Why not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
Title IX isn't going away.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're right...there would be a talent trickle down affect with fewer schollys. Parody would increase. Bluebloods would be more susceptible. Only drawback is the scholarship athletes at the bottom who no longer have a scholarship.Why not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
You're right...there would be a talent trickle down affect with fewer schollys. Parody would increase. Bluebloods would be more susceptible. Only drawback is the scholarship athletes at the bottom who no longer have a scholarship.
But then we wouldn’t have a chance at hitting on as many 2-star diamonds in the rough.This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Why not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
WOB alertYou're right...there would be a talent trickle down affect with fewer schollys. Parody would increase. Bluebloods would be more susceptible. Only drawback is the scholarship athletes at the bottom who no longer have a scholarship.
We already have that, it’s called FCS.Why not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
Prior to 1972 when Title IX was passed, football schools could offer as many scholarships as they could afford, and several had 150 scholarishop players, or sometimes even more. 1973 brought about the first limitations on football scholarships in order to free up money for women's sports, which resulted in the NCAA implementing a limit of 105 football scholarships. Additional reductions were made in 1978 (95) and again in 1992 which brought the limit to its present number of 85.
For the reasons others have mentioned, I think it is difficult to get much lower. Beyond the roster players on an NFL team, each team also has a practice squad that can be tapped in the event of injury, etc. Also, the transition many freshmen require means of those players are idally using their first year to get acclimated. The often comprise roughly 1/4th of a college teams roster, while rookies typically account for mor elike 10% of an NFL teams roster.
So it might be feasible to further reduce the number ot say 80, but 53 is completely out of the question, and even 65 is almost certainly too low.
For FBS, there is no such thing as a partial scholarship.You assume all players have to be on scholarship. They don't. Several sports are mixtures of scholarship, partial, and non scholarship players.
You are wrong. I worked in the Big Ten office at the time you cited and there were clear limits of scholarships in the conference. Since freshmen were ineligible you could only use three classes and you were limited to 120 total scholarships and a limit of no more than 35 initial scholies a year. No redshirting.Prior to 1972 when Title IX was passed, football schools could offer as many scholarships as they could afford, and several had 150 scholarishop players, or sometimes even more. 1973 brought about the first limitations on football scholarships in order to free up money for women's sports, which resulted in the NCAA implementing a limit of 105 football scholarships. Additional reductions were made in 1978 (95) and again in 1992 which brought the limit to its present number of 85.
For the reasons others have mentioned, I think it is difficult to get much lower. Beyond the roster players on an NFL team, each team also has a practice squad that can be tapped in the event of injury, etc. Also, the transition many freshmen require means of those players are idally using their first year to get acclimated. The often comprise roughly 1/4th of a college teams roster, while rookies typically account for mor elike 10% of an NFL teams roster.
So it might be feasible to further reduce the number ot say 80, but 53 is completely out of the question, and even 65 is almost certainly too low.
You're right...there would be a talent trickle down affect with fewer schollys. Parody would increase. Bluebloods would be more susceptible. Only drawback is the scholarship athletes at the bottom who no longer have a scholarship.
You are wrong. I worked in the Big Ten office at the time you cited and there were clear limits of scholarships in the conference. Since freshmen were ineligible you could only use three classes and you were limited to 120 total scholarships and a limit of no more than 35 initial scholies a year. No redshirting.
The data I posted was for the NCAA, and not specific to the B1G. It is accurate. I have no recollection of the B1G having any different scholarship limits than the NCAA, can find no reference to any such differences, and find it hard to believe the B1G would put its member institutions at a competetive disadvantage to schools from other conferences for no apparent reason.
You assume all players have to be on scholarship. They don't. Several sports are mixtures of scholarship, partial, and non scholarship players.
^^ According to a recent OWH article, when Nebraska won their first mythical title in 1970, they had 45 full scholarship players. At that same time, the Big Ten limited their teams to 30.
The issue of course is that if the NFL players get hurt they either pull from the practice squad, OR they can go sign anyone from another practice squad or someone thats not affiliated with a team currently. In college you have what you have. No going out and replacing players on the roster. Also if the league wasn't paying players so much money they would collectively bargain for bigger rosters. Its a matter of dollars and cents....Why not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
Guilty as charged! At least I didn't say Pair of Ti**y!WOB alert
That's a great one! Thanks for the laugh after a loooong week.Guilty as charged! At least I didn't say Pair of Ti**y!
"Wanna be" was called ""want of bees" by someone and then shortened to WOB. I used the word "parody" instead of "parity", hence I'm this thread's WOB, which I proudly embrace.WOB alert...
Seen it used repeatedly , unclear of meaning.
TIA for any help
This is how you own it"Wanna be" was called ""want of bees" by someone and then shortened to WOB. I used the word "parody" instead of "parity", hence I'm this thread's WOB, which I proudly embrace.
The Big 8 allowed 45 per year. The Big 10 30 per year.^^ According to a recent OWH article, when Nebraska won their first mythical title in 1970, they had 45 full scholarship players. At that same time, the Big Ten limited their teams to 30.
Parody, as a WOB, made the whole conversation amusing since this whole college football thing has basically been... a parody. 😜*Parity
Pair of ti**tyParody, as a WOB, made the whole conversation amusing since this whole college football thing has basically been... a parody. 😜
Once upon a time we had single platoon, limited substitution football. That ended in 1965. Iowa's only two Rose Bowl wins (1957 and 1959) came in the single platoon era that produced, among others, All-Americans Bob Jeter, Willie Fleming, Kenny Ploen, Randy Duncan, Alex Karras, Jim Gibbons, Paul Krause and, of course, going way back to Nile Kinnick and Duke Slater.
Returning to single platoon football (maximum of three subs at a time) would cut most football expenses in half as well as further distribute talent while income would remain the same. Among the reasons Evy quit coaching was his concern that Iowa might not be able to compete in two-platoon football.
There were many terrific football teams and football players in the single-platoon era. It would take five years or so to make such a change, but personally, I'd love to see it.
DerpWhy not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.
The Big Ten was more restrictive because it did not allow redshirts. One of the primary reasons Iowa alum, Wayne Duke, was hired away from the Big Eight to run the Big Ten. Within four years of his arrival the Big Ten had approved redshirting and allowed multiple schools to participate in bowl games.
"Wanna be" was called ""want of bees" by someone and then shortened to WOB. I used the word "parody" instead of "parity", hence I'm this thread's WOB, which I proudly embrace.
Once upon a time we had single platoon, limited substitution football. That ended in 1965. Iowa's only two Rose Bowl wins (1957 and 1959) came in the single platoon era that produced, among others, All-Americans Bob Jeter, Willie Fleming, Kenny Ploen, Randy Duncan, Alex Karras, Jim Gibbons, Paul Krause and, of course, going way back to Nile Kinnick and Duke Slater.
Returning to single platoon football (maximum of three subs at a time) would cut most football expenses in half as well as further distribute talent while income would remain the same. Among the reasons Evy quit coaching was his concern that Iowa might not be able to compete in two-platoon football.
There were many terrific football teams and football players in the single-platoon era. It would take five years or so to make such a change, but personally, I'd love to see it.
53 is like what you need to play a game, not a season. 53 would mean a lot of freshman would be very active, probably not in great way. It would mean too many injuries and you seriously hurt your chances of competingWhy not knock it down the NFL 53? Or even let's say 65. This would not be bad for Iowa. It keeps the OSU's from being able to hoard players.
Title IX isn't going away.