CFB roster limits incoming

[Kaladin]

 

[ShortSideOption]

I remember how people thought NIL would even the playing field for Nebraska with the juggernauts of the CFB world in a good way, when in reality NIL is going to take away one of the best things we had going for us, our walk-on program.

 

[alt f4]

"Practice rosters" are incoming.....

 

[Juro]

I get why this is happening and I’m okay with that just for that reason. But CFB brings in so much money and having teams to have smaller rosters will only hurt in other ways.

For example, teams need to be able to build depth on their rosters so they’re not stuck trying to deal with young players getting too rushed into playing the game or trying to get injured players quicker off of the injured list. How many times has a player play hurt and only wait until after the game/season because they believe they’ll let down their team?

 

[BorWhiskey]

Roster limits is the one thing that pisses me off about the change. If a player wants to come to a school and is willing to pay their own way to be a tackling dummy for someone else, why does the NCAA feel the need to limit that? Especially in college where you only get a player for limited time, don’t have the ability to transact during the year, and these years are at the beginning of a players development.

This is the ultimate way to set parody though. The 20-50 players at the end of a P2 roster are now ending up in G5. I just don’t care about parody.

 

[Herbie]

I think this is actually a good thing.
Still gives you 15-25 spots for walkons you can use nil to get on campus.
Basically Nebraska could get 15-25 grad transfers a year on nil if they wanted

 

[David Webb]

I remember how people thought NIL would even the playing field for Nebraska with the juggernauts of the CFB world in a good way, when in reality NIL is going to take away one of the best things we had going for us, our walk-on program.

It’s definitely been the thing that has propelled the team to all those successful seasons over the last 10 years.

 

[Herbie]

It’s definitely been the thing that has propelled the team to all those successful seasons over the last 10 years.

IMO if you have 15-25 non scholarship spots available you need them to be people that compete immediately and not long term prospects as freshman.
Need to develop solid relationships with all the FCS and D2 schools and try to persuade all the players that would normally walk on to Nebraska, Cockeye, Cockeye state, Kansas etc to go to those schools and try to use them as developmental leagues.

 

[Stan Raymond]

I think this is actually a good thing.
Still gives you 15-25 spots for walkons you can use nil to get on campus.
Basically Nebraska could get 15-25 grad transfers a year on nil if they wanted

All spots will be scholarships spots for all sports. Walk ons will be done at this level.

 

[Herbie]

All spots will be scholarships spots for all sports. Walk ons will be done at this level.

Did see anything about scholarship limits being raise so assumed 85 ships.
Either way that’s good. Figured raising it that much would cause title 9 issues for now

 

[BorWhiskey]

Did see anything about scholarship limits being raise so assumed 85 ships.
Either way that’s good. Figured raising it that much would cause title 9 issues for now

I think the positions count against title ix, not just scholarship. It’s why we thought we were going to see roster attrition in the walk ons to get roster size to 130 this offseason. That didn’t happen obviously.

 

[ShortSideOption]

It’s definitely been the thing that has propelled the team to all those successful seasons over the last 10 years.

More about keeping the local feel to our rosters. We have about 100 kids on some form of scholarship right now, would leave at max 10 walk-on spots for local kids like Reimer, Bullock x 2, Boerkircher, etc. over 4-5 classes. That’s basically 2 walk-ons per class.

Walk-ons weren’t the issue for our awful last decade. I’d actually argue walk-ons and local players were what made it not be worse than it already was with us having 4 different head coaches since 2014.

 

[Herbie]

More about keeping the local feel to our rosters. We have about 100 kids on some form of scholarship right now, would leave at max 10 walk-on spots for local kids like Reimer, Bullock x 2, Boerkircher, etc. over 4-5 classes. That’s basically 2 walk-ons per class.

Walk-ons weren’t the issue for our awful last decade. I’d actually argue walk-ons and local players were what made it not be worse than it already was with us having 4 different head coaches since 2014.

