Bye-Week Discussion Bomb - Scholarship Limits

[SteveM]

Here's discussion bomb I've thought about for some time. Hope you guys are interested in building out the thread.

Proposition: Decrease D-1A football scholarships from 85 to 65

65 scholarship players plus walk-ons are enough bodies to field a complete team even with injuries.

But why?

• College teams no longer hold freshman or jv games. Therefore, if you don't start, you don't play - nowhere, period. Which means that a lot of All-State high school players ride the bench for their collegiate career.
• Football is the one sport without an alternative outlet for the player who does not start. Basketball and baseball have summer leagues, golf, volleyball, etc. players can also easily play their sports in other venues
• With 85 scholarships, coaches are not incentivized to sit down with the never-to-start player and suggest he find another program if he really wants to "play" football. Not just practice football.
• A scholarship reduction would push the talent down to other programs making them more competitive. And the players who flow down into them would be happier in the long run because they would get to play.
• Along with the scholarship reductions, players should be able to transfer schools without red-shirting. This would give kids more flexibility to transfer if they realize that they are not going to play. (And why should their movement be restricted?)

Comments?

SteveM

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

think about it this way, if good high school players aren't playing on an 85 man roster now at a better college, what are the odds of him playing on a 65 man roster anywhere. a 65 man roster would rise the level talent at any desirable program because teams like ND, USC, Bama, etc wouldnt be able to hoard extra high caliber players.

on top of that, can you imagine how much worse the recruiting process would become? it would be a mad house. this would be a negative for the lives of 17-18 year old high school kids.

coaches shouldnt be sitting down and telling players where else to go if they're not playing (by the by, starters aren't the only ones playing, that's why the "two deep" exists) then they can make their own decision about transferring. Tranferring happens all the time. They system in place now works fine, there's no point in changing it.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

let me add that it would be interesting to see a change like that. it would certainly shake things up but i dont think it's practical or necessary by any means.

 

[SoCalDomer]

what is the goal or purpose of changing the scholarship limit? just to spread the talent around? to ensure that all players get a chance to play?

anyone can choose to go to a lower program now if playing time is really a big priority. most FB players should realize they aren't going pro, and will either accept a back-up role or go somewhere they can play.

my knee jerk reaction is this proposal while interesting seems to make athletics more of a priority than academics, which in theory is the opposite purpose of the NCAA.

i also think the level of play would go down, because more teams would be pressed to use freshman and sophmores (due to injuries or other reasons) that aren't ready to play at the college level.

 

[SteveM]

Iteration...

Iteration...

Those are all good points. Let me iterate.

Anecdotal reference: All State Defensive Tackle in my HS recruited to ND, sat on the bench for 4 years as an offensive guard. I always thought how lousy that must have been for him.

Points:

A 65 player limit may have pushed him to a BC or a Villanova or a Delaware where he would have played and gotten a good education. What's wrong with that?

The kid that gets recruited now doesn't really know what his chances of playing are. With 65 guys, the coach would have to know and make a better determination on the offer side.

With 65 guys, most starters would still be upper classmen.

Agree, most guys do know that they aren't going pro. That's why the redshirt rule stinks. Because a kid may want to both play and graduate on time with his class and go to work. The rule impedes that.

A guy not competitive at ND would be competitive at a less competitive school. But of course the scholarship limit is going to push kids at the bottom to non-scholarship programs where they can decide if not-playing on their own dime is worth it.

On the contrary removing scholarships emphasizes that collegiate athletics is a past-time, not the reason why a student should be there. If a kid gets forced out of being practice meat into club rugby where he can play, well good for him. Playing games is what it's all about.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

nobody is entitled to playing time. you have to earn it just like we all do at work. the system isnt setup to stifle the dreams of college fb players. schools aren't fooling players and making them ride the bench. the atheletes choose where they go to school and then have to be good enough at the next level to see the field.

also, i didnt follow how the redshirt process harms players. players arent forced to redshirt and it has no effect on graduation. 5th years at ND enroll in masters programs. they can also defer a 5th year and leave to "go to work." nobody is stopping them.

why didnt your friend go to BC or Nova anyway?

