(01-01-2017 07:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:02 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Regarding the star system and it's relative importance, it's not nearly that simple of a conversation. However, using an outlier like Alabama as an example, yes, a team that is bigger, stronger and faster than it's opponent at nearly every position will likely win more often than not.

I am sure glad we managed to navigate our way to the bottom of that brain-teaser.

In fairness to the OP, it is often voiced around here that Rivals star-rankings don't matter or matter very little.

When the fact of the matter is, if you look at the national champs the last 20 years, nearly all of them had multiple top-10 recruiting classes right before they won.

Yes, but that is oversimplifying things. Those teams were winning national championships long before Rivals came along – that was my point.

And I agree with that. But it's also true that a big reason they were winning is because they were successfully recruiting the best players, even though there were no Rivals or Scouts, etc. around to document it.

(01-01-2017 04:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Oh come on, someone is always gonna be on top no matter what the rules are. You'd rather see a scenario where there's different teams competing for the national title each season? That'd be boring.

Alabama is gonna be good because, just like Kentucky and Kansas in basketball, they really, really want to be good. Reduce scholarships again and college football won't look so good, the quality of play will plummet to the point that even pedestrian FCS teams can take down giants. Remember, Chattanooga still had a Hail Mary (not the play) of a chance to beat Alabama this season into the fourth quarter.

Kentucky recruits very well but Kentucky can only recruit about 3-6 players a year. Meaning the 200+ other teams all have a fair shot if they put forth the effort. This is not even remotely the case in CFB. We decide who is going to be playing in the playoff before the season starts essentially.

(01-01-2017 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, anyone who ever doubted that recruiting matters isn't worth paying attention to.

Yes, coaching is critical, but only within the boundaries of teams with reasonably comparable talent.

Washington was arguably slightly better prepared than Alabama, which seemed to be flat and unfocused, maybe because of its coaching changes.

But Alabama won anyway, because it had better players.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed this. The score was close but this really seemed like a WMU vs Wisconsin type game. The Washington offensive line just was not even in the same league as the Alabama defense. It was not that Alabama was doing some crazy unheard of defensive play calling. They were literally just much bigger and much faster. And this is not the first team Alabama has looked like this against. Even in SEC play against teams like Tennessee, the level of talent is literally must not the same.

I'm all for programs having a run, but doing it because you load up on the best players is getting ridiculous and again this is not just Alabama. I even point the finger at my Trojans under Pete Caroll. It was quite ridiculous that we had 4 star recruits who were not even getting playing time. When a team like Arizona can hardly even get any recruits of that caliber to play for them.

(01-01-2017 08:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 07:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:02 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Regarding the star system and it's relative importance, it's not nearly that simple of a conversation. However, using an outlier like Alabama as an example, yes, a team that is bigger, stronger and faster than it's opponent at nearly every position will likely win more often than not.

I am sure glad we managed to navigate our way to the bottom of that brain-teaser.

In fairness to the OP, it is often voiced around here that Rivals star-rankings don't matter or matter very little.

When the fact of the matter is, if you look at the national champs the last 20 years, nearly all of them had multiple top-10 recruiting classes right before they won.

Yes, but that is oversimplifying things. Those teams were winning national championships long before Rivals came along – that was my point.

And I agree with that. But it's also true that a big reason they were winning is because they were successfully recruiting the best players, even though there were no Rivals or Scouts, etc. around to document it.

Exactly and this was even worse back then. Our scholarship cap is high right now, but I don't think there really even was one back then. It was the same principle, your teams like Alabama and USC load up on the talent and the other teams hardly have a chance to compete.

(01-01-2017 12:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 04:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Alabama is gonna be good because, just like Kentucky and Kansas in basketball, they really, really want to be good.

Saban & Co. with 75 scholarships would still be ahead of almost everyone, talent-wise, because their recruiting decisions are better. CFB teams absolutely don't need more than 75 scholarships, as the best FCS teams prove every year.

Yeah this is kind of my point. I don't see an issue with Alabama having a very talented roster. I have a problem with USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida State, Clemson, LSU, FSU, Texas, and OU all having these huge rosters with 4-5 star players that never even play.

