. I do not know this number, but from looking at the public school average ACT in this state, it is well below the 50% mark. When you consider that over 70% of TOPS recipients lose their TOPS after one year of college, TOPS becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an athletic scholarship. These days schools like ULL, ULM, NSU and McNeese will offer a preferred walk on status to a kid who has the grades for a high TOPS award so they can offer it to a less scholarly student. I have seen this first hand. What they don't realize is that a kid who has the scholarly aptitude to score high on his TOPS award, is more than likely getting full ride scholarships to out of state universities on an academic basis and not an athletic basis. Unless of course you are the valedictorian and you score a 16 on the ACT.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 7, 2020 11:43:55 GMT -6
In the situation you just described, why wouldn't the student be eligible for Tops at Northwestern State? Thus making the situation : “Okay, man...we really like you and want you to be part of our team. I heard you were offered a couple preferred walk on spots, but we can offer an athletic scholarship that pays part of your tuition, and along with your TOPs and any other awards you’ll be paying very little, if anything, out of pocket. You go to these other schools with lower tuition costs, [ WITH YOUR TOPS and any other awards] you’ll be paying very little if anything so even if you don't get scholarship it would be the same if not cheaper than attending LC, but playing Div 1 football. What do you say?” Because chances are even with football money, going to NSU would be cheaper for the hypothetical student. LC base tuition is $8750 a semester. NSU's is $3,900. Cost isn't going to be the recruiting point. I want to be clear that I am not disparaging NAIA or D3 football. I am simply saying the argument that now as an NAIA school LC will get players they previously "lost" to NCAA Div 1 schools because of a lack of "scholarship" is probably not a very sound one. That argument would only hold if you said that LC was missing on recruits who chose to go to an NAIA school with a scholarship as opposed to an NCAA D3 school. First you have to look at how many athletes coming out of the public school system qualify for TOPS. I do not know this number, but from looking at the public school average ACT in this state, it is well below the 50% mark. When you consider that over 70% of TOPS recipients lose their TOPS after one year of college, TOPS becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an athletic scholarship. These days schools like ULL, ULM, NSU and McNeese will offer a preferred walk on status to a kid who has the grades for a high TOPS award so they can offer it to a less scholarly student. I have seen this first hand. What they don't realize is that a kid who has the scholarly aptitude to score high on his TOPS award, is more than likely getting full ride scholarships to out of state universities on an academic basis and not an athletic basis. Unless of course you are the valedictorian and you score a 16 on the ACT. A couple of counter points - College athletes perform better on average than non athletes in school. Sure, that goes against the stereotype, but the facts bear that out. Because of the structure and support given to athletes, I would argue that a student who would be likely to lose their TOPS award after a year of school would be LESS likely if they were an athlete. A quick Google search shows that Nicholls state athletic program had a 3.31 GPA average and that in Dec 2016 Northwestern's Athletic program posted a 3.13 GPA (only article that popped up with comparative data) . That fall, the Demon football team had a 2.89 GPA. which is higher than TOPS renewal. Does that mean all athletes are doing great? NO. Just like all students in the University are not doing great. Keep in mind that Athletes need to keep a minimum GPA and have a Progress towards Degree requirements for NCAA eligibility. It is slightly lower than the baseline for TOPS renewal, but not by much. In summary, athletes tend to do better than non athletes with regards to bombing out the first year, and therefore I don't really believe your statement "70% of students receiving TOPS fail to renew it" has bearing here. I don't really understand your comment that "TOPS really becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an Athletic scholarship because you were the one who brought up TOPS in your hypothetical example. --You brought up TOPS in your hypothetical argument, and said that the hypothetical student could use it and "football money" and attend LC for less than attending NSU as a preferred walk on. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical student you created would ALSO have TOPS money at NSU, and with a much lower tuition thn LC. --None of what you posted has anything to do with my original objection, which was I don't believe LC being an NAIA school and now being able to offer "football money" as opposed to an NCAA D3 school without offering "football money" would affect recruiting athletes with "D1/D2 talent" like you suggested. I don't think cost would be the factor. Am I missing something? I just don't see the cost argument, or think that LC would be able to offer enough football money to an individual to make it cost a factor. If a certain player was worthy of that much in aid, he would probably be offered by that D1 school. Also, to fully fund the max 24 equivalencies. for tuition only (not counting room and board) LC would have to find $408,000 a year. Will they be able to do that every year?