 

[SteveM]

Iteration II...

Iteration II...

nobody is entitled to playing time. you have to earn it just like we all do at work. the system isnt setup to stifle the dreams of college fb players. schools aren't fooling players and making them ride the bench. the atheletes choose where they go to school and then have to be good enough at the next level to see the field.

also, i didnt follow how the redshirt process harms players. players arent forced to redshirt and it has no effect on graduation. 5th years at ND enroll in masters programs. they can also defer a 5th year and leave to "go to work." nobody is stopping them.

why didnt your friend go to BC or Nova anyway?

Re: "why didnt your friend go to BC or Nova anyway?"

Because he was All State in Pennsylvania. He thought he could play at ND and did not know any better. If the limit was 65, the coach would have had to filter him out. Without the offer from ND, he would have migrated to BC/Villanova instead and in the grand scheme of things, probably had a better collegiate football experience.

I'm not saying that red-shirting hurts players. I'm just saying that if football was run more as a collegiate sport instead of a collegiate business, the impetus would be to get as many guys out in 4 as possible.

I agree that colleges aren't fooling players. What I'm saying is that there is little incentive now on either end to do what's best for the individual less-competitive player. With 85, a coach will keep marginal players because they practice harder than walk-ons. But that's a utilitarian motive from the coach's perspective. And the transfer red-shirt rule disincentivizes a player who wants to both play and graduate on time. So he's stuck as practice meat. That's it. That's his football life.

Keep in mind that I'm looking at this strictly from the student athlete's perspective.

P.S. And Title IX is pathological. But it is what it is. So I'd use the 20 scholarships to field boys teams that were dropped.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

do you believe that in order to benefit student atheletes, coaches should be forced to take greater risks in recruiting by reducing the allowed scholarships and therefore being forced to live with a shorter roster? i see your point, and could see it working on some level. the only way i see it working would be to allow coaches more access to players in an nfl combine way. they would have to be given the opportunity to evaluate each player in more detail since each player becomes much more of an investment. but that would completely defeat the purpose of the academic side of things. i feel like rosters have to have up to 85 spots to prevent this type of institutionalization of football from happening at this level.

 

[aaronb]

Now that your Friends football career is over. What do you think he will get better use out of. His ND degree or the memory of 15-20 Collegiate football games he played and a degree from Deleware? I imagine he had the opportunity to transfer at some point if playing was priority #1.

 

[SteveM]

Iteration III...

Iteration III...

Now that your Friends football career is over. What do you think he will get better use out of. His ND degree or the memory of 15-20 Collegiate football games he played and a degree from Deleware? I imagine he had the opportunity to transfer at some point if playing was priority #1.

aaron,

I see your point too. There are trades involved for sure. (Life ain't fair.) I'm saying that if a kid signs a letter of intent to play football, he thinks he's actually going to play football at some point before he graduates.

I note your swipe at Delaware. But the way life works, except for the "Old Boy Network" schools like Harvard, Princeton or Yale, your degree only gets you your first job. After that, it's your talent and ability.

The honest question to ask any HS player would be, "Would you rather go to school A and be practice meat because it's school A, or would you rather go to school B where you would play? That kind of survey would be pretty instructive I think.

If I were a player, 4 years of being practice meat wouldn't work for me. ND is special, but it ain't that special. I'd rather be at a place I could play. And note that I mean ALL D-1A schools. How about Alabama or Florida State?

And about transferring. See my barriers to that above.

SteveM

 

[roto-stud]

I guess with your proposal, the legend that is Joe Montana would have never happened... he started out seventh string on the depth chart... 100 programs X 20 players = 2000 less kids get a scholarship to college and a chance to follow a dream. What a pity.

 

[coachjohnson]

I guess with your proposal, the legend that is Joe Montana would have never happened... he started out seventh string on the depth chart... 100 programs X 20 players = 2000 less kids get a scholarship to college and a chance to follow a dream. What a pity.