Going to pick on Cal for a moment, imagine if USC did not exist in 2015. That year USC alone had FIVE 5 star recruits on defense. And that class even had a guy you may have heard of, Sam Darnold.

How much better what the Pac-12 as a whole be right now if Sam Darnold was playing at Oregon. Ronald Jones II was playing at Cal. And all those 4-5 star recruits in a 26 player class were all playing at Pac-12 teams?

And no one illustrates this better than our starting QB at the start of the year Max Browne. 6'5 and 215 five star recruit who gets to USC in 2013. Sits behind not one but two USC QB's who went to the NFL. Senior year finally gets to start only to be pulled in favor of a highly regarded 4 star recruit. Imagine how much more different this guys career would have been if he was not sitting on the USC bench for four years? And obviously he has talent because he is going to start at Pitt next year as a graduate transfer.

Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

That's exactly what it's like, and its not Interesting to the 95% of CF fans who don't root for Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Michigan.

Scholarships used to be unlimited before being limited to 105, then 95, then 85 in 1992. (Not coincidentally, those milestones correspond to the rise of several programs and the end of certain geographic strangleholds, eg: http://fishduck.com/2012/01/85-scholarsh...ise-power/)

The excess of players has always been about squeezing out the competition as much as depth. It continues to this day. Forcing the limit down to 75 would increase parity a little more, which makes the game more appealing to the overwhelming majority of the fanbases. Kids will still vie for spots at elite programs, but it will also make those programs more careful, more selective, as they cannot stockpile 5 stars as deep in case one busts.

Also compare football to the 13 scholarship limit for college hoops. Hoops has a limit that is equal to 2.6 times the # of starting players. @ 85 scholarships, even if you include K, P, and LS specialists, Football is at 3.4x @85 ships. At 75, the ratio is down to 3.0; still higher, but I would allow the extra brutality of the sport, so therefore reasonable.

There are a lot of these good for my program, but bad for the sport attitudes that really need to change or the popularity of the sport is going to continue to suffer.

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

(01-01-2017 11:49 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 08:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 07:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:02 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Regarding the star system and it's relative importance, it's not nearly that simple of a conversation. However, using an outlier like Alabama as an example, yes, a team that is bigger, stronger and faster than it's opponent at nearly every position will likely win more often than not.

I am sure glad we managed to navigate our way to the bottom of that brain-teaser.

In fairness to the OP, it is often voiced around here that Rivals star-rankings don't matter or matter very little.

When the fact of the matter is, if you look at the national champs the last 20 years, nearly all of them had multiple top-10 recruiting classes right before they won.

Yes, but that is oversimplifying things. Those teams were winning national championships long before Rivals came along – that was my point.

And I agree with that. But it's also true that a big reason they were winning is because they were successfully recruiting the best players, even though there were no Rivals or Scouts, etc. around to document it.

Exactly and this was even worse back then. Our scholarship cap is high right now, but I don't think there really even was one back then. It was the same principle, your teams like Alabama and USC load up on the talent and the other teams hardly have a chance to compete.

Yes, Bobby Bowden recalled that as WVU's coach in the early 1970s, he would hang around Bear Bryant's Alabama camps not just to learn from the legend, but also in those days of no roster limits to try and pick up the scraps talent-wise, to get a guy in 6th place on their depth chart who realized he would never get on the field there but was still better than the players Bowden had been able to recruit to WVU.

Bowden said Bryant would actually help with that process.

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

That's exactly what it's like, and its not Interesting to the 95% of CF fans who don't root for Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Michigan.

But then .... why have I continued to find college football fun and exciting for 45 years and counting?

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

One thing I like about lowering the limit is that it means teams cannot afford to take so many academic and character risks.

(01-01-2017 08:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 07:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:02 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Regarding the star system and it's relative importance, it's not nearly that simple of a conversation. However, using an outlier like Alabama as an example, yes, a team that is bigger, stronger and faster than it's opponent at nearly every position will likely win more often than not.

I am sure glad we managed to navigate our way to the bottom of that brain-teaser.

In fairness to the OP, it is often voiced around here that Rivals star-rankings don't matter or matter very little.