Nebraska makes plenty of offers to kids that probably don’t deserve it just because they are from Nebraska. They can throw another 1 out there is scholarship numbers are expanded

 

[LoudHogRider]

Roster limits is the one thing that pisses me off about the change. If a player wants to come to a school and is willing to pay their own way to be a tackling dummy for someone else, why does the NCAA feel the need to limit that? Especially in college where you only get a player for limited time, don’t have the ability to transact during the year, and these years are at the beginning of a players development.

This is the ultimate way to set parody though. The 20-50 players at the end of a P2 roster are now ending up in G5. I just don’t care about parody.

parody /păr′ə-dē/

noun​

1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
3. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty.
   "The trial was a parody of justice."

I think what you're looking for here is "parity"

parity

noun​

1. The quality or condition of being equal or equivalent; a like state or degree; equality; equivalence; close correspondence; analogy.
   "parity of reasoning"
   Similar: equality equivalence

 

[ShortSideOption]

Nebraska makes plenty of offers to kids that probably don’t deserve it just because they are from Nebraska. They can throw another 1 out there is scholarship numbers are expanded

I'd agree with the offers of people that don't deserve it when it comes to walk-ons... since the walk-on programs inception it's probably close to 90% of the kids that get to be a part of it don't contribute. That basically means that you have to go through 9 players just to get to your one Reimer or Bullock or Boerkircher. We had those 4 walk-ons really contributing last year, but had close to 40 on the roster.

The walk-on program initially started as just what you said anyway, our coaches wanted to get the rich parents with cattle involved so they would donate more having a son on the team, and even get some stuff thrown towards our training table. If all of a sudden your roster is capped at 110 (which is what they are claiming could be the max, could move closer to 100), you are essentially getting rid of all walk-ons. As grad transfers and portal guys are going to take up those spots now.

A former walk-on led our team in tackles in 2021 and 2022, where would our ILB crew be in 2024 if a walk-on didn't decide to come back and play one more year. They are important, and we are basically going to be getting rid of them except for 1-2 per year. I also don't think Rhule can run practices the same way if we start getting capped at 100 players. We had close to 4 full offensive line rotations this year in the spring since we had 22 players there. There were years we only had 8 OL in the spring and a couple of them were injured.

But if you're saying we throw scholarship offers out to undeserving Nebraska kids i'd disagree there. Scholarship numbers getting expanded doesn't matter if the max on the roster goes down. If we go from 85 scholarships to being able to offer 95 but we still have to cut our roster by 40 kids and we were already at close to 100 on scholarship/NIL for 2024, it changes nothing for us.

 

[whoboppin]

110 wouldn't be the end of the world. 100 seems pretty low though.

 

[Havoc34]

This is fucking stupid

 

[RedSavage]

This is fucking stupid

I agree. I struggle to really see the "why" behind it...it feels more like a fuck you, that's why, from the NCAA

 

[ShortSideOption]

I agree. I struggle to really see the "why" behind it...it feels more like a fuck you, that's why, from the NCAA

I think where this is all stemming from is they did scholarship limitations decades ago to try and "level the playing field" between the Alabama's and other FBS/BCS teams. They didn't want Bama able to sign 140 scholarship players. Now, NIL is putting them right back where they were and they are trying to "re-level" the playing field.

The problem is, they have no chance. Georgia State is never going to be able to compete with Alabama or other schools in NIL anyway. Further, and I can't remember where I read this, there's already talks about how many SEC schools/athletic directors are not wanting the NCAA to dictate what they do so that schools in the MAC can try and "keep up". If they want to spend more on NIL, if they want bigger rosters, they shouldn't be held back to do so just because schools like Western Michigan wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

It wouldn't be professional sports, which it is, if there weren't somewhat flaccid attempts at "leveling the playing field" to "help* poor/incompetent teams "compete" with the good/well run ones.