Started By
Message
80 instead of 85 scholarships - how would that play out?
Posted on 9/15/19 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 9/15/19 at 1:33 pm
Just kind of thinking out loud.
For most of its existence the NFL had less than 50 men on a team, and played more games.
Usually they could add a few more during the season if they needed to, but basically the team was the same at the end of the season as the beginning.
So just saying this depth thing is kind of a dumb argument. If your coach doesn't feel comfortable with a true freshman as backup cornerback too bad, the numbers say he has a body.
So what would the implications be for college football? More parity? Less somehow?
For most of its existence the NFL had less than 50 men on a team, and played more games.
Usually they could add a few more during the season if they needed to, but basically the team was the same at the end of the season as the beginning.
So just saying this depth thing is kind of a dumb argument. If your coach doesn't feel comfortable with a true freshman as backup cornerback too bad, the numbers say he has a body.
So what would the implications be for college football? More parity? Less somehow?
10
Posted on 9/15/19 at 1:39 pm to Sunbeam
G5 schools would be all for this.
It would push more talent to them while bringing down costs significantly, because it would mean 5 less scholarships on the women’s side as well. Title IX would be a lot easier in some cases.
Combined with the increased transfers and 4-game redshirt rule there would be a HUGE increase towards parity across FBS.
It would push more talent to them while bringing down costs significantly, because it would mean 5 less scholarships on the women’s side as well. Title IX would be a lot easier in some cases.
Combined with the increased transfers and 4-game redshirt rule there would be a HUGE increase towards parity across FBS.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 1:45 pm to Leopold
Sure NFL teams have fewer players but:
They aren't drafting kids out of high school. Until a few years ago, probably before you were born, freshmen could not even play. That's 20-25 players right there.
Then consider that most lineman on both sides of the ball usually take at least two years in the strength and conditioning program to even be D1 ready.
Then NFL teams have practice squads.. That's a ton of "Scholarship" players they have at their disposal to move up.
Think of the NFL roster as a NCAA teams two deep chart and then you begin to realize that they play with about the same number of players.
They aren't drafting kids out of high school. Until a few years ago, probably before you were born, freshmen could not even play. That's 20-25 players right there.
Then consider that most lineman on both sides of the ball usually take at least two years in the strength and conditioning program to even be D1 ready.
Then NFL teams have practice squads.. That's a ton of "Scholarship" players they have at their disposal to move up.
Think of the NFL roster as a NCAA teams two deep chart and then you begin to realize that they play with about the same number of players.
This post was edited on 9/15/19 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 9/15/19 at 1:51 pm to HotRock
NFL teams used to be hesitant to play rookies.
The practice team is what, like 6 or 7 guys? Haven't kept up with that one.
As for the linemen argument I don't see that one either. Defensive linemen seem to play from the beginning.
Occasionally an OL guy will too, but it is rarer. But usually if they ever play you start seeing them as sophomores (or RS freshmen).
RB, WR, QB even, they play as freshmen now.
The practice team is what, like 6 or 7 guys? Haven't kept up with that one.
As for the linemen argument I don't see that one either. Defensive linemen seem to play from the beginning.
Occasionally an OL guy will too, but it is rarer. But usually if they ever play you start seeing them as sophomores (or RS freshmen).
RB, WR, QB even, they play as freshmen now.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:19 pm to Sunbeam
College teams will work with younger guys to get them ready to take over at some point.
You don't have that in the NFL. It's not a developmental league, if you can't play right now, your arse gets cut.
South Carolina has 9 freshmen OL and 19 total. One Fr is starting and a couple more are in your two deep. Should they just cut the other 6 after they just got there? No, because some of those others will be good in a year or two. In the NFL, they would be gone and out of football.
You don't have that in the NFL. It's not a developmental league, if you can't play right now, your arse gets cut.
South Carolina has 9 freshmen OL and 19 total. One Fr is starting and a couple more are in your two deep. Should they just cut the other 6 after they just got there? No, because some of those others will be good in a year or two. In the NFL, they would be gone and out of football.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:24 pm to Leopold
Gamecocks have 13 DL of which 6 are FR/SO and only one of those are in the two deep.
No, they don't play right away except in mopup duty.
No, they don't play right away except in mopup duty.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:25 pm to Sunbeam
Probably would help teams like Bama and Georgia hoarding talent. So much talent gets wasted at those places.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:30 pm to Sunbeam
Make them play both ways in high school with limited substitution.
We are creating numerous hypertensive diabetics in our pursuit of entertainment.
We are creating numerous hypertensive diabetics in our pursuit of entertainment.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:31 pm to HotRock
quote:
College teams will work with younger guys to get them ready to take over at some point.
Dude I'm so past my original post.
