College Football Scholarships move from 85 to 105 - What are the Major Impacts

[dpodoll68]

My thought most all football and basketball scholarships are endowed. Somebody donated money to invest to pay for a scholarship.

Not even remotely close - a very small minority.

After 100 plus years they should have scholarships covered for perpetuity barring civil war, WWIII, rioting in the streets etc.

The University of Minnesota? You serious, Clark? Maybe Stanford, maybe, but I doubt there's any other P4 school who's even remotely close.

So there is no cost in scholarships or shouldn't be.

I never worked in Athletics, so I don't know what the real number is, but let's make up a number for what it costs to educate, feed, clothe, and house a Gopher football player for a year. $50K? That's probably low, but let's use it for an academic exercise. That would mean each endowed scholarship has $1.25M in the corpus to fund $50K annually. That would be $131.25M sitting in endowments to fund 105 scholarships. And that's just football, not including the other 25 sports or whatever the number is.

The entire university has an endowment of a few billion that doesn't come close to meeting its annual operating costs, and you think Athletics, comprising a tiny % of the overall student body, has the requisite half-billion (or more) to fund endowed scholarships? Again, please be serious.

And this entire discussion isn't even touching on the really significant costs - staff salaries, travel, equipment, etc., etc., etc.

They are paying 50 people to raise money.

Across the university as a whole? They are paying way more people than that. In Athletics specifically? It is a small fraction of that number.

I would love to see where you're getting your fictional data to support this post, because that report would be pretty wild to read, and to laugh at.

 

[Some guy]

That’s not my understanding, but I’m not sure anyone has read the actual documents yet.

I think the 105 is firm. They could hypothetically choose to divide one scholarship among 105, or fully award 105, or anything in between. That would royally mess with Title IX calculations, but that’s not my wheelhouse.

Maybe we’ll get more clarity in coming days. Maybe not.

My point more is I am not sure your question applies to Sherman anti trust act

Air Force, army, and navy already do this. Their entire study bodies are on full rides but they’re subject to a roster limit

 

[swede2]

Teams are not going to have 20 more scholarship guys on the level of the other 85. But there will be improvement in those 20 spots. Maybe not all of them but certainly some. This is probably bad for lower level FBS and FCS schools I'm guessing.

Agree. The guys taking scholarships at Toledo or NDSU over walk on offers at Wisc. are now going to be scholarship players at Wisconsin. FCS and G5 schools are going to have to recruit their top tier HS guys for the future. When it doesn't pan out at Iowa after a year or two, remember us in Brookings.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

My point more is I am not sure your question applies to Sherman anti trust act

Air Force, army, and navy already do this. Their entire study bodies are on full rides but they’re subject to a roster limit

OK, I think I understand you. My question is whether putting limits on eg football scholarship positions unfairly limits opportunities and competition in relation to the Sherman Antirutst Act of 1890. Similar to limiting compensation, transfers, and so on, outside of a CBA. The business of college sports still seems way out of step with TSAA in comparison to other pro leagues. I realize these are nuanced answers and some handwaving and rationalizations will apply depending on the person.

 

[Some guy]

OK, I think I understand you. My question is whether putting limits on eg football scholarship positions unfairly limits opportunities and competition in relation to the Sherman Antirutst Act of 1890. Similar to limiting compensation, transfers, and so on, outside of a CBA. The business of college sports still seems way out of step with TSAA in comparison to other pro leagues. I realize these are nuanced answers and some handwaving and rationalizations will apply depending on the person.

Possible that the roster size could have an argument against it. But there are roster sizes for decades that haven’t been successfully challenged. I’m not sure what’s changed now that would make that violate the act?

Does the MSHSL limiting state tourney roster size violate the Sherman anti trust act?
Does limiting the size of the coaching staff violate the act?

 

[MaxyJR1]

one way colleges and universities can save money. Do away with the red shirt year, the extra year for injury. Get 4 years to use up the eligibility, no excuses accepted. Will save app. 30 to 40 percent in scholarships.

I like it in theory but doubt it will happen. Coaches and schools want to win and that comes with experienced players. They will want 5th and 6th year guys in the program. The portal will become the place to get your players.

IMO Fleck needs to continue to hit non the 4-5 hour radius of MN for HS kids and then fill the gaps with portal for experience and need.

 

[60's Guy]

Not even remotely close - a very small minority.

The University of Minnesota? You serious, Clark? Maybe Stanford, maybe, but I doubt there's any other P4 school who's even remotely close.


I never worked in Athletics, so I don't know what the real number is, but let's make up a number for what it costs to educate, feed, clothe, and house a Gopher football player for a year. $50K? That's probably low, but let's use it for an academic exercise. That would mean each endowed scholarship has $1.25M in the corpus to fund $50K annually. That would be $131.25M sitting in endowments to fund 105 scholarships. And that's just football, not including the other 25 sports or whatever the number is.

The entire university has an endowment of a few billion that doesn't come close to meeting its annual operating costs, and you think Athletics, comprising a tiny % of the overall student body, has the requisite half-billion (or more) to fund endowed scholarships? Again, please be serious.

