End of Walk-ons Near? (1 Viewer)

[Seaofred92]

 

[Adolph Coors]

dumb dumb dumb

 

[Seaofred92]

For the record- and not just because I am a Nebraska fan- I am STRONGLY opposed to this idea.

If you want to end collectives paying for tuition for walk-ons I can at least accept that.

But for an entity that is supposed to be representing its schools and protecting all of its athletes, in no way shape or form does limiting the amount of roster spots to scholarship athletes only accomplish that. In fact, you’re taking away a dream from numerous kids, let alone kids that eventually contributed in their college careers or even went on to be professionals.

Stop “Fixing” shit that isn’t broken. Simple as that.

 

[Stenge85]

I was as mad as anyone when I had to watch Wyatt Liewer try to run seams against Ohio state.

But this is just messed up. Why deliberately allow less kids to play?

 

[Juro]

It’s stupid. And I hope those leaders get kicked in the balls.

 

[Tsakoi]

It's the wrong solution to their problem so of course they will do it.

I do understand their thinking and the players are partly responsible for this as well, but this is a result of their terrible NIL decisions to date so it was always just gonna get worse. In 15 years I doubt any of us even recognize college football.

 

[Herbie]

sucks. But where college football is goings, it’s the natural progression unfortunately.

 

[Cornicator]

For the record- and not just because I am a Nebraska fan- I am STRONGLY opposed to this idea.

If you want to end collectives paying for tuition for walk-ons I can at least accept that.

But for an entity that is supposed to be representing its schools and protecting all of its athletes, in no way shape or form does limiting the amount of roster spots to scholarship athletes only accomplish that. In fact, you’re taking away a dream from numerous kids, let alone kids that eventually contributed in their college careers or even went on to be professionals.

Stop “Fixing” shit that isn’t broken. Simple as that.

Let me preface this by saying, I think this dude's tweet is click bait fed by some melodrama. When its all said and done there will be no rule prohibiting teams from adding walk-ons.

We need to consider the "why" behind this potential settlement related model. Nobody is concerned about collectives paying for walk-ons to go to school. Litigation is leading towards revenue sharing for NCAA student athletes because programs like Nebraska are earning close to $75 million before they sell a single ticket, hot dog, or jersey. The lawsuit is calling for a percentage of that media money to go back into the hands of players. Ideally, if you are going to share that revenue, then every program needs to have the same amount of players on the roster.

Much like the NFL, every team within a certain conference would receive the same amount of revenue each year, and then a portion of those funds can then be redistributed back to the players. It would be up to the specific programs to determine how they want to spread out that money. The disbursement will be based on the concept of even disbursement among 85 players on a roster.

The Big Ten and SEC would offer the biggest revenue sharing amounts to their teams. The Big 12 will continue to fade into oblivion. However, I think we all can agree it would be ridiculous for the 5th string cornerback to receive the same revenue share as your all-conference quarterback.

The NCAA is foolishly thinking teams will share that money evenly. There is no way that's possible. Therefore, I highly doubt rosters will be limited to just 85 players. if you're 6;2 220 lb. full back from Stromsburg, I think you should already know that it will take a lot of work on your part to reach a point where you can receive a piece of the revenue sharing pie.

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

That would really suck. Stupid idea

 

[Baron Winnebago]

There's going to be like 4000 of these stories coming out as they try to work through stuff, fwiw

 

[HuskerDocCo]

my mud flaps aren’t happy w this news sumbitch

 

[vailhusker]

Unfortunately with NIL the traditional walk-on is already dead.

Take a player like Genatone he's not leaving a full ride scholarship at Montana to "walk-on" at Nebraska without some kind of NIL deal.

Capping the roster at 85 with scholarships would be a bad idea but would a cap of 120 with scholarships be a better idea? (average cfb roster is 118) and then be able to use the NIL money for walk-ons elsewhere?

I didn't listen to it but I heard that Dr. Elza said our roster is at 149 yesterday so obviously we would be a team that would have cut some players. But I thought someone had mentioned that we were going to have to get down to around 120 anyway for titleIX possibly?

 

[Pepe Silvia]

I think it's more likely we see the big 10 and SEC break away and increase scholarships. You might see a 100 player roster with no walk ons

 

[Snockered69]

Unfortunately with NIL the traditional walk-on is already dead.

Take a player like Genatone he's not leaving a full ride scholarship at Montana to "walk-on" at Nebraska without some kind of NIL deal.

Capping the roster at 85 with scholarships would be a bad idea but would a cap of 120 with scholarships be a better idea? (average cfb roster is 118) and then be able to use the NIL money for walk-ons elsewhere?

I didn't listen to it but I heard that Dr. Elza said our roster is at 149 yesterday so obviously we would be a team that would have cut some players. But I thought someone had mentioned that we were going to have to get down to around 120 anyway for titleIX possibly?

Title 9 seems less and less relevant but I believe Rhule has stated that he would like to coach a smaller roster as its better for development.

 

[vailhusker]

Title 9 seems less and less relevant but I believe Rhule has stated that he would like to coach a smaller roster as its better for development.

It was a while back, so it might have already changed. I think it was @Carm that mentioned something about it.

 

[Herbie]

I think it's more likely we see the big 10 and SEC break away and increase scholarships. You might see a 100 player roster with no walk ons

That would be an even worse idea.
If a break off happens you are paying players a salary. There’s really no good reason to pay 100 players.