Thanks_Tom RR Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 @JoshHarveyScout: RT @Landgrant33: Urban Meyer says the 85 scholarship limit was made for 12 games and now theres 15. It needs to be readdressed. This seems reasonable. What are the foreseeable advantages and disadvantages? Change to what 100? More? Nebraska has had trouble filling classes and does not give many schollies to in-state talent. Does either change? Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 NFL teams get a 53-man roster for a 16-20 game season. Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I thought he made a great point about that. Quote Link to comment
ShawnWatson Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That would even further screw Olympic men's sports teams because of title 9 unless they change up the rules. Bad idea. Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 NFL teams get a 53-man roster for a 16-20 game season. Umm... Also a practice squad and CAN SIGN A PLAYER AT ANYTIME TO REPLACE AN INJURED PLAYER or just to improve roster. 1 Quote Link to comment
True2tRA Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well if we expand the rosters then Riley would just hire more of his buddies, so I'm against any expansion. (clearly being a sarcastic ass, so get over it) Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 NFL teams get a 53-man roster for a 16-20 game season.Umm... Also a practice squad and CAN SIGN A PLAYER AT ANYTIME TO REPLACE AN INJURED PLAYER or just to improve roster.What's your point? Is it common for NFL teams to use 85-105 guys in a season? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment
maskershake Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Good point by Urban. Is he still on the other B1G coaches about recruiting better? Wonder how Riley and staff will compare to his recruiting Quote Link to comment
EmeraldIngot Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Increasing scholarship limits is a bad idea, in my opinion. Back when there were 105 scholorships, the major teams at the time could load up on so much more talent, and left very little for the weaker teams. There's a reason why the B1G used to be called Big Two, Little Eight. Michigan and Ohio State would get pretty much any recruit of note in the B1G recruiting area, and the lesser teams had to fight over the scraps. Imagine in the current time, if you kept your scholarship even if you were 4th string, would you transfer? I think reducing scholorships down to 85 leveled the playing field a little bit. It means that 20 guys on your team wouldn't get scholorships. Do you think that a 4* recruit would play at a team, no matter how much he loved that team, if he didn't get a scholorship? Especially considering that the majority of highly talented players can't afford to go to college without scholorships? If anything, I'd like to see a different breakdown. I'd rather see a limit of 65 or 75 full ride scholarships, with the rest bein partial scholorships, for "walk on" players, as long as the total number of full or partial scholorships doesn't exceed 105. But that's just me. It's like the NFL draft, it prevents the biggest brands from getting all of the best players and encourages a trend towards parity. Granted, a 5* prospect would rather go to the top schools, but the scholarship limits means that a single school can't amass a full 105 5* players. It takes a very passionate player to be a 5* and to play for a school without a scholorship. Basically unheard of. So that 5* that doesn't get the scholorship to that top school will instead go to a slightly weaker or less prestigious school that actually can offer the scholorship. Quote Link to comment
TJ Alum Husker Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 increasing the scholies above 85 would benefit the power schools at the detriment of the middle tier schools. I don't think I would be for it. I like the parity. Quote Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Cost associated with tuition, housing and feeding additional athletes. I know I will get made fun of for this, but this is the stuff that takes out the UABs of the world. Quote Link to comment
Elf Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Increasing the scholarship limits also means more high school players get offers. Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 It's weird that the NCAA has different scholarship parameters for different sports. Football is a head count sport, meaning one head = one scholarship and that is that. But other sports are 'amount'-based, where you can assign partial scholarships in fractions that you so desire. Quote Link to comment
EmeraldIngot Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Increasing the scholarship limits also means more high school players get offers. True, but rather than increasing the full riride scholorships (especially with this whole cost of living addition...) I'd just change NCAA rules to allow for partial scholorships. More high school players, especially local players, would get offered, and all "walk ons" would get some financial help from their school, but a slightly reduced full ride scholorship limit would spread the top athletes around. Building a great team would be less about having the best athletes and more about developing the talent you have. Also, adding two or four coaching positions to help train those guys up would help as well. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 It's weird that the NCAA has different scholarship parameters for different sports. Football is a head count sport, meaning one head = one scholarship and that is that. But other sports are 'amount'-based, where you can assign partial scholarships in fractions that you so desire. Simple economics is weird. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.