It seems that it would push more kids out of football. Every division would get a boost in talent but I'm afraid that they would miss out on valuable experiences that the kids get now whether they make it into games or not. Your stat is a good example of what would happen and that doesn't even include the lower divisions. They would get more players but they don't get alot of scholarships to begin with. At the end of the day, the already small percentage of people who play college football gets even smaller. Like the system how it is.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Here's discussion bomb I've thought about for some time. Hope you guys are interested in building out the thread.

Proposition: Decrease D-1A football scholarships from 85 to 65

65 scholarship players plus walk-ons are enough bodies to field a complete team even with injuries.

But why?

• College teams no longer hold freshman or jv games. Therefore, if you don't start, you don't play - nowhere, period. Which means that a lot of All-State high school players ride the bench for their collegiate career.
• Football is the one sport without an alternative outlet for the player who does not start. Basketball and baseball have summer leagues, golf, volleyball, etc. players can also easily play their sports in other venues
• With 85 scholarships, coaches are not incentivized to sit down with the never-to-start player and suggest he find another program if he really wants to "play" football. Not just practice football.
• A scholarship reduction would push the talent down to other programs making them more competitive. And the players who flow down into them would be happier in the long run because they would get to play.
• Along with the scholarship reductions, players should be able to transfer schools without red-shirting. This would give kids more flexibility to transfer if they realize that they are not going to play. (And why should their movement be restricted?)

Comments?

SteveM

Hmmm. Yep it's a bomb. Gonna have to come back to this one when I have more time.

Great post.

 

[alleycat9]

that would make it very very difficult to replace guys who left early... i think the better idea would be to bring back the jv games. when did these stop? i dont see any reason why they wouldnt play jv games other than it costs money and doesnt bring in money... oh wait thats right thats what college athletics are REALLY all about.

can someone enlighten me on the jv situation? i really dont know anything about it and must say i didnt even realize that they did not play jv games at this point. and have no idea when this stopped. i had always thought that there were jv games.

 

[ACamp1900]

I personally think USC should have their scholly's pulled down that far b/c they are a bunch of cheating whores...

the rest of us can remain at the current number and continue playing legit cfb games.............

 

[Legacy]

Interesting proposal. A few thoughts:
- Are you trying to mandate something already going through high school seniors thought processes? Where's my best chance to play?
- A little more than 1% of players get drafted into the NFL
- 20 less students get a Notre Dame education. 20 x 119 D-1 teams...
- Would this effectively eliminate the Mike Anellos?
- Recruiting mistakes on a position like kicker would be magnified

 

[SteveM]

Point by Point

Point by Point

Interesting proposal. A few thoughts:
- Are you trying to mandate something already going through high school seniors thought processes? Where's my best chance to play?
- A little more than 1% of players get drafted into the NFL
- 20 less students get a Notre Dame education. 20 x 119 D-1 teams...
- Would this effectively eliminate the Mike Anellos?
- Recruiting mistakes on a position like kicker would be magnified

Legacy,

Comments,

• Yeah, I think smaller scholarship counts would steer HS guys to alternative programs or maybe alternative sports. I guess I wasn't clear of in my original proposition about my own feelings on this.
  • I think not having frosh or JV games stinks for the guys who don't play Saturday afternoon. Especially because of the no-other-outlet thing. I'd rather a starry eyed kid find a pathway that allows him to express himself athletically. Even if the benefits of the pathway are not apparent to him because he's young. Maybe it's a Richmond or Colgate or Wagner or Northern Illinois or Washington State.
  • Maybe it's as a rugby player. (Which is a lot of fun BTW.) I played both football and rugby and I'd much rather mix it up Saturday morning even in the "B" rugby game than schlepp to football practice week in and week out and nothing else for a D-1A program.
• I'll take your word on 1%. The number of guys that actually make a pro roster is much smaller still. The last 4 rounds will blow through their small signing bonus in no time and then that's it for football. Although I don't see how this fact relates here.
• No, the same number of kids will get an ND/Penn State/Alabama/Stanford, etc. education. Just admit 20 more generally from a huge applicant base. Or better yet, revive some men's sports that were dropped because of Title IX and use the scholarships for those. Here's the trade question (and there are always opportunity trades in life that people lose track off.) Anyway:
  • Better to give a scholarship to a kid who would actually wrestle or swim or play baseball in competition or to a football player destined to only practice?
    