When the fact of the matter is, if you look at the national champs the last 20 years, nearly all of them had multiple top-10 recruiting classes right before they won.

Yes, but that is oversimplifying things. Those teams were winning national championships long before Rivals came along – that was my point.

And I agree with that. But it's also true that a big reason they were winning is because they were successfully recruiting the best players, even though there were no Rivals or Scouts, etc. around to document it.

Well, of course. Where is the controversy here?

For me the problem isn't the ratings themselves. Rather, it's the literal and precise nature by which these ratings are interpreted that are the problem. They simply don't take into account things like systems, depth charts, injuries, etc.

When you are talking about the very best offensive guard in the country versus the 83rd best offensive guard in the country, there's just no question that the guy who is rated number one is going to turn out to be the better player far more often than not. However, when you are comparing the 24th or the 68th best offense of guard the country to the 83rd best offensive guard in the country, who the hell knows? It's just a complete crapshoot after the first handful of guys and even those aren't guaranteed – as we see every single recruiting class.

It's also true on a classwide level. Of course if you have the top ranked recruiting class you are more likely to win a national championship than a team that has the 53rd rated highest rated recruiting class. However, what if you have the 27th rated recruiting class? Are you really more likely to win the team that has the 39th rated recruiting class? I think it depends on a lot of factors like the health of the ball, schedule, injuries, etc.

It's just too easy to say, "Alabama has good recruits and they win, therefore recruiting rankings are unassailable." It's way more complex than that.

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

(01-02-2017 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

NFL teams, for the most part, also have to plug in players already on their roster. Trades are rare in the NFL and the trading deadline is early in the season. Derek Carr has been one of the best QBs in the NFL this season. When Carr suffered a season-ending injury late in the year, the Raiders couldn't make a trade, because it was after the deadline, and no team would have traded a QB playing at that level anyway. The free agent QBs available are no more than emergency players for practice, or a warm body to use in case every other QB is injured. The Raiders have to make do with the backup QBs already on their roster - and their 2nd string QB was hurt in Sunday's game and the 3rd stringer had to finish the game. That's no different than what a college team would have to do.

And, the FBS roster size is so far out of whack -- 32 scholarships more than the NFL roster size! -- that even if you cut it down to 70, college teams would still have 17 scholarships more than the roster size that the NFL thinks is sufficient for 16 regular season games plus the playoffs.

So these two games disprove all other counter-examples??? Sheesh

How about Boise St vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl???? Utah over Alabama a few years ago??? ETC

(01-02-2017 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

NFL teams, for the most part, also have to plug in players already on their roster. Trades are rare in the NFL and the trading deadline is early in the season. Derek Carr has been one of the best QBs in the NFL this season. When Carr suffered a season-ending injury late in the year, the Raiders couldn't make a trade, because it was after the deadline, and no team would have traded a QB playing at that level anyway. The free agent QBs available are no more than emergency players for practice, or a warm body to use in case every other QB is injured. The Raiders have to make do with the backup QBs already on their roster - and their 2nd string QB was hurt in Sunday's game and the 3rd stringer had to finish the game. That's no different than what a college team would have to do.

And, the FBS roster size is so far out of whack -- 32 scholarships more than the NFL roster size! -- that even if you cut it down to 70, college teams would still have 17 scholarships more than the roster size that the NFL thinks is sufficient for 16 regular season games plus the playoffs.

Your response didn't refute mine.

What happened with the Vikings QB position when Bridgewater went down? CJ Spiller was on multiple rosters this season because of injuries to running backs.

And while I haven't seen what McGloin's injury status is currently if he's lost for the wildcard game I feel sure Oakland will sign a free agent QB.

Alabama vs Washington is a perfect example of one thing.

How ESPN is destroying college football

(01-02-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 01:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can you blame them (either side)? Having so many 4/5 star recruits gives them DEPTH which is kinda one of the points of this thread.

You can have a Houston blowing out national powers, you can have an Appalachian State taking it to Michigan in a game that shouldn't have been so close but neither team could hold up the gauntlet of a tough schedule week in, week out. Plus, who are you to judge players for wanting to play with winners and go to places with lots of resources and fun facilities?

Why should you change their advantage? I'm fine with them having that, it's not exactly like restricting access to the national title.

