Best Recruiting Class Ever?

[RedStar]

But with people like Barnes and Schrieber transferring, that frees up schollys right? And it's only after the first game, I wont be surprised to see a little more attrition, every school has it.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

But with people like Barnes and Schrieber transferring, that frees up schollys right? And it's only after the first game, I wont be surprised to see a little more attrition, every school has it.

Those spots aren't really that relevant though as teams bump up against the 25 limit per year limit much more often than the 85 scholarships total limitation.

If a school loses 3 to 4 scholarship players per year, then it can sign the 25 maximum allowed. If redshirts are involved, then the yearly attrition rate must be higher.

I believe this is why Saban doesn't seem to be reserving redshirts for lineman that could benefit from a year in the program to grow and get stronger. A redshirt player counts against the 85 scholarship limit for 5 years (or until he leaves the program) so unless the coaching staff truly believes that a player will significantly improve by taking a redshirt year, it is better to play him and build depth.

 

[Bama1970]

I wonder if the NCAA will ever consider raising the scholarship limit from 85. It would be fair to not only the universities, but also the student-atheletes. Here is another question. If a kid signs a football scholarship and plays baseball too, does he count against the baseball program's yearly and roster scholarship limit?

 

[AeroEngUA07]

I wonder if the NCAA will ever consider raising the scholarship limit from 85. It would be fair to not only the universities, but also the student-atheletes. Here is another question. If a kid signs a football scholarship and plays baseball too, does he count against the baseball program's yearly and roster scholarship limit?

It is my understand that he counts for the one giving him the biggest scholarship. If he gets a football scholarship he counts against the football and not baseball. If he gets a baseball scholarship and just plays football he counts against baseball. I think this is how it works.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

It is my understand that he counts for the one giving him the biggest scholarship. If he gets a football scholarship he counts against the football and not baseball. If he gets a baseball scholarship and just plays football he counts against baseball. I think this is how it works.

I'm pretty sure that any recruited player on scholarship that steps on the football field counts against the 85 scholarship limit. It is my understanding that this rule is in place to prevent schools from violating the spirit of the rules by stocking their other sports with football players.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

I wonder if the NCAA will ever consider raising the scholarship limit from 85.

If anything, the scholarship numbers will go down, not up. There is a lot of political pressure against college football in general and there are serious Title IX issues as well.

There is even a movement by feminists and estrogen laden sportswriters (e.g. ESPN) to lower the limit down to 50 or 60. Their rational is that smaller schools and the NFL do fine with smaller rosters and that the games would be even more competitive across the board.

Their argument is that fans of Ohio State, Michigan and all other big time programs will support their team whether the limit is 85 or 50 and the programs will bring in just as much money and actually profit more due to the reduced number of scholarships so why not reduce it?

I know, these people are moonbats but unfortunately, that's the political climate out there.

Check out this link to see the ideas (60 scholarships, have NCAA control coaches salaries, reduce size of coaching staffs, shorten season, etc) that women's groups have.

 

[bayoutider]

It is my understand that he counts for the one giving him the biggest scholarship. If he gets a football scholarship he counts against the football and not baseball. If he gets a baseball scholarship and just plays football he counts against baseball. I think this is how it works.

If a player dresses for football he is counted against the football numbers.

 

[jps1983]

If a player dresses for football he is counted against the football numbers.

So no more Bear tactics where we bring in "track" athletes who also play football on the side?

 

[Bama1970]

If anything, the scholarship numbers will go down, not up. There is a lot of political pressure against college football in general and there are serious Title IX issues as well.

There is even a movement by feminists and estrogen laden sportswriters (e.g. ESPN) to lower the limit down to 50 or 60. Their rational is that smaller schools do fine with smaller numbers and that the games would be even more competitive across the board.

Their argument is that fans of Ohio State, Michigan and all other big time programs will support their team whether the limit is 85 or 50 and the programs will bring in just as much money and actually profit more due to the reduced number of scholarships so why not reduce it?

I know, these people are moonbats but unfortunately, that's the political climate out there.

I sure miss the days when you could sign 50!

 

[AeroEngUA07]

If a player dresses for football he is counted against the football numbers.

what about walk-ons? I know we can have 85 total scholarshipped players. is there a total cap?

 

[Bama1970]

i think there is a total you can dress for a home game and a different total for an away game. not sure about the numbers though. someone correct me if i'm wrong please.

 

[LCN]

LCN, if we sign over 25 and they all qualify, then what? I know that some kids elect to grayshirt, but with the talent of this class so far, i don't see that happening. What are your thoughts if we do over sign?


It's a shame about Payne. He was a truly awesome football player.

3 of them will be enrolling in December and count towards 2007 .

Add 3 more for the possibility of some failing to qualify and boom - 31 . :biga2:

 

[RunBamaRun]

If anything, the scholarship numbers will go down, not up. There is a lot of political pressure against college football in general and there are serious Title IX issues as well.

There is even a movement by feminists and estrogen laden sportswriters (e.g. ESPN) to lower the limit down to 50 or 60. Their rational is that smaller schools and the NFL do fine with smaller rosters and that the games would be even more competitive across the board.

Their argument is that fans of Ohio State, Michigan and all other big time programs will support their team whether the limit is 85 or 50 and the programs will bring in just as much money and actually profit more due to the reduced number of scholarships so why not reduce it?

I know, these people are moonbats but unfortunately, that's the political climate out there.

Check out this link to see the ideas (60 scholarships, have NCAA control coaches salaries, reduce size of coaching staffs, shorten season, etc) that women's groups have.

I know the ncaa reduced the allowed scholarships once and could do it again but it would cause a stink they probably won't want to deal with. It would knock a LOT of lesser privileged kids out of a chance to get an education.
I think it was a travesty they did it the first time.......all the larger schools had the same opportunity and the smaller schools could have their own league. JMHO

 

[cmmiller711]

If anything, the scholarship numbers will go down, not up. There is a lot of political pressure against college football in general and there are serious Title IX issues as well.

There is even a movement by feminists and estrogen laden sportswriters (e.g. ESPN) to lower the limit down to 50 or 60. Their rational is that smaller schools and the NFL do fine with smaller rosters and that the games would be even more competitive across the board.

Their argument is that fans of Ohio State, Michigan and all other big time programs will support their team whether the limit is 85 or 50 and the programs will bring in just as much money and actually profit more due to the reduced number of scholarships so why not reduce it?

I know, these people are moonbats but unfortunately, that's the political climate out there.

Check out this link to see the ideas (60 scholarships, have NCAA control coaches salaries, reduce size of coaching staffs, shorten season, etc) that women's groups have.

All that is doing is taking away 2975 division I-A scholarships from high school atheletes who might not otherwise get a college education. A D-1 school is going to give 85 schollies reguardless....its not like kids wont take them, even if they arent big time recruits. I believe that they are forgetting the most important part of collegiate atheletics. for 90%+ of the players....the main function is to provide an education.