This is from another thread (the one about College Football in a Death Spiral), and was made by lungbuster06:
"I think the easiest thing is to split p5 schools from the rest, drop the scholarship cap to 63 and only allow 18-20 signees per year. The top 5-6 would still get their chunk of elite talent, but there would be more to go around and it would make roster management much more important. FCS schools can only 63 active scholarships and I think FBS would benefit from that model."
So FCS schools play 12 regular season games, and what 4 games if they make it all the way to the championship?
But poor old Bama is strugglin' real hard to keep a team on the field with 12 regular season, and up to three more games? They need every one of those 85 scholarships.
BS.
This 63 player idea is the cat's meow. It fixes SO many problems. Well I think they are problems, probably a school like Georgia or Ohio State doesn't.
Be really interesting to see how it would play out.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:32 pm to ForeverGator
Hell, college teams will have 4 or 5 kickers and they are trying to get one to be serviceable.
NFL teams have one punter and one kicker and they back up each other most of the time.
The NFL gets a good one and keep him 15 years. Colleges usually only get them to contribute a couple years before they gone. It seems even the good teams are always searching for good kickers.
I can keep going and going on this at every position. Comparing college to the NFL is just useful when it comes to the numbers.
NFL teams have one punter and one kicker and they back up each other most of the time.
The NFL gets a good one and keep him 15 years. Colleges usually only get them to contribute a couple years before they gone. It seems even the good teams are always searching for good kickers.
I can keep going and going on this at every position. Comparing college to the NFL is just useful when it comes to the numbers.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:35 pm to Sunbeam
They ain't cutting schloarships in a sport that's 80% black. The last time they cut was 1991 when they went from 95 to 85 phased in over several years. That was essentially a 10% cut in scholarships across the board in most sports. They caught holy hell for those cuts. Imagine that in today's media morass.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:40 pm to Sunbeam
I actually think it would really hurt teams that depend on player development to field solid teams with upperclassmen contributors.
Bama, Georgia, Clemson, etc. can sign 5 stars that can play right away. Smaller programs can’t.
Bama, Georgia, Clemson, etc. can sign 5 stars that can play right away. Smaller programs can’t.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:45 pm to Crowknowsbest
small schools don't have players leave early for the draft. if you cut scholarships you would have to remove the limit on scholarships per year and allow schools to get right back up to the full scholarship limit every year. not only do they leave for the draft, they transfer regularly now. and they only have to stay 3 years.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:47 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I actually think it would really hurt teams that depend on player development to field solid teams with upperclassmen contributors.
Is that development thing really a thing still?
Thinking about my team, I can't think of too many guys who "developed."
Usually if they are ever going to be a starter, they become one relatively early. At one time Nebraska or someone may have had a never ending stream of guys with no neck they plugged another one in, as one graduated.
But even at OL if they are starting as a sophomore say, they never will.
Maybe it works different at Georgia.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:47 pm to stephendomalley
I agree. Plus, the best schools would just "Process" more upper-classmen and not let career backup guy stay to get his degree.
This is a bad idea all the way around.
This is a bad idea all the way around.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:49 pm to stephendomalley
quote:
small schools don't have players leave early for the draft. if you cut scholarships you would have to remove the limit on scholarships per year and allow schools to get right back up to the full scholarship limit every year. not only do they leave for the draft, they transfer regularly now. and they only have to stay 3 years.
You don't understand the depth of my plan. I don't care.
Feature not a bug. If someone declares for the draft early, and you can't fill all your scholarships, feature not a bug.
Since that happens to LSU, Bama, and Georgia a lot more often than to us, I'm absolutely cool with it.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:51 pm to Sunbeam
I was thinking the other way.....we need 90 or 91.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:51 pm to HotRock
quote:
I agree. Plus, the best schools would just "Process" more upper-classmen and not let career backup guy stay to get his degree.
This is a bad idea all the way around.
They already do that. Unless you just think "More" is the key feature.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:53 pm to dstone12
quote:
I was thinking the other way.....we need 90 or 91.
Interesting. How do you think it would play out though?
My guess is Georgia just has 6 more Five Stars twiddling around waiting their turn. Unless they get bored and hit the portal.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 9:06 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
Interesting. How do you think it would play out though? My guess is Georgia just has 6 more Five Stars twiddling around waiting their turn. Unless they get bored and hit the portal.
I’m only looking at it from an greedy, Sec standpoint at quarterback and how some seasons are over (sans Hilinski).
I’d prefer to keep southern talent in the sec and not have to allow 4 and 3 stars to be able to go to UCF so they can play weak schedules to go 11-1 and end up in another ny6 to get blown out.
This post was edited on 9/15/19 at 9:07 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News