The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

NFL teams, for the most part, also have to plug in players already on their roster. Trades are rare in the NFL and the trading deadline is early in the season. Derek Carr has been one of the best QBs in the NFL this season. When Carr suffered a season-ending injury late in the year, the Raiders couldn't make a trade, because it was after the deadline, and no team would have traded a QB playing at that level anyway. The free agent QBs available are no more than emergency players for practice, or a warm body to use in case every other QB is injured. The Raiders have to make do with the backup QBs already on their roster - and their 2nd string QB was hurt in Sunday's game and the 3rd stringer had to finish the game. That's no different than what a college team would have to do.

And, the FBS roster size is so far out of whack -- 32 scholarships more than the NFL roster size! -- that even if you cut it down to 70, college teams would still have 17 scholarships more than the roster size that the NFL thinks is sufficient for 16 regular season games plus the playoffs.

Your response didn't refute mine.

What happened with the Vikings QB position when Bridgewater went down? CJ Spiller was on multiple rosters this season because of injuries to running backs.

And while I haven't seen what McGloin's injury status is currently if he's lost for the wildcard game I feel sure Oakland will sign a free agent QB.

Whether it's McGloin or a free agent, the QB who starts for the Raiders next weekend will be closer to being just a warm body than an adequate replacement for Carr's performance. NFL teams don't have rosters large enough to have bench players at every position that are 90% as good as the starters. There are many NFL teams whose performance suffered considerably this season because they didn't have fully adequate replacements for injured players, and that's true of every season.

You're arguing for college rosters large enough to plug in reserves at pretty much every position who are at least 90% as good as the starters. That's an extravagant luxury, not a necessity. NFL teams don't have that, NBA teams don't have that, college basketball teams don't have that. College basketball teams get along perfectly fine with a scholarship limit that is even smaller than NBA roster sizes. College football teams could easily function with 70 scholarships, which is still 17 more than the NFL roster size.

(01-02-2017 06:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The point is that there is no other NCAA sport in which the scholarship limit is so much more than the number of athletes realistically needed for a roster.

NBA roster size: 15 (at least 12 active). D-I men's basketball scholarship limit: 13.

NFL roster size: 53 (48 active). FBS scholarship limit: 85.

The 85-scholarship limit cannot be justified by necessity. It can only be justified by the desire of coaches to have a whole lot of room to make recruiting mistakes, and by the desire of elite programs to stash talent and keep it away from their competitors.

Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

NFL teams, for the most part, also have to plug in players already on their roster. Trades are rare in the NFL and the trading deadline is early in the season. Derek Carr has been one of the best QBs in the NFL this season. When Carr suffered a season-ending injury late in the year, the Raiders couldn't make a trade, because it was after the deadline, and no team would have traded a QB playing at that level anyway. The free agent QBs available are no more than emergency players for practice, or a warm body to use in case every other QB is injured. The Raiders have to make do with the backup QBs already on their roster - and their 2nd string QB was hurt in Sunday's game and the 3rd stringer had to finish the game. That's no different than what a college team would have to do.

And, the FBS roster size is so far out of whack -- 32 scholarships more than the NFL roster size! -- that even if you cut it down to 70, college teams would still have 17 scholarships more than the roster size that the NFL thinks is sufficient for 16 regular season games plus the playoffs.

Your response didn't refute mine.

What happened with the Vikings QB position when Bridgewater went down? CJ Spiller was on multiple rosters this season because of injuries to running backs.

And while I haven't seen what McGloin's injury status is currently if he's lost for the wildcard game I feel sure Oakland will sign a free agent QB.

Whether it's McGloin or a free agent, the QB who starts for the Raiders next weekend will be closer to being just a warm body than an adequate replacement for Carr's performance. NFL teams don't have rosters large enough to have bench players at every position that are 90% as good as the starters. There are many NFL teams whose performance suffered considerably this season because they didn't have fully adequate replacements for injured players, and that's true of every season.