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 10, 2020 8:16:58 GMT -6
First you have to look at how many athletes coming out of the public school system qualify for TOPS. I do not know this number, but from looking at the public school average ACT in this state, it is well below the 50% mark. When you consider that over 70% of TOPS recipients lose their TOPS after one year of college, TOPS becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an athletic scholarship. These days schools like ULL, ULM, NSU and McNeese will offer a preferred walk on status to a kid who has the grades for a high TOPS award so they can offer it to a less scholarly student. I have seen this first hand. What they don't realize is that a kid who has the scholarly aptitude to score high on his TOPS award, is more than likely getting full ride scholarships to out of state universities on an academic basis and not an athletic basis. Unless of course you are the valedictorian and you score a 16 on the ACT. A couple of counter points - College athletes perform better on average than non athletes in school. Sure, that goes against the stereotype, but the facts bear that out. Because of the structure and support given to athletes, I would argue that a student who would be likely to lose their TOPS award after a year of school would be LESS likely if they were an athlete. A quick Google search shows that Nicholls state athletic program had a 3.31 GPA average and that in Dec 2016 Northwestern's Athletic program posted a 3.13 GPA (only article that popped up with comparative data) . That fall, the Demon football team had a 2.89 GPA. which is higher than TOPS renewal. Does that mean all athletes are doing great? NO. Just like all students in the University are not doing great. Keep in mind that Athletes need to keep a minimum GPA and have a Progress towards Degree requirements for NCAA eligibility. It is slightly lower than the baseline for TOPS renewal, but not by much. In summary, athletes tend to do better than non athletes with regards to bombing out the first year, and therefore I don't really believe your statement "70% of students receiving TOPS fail to renew it" has bearing here. I don't really understand your comment that "TOPS really becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an Athletic scholarship because you were the one who brought up TOPS in your hypothetical example. --You brought up TOPS in your hypothetical argument, and said that the hypothetical student could use it and "football money" and attend LC for less than attending NSU as a preferred walk on. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical student you created would ALSO have TOPS money at NSU, and with a much lower tuition thn LC. --None of what you posted has anything to do with my original objection, which was I don't believe LC being an NAIA school and now being able to offer "football money" as opposed to an NCAA D3 school without offering "football money" would affect recruiting athletes with "D1/D2 talent" like you suggested. I don't think cost would be the factor. Am I missing something? I just don't see the cost argument, or think that LC would be able to offer enough football money to an individual to make it cost a factor. If a certain player was worthy of that much in aid, he would probably be offered by that D1 school. Also, to fully fund the max 24 equivalencies. for tuition only (not counting room and board) LC would have to find $408,000 a year. Will they be able to do that every year? I don't dispute your statements. I believe you are correct that athletes are better performers than the stereotype. If only 20% of graduates qualify for tops in Louisiana and 50% of athletes qualify as I suggested then they are better performers as a group. I think we agree on this more than you realize. I think LC going to NAIA is a good thing for the school. The NAIA does not have many of the draconian rules the NCAA has developed and school like LC would be an elite school rather than the lowest division school in the NAIA. LSU Shreveport is NAIA as is Centenary I believe if my memory serves correctly. I think this "pandemic" will provide an opportunity for struggling D3 and D2 schools to make the shift to NAIA and increase their rolls.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 10, 2020 8:20:51 GMT -6
A couple of counter points - College athletes perform better on average than non athletes in school. Sure, that goes against the stereotype, but the facts bear that out. Because of the structure and support given to athletes, I would argue that a student who would be likely to lose their TOPS award after a year of school would be LESS likely if they were an athlete. A quick Google search shows that Nicholls state athletic program had a 3.31 GPA average and that in Dec 2016 Northwestern's Athletic program posted a 3.13 GPA (only article that popped up with comparative data) . That fall, the Demon football team had a 2.89 GPA. which is higher than TOPS renewal. Does that mean all athletes are doing great? NO. Just like all students in the University are not doing great. Keep in mind that Athletes need to keep a minimum GPA and have a Progress towards Degree requirements for NCAA eligibility. It is slightly lower than the baseline for TOPS renewal, but not by much. In summary, athletes tend to do better than non athletes with regards to bombing out the first year, and therefore I don't really believe your statement "70% of students receiving TOPS fail to renew it" has bearing here. I don't really understand your comment that "TOPS really becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an Athletic scholarship because you were the one who brought up TOPS in your hypothetical example. --You brought up TOPS in your hypothetical argument, and said that the hypothetical student could use it and "football money" and attend LC for less than attending NSU as a preferred walk on. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical student you created would ALSO have TOPS money at NSU, and with a much lower tuition thn LC. --None of what you posted has anything to do with my original objection, which was I don't believe LC being an NAIA school and now being able to offer "football money" as opposed to an NCAA D3 school without offering "football money" would affect recruiting athletes with "D1/D2 talent" like you suggested. I don't think cost would be the factor. Am I missing something? I just don't see the cost argument, or think that LC would be able to offer enough football money to an individual to make it cost a factor. If a certain player was worthy of that much in aid, he would probably be offered by that D1 school. Also, to fully fund the max 24 equivalencies. for tuition only (not counting room and board) LC would have to find $408,000 a year. Will they be able to do that every year? I don't dispute your statements. I believe you are correct that athletes are better performers than the stereotype. If only 20% of graduates qualify for tops in Louisiana and 50% of athletes qualify as I suggested then they are better performers as a group. I think we agree on this more than you realize. I think LC going to NAIA is a good thing for the school. The NAIA does not have many of the draconian rules the NCAA has developed and school like LC would be an elite school rather than the lowest division school in the NAIA. LSU Shreveport is NAIA as is Centenary I believe if my memory serves correctly. I think this "pandemic" will provide an opportunity for struggling D3 and D2 schools to make the shift to NAIA and increase their rolls. Fireman gave us a great list of schools that are potential NAIA transfers: Division 2 Alabama-Huntsville (M/W Tennis) Concord (M/W Tennis) Concordia (OR) (All sports, school closing) Fayetteville State (Women's Tennis) Florida Tech (Football) Lincoln (MO) (Women's Bowling) Notre Dame (OH) (Women's Tennis) Notre Dame de Namur (CA) (Dropping all athletics) Roberts Wesleyan (Men's Golf, M/W Tennis) Rollins (M/W XC) St. Edward's (TX) (M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, Men's Soccer, Cheer) Seattle Pacific (Women's Gymnastics) Sonoma State (Women's Water Polo, M/W Tennis) Staten Island (M/W Tennis) Tiffin (M/W Swim and Dive, Women's Equestrian) Urbana (All sports, school closing) Division 3 Becker (Men's Lacrosse, Women's Field Hockey) Blackburn (M/W Tennis) College of New Jersey (2020 football season cancelled) Centenary (LA) (M/W Tennis) Delaware Valley (M/W Tennis) Earlham (M/W Tennis, Women's Golf) Elmira (M/W XC, Women's Golf) Fontbonne (M/W Tennis) Greenville (Men's Volleyball) Johnson & Wales-Denver (All sports, school closing) MacMurray (All sports, school closing) Ohio Wesleyan (Women's Rowing) Pine Manor (All sports, school closing) Roger Williams (Men's Polo) Sage (Men's Tennis) Williams College (2020 football season cancelled)
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 10, 2020 8:53:03 GMT -6
First- I want to apologize for misattributing some statements here. I thought that iknownuthing's response was written by @football4160 Sorry for the confusion. Obviously it would be foolish to assume that any of us posting on a message board know the ins and outs, challenges and opportunities of LC's athletic program as well as their administration. I certainly am not pretending to. If they think moving to NAIA is best, then it is probably best. My only disagreement in this thread was that some seemed to think that as an NAIA school able to offer football money (as opposed to an NCAA D3 school) would now allow LC to recruit against NCAA D1 schools. I don't believe that it will, obviously not scholarship against scholarship, and most likely not preferred walk on vs a part of the 24 (MAX LIMIT) scholarship pool. I simply don't think cost of attendance would be a positive angle for LC when compared to other Louisiana instate options.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 10, 2020 9:14:28 GMT -6
First- I want to apologize for misattributing some statements here. I thought that iknownuthing 's response was written by @football4160 Sorry for the confusion. Obviously it would be foolish to assume that any of us posting on a message board know the ins and outs, challenges and opportunities of LC's athletic program as well as their administration. I certainly am not pretending to. If they think moving to NAIA is best, then it is probably best. My only disagreement in this thread was that some seemed to think that as an NAIA school able to offer football money (as opposed to an NCAA D3 school) would now allow LC to recruit against NCAA D1 schools. I don't believe that it will, obviously not scholarship against scholarship, and most likely not preferred walk on vs a part of the 24 (MAX LIMIT) scholarship pool. I simply don't think cost of attendance would be a positive angle for LC when compared to other Louisiana instate options. I agree, it is not the D-1 talent they are after. There is too much competition for that level talent between the D1 FCS and D1 FBS teams. It gives the greater leverage against D-3 and D-2 talent and the lower tuition at the state subsidized public schools.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 10, 2020 9:21:12 GMT -6