And this entire discussion isn't even touching on the really significant costs - staff salaries, travel, equipment, etc., etc., etc.


Across the university as a whole? They are paying way more people than that. In Athletics specifically? It is a small fraction of that number.

I would love to see where you're getting your fictional data to support this post, because that report would be pretty wild to read, and to laugh at.

Well, I could have PMed you but I thought I'd throw stuff at the wall outrageous enough to create hopes you'd answer. Thank you!

It wasn't being mentioned as a factor at all in the discussion. I just wanted to introduce it as a component. At any rate it is a source of funding scholarships.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Possible that the roster size could have an argument against it. But there are roster sizes for decades that haven’t been successfully challenged. I’m not sure what’s changed now that would make that violate the act?

Does the MSHSL limiting state tourney roster size violate the Sherman anti trust act?
Does limiting the size of the coaching staff violate the act?

To the first the NCAA is no longer promoting the amateurism concept as they feel their model is probably not defensible with changes in business model, legal opinion and/or the NCAA has litigation fatigue.

To the second, yes but nobody cares because there is no money in it or more specifically no money for attorneys in it.
To the third, yes.

Pretty much every league rule is in violation and requires an exemption or to be part of a CBA. That’s my understanding.

 

[Some guy]

To the first the NCAA is no longer promoting the amateurism concept as they feel their model is probably not defensible with changes in business model, legal opinion and/or the NCAA has litigation fatigue.

To the second, yes but nobody cares because there is no money in it or more specifically no money for attorneys in it.
To the third, yes.

Pretty much every league rule is in violation and requires an exemption or to be part of a CBA. That’s my understanding.

The third has existed for years and nobody has challenged it

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The third has existed for years and nobody has challenged it

Never say never.

How many QC and analysts do they need. Moar?

 

[Some guy]

Never say never.

How many QC and analysts do they need. Moar?

Don’t think there are limit on that
Kind of like there are no limits on number of football players at your school, just limits on who can practice.

Alabama could sign 200 high school football players a year. Just only 105 can practice

 

[GopherMarroon]

With the coming budget squeeze due to the settlement including NIL backpayments, I thought we would see scholarships cut a couple. Any team in any sport with dozens of players maybe is a candidate to trim a couple. But I guess not.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Don’t think there are limit on that
Kind of like there are no limits on number of football players at your school, just limits on who can practice.

Alabama could sign 200 high school football players a year. Just only 105 can practice

I’m not following you here. If they can’t practice with the team they aren’t equivalent to walk ons, as I understand them.

Or, do you mean sign them to academic scholarships in a standby reserve status? Or have NIL collectives pay their cost of attendance?

One area where TSAA could come into play is when a team needs a QB or RB mid-season. What if we didn’t have Jordan Nubin, for example. Bummer.

 

[Some guy]

I’m not following you here. If they can’t practice with the team they aren’t equivalent to walk ons, as I understand them.

Or, do you mean sign them to academic scholarships in a standby reserve status? Or have NIL collectives pay their cost of attendance?

One area where TSAA could come into play is when a team needs a QB or RB mid-season. What if we didn’t have Jordan Nubin, for example. Bummer.

Nubin is one of the 105?
There are a lot more than 105 high school football players attending the u of m right now


Maybe everything violates the TSAA but this new rule doesn’t change anything at all is more my point

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Nubin is one of the 105?
There are a lot more than 105 high school football players attending the u of m right now


Maybe everything violates the TSAA but this new rule doesn’t change anything at all is more my point

My undestanding is many teams carry a lot of walk ons currently. More than the 105. So it is different.

I could be misremembering last season but I thought we had a walk on starting RB last several games. My memory ain’t what it once was though.

 

[Some guy]

My undestanding is many teams carry a lot of walk ons currently. More than the 105. So it is different.

I could be misremembering last season but I thought we had a walk on starting RB last several games. My memory ain’t what it once was though.

Nubin was a walk on
But he was surely one of the top 20 walk ons

 

[PMWinSTP]

Sounds like a bunch out here might benefit from change management. Still way better than pro football. I actually see potential benefits for programs like Minnesota. I'll let things play out over the next few seasons before I think about adjusting my interest level.

 

[Word]

Sounds like a bunch out here might benefit from change management. Still way better than pro football. I actually see potential benefits for programs like Minnesota. I'll let things play out over the next few seasons before I think about adjusting my interest level.

I'm not giving up yet, but I've learned I can quickly tune out (Gopher basketball has shown me that....Twins this year to a degree due to the owners not caring).

I'm in wait and see more but I am not optimistic about the direction college sports are heading.

 

[PMWinSTP]

That’s not my understanding, but I’m not sure anyone has read the actual documents yet.

I think the 105 is firm. They could hypothetically choose to divide one scholarship among 105, or fully award 105, or anything in between. That would royally mess with Title IX calculations, but that’s not my wheelhouse.

Maybe we’ll get more clarity in coming days. Maybe not.

So any partial scholarships awarded count as a whole one?