You're arguing for college rosters large enough to plug in reserves at pretty much every position who are at least 90% as good as the starters. That's an extravagant luxury, not a necessity. NFL teams don't have that, NBA teams don't have that, college basketball teams don't have that. College basketball teams get along perfectly fine with a scholarship limit that is even smaller than NBA roster sizes. College football teams could easily function with 70 scholarships, which is still 17 more than the NFL roster size.

No, YOU are attributing that to my post when it says nothing of the sort. If you came to that conclusion after reading my post then that's all on you, not me because I never said anything of the sort.

I pointed out that unlike the pro leagues who if they lose a player for the season they either make a trade, sign a free agent, or in the case of MLB they pull someone up from the minors to fill that spot. College athletics do not have that option. A few years ago when Maryland lost all their QB's they didn't have the option to call up a player from Towson, or sign some kid who was stocking groceries waiting on a phone call from a team in need. They had to take a player already on their roster who was playing linebacker and put him at the QB position. That's why you have larger roster sizes in college athletics.

(01-02-2017 07:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 06:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Comparing college roster sizes to pro roster sizes is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are fruit they aren't the same thing. If a pro team gets depleted by injury they can sign free agents and make trades. If a college team gets injuries they have to plug in a player already on their roster.

NFL teams, for the most part, also have to plug in players already on their roster. Trades are rare in the NFL and the trading deadline is early in the season. Derek Carr has been one of the best QBs in the NFL this season. When Carr suffered a season-ending injury late in the year, the Raiders couldn't make a trade, because it was after the deadline, and no team would have traded a QB playing at that level anyway. The free agent QBs available are no more than emergency players for practice, or a warm body to use in case every other QB is injured. The Raiders have to make do with the backup QBs already on their roster - and their 2nd string QB was hurt in Sunday's game and the 3rd stringer had to finish the game. That's no different than what a college team would have to do.

And, the FBS roster size is so far out of whack -- 32 scholarships more than the NFL roster size! -- that even if you cut it down to 70, college teams would still have 17 scholarships more than the roster size that the NFL thinks is sufficient for 16 regular season games plus the playoffs.

Your response didn't refute mine.

What happened with the Vikings QB position when Bridgewater went down? CJ Spiller was on multiple rosters this season because of injuries to running backs.

And while I haven't seen what McGloin's injury status is currently if he's lost for the wildcard game I feel sure Oakland will sign a free agent QB.

Whether it's McGloin or a free agent, the QB who starts for the Raiders next weekend will be closer to being just a warm body than an adequate replacement for Carr's performance. NFL teams don't have rosters large enough to have bench players at every position that are 90% as good as the starters. There are many NFL teams whose performance suffered considerably this season because they didn't have fully adequate replacements for injured players, and that's true of every season.

You're arguing for college rosters large enough to plug in reserves at pretty much every position who are at least 90% as good as the starters. That's an extravagant luxury, not a necessity. NFL teams don't have that, NBA teams don't have that, college basketball teams don't have that. College basketball teams get along perfectly fine with a scholarship limit that is even smaller than NBA roster sizes. College football teams could easily function with 70 scholarships, which is still 17 more than the NFL roster size.

No, YOU are attributing that to my post when it says nothing of the sort. If you came to that conclusion after reading my post then that's all on you, not me because I never said anything of the sort.

I pointed out that unlike the pro leagues who if they lose a player for the season they either make a trade, sign a free agent, or in the case of MLB they pull someone up from the minors to fill that spot. College athletics do not have that option. A few years ago when Maryland lost all their QB's they didn't have the option to call up a player from Towson, or sign some kid who was stocking groceries waiting on a phone call from a team in need. They had to take a player already on their roster who was playing linebacker and put him at the QB position. That's why you have larger roster sizes in college athletics.

We have scholarship limits far exceeding roster sizes only in one college sport, football.

It's an extremely rare occurrence for a CFB team to lose all 4 or 5 of their QBs to injury in the same season, so that rare event doesn't justify every FBS team having 85 football scholarships instead of, say, 70. In other college sports, teams make do somehow when they have one of those rare injury rashes at one position.

The current limit of 85 FBS scholarships doesn't exist because of any agreed-upon need for that many scholarships; it exists only as a compromise that the "king" programs grudgingly agreed to because, before there was an upper limit, many of them had 100 or more football players on scholarship.