There are many factors that make an athlete a non D1 athlete. I had a running argument with some folks on another board about this point many years ago. The kid had talent, was a beast on the field, super (D1) speed, size and ability. But he was a not a good student and a disciplinary problem and bad for the locker room and class room. He eventually got a scholarship to Tennessee where he did not make the start of the first season, got arrested and was sent home scholarship pulled. Went to play at Pearl in Mississippi and after a year then on to a D1 school where he once again was cut for disciplinary and academic reasons. He legitimately was not a D1 prospect. Ended up being arrested again and has been in and out of jail since. He never played a down on a D1 team.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 10, 2020 9:27:24 GMT -6
There are many factors that make an athlete a non D1 athlete. I had a running argument with some folks on another board about this point many years ago. The kid had talent, was a beast on the field, super (D1) speed, size and ability. But he was a not a good student and a disciplinary problem and bad for the locker room and class room. He eventually got a scholarship to Tennessee where he did not make the start of the first season, got arrested and was sent home scholarship pulled. Went to play at Pearl in Mississippi and after a year then on to a D1 school where he once again was cut for disciplinary and academic reasons. He legitimately was not a D1 prospect. Ended up being arrested again and has been in and out of jail since. He never played a down on a D1 team. I would say that what you are describing is someone who is not a COLLEGE athlete as opposed to not a D1 athlete.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 13, 2020 9:04:10 GMT -6
There are many factors that make an athlete a non D1 athlete. I had a running argument with some folks on another board about this point many years ago. The kid had talent, was a beast on the field, super (D1) speed, size and ability. But he was a not a good student and a disciplinary problem and bad for the locker room and class room. He eventually got a scholarship to Tennessee where he did not make the start of the first season, got arrested and was sent home scholarship pulled. Went to play at Pearl in Mississippi and after a year then on to a D1 school where he once again was cut for disciplinary and academic reasons. He legitimately was not a D1 prospect. Ended up being arrested again and has been in and out of jail since. He never played a down on a D1 team. I would say that what you are describing is someone who is not a COLLEGE athlete as opposed to not a D1 athlete. Without the "College" there is NO D1.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 13, 2020 9:26:39 GMT -6
No doubt. My point was simply that the person you described didn't sound like an college athlete at any division, so the classification wasn't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 13, 2020 10:03:17 GMT -6
A couple of counter points - College athletes perform better on average than non athletes in school. Sure, that goes against the stereotype, but the facts bear that out. Because of the structure and support given to athletes, I would argue that a student who would be likely to lose their TOPS award after a year of school would be LESS likely if they were an athlete. A quick Google search shows that Nicholls state athletic program had a 3.31 GPA average and that in Dec 2016 Northwestern's Athletic program posted a 3.13 GPA (only article that popped up with comparative data) . That fall, the Demon football team had a 2.89 GPA. which is higher than TOPS renewal. Does that mean all athletes are doing great? NO. Just like all students in the University are not doing great. Keep in mind that Athletes need to keep a minimum GPA and have a Progress towards Degree requirements for NCAA eligibility. It is slightly lower than the baseline for TOPS renewal, but not by much. In summary, athletes tend to do better than non athletes with regards to bombing out the first year, and therefore I don't really believe your statement "70% of students receiving TOPS fail to renew it" has bearing here. I don't really understand your comment that "TOPS really becomes a non factor in athletes using TOPS instead of an Athletic scholarship because you were the one who brought up TOPS in your hypothetical example. --You brought up TOPS in your hypothetical argument, and said that the hypothetical student could use it and "football money" and attend LC for less than attending NSU as a preferred walk on. I was simply pointing out that the hypothetical student you created would ALSO have TOPS