re: Curren portal rankings via 247 sports 1/16/2026

quote:

---

If you gotta tell people you smacked someone down, then you probably did nothing close to it.

I can't say because I don't remember who you are. All you pathetic fricks blend together lately.

---

Two days ago I had to educate your stupid arse on how recruiting today works. You were trying to dismiss the transfer portal and only use HS rankings because it’s what Bama is highest in.

Fast forward to today, and all you care about it the combined rankings. At least you take a lesson with your whippings.

You’re welcome.

Why didn't you post the On3 ranking since they are so much more accurate? Oh LSU is 11th that's why.

quote:

---

Are that dumbass who was trying to claim that the transfer portal was relevant because 4 of the top5 made the playoffs? And then I pointed out 4 of the 5 of the HS and overall rankings also made the playoffs. And that funny enough it was the #1 class in them all who failed to make it - including LSU who went 7-6?

---

Nice try. You tried to claim the portal didn’t matter because 8 of the playoff teams weren’t in the top 5. Because you’re stupid.

Texas lost almost 40 players and 3-4 starters …. They are not number one no matter who they picked up ….

quote:

---

Yep, because it's a 12 team playoff. And it's actually 6 since it's dumb to count the G5 teams.

But you're so stupid with stats you don't understand why it's dumb to cite the minority as being the rule.

---

I was wrong. You don’t take lessons with your whippings.

Man, you’re dumb.

quote:

---

I was wrong. You don’t take lessons with your whippings.

Man, you’re dumb.

---

I've written software that can predict the winners of college football games with an accuracy of about 73% using nothing but stats. I could have gotten higher if I was using play by play stats so I could have filtered out garbage time stats, but I was using overall team stats.

I'm able to do that because I understand getting proper context out of the stats and what they really mean. Only a fricking idiot would cite the minority of teams in a narrow part of the rankings as being a major factor.

quote:

---

No you fricking haven’t.

---

I have. It was actually made as part of a ranking system I developed over 15 years ago to find out if teams like Boise St were legit or not(they weren't) during the BCS buster era. I started in 2008 and ran it until like 2015. I ranked all teams, had power rankings and SoS rankings.

The prediction model was part of the ranking system because I would predict future games and give teams half points also based on that. As well, I figured the more accurate it was in predicting games was an indicator of how good it was measuring the teams power wise, which was a important part of the ranking system(SoS).

And not only did it predict the winners, it predicted the scores which also gave you the over-under and spread.

Not really that difficult honestly.

quote:

---

I think it's this year, but I think most of that is just going to be former walk-ons getting put on scholarships now.

We'll see. Entering the transfer portal deadline is today except for Indiana and Miami, but there is still more time for teams to get more players.

---

That's interesting.

I finally Grok'd it.

quote:

---

Key details for FBS in 2026:

Teams have a roster limit of 105 players total (including scholarship and non-scholarship/walk-on players).

There is no strict limit on the number of athletic scholarships a team can offer—schools can provide up to 105 full scholarships if they choose (and have the budget/NIL/revenue-sharing resources to do so), as all roster spots are eligible for scholarships.

In practice, many (especially Power conference) programs aim for or approach 105 scholarships to maximize talent, though not every team fully funds that maximum due to financial or strategic reasons. Some conferences (like the SEC) aligned with this by raising from the old 85 limit.

To calculate a rough total across all FBS teams:
There are approximately 134 FBS teams as of the 2025-26 cycle (with minor fluctuations from transitions like Delaware and Missouri State becoming full FBS members in 2026).

If every team offered the full 105 scholarships, the theoretical maximum would be 134 × 105 = 14,070 scholarships.

Realistically, the total is lower since not all programs fund 105 scholarships (some remain closer to legacy levels or partial funding), but the system allows far more than the pre-2025 era's ~11,390 (134 × 85).

This shift prioritizes roster caps over scholarship caps, meaning teams can no longer carry oversized rosters with many non-scholarship walk-ons (previously common at 120+ players). Most sources confirm the 105 figure as the effective per-team scholarship ceiling for FBS in 2026.

If you're asking about scholarships available for recruits or total across the subdivision, the per-team max is 105, with high-end programs increasingly using that full amount. For the absolute latest or a specific team's count, details can vary slightly by program and year..

---

So the roster max is 105 .... walkons and scholarship players apparently count the same but the absolute limit is 105.

I remember the days when schools like Notre Dame and SoCal would have 200+ players on a roster. They would suck up players just to prevent other programs from getting those players.

quote:

---

So the roster max is 105 .... walkons and scholarship players apparently count the same but the absolute limit is 105.

I remember the days when schools like Notre Dame and SoCal would have 200+ players on a roster. They would suck up players just to prevent other programs from getting those players.

---

Yeah, people use to get mad at Alabama and Bear for the number of scholarship players. Claimed we were putting kids on scholarships just to keep them from going to other SEC schools.

But I think it was Title IX that had a big effect. That is a few years before my time, but close enough that people would always tell me Alabama only won because we put so many on scholarship and hogged up the talent.

Of course, a lot of them were freshman.