(01-02-2017 08:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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:  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.

If you go any lower than 85 then depth becomes a huge concern. Even with 85 there aren't many programs that have enough depth to field two complete OL units without playing kids who simply are not physically ready to play at this level. Just a couple years ago as great as it's WR corps has been Clemson was just another injury away from walk-on Daniel Rodriguez (the former US Army Sgt who was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and was all over Gameday, etc) being a starter. Tajh Boyd's sophomore year the 3rd string QB was walk-on Donny McElveen.....a great kid but someone who was wearing a uniform not to play but to get experience to follow in his legendary Grandfather's footsteps as a coach. (McElveen's Grandfather is the winningest coach at any level of football, former Summerville (SC) HS head coach John McKissick)

The perfect example of why depth matters is the sheer number of teams each year that cancel spring practice sessions and/or spring games simply because they do not have the depth available between the loss of last season's senior class and departures and the incoming freshman class to safely hold them.

As I have pointed out before and you refuse to acknowledge unlike the pro sports examples you listed in support of your stance there is no free agency and no trade market for college athletics. In regards to football there also isn't a 10 player roster of practice players that are at least somewhat familiar with your schemes. You lose a player to a season ending injury in college you can't fill that roster spot with someone from the outside you have to play with what you have.

(01-02-2017 08:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  unlike the pro sports examples you listed in support of your stance there is no free agency and no trade market for college athletics.

That is true for every college sport.

But only one college sport permits 32 more scholarships than the roster size for the comparable pro sport.

(01-02-2017 09:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 08:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  unlike the pro sports examples you listed in support of your stance there is no free agency and no trade market for college athletics.

That is true for every college sport.

But only one college sport permits 32 more scholarships than the roster size for the comparable pro sport.

Football is far more physical than baseball and basketball.

And technically it's 22 more roster spots when you add in the 10 on the practice squad, and I bet if you cared enough to do the research that most NFL teams make close to that many active roster moves each season. Just a quick count from the regular season shows my Atlanta Falcons have made 18 active roster moves via their practice squad, waivers, free agency or trades this year.

(01-02-2017 10:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 09:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 08:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  unlike the pro sports examples you listed in support of your stance there is no free agency and no trade market for college athletics.

That is true for every college sport.

But only one college sport permits 32 more scholarships than the roster size for the comparable pro sport.

Football is far more physical than baseball and basketball.

And technically it's 22 more roster spots when you add in the 10 on the practice squad, and I bet if you cared enough to do the research that most NFL teams make close to that many active roster moves each season. Just a quick count from the regular season shows my Atlanta Falcons have made 18 active roster moves via their practice squad, waivers, free agency or trades this year.

NFL practice squad players and waiver pickups are more like college walk-on players, in terms of how marginal they typically are. And no one has suggested limiting walk-ons.

(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.

Name the last time Iowa State, Washington State, or Oregon State have played for a NC. It is restricted.....when you have a program who isn't part of the anointed few they don't get voted into the top 4.

And again, I have no problem with kids wanting to play for a school like Bama or USC. My problem is with the number of people on the roster we allow. Even with a smaller roster they would load up on talent. But the difference is there would be enough talent to go around for teams like Iowa State, Vandy, etc. to actually have the guys to compete without it being an upset.

(01-02-2017 08:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 08:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 07:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 06:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  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.

If you go any lower than 85 then depth becomes a huge concern. Even with 85 there aren't many programs that have enough depth to field two complete OL units without playing kids who simply are not physically ready to play at this level. Just a couple years ago as great as it's WR corps has been Clemson was just another injury away from walk-on Daniel Rodriguez (the former US Army Sgt who was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and was all over Gameday, etc) being a starter. Tajh Boyd's sophomore year the 3rd string QB was walk-on Donny McElveen.....a great kid but someone who was wearing a uniform not to play but to get experience to follow in his legendary Grandfather's footsteps as a coach. (McElveen's Grandfather is the winningest coach at any level of football, former Summerville (SC) HS head coach John McKissick)

The perfect example of why depth matters is the sheer number of teams each year that cancel spring practice sessions and/or spring games simply because they do not have the depth available between the loss of last season's senior class and departures and the incoming freshman class to safely hold them.