• The Mike Anellos could still walk on of course. Would a few great anecdotes fall through the cracks? Sure. But look at the opportunity trade again.
• Recruiting mistakes magnified? Yes again, that would be true. But something a team would have to live with. (It's not the NFL and in that context, those downsides are trivial.) And 65 plus walk ons is still a lot of players.
  • Keep in mind that I'd relax the transfer rule too. If a team has a lousy kicker, they could recruit from both HS and other colleges to fill the gap the next season.

Again, I'm not saying trades don't have to be made. I just think the net global value prop is there for smaller scholarship counts in football. I.e., implicitly steer guys to more enjoyable athletic avenues, open up scholarships for guys in other sports who would actually face off against opponents.

SteveM

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

stevem, i'm failing to see a solid core argument on this topic. you seem to be all over the place here without giving a convincing reason to reduce scholarships other than your friend didnt get to play during his tenure. instead of resolving a problem you found, it would instead bring a whole mess of new problems to the table.

 

[Dizzyphil]

It is almost a double-edged sword. If you knock it down then you affect Div 1-AA schools as well. AA schools only have 55 (I think) available scholarships, what about those players? If players don't get spots where they want in AAA, then they will go to AA affecting those colleges. Then you have JR College transfers. I think you will find you will hurt colleges more than help if you try and limit or reduce the amount of scholarships.

Diz

 

[SteveM]

Last Words. I Think...

Last Words. I Think...

stevem, i'm failing to see a solid core argument on this topic. you seem to be all over the place here without giving a convincing reason to reduce scholarships other than your friend didnt get to play during his tenure. instead of resolving a problem you found, it would instead bring a whole mess of new problems to the table.

06,

All over the place? I just made a point-wise argument in my previous post. In what context am I meandering?

That guy (didn't) play years ago. I don't cry tears for him. He is just illustrative. Few high quality HS players even think about the possibility of not playing when they sign a letter. Coaches don't care because it's not their "money". The scholarship restriction would enforce the hard thinking that everyone avoids now.

HS squads self-downsize as less capable players mature and withdraw (or even transfer) when they realize they won't see playing time as upper classmen. And that's with JV programs in place at least. So that's the natural order of things. Why should college teams maintain an artificially high squad count that goes against the natural grain?

I frankly fail to see the mess. There would be fewer guys at practice. That's about it. Still plenty enough to field a team week in and week out. The incidental stuff around the edges would flesh itself out.

I love football. I just know that not playing is not fun. The limit would point kids in a direction that's more satisfying for them as student athletes while they still have flexibility. And if the trade is a wrestling program or 20 extra football practice guys, I'll take the wrestling program.

SteveM

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Last words, I think

Last words, I think

Probably not your last words. You did not open a can of worms in my head. You invited all football worms in my head to invade. So much that I have had to kick back and read all opinions. (EastPa - hyperbole?)

You just gave someone, somewhere, a Phd thesis/dissertation.

Any sociology/kinesiology/psychology/marketing/philosophy/polysci/religious/broadcasting/ majors out there?

College football and co. is now what it is. Many people make a living off of 18 - 23 (34 if you are BYU) year old athletes. It is what it is.

Survival of the fetus. If you can't hang, accept your station in life. If college is your gateway to football, then read a fucking book.

I remember the greatest race of my life. I was a sperm, and all these other sperm were swimming around waiting for the start gun. I won.

Gotta keep winnin.

Thinkin NFL should start its own college, and quit the hypocracy. (I think I read that thought on this forum - In the last month, I have read posts that go back to this site's inception.) Not all of them, but quite a few.

All sports should be intramural. If they want to play someone 500 miles away to prove themselves, let them buy their own friggen bus ticket.

Musicians play because they love music. Athletes play because they love to play. Learners learn because they love to learn.

Can of worms. Good stuff SteveM.

Don't hold me to this post as my permanent opinion. I am a learner. Learners learn from mistakes.