 

[PMWinSTP]

My undestanding is many teams carry a lot of walk ons currently. More than the 105. So it is different.

I could be misremembering last season but I thought we had a walk on starting RB last several games. My memory ain’t what it once was though.

I believe the 105 roster number only applies to the first game or first day of class?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

So any partial scholarships awarded count as a whole one?

Not my understanding. They can award no scholarships or 105 scholarships between the 105 players.

Again, we’re all talking out of our buttholes here. I don’t think anyone really understands the intricacies of the agreement. It’s like Bigfoot, reputed to be out there but does anyone have hard evidence.

More billable hours to figure all this out. . Berman: “Hey, I just work here”.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Nubin was a walk on
But he was surely one of the top 20 walk ons

Yeah, maybe? Who knows. Probably.

Bottom line is: I’ve heard several prominent coaches criticize this aspect. More difficult practices, less opportunity to find diamonds in the rough, and now a longer season with fewer available players. Opt outs, transfers, quitters, injuries. Could be problematic on the margins.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Not my understanding. They can award no scholarships or 105 scholarships between the 105 players.

Again, we’re all talking out of our buttholes here. I don’t think anyone really understands the intricacies of the agreement. It’s like Bigfoot, reputed to be out there but does anyone have hard evidence.

More billable hours to figure all this out. . Berman: “Hey, I just work here”.

Interesting. In other sports, my understanding is that's why they split scholarships, to be able to offer something to more folks. Can't see a real advantage of partial scholarships if you can't.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Interesting. In other sports, my understanding is that's why they split scholarships, to be able to offer something to more folks. Can't see a real advantage of partial scholarships if you can't.

Many people are wondering why.

It doesn’t make sense.

 

[Some guy]

Yeah, maybe? Who knows. Probably.

Bottom line is: I’ve heard several prominent coaches criticize this aspect. More difficult practices, less opportunity to find diamonds in the rough, and now a longer season with fewer available players. Opt outs, transfers, quitters, injuries. Could be problematic on the margins.

I was thinking that’s true but is a good thing. Because those players go to other schools and increases parity. I did a thread on roster limits as a way to have parity in the age of the portal. I was hoping the roster limit would be lower than 105 and more like 85-90.

There is no way to have parity outside of roster limits ImO

 

[hungan1]

The drastic changes on the horizon are going to shake up collegiate sports. Will it lead to cutting more non-revenue generating sports? We will see in the next two years how everything shakes up.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I was thinking that’s true but is a good thing. Because those players go to other schools and increases parity. I did a thread on roster limits as a way to have parity in the age of the portal. I was hoping the roster limit would be lower than 105 and more like 85-90.

There is no way to have parity outside of roster limits ImO

The roster churn we’ve seen so far might be a foreshock of things to come. I personally fear a never ending carousel of transferring high school scholarship recruits, misses, and head cases taking up roster spots once occupied by overlooked walk ons, which really were one of the best intangibles storylines within college football.

 

[Some guy]

The roster churn we’ve seen so far might be a foreshock of things to come. I personally I fear a never ending carousel of transferring and possibly high school scholarship recruits, misses, and head cases taking up roster spots once occupied by overlooked walk ons, which really were maybe one of the best things about college football.

I think if roster sizes went from 105 to say 75

All of a sudden there is a lot more talent dispersed to a lot more places

 

[short ornery norwegian]

as Pomp says, we're all (or at least most of us are) trying to make educated guesses based on what is being reported.

but my understanding is that the roster limit is a firm number. so 105 players on a football team - no more. and each school decides how many full and/or partial scholarships to award - but the # of scholarships cannot exceed the roster limit.

my understanding on allowing partials in football is for "fairness." under the current system, every FB player on scholarship receives a full schollie - but in many other sports, partial scholarships were awarded. so in the eyes of some, that meant football players were treated differently than, say, baseball players. so now, all sports are on the same footing - schools can award full or partials in all sports up to the roster limit.

as far as walk-ons - well, as I read what's being reported, I think you could still have walk-ons. there is no requirement (that I'm aware of) that every player on the roster must be on scholarship. so MN, if it chose, could have some non-scholarship players as part of the 105 roster limit. that assumes that a player would be willing to walk on at MN instead of accepting a scholarship at a different program. but some might see that as a competitive disadvantage if MN does not use all of its allowed scholarships while another school gives out 105 full scholarships.

(and I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen with Title IX. as Pomp says, that one is likely going to be decided in a courtroom somewhere).

 

[swede2]

but my understanding is that the roster limit is a firm number. so 105 players on a football team - no more. and each school decides how many full and/or partial scholarships to award - but the # of scholarships cannot exceed the roster

So your understanding is that the roster limit is distinct from scholarship limit, except that no more scholarships can be awarded then roster limit? The result is that a school can find no scholarships, 105 full or partial scholarships or somewhere in between. But a school cannot take 105 full scholarships and award 1/2 scholarships to 210 players or any number that would exceed 105 roster spots, whether the scholarships are full or partial. A school could choose to award 85 full scholarships but some of those could be split into partials to get up to the roster limit of 105. Is that your understanding?