Maintaining the 105

[Quint]

With there only being 22 starters, you can be 4 deep at each position and use only 88 and at 91 with kicker, punter and long snapper. Therefore, you have 14 spots available to fill. In reality, you can have a recruiting class of 20 to 22 players and 5 walk ons if needed. Im sure someone knows it, but I have a feeling that HS classes going forward will be no more than 20 kids and remaining spots will be for portal guys and no more than. 5 walkons a year.

I don’t disagree with this, but it does definitely slim down some of our currently larger groups, makes selection of a relatively ready to play player (through portal or HS LOI) more important than presently. It will certainly make the misses more apparent if you’re digging down the depth chart throughout the season and those kids don’t perform on the field.

I think we’ll see a lot of fluctuation to HS classes based on expired eligibility/graduation, injuries, transfers out, etc. Could be fewer than 20 some years. As for walk ons, doesn’t the new 105 number really eliminate the term? All rostered players will now be scholarship players. IIRC.

 

[djw004]

With there only being 22 starters, you can be 4 deep at each position and use only 88 and at 91 with kicker, punter and long snapper. Therefore, you have 14 spots available to fill. In reality, you can have a recruiting class of 20 to 22 players and 5 walk ons if needed. Im sure someone knows it, but I have a feeling that HS classes going forward will be no more than 20 kids and remaining spots will be for portal guys and no more than. 5 walkons a year.

I understand the 4 deep concept. My question is - why have coaches been obsessed with large rosters? Is it just so they have more room to find "diamonds in the rough" in the walk-on program? Or why have 125+ in the first place.

Frost (sucked) was obsessed with having as large a roster as he could get. Why is that if you only need 90 to be head and shoulders above danger zone?

 

[Alcaus]

Just reading this idea caused a physical reaction to how annoying it sounds (not an erection)... can't imagine what a HC would think.

That said, it'll probably happen.

 

[Ripping Lips]

I understand the 4 deep concept. My question is - why have coaches been obsessed with large rosters? Is it just so they have more room to find "diamonds in the rough" in the walk-on program? Or why have 125+ in the first place.

Frost (sucked) was obsessed with having as large a roster as he could get. Why is that if you only need 90 to be head and shoulders above danger zone?

I'm unsure to be honest with you. Maybe it's an ego thing, or like you said, it helps dampen the blow on the scholarship misses or allows their scouts to be lazy in identifying talent who could be late bloomers and see if they have the drive to be successful in a few years. From a financial view, you'd figure the universities would want smaller rosters to cut back on the sustainment costs of the players (food, possible medical, other admin expenses). I know that is peanuts on the big scheme of things, but I'm sure it all adds up in the end.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

I understand the 4 deep concept. My question is - why have coaches been obsessed with large rosters? Is it just so they have more room to find "diamonds in the rough" in the walk-on program? Or why have 125+ in the first place.

Frost (sucked) was obsessed with having as large a roster as he could get. Why is that if you only need 90 to be head and shoulders above danger zone?

I think the large rosters are a combination of ego and appealing to our fan base's obsession with walk-ons.

Every coach likes to think that they are such a great developer of talent that if they just get more numbers they will produce more great players. The reality is that for a decade plus only about half the guys on our team had any be business playing power conference football

I'm getting a good laugh at all these hypothetical scenarios you guys are thinking up to keep a huge roster. That's all waste of time when any players you do develop can just transfer out.

Any money and effort spent on that would be much more effective scouting other teams' players and paying them to transfer

 

[2010sarenevercomingback]

I think the large rosters are a combination of ego and appealing to our fan base's obsession with walk-ons.

Every coach likes to think that they are such a great developer of talent that if they just get more numbers they will produce more great players. The reality is that for a decade plus only about half the guys on our team had any be business playing power conference football

I'm getting a good laugh at all these hypothetical scenarios you guys are thinking up to keep a huge roster. That's all waste of time when any players you do develop can just transfer out.

