@Pedaldad posted:Why not, if it makes the situation better?
Don't see anything wrong with wanting the NCAA to adjust/increase the 11.7/27 rule. It helps teams, coaches, and players at minimal extra cost to schools. This takes away pitting a freshman with a signed NLI against a returning proven upperclassmen.
Remember, we are talking about athletes' education, but also coaches' livelihood. It is a different world in Ivy's, Patriot, HA D3 leagues where coaches don't have typical pressure of on-field success to keep their jobs. Heck, 3 of the 8 Ivy coaches have been there for between 22 to 30 years. The best winning percentage among them is right at 50%, and that is the best in the conference.
In places where coaches need to win to keep their job, it is going to be different. Gary Gilmore has been the head coach at Coastal for 25 years because he wins. Mike Sansing has been the head coach at Kennesaw because he wins. If they weren't winning consistently, they get replaced quickly.
So why is it wrong for someone to support reducing the burden put on coaches and players. If all 35 positions could have funding, there would be no question about who is really on the team and who isn't. If the Ivy's don't grant any athletic scholarships with their ridiculous endowments and Georgetown only wants to grant 5 baseball scholarships with their $1.7 billion endowment, so what.
Huh? Sounds as if you may have some underlying issues. Everybody is trying to pick a fight nowadays, I guess it's the new normal.