(11-15-2016 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Players want to be on a winning team, and showcase their talents for the Pros. They can't do that if they are the 4th string QB. A lot of players are being drafted by the NFL from schools that are not in the P5 like G5, FCS and lower. Boise State and North Dakota State are getting lots of players drafted by the NFL more often lately than from Texas. One year a few years ago, Texas never got a player drafted.

Really? Look at the 1968 draft, first round picks from UTEP (2); Tennessee State (2); Weber State; TAMU-Kingsville; Trinity; UMass; Utah State; and SDSU. 10 picks out of 27 from non-power schools. This year, Houston, NDSU, Memphis and LaTech. 4 out of 31. If you think its a fluke, I counted 9 first round picks from non-power schools in the 69 draft and 11 in 1970.

(11-15-2016 11:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the down periods for big programs has nothing to do with the # of scholarships. it's got everything to do with coaching. Michigan is a prime example. When did they get back? When Harbaugh came around. Alabama was down until Saban arrived.

That's right. I think the biggest difference you would see by reducing scholarships (I like the 75 number) is that the number of teams in the middle increases. That is, there a lot more teams that would be breaking through to the Top 25 (albeit probably #15-25) occasionally. The 10 kids the Top 15 programs couldn't sign are mostly 4 star and high 3 star kids who would significantly improve the schools from about #16-50 or so.

Alabama is still going to be Alabama, but South Carolina and Ole Miss would have a better chance of upsetting them. I think that's a good thing.

What if we went 75, but allowed players one free transfer in their 3rd year?

That could somewhat curb the argument that you'd be taking away 10 5* players from Alabama or Ohio St, for example:

- kids who know they're never going to significantly contribute can transfer out, that helps clear out busts
- kids who perform exceptionally well can either stay or roll the dice by transferring up to a higher program, that helps redistribute players who greatly out-perform their rating out of high school


There are lots of reasons to not like such a plan, I'm sure. Just throwing it against a wall...

I like the idea of going to 100 scholarships maximum. Every program gets 25 per year. Use it or lose it. No back counting or oversigning. Freshmen must redshirt or have had completed and passed 12 hours of course work before being eligible for athletics.

This is a trial balloon with a sacrificial lamb attached. The trial balloon is to get talk going about raising scholarship limits. The sacrificial lamb is the CFP. Groundwork has to take place before scholarship limits are raised. That groundwork has been framed in terms of stipends. As the pay for players increases the P conferences will eventually push for scholarship increases. 90 will probably be the first target. The networks will be for this as it will float their investment in the P conferences and give them justification for the lower pay they are sure to offer those who aren't in the P5.

The arguments will be the number of players that want to play at a P school and the necessity to increase those limits to provide depth to the increased scheduling demands of P schools, and the possible increase of the length of seasons should we ever introduce conference semis.

I think contrary to what some have said that the Miss State's and Purdue's of the world would prefer to have a few more solid players on their rosters to cover their depth issues as well.

I wouldn't look for this to happen soon but Jimbo didn't introduce it without a blessing from above. It was like Saban speaking of the need for a 9th conference or P game on the schedule 4 years ago.

Step 1 will be moving to a P4. Step 2 will be replacing the CFP committee with the conference champs. Step 3 will be expanding the playoffs but doing so with conference semis. Step 4 will be scholarship increases. If the playoffs expand at the conference level the money will remain with the conferences and that will be the compromise that gets presidents on board.

And yes increasing scholarship limits at that time will create a larger gulf between P schools and the rest.

I'm not for it, but that's the way it will head.

(11-15-2016 04:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a trial balloon with a sacrificial lamb attached. The trial balloon is to get talk going about raising scholarship limits. The sacrificial lamb is the CFP. Groundwork has to take place before scholarship limits are raised. That groundwork has been framed in terms of stipends. As the pay for players increases the P conferences will eventually push for scholarship increases. 90 will probably be the first target. The networks will be for this as it will float their investment in the P conferences and give them justification for the lower pay they are sure to offer those who aren't in the P5.

The arguments will be the number of players that want to play at a P school and the necessity to increase those limits to provide depth to the increased scheduling demands of P schools, and the possible increase of the length of seasons should we ever introduce conference semis.

I think contrary to what some have said that the Miss State's and Purdue's of the world would prefer to have a few more solid players on their rosters to cover their depth issues as well.

I wouldn't look for this to happen soon but Jimbo didn't introduce it without a blessing from above. It was like Saban speaking of the need for a 9th conference or P game on the schedule 4 years ago.

