Makes sense but no way the P5s would go for it as it would cut into their surplus:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...360842002/

main points:
- No more than 70 scholarship players on a roster (currently 85)
- No more than 20 players signed in each recruiting class (currently 25)
- Get rid of the redshirt rule and give players five years of eligibility to accommodate for injuries or attrition during the season.
- Convert five of the lost 15 player scholarships to coaching scholarships. In other words, each year, teams should be able to give a scholarship to someone who is interested in pursuing the coaching profession as a career. These students would do much of the work that currently goes to analysts and interns like breaking down film or recruiting databases or self-scouting.
- Take the other 10 scholarships and redistribute to other sports so that schools aren’t decreasing the total number of educational opportunities they offer. Surely sports like baseball (which gets 11.7 scholarships) or soccer (9) could use the help.

I actually really like all of those ideas, particularly the ine for coaching scholarships.

(12-19-2018 09:59 AM)usm99 Wrote:  Makes sense but no way the P5s would go for it as it would cut into their surplus:

Agreed that these are good ideas and will never happen since this would help equalize the have's from the have not's.

All of these proposals make way too much sense. Consequently, they will never see the light of day.

That's a lot fewer kids getting a "free" education.

Which seems bad for the players.

Should be good for G5 schools.

(12-19-2018 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  That's a lot fewer kids getting a "free" education.

Which seems bad for the players.

Should be good for G5 schools.

It would not be less kids getting a free education. It would mean that kids that play other sports would actually get some scholarship help. It would go a long way to increasing the number of baseball, tennis, wrestling and soccer teams. Why do colleges need more players on their rosters than NFL teams?

(12-19-2018 01:36 PM)stanman505 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  That's a lot fewer kids getting a "free" education.

Which seems bad for the players.

Should be good for G5 schools.

It would not be less kids getting a free education. It would mean that kids that play other sports would actually get some scholarship help. It would go a long way to increasing the number of baseball, tennis, wrestling and soccer teams. Why do colleges need more players on their rosters than NFL teams?

Because the NFL has practice squad and can always sign players via free agency off the street during the year when needed. The limited players on an NFL roster also leads to players playing when they probably should be nursing their injury.

I like these ideas. It would also help w Title 9 compliance.

(12-19-2018 01:36 PM)stanman505 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  That's a lot fewer kids getting a "free" education.

Which seems bad for the players.

Should be good for G5 schools.

It would not be less kids getting a free education. It would mean that kids that play other sports would actually get some scholarship help. It would go a long way to increasing the number of baseball, tennis, wrestling and soccer teams. Why do colleges need more players on their rosters than NFL teams?

Better statement would be "why do colleges need more scholarship players on their rosters than NFL teams?" as teams have far more on the roster than the "up to 85" scholarship players. I realize times have changed but remember reading stories where teams can (and maybe still do) have closer to 125 players once you add the walkons to the roster. Looking at USM's roster and counted 109 on the 2018 roster.

(12-19-2018 12:25 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  All of these proposals make way too much sense. Consequently, they will never see the light of day.

No worries. I hear they plan to pass all these ideas at the same time they pass the 16 team playoff with an automatic bid for all conferences.

Silly USA Today. Like the P5 would pass 900 players off to the G5.

(12-19-2018 01:36 PM)stanman505 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  That's a lot fewer kids getting a "free" education.

Which seems bad for the players.

Should be good for G5 schools.

It would not be less kids getting a free education. It would mean that kids that play other sports would actually get some scholarship help. It would go a long way to increasing the number of baseball, tennis, wrestling and soccer teams. Why do colleges need more players on their rosters than NFL teams?

You think that would happen?