money at NSU, and with a much lower tuition thn LC. --None of what you posted has anything to do with my original objection, which was I don't believe LC being an NAIA school and now being able to offer "football money" as opposed to an NCAA D3 school without offering "football money" would affect recruiting athletes with "D1/D2 talent" like you suggested. I don't think cost would be the factor. Am I missing something? I just don't see the cost argument, or think that LC would be able to offer enough football money to an individual to make it cost a factor. If a certain player was worthy of that much in aid, he would probably be offered by that D1 school. Also, to fully fund the max 24 equivalencies. for tuition only (not counting room and board) LC would have to find $408,000 a year. Will they be able to do that every year? I don't dispute your statements. I believe you are correct that athletes are better performers than the stereotype. If only 20% of graduates qualify for tops in Louisiana and 50% of athletes qualify as I suggested then they are better performers as a group. I think we agree on this more than you realize. I think LC going to NAIA is a good thing for the school. The NAIA does not have many of the draconian rules the NCAA has developed and school like LC would be an elite school rather than the lowest division school in the NAIA. LSU Shreveport is NAIA as is Centenary I believe if my memory serves correctly. I think this "pandemic" will provide an opportunity for struggling D3 and D2 schools to make the shift to NAIA and increase their rolls. Centenary is D3, and actually they will be the only D3 team left in Louisiana once LC moves to NAIA. LSUS, LSUA, Loyola, Dillard, and Southern-NO, and Xavier are all currently NAIA.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 13, 2020 10:03:40 GMT -6
No doubt. My point was simply that the person you described didn't sound like an college athlete at any division, so the classification wasn't necessary. My point exactly. There are many very talented, athletic individuals who will never be "D1" because they lack in what it takes to get there. Could simply be the "I don't want to". At that point you are no longer a D1 talent. I personally, like to see the NFL go to a farm system so we could return college athletics back to it's amateur status it was suppose to be. If that means we have to get rid of all athletic scholarships so be it. But to now go to collegiate system that pays the athletes plus tries to educate them goes a against what college athletics were suppose to be..
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jul 13, 2020 11:49:04 GMT -6
No doubt. My point was simply that the person you described didn't sound like an college athlete at any division, so the classification wasn't necessary. My point exactly. There are many very talented, athletic individuals who will never be "D1" because they lack in what it takes to get there. Could simply be the "I don't want to". At that point you are no longer a D1 talent. I personally, like to see the NFL go to a farm system so we could return college athletics back to it's amateur status it was suppose to be. If that means we have to get rid of all athletic scholarships so be it. But to now go to collegiate system that pays the athletes plus tries to educate them goes a against what college athletics were suppose to be.. I have been saying this for quite a while. That, plus a limit on what coaches/AD's get paid. Hey, Nick Saban, you are working for a college. You get $150,000. You want 9 million, go win with the Dolphins. Let all of the money generated flow back into the actual COLLEGES, and not to fuel the revenue sports "arm race" Regarding the D1 classification, I suppose I just think the way you put it implies that while they are not D1 because of those reasons, there is a place for them elsewhere. Otherwise it would simply be "not college athlete" as opposed to specific levels.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 13, 2020 14:12:12 GMT -6
My point exactly. There are many very talented, athletic individuals who will never be "D1" because they lack in what it takes to get there. Could simply be the "I don't want to". At that point you are no longer a D1 talent. I personally, like to see the NFL go to a farm system so we could return college athletics back to it's amateur status it was suppose to be. If that means we have to get rid of all athletic scholarships so be it. But to now go to collegiate system that pays the athletes plus tries to educate them goes a against what college athletics were suppose to be.. I have been saying this for quite a while. That, plus a limit on what coaches/AD's get paid. Hey, Nick Saban, you are working for a college. You get $150,000. You want 9 million, go win with the Dolphins. Let all of the money generated flow back into the actual COLLEGES, and not to fuel the revenue sports "arm race" Regarding the D1 classification, I suppose I just think the way you put it implies that while they are not D1 because of those reasons, there is a place for them elsewhere. Otherwise it would simply be "not college athlete" as opposed to specific levels. Exactly, but some much emphasis is put on the D1 aspect as a golden standard. He has D1 Speed, he has D1 size, yet he as a drop out brain.
|
|