End of Walk-ons Coming Soon?

[Red Five]

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

 

OK, so how many of the ones that aren't playing, are redshirting or are underclassmen waiting behind a senior and will play next year?  This isn't the NFL where every player is potentially ready to play when called on.

[Red Five]

46 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK, so how many of the ones that aren't playing, are redshirting or are underclassmen waiting behind a senior and will play next year?  This isn't the NFL where every player is potentially ready to play when called on.

 

There are 30-40 kids (freshmen through seniors) on every roster that will never see a snap.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

 

There are 30-40 kids (freshmen through seniors) on every roster that will never see a snap.

Sure there are.  But, many of those, are Freshmen/sophomores that the staff doesn't know yet if they are going to see snaps.  Maybe the staff thinks they can develop them and they just don't ever get there.  Maybe during that development, an injury sets them back enough that they don't see the field.  Maybe, the player needs to put on weight/muscle and after a couple years in the S&C program, everyone realizes they can't.  Maybe they are a JUCO player that shined at a lower level...but wasn't quite good enough to get on the field after getting a chance at a D1 program.

 

Meanwhile, there are also a lot of players that need to spend time in the S&C program to gain weight/muscle....they do and contribute nicely as upperclassmen.  Maybe they are a player that needs to develop as a player and needs those 2-3 years to accomplish that and they get on the field as a senior.

 

What I'm saying is, college is a transitional period in many of these player's careers.  Lots of players come into a program and work to develop to get on the field and have that chance.  If programs just cut rosters by 30-40 kids, that's one hell of a lot of kids that previously were at least given a chance to see if they can play....now they won't get that chance.

[Archy1221]

I have no problem with having rosters capped at somewhere between 70-85.   That is plenty of bodies to get through a season.  As @Red Five said, 30% or more of current rosters never see the field.   College football rosters needs streamlined if revenue sharing becomes a thing. 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I have no problem with having rosters capped at somewhere between 70-85.   That is plenty of bodies to get through a season.  As @Red Five said, 30% or more of current rosters never see the field.   College football rosters needs streamlined if revenue sharing becomes a thing. 

I agree with the bolded.  But, I don't agree that it's a good thing for players and the sport.

[Decked]

The kids volunteered to be apart of that team. Who does it hurt to have 100+ kids on a roster? Is it a money thing? Or rather the G5 teams don’t have enough to pay 100 kids? It’s about time for P5/G5 to split anyway. 

[BigRedBuster]

There are currently 134 FBS teams.  If, on average, every team has to cut 35 players, that's 4,690.  Now, at this level, most of those players will probably end up playing at an FCS or lower program.  That then pushes players currently at those programs down another level....eventually, there's a lot of kids that never get a chance to play college football that previously would.

[Archy1221]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with the bolded.  But, I don't agree that it's a good thing for players and the sport.

I agree with you that it’s not good for the players at the end of the line who never get to play anyways.  But college football is evolving beyond the point of what it was in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s and the rosters need to follow suit.  
 

I don’t think it’s good or bad for the sport to have a more defined roster size.  It just is what it is and everyone will get past it in a few years and understand it’s just the new norm. 85 total players is more than plenty to get through a year.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

85 total players is more than plenty to get through a year.

Sure it is.  But, college football isn't a sport where every player is expected to play every year.  It's a developmental league.  As I said, many players will eventually play, but they aren't ready to play when they step on campus.  I think you need to at least be able to have 4 full recruiting classes, which would be 100 players.

[Mavric]

I could see some sort of limit.  I hope it's not too drastic right at the start.  I could see 110 being a number.  That would be 85 scholarships plus 5 walk-ons per year (times five years).

 

But I guess I'm still a little confused on why this is necessary.  Schools can obviously choose the level they want already.  I don't know why they can't manage it how they see fit.  In the NFL it's a competitive-balance issue.  But with the transfer portal, if a kid thinks he's good enough to play, he can find somewhere else to go.

[Red Five]

14 minutes ago, Mavric said:

But I guess I'm still a little confused on why this is necessary.

 

$$$$.  Athletic Departments are big businesses.  And if you all of a sudden have an extra $20M+ in expenses every year, then you need to make some cuts somewhere.  And reducing headcount is normally the thing that the guys/gals in the corner offices go for (god forbid they cut some of their multi-million dollar benefits package).

 

In the article Forde explains why it is coming (and doesn't mention the Title IX challenges that football has been causing either).

 

With the college sports industry preparing to pay billions of dollars in lawsuit settlements, curtailing expenses is an agenda item for every athletic department. An expected element of the resolution of the House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA cases are rosters that expand the number of full scholarships awarded but restrict the total number of athletes in each sport. And no sport has more athletes than football (we’ll get to some actual numbers shortly).

 

Fat must be cut—even in the sport that is accustomed to getting everything it could ever wish for, and some things it couldn’t even imagine. (Nice miniature golf course at the football facility, Clemson.) While most programs aren’t going to reduce salaries of their coaches—certainly not the successful ones—they will reduce their manpower.

[Mavric]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

$$$$.  Athletic Departments are big businesses.  And if you all of a sudden have an extra $20M+ in expenses every year, then you need to make some cuts somewhere.  And reducing headcount is normally the thing that the guys/gals in the corner offices go for.

 

In the article Forde explains why it is coming (and doesn't mention the Title IX challenges that football has been causing either).

 

With the college sports industry preparing to pay billions of dollars in lawsuit settlements, curtailing expenses is an agenda item for every athletic department. An expected element of the resolution of the House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA cases are rosters that expand the number of full scholarships awarded but restrict the total number of athletes in each sport. And no sport has more athletes than football (we’ll get to some actual numbers shortly).

 

Fat must be cut—even in the sport that is accustomed to getting everything it could ever wish for, and some things it couldn’t even imagine. (Nice miniature golf course at the football facility, Clemson.) While most programs aren’t going to reduce salaries of their coaches—certainly not the successful ones—they will reduce their manpower.

 

Yes, I understand that.  But schools don't have to have a mandate to do that.  They can manage to whatever level they think is appropriate for them.

[Huskerfollower4life]

If they do change the roster size doesn't that force kids to grow up faster and try to be more prepared going into college?  Someone stated that college football is a development league earlier and I agree but if they do change the roster size then it forces kids to grow up faster at a accelerated rate.  We gave you a scholarship so we expect that you produce instead of well give you a scholarship your not ready quite yet and in a year or two we will see where you are at.  Me personally I feel like 85 is to low bc injuries and having depth but I do understand why others don't mind that number.

[runningblind]

It is fun for walk ons to get to be a part of the team, and a few play sure, but as the stats show most never see the field.  IMO, cutting most walk-ons won't make a bit of difference to the quality football on the field.  If this leads to player contracts and stops the transfer portal nonsense, I am all for it.