 

[Legacy]

SteveM,
While your friend might be able to play elsewhere if forced to choose another school due to scholarship limits, decreasing 20 scholarships per D-1 schools means 2380 (20 x 119 schools) would be looking for playing time - per year.
The 1% of college players getting drafted relates in that 99% must rely on getting their college education.
The opportunity to getting an education should trump playing time.
FCS (D-1 AA) scholarship limits are 63.
As you may know, scholarships are renewed annually. A university may well face the choice of dropping a recruiting mistake like a kicker to create room for a new prospect. Notre Dame may be able to move that student to a general scholarship which would not be a full ride. Other schools would drop the student.
The best argument is financial. A recent NCAA review showed 100 of 119 football programs were not self-sustaining, eg losing money.
What about decreasing scholarships by ten?

 

[roto-stud]

Went back to review the first post... the overriding reason to reduce scholarships from 85 to 65, is because some kids don't play... this is a bogus reason... in little league does everybody play the whole game... in middle school does each kid play... in high school does everybody play... yes it is a fact that at all levels of competition some players are not as gifted as others and don't play... there are many walk ons who are just tackling dummies all week... they make a contribution to the team
by playing hard on the scout team... by lowering the number of scholarships the author says these kids will play at other lower profile programs... this will displace scholarship players at the Sub Division (Div1AA) and Div 2 and Div 3 levels... utimitely thousands of kids football careers will end prematurely. Lets do the math, 20 one year scholarships at ND cost $40,000 X 20 = $800,000. Shit thats chicken feed to the Notre Dame football program... 86,000 fans for one game spend that much money on cokes and hotdogs at just one home game. No where on this thread has anyone come up with legit reason to knock back scholarships. Change for the sake of change alone is dumb. If its not broke don't fix it.

 

[SteveM]

Last Words. This Time I Mean It... Maybe...

Last Words. This Time I Mean It... Maybe...

Went back to review the first post... the overriding reason to reduce scholarships from 85 to 65, is because some kids don't play... this is a bogus reason... in little league does everybody play the whole game... in middle school does each kid play... in high school does everybody play... yes it is a fact that at all levels of competition some players are not as gifted as others and don't play... there are many walk ons who are just tackling dummies all week... they make a contribution to the team
by playing hard on the scout team... by lowering the number of scholarships the author says these kids will play at other lower profile programs... this will displace scholarship players at the Sub Division (Div1AA) and Div 2 and Div 3 levels... utimitely thousands of kids football careers will end prematurely. Lets do the math, 20 one year scholarships at ND cost $40,000 X 20 = $800,000. Shit thats chicken feed to the Notre Dame football program... 86,000 fans for one game spend that much money on cokes and hotdogs at just one home game. No where on this thread has anyone come up with legit reason to knock back scholarships. Change for the sake of change alone is dumb. If its not broke don't fix it.

rs,

We're looking at this from two different directions. It's not broke from the system's perspective, but it is broke from the (non) player's perspective.

The trickle down loss of playing time is a red herring because the same number of games are being played. So total "player-minutes" are not being reduced. And the D-1A non-players are not "playing" in any real sense. Practice ain't playing. As the reduction effect trickled down the system, there would be fewer players in uniform practicing but not fewer players playing.

With 120 or something D-1A schools, the most players "forced" out of the system would be 2,400. But there would probably be more walk ons, so that number would be decreased. But no matter.

Cutting a kid's football career prematurely when he ain't playing does not bother me because he has other outlets. Like I said, rugby is a ton of fun. A lot more fun than perpetual scout team. So what's wrong with a "rugby career"? My point here is that most kids don't know better until they try it. 65 would induce some to try a football alternative and actually have more fun.

And back to the scholarship count. What about the Title IX big picture? I say keep the scholarships but apply them to a men's team that has been dropped. Restated question: Better 20 wrestlers who actually wrestle, or 20 football players who hold bags? Which scholarship allocation is better for the school and for the individual kids on both squads?

Final comments?

SteveM

 

[goldandblue]

Here's discussion bomb I've thought about for some time. Hope you guys are interested in building out the thread.

