Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

College Football News, Rumor & Humor

Buffnik said:
Yes. But their own rosters for practices will be limited to 105. Not sure if this impacts the service academy feeder setup where they stash a bunch of guys in a prep/jv situation and build their academy rosters out of those guys. If that gets compromised while being unable to offer NIL, they're screwed and will maybe have to drop to FCS like the Ivy League did years ago.
Click to expand...
IMO, it's bad for everyone outside of the P4. The P4, with 67 programs in it, being able to add another 20 scholarships to their rosters equates to another 1,340 players, many of which were probably going to choose a scholarship at a G5 over a PWO at a P4.

Btw, does anyone know how this impacts the 25 signings per class rule?
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
IMO, it's bad for everyone outside of the P4. The P4, with 67 programs in it, being able to add another 20 scholarships to their rosters equates to another 1,340 players, many of which were probably going to choose a scholarship at a G5 over a PWO at a P4.

Btw, does anyone know how this impacts the 25 signings per class rule?
Click to expand...
Iirc, they got rid of the annual class sizes when the transfer rules changed and only consider total scholarships now. Otherwise rosters were going to be short as teams lost 25+ players to graduation/ NFL/ medical retirement/ transfer in a given year.
 
skibum said:
In nil world, not so much.

Basically, right now you can have 85 players that the school covers tuition, room, and board, plus an *unlimited* number of players that your nil collective covers tuition, room, and board.

This proposal caps that. You can have 105 players, full stop. The school can cover tuition, room, and board for those 105. And the nil collective can pay those 105 too, but they can't pay another 30 players on top of that 105 like they can (and do) now.

Yes, it will hurt some schools' budgets, but they will at least have a shot at some players that would have otherwise gone to the big programs with a "walk on" nil scholarship.
Click to expand...

The big P4 football programs are already crying about those caps so that seems like a good thing for competitive balance. I'm interested to see what the FCS roster limits will be like in addition to D2. Could trigger another wave of realignment in those lower ranks and I'm curious what Northern Colorado could do in that case.

As for CU, I think this might require the school to add softball to stay in compliance with Title IX. I hope this is the case and that is another spring sport to watch in addition to women's lacrosse. The baseball roster limit increase pretty much slams the door shut on a potential return to CU at this point.
 
Bison said:
The big P4 football programs are already crying about those caps so that seems like a good thing for competitive balance. I'm interested to see what the FCS roster limits will be like in addition to D2. Could trigger another wave of realignment in those lower ranks and I'm curious what Northern Colorado could do in that case.

As for CU, I think this might require the school to add softball to stay in compliance with Title IX. I hope this is the case and that is another spring sport to watch in addition to women's lacrosse. The baseball roster limit increase pretty much slams the door shut on a potential return to CU at this point.
Click to expand...
CU will never be close to that 105 scholarship player max limit, at least while Prime is here.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
IMO, it's bad for everyone outside of the P4. The P4, with 67 programs in it, being able to add another 20 scholarships to their rosters equates to another 1,340 players, many of which were probably going to choose a scholarship at a G5 over a PWO at a P4.

Btw, does anyone know how this impacts the 25 signings per class rule?
Click to expand...

Some P4 programs are still going to have to let about 20+ walk on players go since some would have at least 120 to 150 to get to that 105 limit so there will be a trickle down effect.

The big question is will the P4 conferences enforce a minimum scholarship level? The Big Sky Conference had to force UNC to offer 63 football scholarships to stay in the conference. The same applies for G5, FCS, D2, NAIA, etc.
 
patebuff said:
CU will never be close to that 105 player max limit, at least while Prime is here.
Click to expand...

The Big 12 might have a say into that such as setting the minimum number of scholarships for football. If the B12 says 100, CU will have to have 100 players and the same for any other B12 school. Same for other conferences.
 
patebuff said:
Fixed it
Click to expand...
Yeah, he has said recently that all he needs is 100 players on the team and that he wants to always have 10+ scholarships available. I suppose he could still treat the roster like her currently does where he offers 75-80 scholarships and maintains a PWO program.

