Props to JS

[CharlieHog]

NFL teams are allowed to activate 45 players for each game, plus 1 emergency QB.

I don't know why college rosters are so much bigger (when this isn't the case for other sports). Maybe there is some rationalization for it, but I can't think of it.

NFL players don't lose their eligibility after 4 years (or less). I was going to say graduate, but not sure that would be accurate.

If they have an injured player there are no restrictions on them adding to their rosters from their taxi squads and other sources.

Every year a group of players leaves, and that same number of players comes in. The number of players on scholarship is always the same. I guess having 85 of them allows you to have experienced players all the time since backups and backups of backups get playing time.

But if you had 50 scholarships, and 10 of them left, you'd sign 10 freshmen...


A college basketball team is essentially the same size as a NBA team, isn't it?

The "travel" squad for baseball is 25 guys, just like MLB.

[1972Shocker]

The rosters of MLB baseball teams extends down to their Triple A and to some extent their Double A teams. The Shockers currently have 32 players on their roster. The size of the Travel squad is not really relevant for purposes of this discussion.

If NFL players are injured or jailed the NFL teams have no problems finding players to replace those. It may be a lesser quality player, but they can still fill their rosters. The roster limits are simply active team members, but the number of players the team has access to is much larger than the roster number.

I think 3 deep at each position plus 2 field goal kickers and 2 punters would be fair. That would be roster of 70 players. Of course, many programs like to redshirt players. Going to a significanlty smaller scholarship limit would eliminate the possibility of Redshirting. That actually might help the smaller programs. Of course, that's one big reason it won't happen.

[CharlieHog]

The rosters of MLB baseball teams extends down to their Triple A and to some extent their Double A teams. The Shockers currently have 32 players on their roster. The size of the Travel squad is not really relevant for purposes of this discussion.

If NFL players are injured or jailed the NFL teams have no problems finding players to replace those. It may be a lesser quality player, but they can still fill their rosters. The roster limits are simply active team members, but the number of players the team has access to is much larger than the roster number.

I think 3 deep at each position plus 2 field goal kickers and 2 punters would be fair. That would be roster of 70 players. Of course, many programs like to redshirt players. Going to a significanlty smaller scholarship limit would eliminate the possibility of Redshirting. That actually might help the smaller programs. Of course, that's one big reason it won't happen.

Fair points.

[NCAABound]

I think the BCS schools/conferences have traditionally pressured the NCAA for higher scholarship #'s. They feel the more scholarships they have - the more likely they continue to hold the power and keep parity at bay. The rationale is they will get more of the 3,4,5-star players. If the NCAA lowers the limit - then more of those 3 & 4-star recruits would find their way to MAC, WAC, Mtn. West, Sun Belt, etc.

But the NCAA is has still been reducing the # over the years. As recently as 1991, they allowed 95 scholarships for football. 1977 they had 105. 1972 there were no limits.

[ShockRef]

I agree with Charlie that football should be exempt. If it were, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with Title IX

I agree.

Charlie,
Actually, we are seeing more eye-to-eye with each post. Thank you.
And yes, I still love libs. 8)

[CharlieHog]

But the NCAA is has still been reducing the # over the years. As recently as 1991, they allowed 95 scholarships for football. 1977 they had 105. 1972 there were no limits.

Well at some point ALL freshman had to redshirt. When did that rule change?

[SubGod22]

I agree with Charlie that football should be exempt. If it were, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with Title IX

Hey, that was my point, not Charlie's.



j/k

I beg for forgiveness. :D

[RoyalShock]

I think NCAABound nailed it. As long as there are a group of elite football powers, those schools, plus the NCAA will rake in the big bucks. Lower the limit and like he said, the talent starts getting spread out, bringing parity and the loss of a few perennial top-10 teams and a number of money-spending bandwagon fans.

It would seem to me that if they lowered the limit to around 70 or even 60, a few schools might restart their programs or move up to D1. When you add the women's scholarships that would be created, the net change would probably be in the positive.

[RoyalShock]

Shortly after I hit submit, one problem with lowering the limit occurred to me. If you lower the limit for D1-A, you either have to lower the D1-AA limit (I'm not sure what it is, to be honest), or potentially do away with it altogether. If the limits become very close, there's little reason for a D1-AA program to stay there unless other restrictions were placed on D1-A membership.

[CharlieHog]

Shortly after I hit submit, one problem with lowering the limit occurred to me. If you lower the limit for D1-A, you either have to lower the D1-AA limit (I'm not sure what it is, to be honest), or potentially do away with it altogether. If the limits become very close, there's little reason for a D1-AA program to stay there unless other restrictions were placed on D1-A membership.

It's around 60 for 1-AA teams.


Lowering scholarships will never happen but if it did, there would be no reason to have a 1-AA at all.

[ShockRef]

I don't agree that Title IX has gone too far. Women who get athletic scholarships are often highly intelligent and highly motivated; they will make great alums and may make important contributions (financial, intellectual, recruiting, etc.) to WSU someday.

Gawd I love liberals.
They are the first to point fingers and raise 10K dollars of hell when things don't go to their liking. However, when it comes time to fund their 'allegations of impropriety' poof... they disappear. In other words, when it's time to 'reach into those jeans and pull out those greens', you can't find them with a search warrant.
You can also thank them for the BCS crap we deal with every year come the end of college football. Instead of having a playoff system that would actually determine a champion (as they do in every other division) we are force-fed the BCS. But you can't blame the college presidents, who are held hostgage by the guaranteed money the BCS provides. Money, they HAVE to receive to comply with... our little equal opportunity for all edict, Title IX.
To think Cold and I are basically on the same page with this issue is scary enough. 8)

Don't worry. That rant doesn't make you sound batcrap insane or anything.

Thanks RJL, I knew you would see my point of view. Us God-fearing conservatives have to stick together. I feel better already knowing you are in our corner and ready to carry the flag to the next Lee Greenwood concert. 8)

[pinstripers]

yeah, I can see a difference. Not all women are red-headed.