Proposition: Decrease D-1A football scholarships from 85 to 65

65 scholarship players plus walk-ons are enough bodies to field a complete team even with injuries.

But why?

• College teams no longer hold freshman or jv games. Therefore, if you don't start, you don't play - nowhere, period. Which means that a lot of All-State high school players ride the bench for their collegiate career. When the recruit gets to their selected school they all have the opportunity to get on the field. The same opportunity that every other player has, it's up to them to get on the field. Some players never get on the field because they are not better than the other players on the teams. Too Bad. The best play.
  
  
• Football is the one sport without an alternative outlet for the player who does not start. Basketball and baseball have summer leagues, golf, volleyball, etc. players can also easily play their sports in other venues. Because Football is a physical sport and the players bodies could not hold up for these "alternative outlets" that is why there is none.
• With 85 scholarships, coaches are not incentivized to sit down with the never-to-start player and suggest he find another program if he really wants to "play" football. Not just practice football. Again becuase it is up to the player to get on the field. Coaches don't recruit players because the think they will never step on the field during game time. They recruit them becuase they know they have what it takes to get on the field at some point during there career at the school.
• A scholarship reduction would push the talent down to other programs making them more competitive. And the players who flow down into them would be happier in the long run because they would get to play. How do you figure? Take USC, Florida, tOSU for example even with 20 less scholarships to offer there quality of signees are still going to be better than most schools.
• Along with the scholarship reductions, players should be able to transfer schools without red-shirting. This would give kids more flexibility to transfer if they realize that they are not going to play. (And why should their movement be restricted?) This I don't entirely disagree with other than the fact that teams would never have any upperclassmen to use for backups etc.

Comments?

SteveM

I think this is a bad idea all together. No reason in it. Either your good enough to play at the D-1 level or your not, why should the entire NCAA change it's rules to not hurt players feelings???? This is Football for crying out loud, feelings get left at home.

 

[SteveM]

Dangling Thread

Dangling Thread

I think this is a bad idea all together. No reason in it. Either your good enough to play at the D-1 level or your not, why should the entire NCAA change it's rules to not hurt players feelings???? This is Football for crying out loud, feelings get left at home.

You guys are missing my points almost entirely which are:

There is not sufficient informed consent from the player or rational choice by the coach during recruitment under the current structure. I.e., the kid may not fully consider squad size that may keep him off the field. And a coach is not incentivized to honesty. He just wants to hand out 85. Kids will always be dopes. But 65 would enforce the hard thinking on the coaching side that would be better for the kid.

Your Darwinian assessment about the best playing is entirely true. But I don't get the "too bad" thing. Why not limit the "too bads", by implicitly diverting those kids to other programs or activities and shifting the scholarships to other men's sports?

I was not asking why there are not alternative outlets for football. I mean the reason is trivial. The point you are missing is exactly because there are no other outlets, the non-playing player has a pretty crummy collegiate career if he signed a letter of intent where intent in his mind meant "intent to play games." So I say create a system that minimizes those disappointing experiences.

The share the wealth benefit basis for 65 is not that USC and Alabama will not still have premier players. It's that because of their success and the lack of truly rational choice mentioned above, guys 66 through 85 on those programs may be better than some guys 1 through 65 at other programs. So you have real good athletes not playing because of the 85 number at USC, when they would be playing at Iowa State, Vanderbilt, Purdue, Rutgers, etc. under a 65 regime. What exactly is wrong with that?

Re: a Legacy point about coaches running guys off under a 65 limit. I agree that would have to be amended. Maybe to the old scholarship guarantee rule. Or perhaps a mixed model where a coach could warn a kid after spring ball his freshman year that his sophomore year will be funded but that's it unless he shows more. Then the kid could make a rational choice about transferring with a one year grace period. In any case, shit-can the transfer red-shirt requirement.

SteveM

 

[goldandblue]

Take away 20 scholarship players from Notre Dame's current roster right now and send them to a smaller/other school. Now throw in 5-10 season/multiple game ending injuries. woops. we now suck. bad.

