OK, we need to parse this just a bit: "
There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. I would suggest you have the cart in front of the horse. If you are on scholarship and you're not playing, then you are a "bench rider". If you haven't already burned a redshirt year, then yes, you will get a "redshirt" year for being a bench rider. But you're a bench rider first, and a redshirt after-the-fact. If you are good enough to play, you'll be playing and not riding the bench (and not taking a redshirt). I mean, you said it -- it's tough to crack the lineup.
As for the "almost no" scholarship players... at B1G away games only 74 guys can travel. If every one of them is on schollie there are 11 guys (13%) who not only qualify as "bench riders", but aren't even on the travel team. My belief is that 13% of the scholarship players is not "almost no." (Keep in mind that if even one "walk-on" travels, that percentage goes up).
And to take that one step further... here's a
LINK to Penn State's 2022 football season participation chart. It shows that 89 guys saw the field for at least one play last season. But only 61 saw action in 7 or more games (slightly more than half the season). If we assume all 61 were scholarship players, then 28% of scholarship players were "bench riders" more than they weren't. More than a quarter of all scholarship players. Like I said, not "almost no" IMO. And again, any walk-ons in those numbers make those percentages higher.
Lastly, on the money thing -- yes, football raises the big bucks. Although at Penn State men's hockey is not only self-sufficient but it makes money for the athletic department (Again, a function of Terry's gift). But that's because the NCAA sets it up that way for football. Isn't it possible that there might be another sport that could raise similar money but the NCAA cuts its proverbial nuts off?
Soccer -- or what the rest of the world calls football (I mean, why do we call it football when it's often illegal for your foot to touch the ball?) -- can be played in stadiums of 100,000 people. In a lot of the rest of the world it's the most popular sport there is. Guys can make as much money or way more than NFL players. But the NCAA only allows men's soccer teams 9.9 scholarships. That's f**king ludicrous (Channeling Roy Kent).
Let's say the NCAA upped the scholarship limit for men's soccer to 37 and made them all full-rides. The same % of the starting lineup as football (I'm counting a long snapper, punter and kicker in football's starting lineup for a total of 25 guys). I can assure you there is at least one starter on Penn State's football team who is likely playing soccer if there were that many full rides. Then, interest in soccer grows exponentially (it's already big). And as outstanding young athletes migrate to soccer rather than football or other sports, the quality grows as well. More players get out onto the international stage, MLS gets better and better (many teams already play to packed houses in soccer-only stadiums -- hell, the NFL used one while waiting for SoFi), and the U.S. becomes a force in international competition. All feeding back to more people watching and paying (look at U.S. demographic shifts over the last 30 years).
Point is - yes, as the beloved (hack, hack) King/Emperor Emmert has said a thousand times - "If you like other college sports buy college football tickets" is true. But it's only true because that's the way the NCAA sets it up.
Anyway, just trying to add a small bit of context to your statement. Thanks!
