NJDuck Moderator No. 1 Share Posted May 10 Roster sizes in college football could be significantly reduced as part of a new proposal related to athlete compensation. Per Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger, the proposal being considered by power conference leaders would limit rosters to potentially as few as 85 to 95 players. Dellenger noted the concept was brought up as "part of what could be a sweeping and historic transformation" within college sports based on settlement agreements for the three antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA Report: College Football Rosters Could Be Trimmed to 85-95 Players Under New Proposal BLEACHERREPORT.COM Roster sizes in college football could be significantly reduced as part of a new proposal related to athlete compensation. Per Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger,… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sousa No. 2 Share Posted May 10 I didn't read the article, but want to comment on the idea. I can see why some might want this: As many have pointed out here, the scholarship limit can be gotten around by simply offering someone enough NIL money to more than pay for their tuition. Good point. Scholarship limits brought more parity to college football and other sports. Programs with unlimited funds can simply buy over 100 scholarships. The problem I see with this idea is that it hurts, and almost eliminates the walk-on athlete, especially in the Power Conference level. Jonathan Smith was a walk-on at OSU and lead the Beavers to their highest heights ever. Stetson Bennett walked on at Georgia and won two consecutive National Championships. Thousands of walk-ons have made it on to the field without a scholarship... and even passed up scholarship players in front of them. 85 players is right at the scholarship level and 95 players is only 10 over. Most teams get kickers, punters and other specialists via walk-ons. Where is there room for anyone else? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirklandduck Moderator No. 3 Share Posted May 10 Given that the impact sounds like it would mostly on walk-ons, I don't see how that helps control costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noDucknewby No. 4 Share Posted May 10 I guess this was bound to happen, everything about the sport as we know it is changing. One of the more cherished aspects of the sport is the "feel good" story of a walk-on being awarded a scholarship. It's too bad, but you can't expect the bean counters to pay extra revenue shares if they don't have to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 5 Share Posted May 10 Thanks, NJ. This is not all that will change if the House case is settled under the terms discussed on CFB sites. College rosters could fall below the number in the article once players become employees. One reason why? Football scholarships count in 'Title IX scholarships' being equitable with men's scholarships. Division 1 NCAA members are required to sponsor a minimum of 16 teams. This could also change. Jon Sousa posted a terrific comment. But walk-ons in all sports could be eliminated. A walk-on subject to the training rigors as a scholarship player will elect not to be paid. This, from a plaintiff's POV, would be a slippery slope. Direct payment to athletes, via revenue sharing and otherwise, will not limit NIL. The NFL has a salary cap negotiated with the players' union but no limit on what a player may earn from his NIL. G5 programs are D1 members. Not all will be able to come up with $20M, or more, per annum to pay athletes on the swim team? House was a swimmer at Arizona State. Settling House and attendant litigation makes sense but without some protection from Congress, relief from state legislatures, regulators, and lawyers will not go away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