As I have pointed out before and you refuse to acknowledge unlike the pro sports examples you listed in support of your stance there is no free agency and no trade market for college athletics. In regards to football there also isn't a 10 player roster of practice players that are at least somewhat familiar with your schemes. You lose a player to a season ending injury in college you can't fill that roster spot with someone from the outside you have to play with what you have.

Well it be the end of the world to force schools to play more strategically? This is the mindset I'm attacking. Why do you absolutely need to have a 4-5 star backup? Heck, I'm no Mark Ingram but I'm 6'0 190 and ran track in college after playing high school FB. I'm sure I could hang on to the ball and get yards.

And there are plenty of guys who could walk on to a team. All our current system does is guarantee that major programs get into the major bowl games every year.

Is it major programs or the programs that dedicate the resources to ensure they are major that get into the major bowls? Clemson spent the better part of a decade and a half from the firing of Danny Ford in 1989 not dedicating the resources to ensure they were a major program and got the results they deserved. Tommy Bowden opened a lot of eyes at Clemson about how far behind we were in regards to facilities and started the ball rolling but wasn't capable of capitalizing. Dabo Swinney was and has and barring something unforeseen at this point Clemson isn't going to be looking back anytime soon. That mindset is now carried throughout the athletics programs and it shows. Our baseball team last year won the ACC, and basketball this year is much improved with a rebuilt Littlejohn. Perhaps the probe isn't so much the roster size but the willingness of the programs you listed above to expend the resources needed to help with their recruiting. Just wanting to be great isn't going to get the job done, or else we wouldn;t have gone so long between major bowl bids before 2011.

(01-02-2017 11:43 PM)TrojanCampaign 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.

Name the last time Iowa State, Washington State, or Oregon State have played for a NC. It is restricted.....when you have a program who isn't part of the anointed few they don't get voted into the top 4.

And again, I have no problem with kids wanting to play for a school like Bama or USC. My problem is with the number of people on the roster we allow. Even with a smaller roster they would load up on talent. But the difference is there would be enough talent to go around for teams like Iowa State, Vandy, etc. to actually have the guys to compete without it being an upset.

I don't know about ISU but in the early 2000's WSU had 3 10 win seasons and in 2000 OSU went 11-1, won the PAC, and crushed Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.

I really don't think it's the amount of scholarships that are the problem. If there is a problem it's the media hype machine that pushes specific conferences and more to your point specific schools.

This generation of kids is affected more bye what they see on television and on the Internet than any generation ever. If all they see when watching ESPN, is how great the SEC is , or how great USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Ohio state are, is it any wonder why a 5 star kid turns his nose up at WSU to go play 'bama?

(01-02-2017 11:43 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Name the last time Iowa State, Washington State, or Oregon State have played for a NC. It is restricted.....when you have a program who isn't part of the anointed few they don't get voted into the top 4.

And again, I have no problem with kids wanting to play for a school like Bama or USC. My problem is with the number of people on the roster we allow. Even with a smaller roster they would load up on talent. But the difference is there would be enough talent to go around for teams like Iowa State, Vandy, etc. to actually have the guys to compete without it being an upset.

Access to the title isn't the question, it's allowing teams to load up on players. Rules were made and restrictions enforced. I'm fine with the status quo. With good coaching, training, an eagle eye for overlooked recruits and will power, any team can be beaten.

Remember Alabama having all kinds of trouble with Chattanooga this year? Even if they weren't up for the game, they literally should have been able to walk on the field and win by 50, or so you'd think. You reduce scholarships and suddenly, average FCS teams would be able to hang with the best teams of FBS.

(01-03-2017 12:16 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:43 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Name the last time Iowa State, Washington State, or Oregon State have played for a NC. It is restricted.....when you have a program who isn't part of the anointed few they don't get voted into the top 4.

And again, I have no problem with kids wanting to play for a school like Bama or USC. My problem is with the number of people on the roster we allow. Even with a smaller roster they would load up on talent. But the difference is there would be enough talent to go around for teams like Iowa State, Vandy, etc. to actually have the guys to compete without it being an upset.