Any money and effort spent on that would be much more effective scouting other teams' players and paying them to transfer

The average roster size in major D1 schools is something like ~128. It's not like most successful teams are running with slim rosters already under the proposed cap, & Nebraska has one that's 50% larger. Our walk-on program is simply more robust, has more demand, and has therefore routinely been able to develop significant contributors to the program at a higher level.

I don't know how the numbers & cost will shake out for how we'll pursue things going forward, but when you're acquiring players who have a max window of 5 years & are still in a physical & mental developmental state, it's a significantly differently roster management prospect than signing contracts with developed & grown men like the NFL level.

I would also hazard a guess that the significant majority of CFB players - even in the current portal madness - are still playing their whole career at one school. Very rough numbers, but based on which sources you're looking at, the transfer portal is roughly 10-15% of FBS players this year, in a major cutdown year. Development will continue to be a necessity, and isn't going away.

 

[Stan Raymond]

I think the large rosters are a combination of ego and appealing to our fan base's obsession with walk-ons.

Every coach likes to think that they are such a great developer of talent that if they just get more numbers they will produce more great players. The reality is that for a decade plus only about half the guys on our team had any be business playing power conference football

I'm getting a good laugh at all these hypothetical scenarios you guys are thinking up to keep a huge roster. That's all waste of time when any players you do develop can just transfer out.

Any money and effort spent on that would be much more effective scouting other teams' players and paying them to transfer

The rosters have gotten bloated in the NIL era. Lots of reaches on players that can be put on the roster for a small NIL deal, if they develop into something great, if not it isn't a huge expense. Rosters have gotten bigger the last 5 years with these "NIL scholarships" type of players.

 

[djw004]

I think the large rosters are a combination of ego and appealing to our fan base's obsession with walk-ons.

Every coach likes to think that they are such a great developer of talent that if they just get more numbers they will produce more great players. The reality is that for a decade plus only about half the guys on our team had any be business playing power conference football

I'm getting a good laugh at all these hypothetical scenarios you guys are thinking up to keep a huge roster. That's all waste of time when any players you do develop can just transfer out.

Any money and effort spent on that would be much more effective scouting other teams' players and paying them to transfer

My thing is - you have a ton of coaches that are used to having 130+ on their roster, very few of whom have outwardly supported the 105, and I'd think that equates to approximately 0 P4 coaches being cool with being sub100 on their active roster midseason when they are used to 130 or more. This is one of those rules that feels like coaches won't just "accept" and be cool with because costs are decreased.

There is a reason they like having so many. They are not going to be thrilled on a pretty normal year having sub100 players active. Someone will find someway to not allow that scenario to happen.

 

[Ripping Lips]

So, is the 85 scholarship limit a thing of the past? If the 85 limit is still a thing, I’d use it for the players who may not see the field but want to attend Nebraska for education reasons and be doctors or whatever. The “NIL Deals” would be basically non scholarship guys and 1 year hired guns in the positions of need and has a high opportunity to get playing time. Not sure why NIL contributors would want to support kids who’ll never see the field. Plus with the smaller roster and revenue sharing, this allows more of a cut to all of the players.

 

[BorWhiskey]

So, is the 85 scholarship limit a thing of the past? If the 85 limit is still a thing, I’d use it for the players who may not see the field but want to attend Nebraska for education reasons and be doctors or whatever. The “NIL Deals” would be basically non scholarship guys and 1 year hired guns in the positions of need and has a high opportunity to get playing time. Not sure why NIL contributors would want to support kids who’ll never see the field. Plus with the smaller roster and revenue sharing, this allows more of a cut to all of the players.

The limit no longer exists, but the revenue share pool gets decremented by any scholarship given above 85. I don't know exactly how we'll deal with this, but my hunch is we aren't going to give scholarships beyond the 85 unless there is a reason we have to put someone on scholarship. We'd rather reserve that revenue share money for the core of our roster.