College Football aiming for 105 total roster limits

Richie O

Hall of Famer
Staff member
Mar 21, 2016
60,463
202,380
113
What is it today?
85 total scholarship players and 20 walk on spots.

However if this new rule is passed as expected, it will now prevent teams from paying scholarship guys NIL to walk on. However this rule also means that it will now be 105 total scholarship players and no walk ons.
 

yesrutgers01

Heisman
Nov 9, 2008
121,378
36,922
113
85 total scholarship players and 20 walk on spots.

However if this new rule is passed as expected, it will now prevent teams from paying scholarship guys NIL to walk on. However this rule also means that it will now be 105 total scholarship players and no walk ons.
It will be interesting- 2 ways to look at it. Do the blue bloods now get 100 or so 4/5 star kids or do many of those high level kids ask themselves if they want to be behind 3-4 other 5 star players on the roster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift

MADHAT1

Heisman
Apr 1, 2003
30,376
15,389
113
I believe years ago rosters were around 100 or so and top programs brought in more talent than they really had room for , just for competitive advantage.
Many of players on the roster were just meat in a meat-market with out hope to get on the field and with the transfer rules in place made them sit a year if they wanted to find a program they had a chance of getting playing time.
Dropping down a level was the best choice and I believe some programs encouraged that so they could open up a roster spots for more talented players that would be bench material so they couldn't help other programs that might be on the schedule.
The move down to 85 was to stop hording the talent some programs were doing and it helped the game.
Now even with the transfer rules making it easy to transfer without penalty , the move to 105 rosters will just hurt the type of talent that wants to play but the school plans to hoard so rival programs have to wait until those players realize the program they're at really has no use for them and never did .
That's the way I see a 105 player roster , even in this era of transferring at the drop of a hat
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift

ashokan

Heisman
May 3, 2011
25,325
19,686
0
Rudy never had a scholarship to ND (he had GI Bill and family help). Many teams used to keep a lot of guys around as mere tackling/blocking dummies.
 

RU at the shore

All-Conference
Dec 31, 2005
4,836
1,667
0
I believe years ago rosters were around 100 or so and top programs brought in more talent than they really had room for , just for competitive advantage.
Many of players on the roster were just meat in a meat-market with out hope to get on the field and with the transfer rules in place made them sit a year if they wanted to find a program they had a chance of getting playing time.
Dropping down a level was the best choice and I believe some programs encouraged that so they could open up a roster spots for more talented players that would be bench material so they couldn't help other programs that might be on the schedule.
The move down to 85 was to stop hording the talent some programs were doing and it helped the game.
Now even with the transfer rules making it easy to transfer without penalty , the move to 105 rosters will just hurt the type of talent that wants to play but the school plans to hoard so rival programs have to wait until those players realize the program they're at really has no use for them and never did .
That's the way I see a 105 player roster , even in this era of transferring at the drop of a hat
This nails it. The 85 schollie limit has shown to better disburse talent. If anything it should be reduced, not expanded. This will not be good for Rutgers !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
64,256
43,370
113
This nails it. The 85 schollie limit has shown to better disburse talent. If anything it should be reduced, not expanded. This will not be good for Rutgers !
Agree 110%. There's no need for 85 scholarships, let alone 105 - it's a huge waste of university money, IMO. 65 is plenty and will further level the playing field for many schools.
 

RUBOB72

All-American
Aug 5, 2004
23,385
7,924
0
Having a limit of 65 players does not help Rutgers one iota. There are years when teams have numerous injuries . We aren’t Ohio State , Alabama etc. At this juncture we need the max of 85… if 105 then that’s what we’ll need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickRU714

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
13,604
12,367
0
But but....I thought every AD was broke and couldn't spare a single dollar for any new expenses (such as direct player compensation)?

But now they suddenly have the funds for 20 extra scholarships?
Really 40 since they'll have to match with women's scholarships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pils86

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
84,731
82,143
113
Agree 110%. There's no need for 85 scholarships, let alone 105 - it's a huge waste of university money, IMO. 65 is plenty and will further level the playing field for many schools.
But it looks like it going to go to be 105 players. Never underestimate the power of Universities to burn money on useless items.

From another thread that did not get much traffic, and quoted from the linked article:

Many of them also expect to continue utilizing their booster-led NIL collectives as a “sweetener,” one coach says, for their players. There’s more, too: Coaches believe the new football roster limit will settle at around 105 players — a figure that will permit schools to offer 20 more scholarships for the sport than the current NCAA maximum of 85.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: RU848789