However, the whole thing revolves around the revenue sharing and RK said the other day that the scholarships will count toward that $22m/year cap for paying players, so you either give all 90-105 players scholarships or you give 75-85 guys scholarships and give your PWOs some cash. Or you could choose not to pay the walk ons anything (I assume), but good luck getting any PWOs worth a **** to actually sign up for that.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes. But their own rosters for practices will be limited to 105. Not sure if this impacts the service academy feeder setup where they stash a bunch of guys in a prep/jv situation and build their academy rosters out of those guys. If that gets compromised while being unable to offer NIL, they're screwed and will maybe have to drop to FCS like the Ivy League did years ago.
Click to expand...
Current system already hurts the service academies because they don't provide their student-athletes with NIL opportunities. The transfer rules make a bigger impact on them because players can leave (first two years with no military obligation) and play immediately elsewhere but the academies cannot transfer guys in to play unless those guys are willing to return to freshman status academically, not going to happen.

Wonder if because the service academies don't have "scholarships" they will exempt them from the roster limit.

As fans not something we will notice much other than reducing the occassional local interest story but a hard limit of 105 will for most schools like CU eliminate those 5-10 guys on the team each year who were local kids that weren't BCS level recruits but dreamed of playing at their state flagship school or where their dad's or uncles played. A guy like as an example Colton Allen QB from Valor
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Yeah, he has said recently that all he needs is 100 players on the team and that he wants to always have 10+ scholarships available. I suppose he could still treat the roster like her currently does where he offers 75-80 scholarships and maintains a PWO program.

However, the whole thing revolves around the revenue sharing and RK said the other day that the scholarships will count toward that $22m/year cap for paying players, so you either give all 90-105 players scholarships or you give 75-85 guys scholarships and give your PWOs some cash. Or you could choose not to pay the walk ons anything (I assume), but good luck getting any PWOs worth a **** to actually sign up for that.
Click to expand...
CU is up against title IX as well, so going to 100 football scholarships means they will have to add another women's sport or women's scholarships.

Not sure how this all works once football breaks away from the NCAA though.
 
patebuff said:
CU is up against title IX as well, so going to 100 football scholarships means they will have to add another women's sport or women's scholarships.

Not sure how this all works once football breaks away from the NCAA though.
Click to expand...
I believe title IX says equal opportunity. They might have a 105 max scholarship limit but that doesnt mean they need to use them all. They could still have 80 players on scholarship with 25 walk-ons. If they do increase to meet the max scholarships for football then yes they would have to increase options on the womens side of the house.
 
patebuff said:
CU is up against title IX as well, so going to 100 football scholarships means they will have to add another women's sport or women's scholarships.

Not sure how this all works once football breaks away from the NCAA though.
Click to expand...
We're not 50/50 on athletic scholarships as it is. I think it's a problem to decline vs improve. The 2 women's sports I think would be easiest to add are Beach Volleyball and Triathlon. At least among sports I think CU could be good-great at.
 
And if they sell out to a PE company, it will be privately funded and Title IX will not matter anyway. Just another thought surrounding the inclusion of Private Equity money
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
He either didn't know he was going up there or he wasn't prepared at all and has zero improv ability.

Regardless, all he had to do was say, "DeShaun Foster, HC at UCLA. We're excited to be joining the best conference in the country and look forward to meeting all these great programs on the field. Questions?"
Click to expand...
Right??
 
Colorado
Kansas
Utah
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
Arizona
Florida State
Clemson
Miami
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Georgia Tech
----------------
BYU
Houston
----------------
Arizona State
Texas Tech
TCU
Kansas State
UCF
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Baylor


The first 12 make as good a conference as the B1G and the SEC

The other 10 are dead weight

Do your own thing, chart your own course

Get TBS to broadcast the new 6 teams and also get more creative than the other two
 
4BienemyTDs said:
Colorado
Kansas
Utah
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
Arizona
Florida State
Clemson
Miami
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Georgia Tech
----------------
BYU
Houston
----------------
Arizona State
Texas Tech
TCU
Kansas State
UCF
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Baylor


The first 12 make as good a conference as the B1G and the SEC

The other 10 are dead weight

Do your own thing, chart your own course

Get TBS to broadcast the new 6 teams and also get more creative than the other two
Click to expand...
CU with Prime probably makes the ratings and viewership of the top 12 on par with the B1G and SEC, but both conferences are better from an on field and brand name program standpoint.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
CU with Prime probably makes the ratings and viewership of the top 12 on par with the B1G and SEC, but both conferences are better from an on field and brand name program standpoint.
Click to expand...
I do not think the SEC and B1G want to add good teams that will beat them. I think they want 3 conferences. ACC and Big12 need to merge, but there are some sucky teams that should not be included

FSU
Clemson
Miami
Utah
Colorado
TCU
West Virginia

Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Oregon
USC
Washington
Iowa

Alabama
Georgia
LSU
Texas
Oklahoma
Ole Miss
Tennessee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top