A line of reasoning is starting to sprout from the P5. That in order to expand to a 8 team playoff would require an increase to 95 scholarships versus the current 85. In other words, stay at 85 and a 4 team playoff or move to an 8 team playoff with 95 scholarships. Interesting.

"It's been 22 weeks of football," Meyer said. "22 weeks of football. I know when the season is over, we're going to go back and research, Did we do it right? Did we do it right? Because we lost some players there at the end. … Did we run them too much? What happened? And I think every coach in America in this situation has to research that because you can't go back and say, well, how did they do that back in 1978. There's no book on this."

Meyer and Marotti believe that if this Playoff were to grow — potentially to an eight-team bracket, which would mean a 16th game — FBS teams would need to increase their scholarship limits. FBS teams currently have 85 scholarship players.

"I can't see (the move to 16 games)," Marrotti said. "Or, add more scholarships. Then you're deeper. To me, the game, (players are) going to go. But those practices —someone twists an ankle, now there's no scout team. How are you going to prepare? (You need) the bodies to practice."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../21598519/

NDSU played 16 games with 63 scholarships

(01-12-2015 03:57 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  NDSU has played 16 games in each of the last 4 years, and they have 63 scholarships

There is a different caliber of athletes in the FBS an they also deal with far more pressure/mental stress.

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:57 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  NDSU has played 16 games in each of the last 4 years, and they have 63 scholarships

There is a different caliber of athletes in the FBS an they also deal with far more pressure/mental stress.

If you went to 95, the caliber of athlete would decline by definition. There is no need to increase scholarships. If you want to increase overall roster size by 10, that's fine. But no more scholarships.

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:57 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  NDSU has played 16 games in each of the last 4 years, and they have 63 scholarships

There is a different caliber of athletes in the FBS an they also deal with far more pressure/mental stress.

Partially true but not at NDSU. NDSU would have defeated 60-70% of FBS schools the last 4 years...at least. Would have probably beaten both USF and Tulane possibly handily. They're that good. If they joined AAC they'd be in upper echelon of teams right now.

if they went to 95 schollies it would be bad for all of us.

(01-12-2015 05:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  if they went to 95 schollies it would be for all of us.

The reason that scholarships were lowered to begin with is when there was no limit, the Texases, NDs, etc. would simply chew up even the lessor athletes so the lessor teams couldn't give them scholarships. An increase would go back to the old days and make the G5 weaker.

I'm against expanding the Playoff.

Every game in college football matters with the current format.

Plus there isn't enough data to truly analyze the current format. I am pretty sure we will be stuck with 4 team playoff for awhile.

(01-12-2015 05:05 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I'm against expanding the Playoff.

Every game in college football matters with the current format.

Plus there isn't enough data to truly analyze the current format. I am pretty sure we will be stuck with 4 team playoff for awhile.

That isn't true. Almost all of the games don't matter at all. Over half the teams are eliminated before playing a single game.

(01-12-2015 05:25 PM)sfg22 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 05:05 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I'm against expanding the Playoff.

Every game in college football matters with the current format.

Plus there isn't enough data to truly analyze the current format. I am pretty sure we will be stuck with 4 team playoff for awhile.

That isn't true. Almost all of the games don't matter at all. Over half the teams are eliminated before playing a single game.

I agree. With more teams able to get a shot, more games will matter.

There is no need for more scholly's...you only field about 30 players or so and only redshirt 20 or so a year. That means you have 35 other players not playing meaningful minutes.

Even if you have 10 injuries a year, there is still no justification for adding scholly's...you have enough players, you just have to use them.

Its a ploy.

(01-12-2015 06:40 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  There is no need for more scholly's...you only field about 30 players or so and only redshirt 20 or so a year. That means you have 35 other players not playing meaningful minutes.

Even if you have 10 injuries a year, there is still no justification for adding scholly's...you have enough players, you just have to use them.

Its a ploy.

Well you still have a bunch of walk ons that never make the field. It would be nice getting more of the scholarships to scout team guys. Puts extra need for more women's sports though.

If 65 teams take another 10 athletes each then 650 of the best athletes the non contract conference teams are currently getting will disappear.

the NFL, the highest level of football plays 16-18 games with a 55 man active roster, there is no need to increase scholarships except to starve out the less popular schools.

a better solution would be to give all athletes 5 years to play 5, no more red shirting, same amount of scholarships, more players available for games.

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:57 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  NDSU has played 16 games in each of the last 4 years, and they have 63 scholarships

There is a different caliber of athletes in the FBS an they also deal with far more pressure/mental stress.

NFL teams survive 16+ games (24 games with pre-season & Super Bowl) with just 50 players, and there's a lot more pressure in the NFL than in college football.

I see no need for 95 scholarships.

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:57 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  NDSU has played 16 games in each of the last 4 years, and they have 63 scholarships

There is a different caliber of athletes in the FBS an they also deal with far more pressure/mental stress.

BS. They are all student athletes under the NCAA. So it's ok for 1AA with less players but not D1 with 22 more substitutes plus walk ons? Only a few teams would play 2-3 more games. 90% of teams wouldn't even be affected.

You're buying the P5 spin my friend.

Funny how they never seem to mention going back to 11 regular season games or eliminating conference championship games.

The expansion of scholarships will happen. Of course, that means cutting a men's program or more women's sports for Title IX compliance.

Death by 1000 little cuts. The G5 is dead as far as being in the same FBS division as the P5, we just don't know it yet.

Next step for the P5 will be significantly expanding the number of coaches on staffs for recruiting.

(01-12-2015 05:05 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 05:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  if they went to 95 schollies it would be for all of us.

The reason that scholarships were lowered to begin with is when there was no limit, the Texases, NDs, etc. would simply chew up even the lessor athletes so the lessor teams couldn't give them scholarships. An increase would go back to the old days and make the G5 weaker.

+1

It's no coincidence when the 85 limit was instituted (1992), Bill Snyder finally broke through at K-State, lifting the Cats from cfb purgatory. No longer could the Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the Texas schools stock their rosters of top talent. When Barry Switzer had his remarkable 4 year run at OU (1984-1987) (42-5-1), he annually had players drafted into the NFL who couldn't break the starting lineup due to the high quality of their depth.

TX

(01-12-2015 07:14 PM)nastar36 Wrote:  If 65 teams take another 10 athletes each then 650 of the best athletes the non contract conference teams are currently getting will disappear.

I think a good amount of those kids will look at G5 schools, the real good one's will want to play sooner rather than later. Not wanting to red shirt, then sit on the bench 2-3 years.

It could actually benefit the G5 schools, assuming they are able to offer 10 more scholly's at full cost of attendance. I would think Aresco will push his AD's to be in favor of such change.

TX