 

[SteveM]

Intended Unintended Consequences

Intended Unintended Consequences

Take away 20 scholarship players from Notre Dame's current roster right now and send them to a smaller/other school. Now throw in 5-10 season/multiple game ending injuries. woops. we now suck. bad.

I'm saying take 20 from every school. Believe it or not some non-thugs from USC could apply to ND!

SteveM

P.S. BTW, that's speculation on both our parts. We'd have to wait to see how it played out. However my focus is on the non-playing kids (in football and the non-existent "wrestling" programs), not the schools. They'll do all right without the 20 extra.

 

[goldandblue]

Also, your saying that if a player can't hack it then he should just go to college and play a different sport???? I.E. Rugby, what makes you think these football players give a shit about Rugby? oh yeah because you had fun playing it in H.S right??? Again, none of this makes any logical sense.

These kids dream of playing football at college and then on to the NFL Some of them don't make it to the nfl and some of them don't make it in college. I would say that most all of them are willing to take the chance in order for their dreams to come true.

 

[SoCalDomer]

You guys are missing my points almost entirely which are:

There is not sufficient informed consent from the player or rational choice by the coach during recruitment under the current structure. I.e., the kid may not fully consider squad size that may keep him off the field. And a coach is not incentivized to honesty. He just wants to hand out 85. Kids will always be dopes. But 65 would enforce the hard thinking on the coaching side that would be better for the kid.

couple more thoughts

1) I disagree that the parents/athletes are not aware of the likelihood of sitting the bench for x-years, or entirely. That is, objectively there is more than enough information easily deducible that most players will not play. when you start to funnel down the number of players who play in HS, vs the number of players in D-1 football, vs the number of players who play in the pros (NFL), anyone looking at it objectively should realize the odds of playing are against them each level they rise. Whether or not players/parents do look at it objectively is obviously a different discussion.

2) Something i think you're missing (that is important to me personally) is this forces football players to chose playing over education.

What if I'm a kid who knows he's not likely going pro, but is good enough to get a scholarship to a D-1 school. I'm content to being a #2, 3 or prep squad, taking the field saturday, and getting a free education at one of the best universities in the US; the school of my choosing. I'm using my physical abilities to advance my educational opportunities, knowing my physical abilities probably end at that level.

If I'm one of those 66-85 players, now I lose that opportunity even though I was content with being a #2 or #3 string player for my college career. But because someone else wants me to have playing time, I am forced to a school not of my own choosing, a non-BCS school, Div 2, 3 or NAIA. That's not to say that a kid can't get a good education at a non-BCS school, or Div 2, 3, or NAIA school. But now kids like my example are not allowed to choose their school/education, and instead are forced to accept a different edcational opportunity than they want. I prefer less institutional compulsion.

I recognize a kid could still choose to walk-on at his school of choice, but that's beside the point. Why take away his opportunity for a free education at his school of choice if playing time is not an issue for him, and force him to take on the added financial burden?

3) This isn't just about the 2400 D-1 scholarship football players either. This will also have a ripple effect down through Div2, 3, and NAIA. This is also tied to my 2nd point. By forcing the 2400 players to essentially go down, Div2 players will be forced down, and Div3 and NAIA players may be forced out all together.

Now you not only take away choice for Div1 players, you may effectively keep some Div-2, 3 and NAIA players from getting a free education at all.

Most kids who go to Div2, 3 and NAIA programs on scholarship probably know they aren't going to play professionally. They're using their physical ability to advance their educational opportunity, which would be taken away by this proposal.

Re: a Legacy point about coaches running guys off under a 65 limit. I agree that would have to be amended. Maybe to the old scholarship guarantee rule. Or perhaps a mixed model where a coach could warn a kid after spring ball his freshman year that his sophomore year will be funded but that's it unless he shows more. Then the kid could make a rational choice about transferring with a one year grace period. In any case, shit-can the transfer red-shirt requirement.

SteveM

this is a good point and i don't know that there could be enough controls here to prevent widespread abuse. IMO, cutting the number of avail scholarships will only increase the abuse, lying, scheming and mistreatment of 18-21 year old male atheletes by D-1 football coaches who have extrordinarily high expectations on them already.