105 Scholarships

[Aclone]

I don’t know if everyone caught this or not, but the NCAA is expanding scholarship limits across sports next year. Specifically for football, that will be 105 total,up from 85, and Coach Campbell has mentioned that he was going to talk to Jamie about how they could manage that. If we can afford it.

That’s fine.

And here’s where the other shoe drops.

That 105 isn’t just the scholarship limit, it’s the total roster limit.

Walkons included.

So, currently there are (without counting) 35 walkons on the squad, almost all of whom are underclassmen. Even if ISU still only offers 85 scholarships next year (that seems doubtful), there will only be room for twenty of these kids.

In other words, most of the current walkons are screwed.

Either they are going to have to quit football to stay at ISU, or transfer out if they want to keep playing.

This is dumb. At the very least, phase the extra 15 slots out.

Oh yeah…and when Matt Campbell says that 101 of the 120 currently on the roster have played this year? This is the reason why. About half or more of the 19 who haven’t played are scholarship freshmen or injured. He’s giving the walkons a chance to play in a Cyclone uniform, at least once in their lives.

Before that opportunity is taken away from them.

Because that’s exactly who Matt Campbell is.

 

[isucy86]

Feel like the NCAA could have got a little creative to help out programs that have a lot of walk-ons. Maybe some thing like there is a 105 full scholarship equivalent limit and schools have to offer at least 85 full scholarships. Thus allowing them to offer 40 half scholarships or some variation.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But it seems like another rule that benefits blue-blood schools. With no restrictions on transfers, they can sell borderline prospects on coming to Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, etc with the iron sharpens iron mantra. But at some point if they don't feel its a good fit for their development or playing time they can always transfer.

The other thing, feel like the whole idea of redshirts is archaic. Give athletes 5 years to play 5 seasons. If a player is practicing and ready to contribute in some respect (situational downs or special teams), why have an arbitrary 4 game cap? I believe there was a recent rule change where Bowl/Post Season games are no longer going to count against the 4 games.

 

[Daserop]

All is does is help this big programs who can afford it. They will just hoard more talent.

 

[Drew0311]

I am not sure but I remember there used to be no roster limit and I think the maximum schollarship limit was 100 back then. They lowered it to 85 to save some of the smaller schools some money. Nebraska used to have like 150 players on the team with Walk ons.

 

[stateofmind]

Some kids would rather play instead of being a practice dummy. CMC can sell playing time.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Another rule to benefit the B10 and SEC that have plenty of money to fund 105 rides, while some in the other conferences will struggle coming up with the money. Reducing scholarships a decade ago helped spread out the talent more evenly, this will do the opposite. Sure kids that are not playing will leave, but we are losing the kid that a school did not have a scholarship for will now get one.

 

[theshadow]

Oh yeah…and when Matt Campbell says that 101 of the 120 currently on the roster have played this year? This is the reason why. About half or more of the 19 who haven’t played are scholarship freshmen or injured. He’s giving the walkons a chance to play in a Cyclone uniform, at least once in their lives.

He also stretched that number a bit, whether for effect or because he didn't have the right number in front of him.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Well that's the wrong way.

 

[TheCaptain]

Tough situation to say the least. I feel bad for the current walk ons that will be in limbo. I gotta believe ISU has
the funds to scholly up the majority of them. Will they is another story.
Well...time to write another check to the Athletic Department.....

 

[Daserop]

Some kids would rather play instead of being a practice dummy. CMC can sell playing time.

True, but increasing the scholarship limit does not help competitive balance in the sport.

 

[BACyclone]

I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument in limiting the roster size with walk-ons included at the same time as increasing the scholarship limit.

What is the perceived benefit to doing this? Would it really benefit any P4 school to shrink the actual roster size?

 

[bosco]

Guess there won't be anymore Rudy's. RIP.

 

[ISUTex]

Why does the NCAA give a rip about roster limits? What difference does it make if you have 10 walk ons or 50 walk ons if that is what the school/program wants to do?

Can't wait until the big money programs start stashing players away that would be good players for the Iowa States of the world.

screw the NCAA.

 

[twojman]

This is a serious question and maybe not the right spot for this but it is regarding scholarships. I know, based on the tax code, ISU essentially has to spend all athletic revenue each year to be considered non-profit. Can ISU contribute to or start an endowment fund for athletic scholarships? I know donors can do something like that. I know there would need to be a LARGE endowment fund for something like this but if you could even get it started with just a few million that could eliminate the need going forward of funding some scholarships each season as the interest/earnings from an endowment would handle some of those.

I don't know about legalities or anything at all about this which is why I ask.

 

[CRCy17]

I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument in limiting the roster size with walk-ons included at the same time as increasing the scholarship limit.

What is the perceived benefit to doing this? Would it really benefit any P4 school to shrink the actual roster size?

Not defending it at all, but just trying to imagine what some schools could to do go around this with "walk-ons":

• Top-10 HS kid
• You tell him he can get $1MM in NIL day 1, but for the team roster rules, he is going to be a walk-on.
• Tuition is paid through boosters/collective/NIL, but not the athletics scholarship

 

[Clonehomer]

Not defending it at all, but just trying to imagine what some schools could to do go around this with "walk-ons":

• Top-10 HS kid
• You tell him he can get $1MM in NIL day 1, but for the team roster rules, he is going to be a walk-on.
• Tuition is paid through boosters/collective/NIL, but not the athletics scholarship

Some SEC school is going to have one heck of an intramural team that happens to practice at the same place and time as the varsity team. Oh, and their intramural team will be NIL funded and just happen to have players make the varsity team after their underclassmen years. But they won’t be on the team, until they are.

There will be ways to get around the roster limits. It is just a limit of how many can play that year.

 

[stateofmind]

True, but increasing the scholarship limit does not help competitive balance in the sport.

Yes, and no. There are 15 guys that won't be on our team next year that can make another school more competitive. There will be 15 guys from GA, Alabama, Ohio St, Oregon, etc that will be going elsewhere. As CPR once said, it's not about the guys you don't have, it's the ones you do have. And I trust our evaluator over any of them.

 

[Hammerschlagen]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But it seems like another rule that benefits blue-blood schools. With no restrictions on transfers, they can sell borderline prospects on coming to Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, etc with the iron sharpens iron mantra. But at some point if they don't feel its a good fit for their development or playing time they can always transfer.

I was thinking the opposite. Texas would have 200 paid players on their roster

 

[VeloClone]

I am not sure but I remember there used to be no roster limit and I think the maximum schollarship limit was 100 back then. They lowered it to 85 to save some of the smaller schools some money. Nebraska used to have like 150 players on the team with Walk ons.

"Walk-ons" - Nebraska was notorious for having "walk-on" WRs, RBs, LBs and DBs on track team scholarships as sprinters/middle distance and OL and DL on track scholarships as throwers. Many of those "walk-ons" were just on a different scholarship. It was largely due to Tom Osborne's shenanigans that any multi-sport player who is on scholly now has their scholly counted as a football scholly. The NCAA also added the rule that if not playing FB any multi-sport athlete who played BB would have their scholly automatically counted as a BB scholarship.

 

[MJ271]

I think that increasing scholarships to 105 is bad for schools like Iowa State, but I don't think that limiting roster sizes is. If a school has near-unlimited NIL money and unlimited roster spots, they can pay their 120th player the equivalent of a scholarship, while Iowa State and other schools aren't even able to do so for their 86th player.

Roster limits mean that players #106+ for a Big 10 or SEC school have to go somewhere else, which can increase the talent of another program, potentially Iowa State or someone similar.