Set scholarship limit to 75?

[Lionsfan1000]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

 

[wilbury]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

If the playoff ever expands, you can expect a push by coaches to increase the scholarship limit not reduce it. More games equals more injuries. Saban was already laying the groundwork for it when he was asked about an expanded playoff prior to the championship game.

 

[Judge Smails]

This is one of those PantherLair theories to help their putrid recruiting.

 

[Obliviax]

I believe just the opposite, if anything. My point is that 'ships go year to year but are almost never pulled. If you suck, you'll still get your four years to ride the bench for all intents and purposes. But now, with the portal, kids have easy options. So I can see a head coach now going to a kid and telling him to go to the portal. Again, I don't think this was done much in the past, but I think this is the future. College football edges closer to a pro league.

 

[heckmans]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

1. I bet there are a 1300 kids on scholarship each year that would disagree.
2. Yes, there is a safety issue. That would be half way to PSU sanction years and it would have an impact on every team.

 

[fastlax16]

You’d run into the same issue regardless of where the scholarship number was unless you got down to nfl sIze numbers.

 

[djr4rebs]

The biggest issue we faced with sanctions was almost all of our top talent bailed with the transfer waiver. You gut any team of their top 8-10 guys, they will not perform at a high level. Throw in 65 v 85 along with subpar OL recruiting (prior to and during with BOB) and you have a recipe for disaster.

It's amazing that we didn't have a losing record under sanctions yet we suffered 4 losing seasons in 5 years from '00-'04. That's a dead horse though.

 

[Art]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

You might not care what the coaches think, but their ADs do. No support among coaches, no change in policy.

Schools might save some money providing fewer scholarships, but that's going to pale in comparison to what's likely to happen to player costs.

Forget the Title IX crap. That's simply a pile of horseshit.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Lowering scholarsjips impacts practice. This was one of the biggest impacts of sanctions on us.

Starters practicing against walk-ons instead of 3rd stringers effects preparation.

 

[fastlax16]

The biggest issue we faced with sanctions was almost all of our top talent bailed with the transfer waiver. You gut any team of their top 8-10 guys, they will not perform at a high level. Throw in 65 v 85 along with subpar OL recruiting (prior to and during with BOB) and you have a recipe for disaster.

It's amazing that we didn't have a losing record under sanctions yet we suffered 4 losing seasons in 5 years from '00-'04. That's a dead horse though.

Silas, Fera and Justin Brown were almost all of our top talent?

 

[eidolon21]

CJF is no longer processing the less talented players. The less talented players are processing themselves.

 

[djr4rebs]

Silas, Fera and Justin Brown were almost all of our top talent?

During that time frame, yes, they were. Fera alone was worth two wins with the kicking debacle that unfolded.

 

[PearlSUJam]

The rules still only allow you to play 11 at a time.
So a limit of 15 or so should be plenty - even allowing for a few injuries.

Sounds just like our basketball team.

 

[EPC FAN]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

Have you ever played football? MOST freshman are not ready to get on the field, so the roster is really at around 60. NFL rosters are 53, with 45 dressed. ALL MEN.

 

[91Joe95]

If the playoff ever expands, you can expect a push by coaches to increase the scholarship limit not reduce it. More games equals more injuries. Saban was already laying the groundwork for it when he was asked about an expanded playoff prior to the championship game.

He misses his days of outrageously massive oversignings.

 

[lein]

Does I-AA only allow 63 scholarships? Somehow they manage, with a playoff system.

 

[GregInPitt]

Given all the transfer activity and the general lack of concern about the impact on depth, it calls into question the 85 scholarship limit. Why not a lower number.

If the limit went from 105 to 85 to prevent hoarding of talent, then going to a lower number, such as 75 or lower, does much more to accomplish this goal. This would also improve competitive balance due to the trickle down effect of kids who were good enough to get scholarships at the top echelon schools who would now go to second tier schools. If they fit better there, the pressure to transfer would go down. Ultimately this flows through the entire system to benefit all teams with access to talent that they would not ordinarily get. More competitive balance and happier players. A win-win. I realize that the coaches of the elite programs would be against limiting talent hoarding. Personally, I don’t really care What a coach making $5+ million in an amateur, not for profit environment thinks.

Also, 10 less male scholarships in football offers many opportunities, from. Title IX perspective as well as from a cost savings perspective.

What’s the downside. The only valid argument against it could be based on safety. Not sure that argument is any more valid with 75 or fewer scholarships than with 85.

Not sure what type of logic you used to base lowering the total scholarships in relation to "all the transfer activity"

Many of the transfers will move down in competition as the top reason to transfer is playing time. So the schools at the top will generally lose more players than they get from incoming transfers. So they will have to play additional younger players earlier in order to field their teams, replace injured players, and fill out special teams. How does that translate to needing less players? If anything, additional players would help in trying to have on hand enough younger players that are physically ready to play with the older players and survive without getting destroyed.

 

[blion72]

If the playoff ever expands, you can expect a push by coaches to increase the scholarship limit not reduce it. More games equals more injuries. Saban was already laying the groundwork for it when he was asked about an expanded playoff prior to the championship game.

that was exactly what was being discussed the other night on ESPNU radio. they were questioning how the 25 limit feeds issues staying at 85. the commentator was saying just strictly limit to 25 per year and allow them to keep everyone up to 100. so they were agreeing with your point.

 

[YYZ86]

This is one of those PantherLair theories to help their putrid recruiting.

Yes, you know a Pitt fan anytime they want to change the rules when they aren't good enough. What they don't understand is that Pitt wouldn't get many of those anyway.

 

[interrobang]

Does I-AA only allow 63 scholarships? Somehow they manage, with a playoff system.

But they can spread those 63 scholarships across 85 people

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

During that time frame, yes, they were. Fera alone was worth two wins with the kicking debacle that unfolded.

And (nearly?) all respected his reason for transferring.

 

[djr4rebs]

And (nearly?) all respected his reason for transferring.

Nothing to do with questioning his decision. Merely stating we would have been a better team with him.