Step 1 will be moving to a P4. Step 2 will be replacing the CFP committee with the conference champs. Step 3 will be expanding the playoffs but doing so with conference semis. Step 4 will be scholarship increases. If the playoffs expand at the conference level the money will remain with the conferences and that will be the compromise that gets presidents on board.

And yes increasing scholarship limits at that time will create a larger gulf between P schools and the rest.

I'm not for it, but that's the way it will head.

The Mississippi States and Purdues would lose 5-15 players to the Alabamas. They would be pulling from AAC schools, so the gap would grow.

(11-15-2016 05:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 04:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is a trial balloon with a sacrificial lamb attached. The trial balloon is to get talk going about raising scholarship limits. The sacrificial lamb is the CFP. Groundwork has to take place before scholarship limits are raised. That groundwork has been framed in terms of stipends. As the pay for players increases the P conferences will eventually push for scholarship increases. 90 will probably be the first target. The networks will be for this as it will float their investment in the P conferences and give them justification for the lower pay they are sure to offer those who aren't in the P5.

The arguments will be the number of players that want to play at a P school and the necessity to increase those limits to provide depth to the increased scheduling demands of P schools, and the possible increase of the length of seasons should we ever introduce conference semis.

I think contrary to what some have said that the Miss State's and Purdue's of the world would prefer to have a few more solid players on their rosters to cover their depth issues as well.

I wouldn't look for this to happen soon but Jimbo didn't introduce it without a blessing from above. It was like Saban speaking of the need for a 9th conference or P game on the schedule 4 years ago.

Step 1 will be moving to a P4. Step 2 will be replacing the CFP committee with the conference champs. Step 3 will be expanding the playoffs but doing so with conference semis. Step 4 will be scholarship increases. If the playoffs expand at the conference level the money will remain with the conferences and that will be the compromise that gets presidents on board.

And yes increasing scholarship limits at that time will create a larger gulf between P schools and the rest.

I'm not for it, but that's the way it will head.

The Mississippi States and Purdues would lose 5-15 players to the Alabamas. They would be pulling from AAC schools, so the gap would grow.

Not for the kids looking for playing time.

(11-15-2016 09:12 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Jimbo quote in Coachingsearch.com

I've wondered when the push by the P5 would come to up the scholarship limit from 85 to whatever. An expanded CFP system may be the vehicle to get that going. Another effective way to make the gap widen (already very wide) between the P5 and G5 eventually.

Yeah let's go back to the 80's when Oklahoma had 150 4 and 5 star athletes again? They brought it down to 85 for a reason.
Cheers!

I'd be all for lowering it to 75. Maybe even 70. 70 allows for 3 scholarship athletes at every offensive and defensive position, as well as 2 punters and 2 place kickers. You'd then have another 20+ walk ons to give a fourth name on the depth chart.

This produces 2 results that I think would better collegiate athletics:
1) Allows "mid-major" programs to get better athletes, allowing more competition to get the national championship.
2) Re-allocating the 10-15 scholarships you're taking away from the football program to other sports promotes the participation in other sports that are less likely to cause serious injuries while not removing the benefit of poor kids being able to get educated for free.

(11-15-2016 03:58 PM)MU88 Wrote:  Really? Look at the 1968 draft, first round picks from UTEP (2); Tennessee State (2); Weber State; TAMU-Kingsville; Trinity; UMass; Utah State; and SDSU. 10 picks out of 27 from non-power schools. This year, Houston, NDSU, Memphis and LaTech. 4 out of 31. If you think its a fluke, I counted 9 first round picks from non-power schools in the 69 draft and 11 in 1970.

Can't make that comparison to 1968 because of segregation. SEC and SWC teams, among others, had their first black FB players in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and those teams were not fully integrated until the mid to late 1970s. A lot of the talented black players played at smaller colleges in those years because so many traditional "name" programs were not open to them.

I don't think it will matter that much because the US population increases every year. More players to spread around. Saying that ....90 should be the max.

Based on four years of eligibility each team is signing 22 players a year. 4 x 22 = 84. Then add two scholarships for kickers and allow four hardships.

84 + 2 + 4 = 90

Here's the math I would favor:

- 22 true freshman (one starter for every position, except special teams)
- plan on compounding 80% retention, per year for four years: 22, 18, 14, 11
- that's 65
- plus 5-10 more for JUCO, is 70-75


A lot of true freshman these days are ready to contribute. Plus, if you made it the same across the board then it wouldn't give anyone an advantage, per se.

According to Jimbo Fisher's Wikipedia page he coaches at LSU!