Reducing the number of scholarships

#1
The Frozen Shield

The Frozen Shield

Watkins
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
343
Likes
0
#1
to 65 for college football. Would it be better than what we have now?

I think it would. You could take the players that never see the field for Florida and Alabama, put them all on a team, and they could challenge for third in the SEC east.
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
Having 65 scholarships isnt even enough to have three deep on both sides of the ball.
 
#4
#4
I think 80 is about the acceptable minimum. 95 could work if Congress would ever revisit the Tower Amendment.
 
#5
#5
The Frozen Shield said:
to 65 for college football. Would it be better than what we have now?

I think it would. You could take the players that never see the field for Florida and Alabama, put them all on a team, and they could challenge for third in the SEC east.
Click to expand...
Is this actually being discussed by the NCAA? Teams couldn't even go three deep at most positions. A team decimated by injuries would be forced to change guys to different positions mid-season and stuff like that. 85 is a fine number.
 
#6
#6
No, just something I was thinking about, I bet Florida & Alabama have players that won't ever see the field that could be a huge help for us this year.

NFL teams get it done with 45, why do college teams need 100 players?
 
#7
#7
People always will want a playoff, but if you spread out the talent instead of letting the big boys stockpile it all, rarely would a team go undefeated.
 
#8
#8
I'd be okay with it in terms of competitiveness but I don't like the idea of taking away hundreds of opportunities at a free college education.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
The Frozen Shield said:
No, just something I was thinking about, I bet Florida & Alabama have players that won't ever see the field that could be a huge help for us this year.

NFL teams get it done with 45, why do college teams need 100 players?
Click to expand...
NFL teams have 53 on their roster, just only 45 can dress out. Also they have a full practice squad which would make the number closer to 65 or 70. NFL teams can also sign and release players as they wish to ensure they are never without enough guys at positions. Its not like if three QB's go down mid season, Tennessee could just go out and sign another QB. How would limiting a roster size send players Tennessee's way anyways? If we are trying to leach the worst players off of Tennessee and Alabama than RIP UT football.
 
#11
#11
If UT had 3 QB go down in a season it wouldn't matter how many scholarships we had.
How would you like being a guy who was told he was good enough to play at Florida because Urb promised you a LB spot, but instead you sat on the bench for 3- 4 years, knowing that you could of started from day one at Miss.State. More publicity and maybe an NFL contract, you can't ever tell what might of been.

Limiting roster size may not send many players UT's way, but it would stop Florida, Bama, Texas & USC from stockpiling all the talent. We are rivals to Bama & Florida, let's say a player gets turned down by one of our rivals, it lights a fire under his ass, he signs with the Vols because he wants to show them first hand what they missed out on.
 
#12
#12
The Frozen Shield said:
If UT had 3 QB go down in a season it wouldn't matter how many scholarships we had.
How would you like being a guy who was told he was good enough to play at Florida because Urb promised you a LB spot, but instead you sat on the bench for 3- 4 years, knowing that you could of started from day one at Miss.State. More publicity and maybe an NFL contract, you can't ever tell what might of been.
Click to expand...
Then transfer. Problem solved. They are not forced to sit on the bench. It was their choice to sign with a school that was stocked with talent. I don't see how the roster size is a problem what so ever.
 
#13
#13
There would be more competitive games each week, and more upsets. It would also raise the level of play. No more would you have a team full of scrubs playing another that can only go three and four deep. You would see the players rated on Rivals Top 100 or ESPN's Top 150 going to schools besides Florida, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, and USC, too.
 
#14
#14
The Frozen Shield said:
There would be more competitive games each week, and more upsets. It would also raise the level of play. No more would you have a team full of scrubs playing another that can only go three and four deep. You would see the players rated on Rivals Top 100 or ESPN's Top 150 going to schools besides Florida, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, and USC, too.
Click to expand...
No you'd just see the players that teams take chances on, like all the 3 and low level four star guys disappearing from those teams rosters. They'd just take the biggest prospects.
 
#15
#15
The Frozen Shield said:
If UT had 3 QB go down in a season it wouldn't matter how many scholarships we had.
How would you like being a guy who was told he was good enough to play at Florida because Urb promised you a LB spot, but instead you sat on the bench for 3- 4 years, knowing that you could of started from day one at Miss.State. More publicity and maybe an NFL contract, you can't ever tell what might of been.

Limiting roster size may not send many players UT's way, but it would stop Florida, Bama, Texas & USC from stockpiling all the talent. We are rivals to Bama & Florida, let's say a player gets turned down by one of our rivals, it lights a fire under his ass, he signs with the Vols because he wants to show them first hand what they missed out on.
Click to expand...

Matt Cassell disagrees
 
#16
#16
I've never been a fan of watering down a product just to keep others competitive.
 
#18
#18
Lexvol said:
I've never been a fan of watering down a product just to keep others competitive.
Click to expand...
Obama would be a fan. Nothing like player redistribution to promote "fairness." Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top