Access to the title isn't the question, it's allowing teams to load up on players. Rules were made and restrictions enforced. I'm fine with the status quo. With good coaching, training, an eagle eye for overlooked recruits and will power, any team can be beaten.

Remember Alabama having all kinds of trouble with Chattanooga this year? Even if they weren't up for the game, they literally should have been able to walk on the field and win by 50, or so you'd think. You reduce scholarships and suddenly, average FCS teams would be able to hang with the best teams of FBS.

Yes, I remember that game Alabama won 33-3 hardly what I would call all kinds of trouble. Chattanooga came out wanting to win and out-coached Alabama. But because of the title of this thread Alabama won the game. But again, why do we give certain teams an advantage like this? I can't think of any other organized sport that does this. You should not be able to walk on the field and just expect to destroy teams because you have an unfair advantage. Out coaching them is one thing, having a star player is one thing, but what we have is ridiculous and we do it just because we were doing it before.

Second, I agree "any team can be beaten" but that's like saying anyone can win the lottery if they play. The scam system in FBS is a number of factors.

1. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes you most likely will not be in the pre-season top 15.
2. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes the media will convince everyone that you are upsetting teams not beating them.
3. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes it's unlikely you can survive a tough schedule. See teams like Wake Forest or Vandy.

I find it really sad that we have this "put them in their place" mentality when it comes to college football vs just getting out there and letting the teams play.

(01-03-2017 12:07 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 11:43 PM)TrojanCampaign 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.

Name the last time Iowa State, Washington State, or Oregon State have played for a NC. It is restricted.....when you have a program who isn't part of the anointed few they don't get voted into the top 4.

And again, I have no problem with kids wanting to play for a school like Bama or USC. My problem is with the number of people on the roster we allow. Even with a smaller roster they would load up on talent. But the difference is there would be enough talent to go around for teams like Iowa State, Vandy, etc. to actually have the guys to compete without it being an upset.

I don't know about ISU but in the early 2000's WSU had 3 10 win seasons and in 2000 OSU went 11-1, won the PAC, and crushed Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.

I really don't think it's the amount of scholarships that are the problem. If there is a problem it's the media hype machine that pushes specific conferences and more to your point specific schools.

This generation of kids is affected more bye what they see on television and on the Internet than any generation ever. If all they see when watching ESPN, is how great the SEC is , or how great USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Ohio state are, is it any wonder why a 5 star kid turns his nose up at WSU to go play 'bama?

They push the conferences/teams that recruit well. Really, go pay attention to the hype and you will see the pattern. No matter what you do on the field if you are not pulling top 10 recruiting classes the chance of you going to a playoff are very low. Even if you win 11-13 games.

Looking at Penn State.

(01-03-2017 08:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Yes, I remember that game Alabama won 33-3 hardly what I would call all kinds of trouble. Chattanooga came out wanting to win and out-coached Alabama. But because of the title of this thread Alabama won the game. But again, why do we give certain teams an advantage like this? I can't think of any other organized sport that does this. You should not be able to walk on the field and just expect to destroy teams because you have an unfair advantage. Out coaching them is one thing, having a star player is one thing, but what we have is ridiculous and we do it just because we were doing it before.

Second, I agree "any team can be beaten" but that's like saying anyone can win the lottery if they play. The scam system in FBS is a number of factors.

1. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes you most likely will not be in the pre-season top 15.
2. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes the media will convince everyone that you are upsetting teams not beating them.
3. If you don't have top 25 recruiting classes it's unlikely you can survive a tough schedule. See teams like Wake Forest or Vandy.

I find it really sad that we have this "put them in their place" mentality when it comes to college football vs just getting out there and letting the teams play.

You may think the Chattanooga game wasn't trouble for 'Bama but it was close at halftime and UTC had faint hope entering the fourth quarter. Lower scholarship levels too much and teams worse than UTC may be able to pull that off or even win. 'Bama should have blown some random good, but not great FCS team like UTC out of the water with little trouble after 20-30 minutes of game time.

Do you guys still believe it's about putting the 4 best teams in the "playoff"