Possible New 32 Signing Limit Per Class




Whytetale

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
177
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Well, it might impact scholarship seating. And not in a good way.
 





highwayman

Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
6,677
Reaction score
477
Points
83
This is stupid IMO. Gives the haves more of an advantage.
It also allows to change PWO offers to scholarship offers. 7 schollies x 120 teams = 840 kids getting a chance at a college degree at least partially paid for.
 




short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
11,603
Reaction score
3,354
Points
113
As I read that article, it sounds like it is not automatic. Point of story was that teams that lose players to the transfer portal would be allowed to sign up to 32 players - IF they had lost 7 players to transfers. basically, you could "over-sign" to replace transfers.

Otherwise, if Directional State lost 6 kids to transfers, and they could only sign 25 incoming players, that would leave them 6 kids under the scholarship limit.

Imagine a situation where a coach left and a bunch of players transferred. the incoming coach would be hosed if he couldn't sign extra players.

That is how I read the story. the overall team limit would remain the same.
 

Catechol

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
420
Reaction score
60
Points
28
It also allows to change PWO offers to scholarship offers. 7 schollies x 120 teams = 840 kids getting a chance at a college degree at least partially paid for.
No, I don’t think the scholarship limit is increased. This is more likely to accommodate the higher volume of transfers out, so they can be replaced without “oversigning.”

Of course, with NIL and the apparent acceptance of blanket “endorsement” payments to all players, that’s basically an expansion of partial scholarships. Like, the 3rd string walk-on long snapper endorsing your local, well, Snapper dealer for $thousands a year.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
17,613
Reaction score
4,339
Points
113
This makes sense to me.

With the portal it is possible you have a big exodus during a coaching change or something and ... then you will NEED to bring in more people to fill the gaps.
 

SixBySix

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
527
Reaction score
553
Points
93
Otherwise, if Directional State lost 6 kids to transfers, and they could only sign 25 incoming players, that would leave them 6 kids under the scholarship limit.
Isn't that already built in to the 25 limit? Even without any redshirts, signing max classes every year means you need to lose an average of 4 guys from every class to stay under 85.
 



Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
1,081
Points
113
Isn't that already built in to the 25 limit? Even without any redshirts, signing max classes every year means you need to lose an average of 4 guys from every class to stay under 85.
That's on top of regular attrition though.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,521
Reaction score
6,778
Points
113
That's on top of regular attrition though.
That was the gist of his point.

If you have a compounding 20% loss of the original 25 in a class over the following four years (talking five years of classes, including redshirts), you have:

year 1: 25
year 2: 20 remaining
year 3: 16 remaining
year 4: 13 remaining (rounded up from 12.8)
year 5: 10 remaining (rounded down from 10.24 or 10.4, either way)

Assume those hold for every class on average, and you add those up to get 84.

This accounts for all reasons that players leave, including guys who burn their redshirt and so don't make it to be a 5th year senior or exceptional players that leave early for the NFL.


I bet this held fairly true, say over 2010-2019 seasons if you looked at it and averaged over all the FBS (or just P5) teams and years.

But now the portal + the free transfer have skewed these numbers significantly. Think Dylan Wright.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
9,966
Reaction score
2,540
Points
113
There needs to be a hard roster limit at practice of 75, or 85, or 95

That’s the only way to regulate NIL

Otherwise someone’s walk ons JV team might be better than someone’s “scholarship” team.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher

Member of the Tribe
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,008
Reaction score
287
Points
83
There needs to be a hard roster limit at practice of 75, or 85, or 95

That’s the only way to regulate NIL

Otherwise someone’s walk ons JV team might be better than someone’s “scholarship” team.
It has to be more than 85 (which is the scholarship limit)

I think 100 would be a good number.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,521
Reaction score
6,778
Points
113
It has to be more than 85 (which is the scholarship limit)

I think 100 would be a good number.
I think there's already a roster limit of 105 for fall camp, and then once school starts that is relaxed for "traditional" walkons to join the team (ie, the Rudy type guys that are happy to just put on a practice jersey and do some scout team work).
 

Ski U Mah Gopher

Member of the Tribe
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,008
Reaction score
287
Points
83
I think there's already a roster limit of 105 for fall camp, and then once school starts that is relaxed for "traditional" walkons to join the team (ie, the Rudy type guys that are happy to just put on a practice jersey and do some scout team work).
There has to be a hard limit to prevent NLI manipulation with walk-ons.
 






Top Bottom