OT POLE: Should the NCAA cut scholarship limits in FBS Hut Hut?

[ThrustMaxwell]

I say yes, and here are some of my reasons:

In the interest of slowing down the bubble bursting, the NCAA should probably trim rosters again to 70-75 or so. It would allow each school to trim scholarship/room/board/nutrition/lawyer/etc. costs in their football budget.

It would offset some of the ridiculous talent procurement techniques used by many schools and possibly force some parity among the Top 50 programs or so.

It would allow 10-15 women's scholarships each college wouldn't have to fund, cutting further spending by each college.

 

[Denim Vest]

Most definitely. There’s hardly any children that play football anymore. Getting like when I was in HS and any girl that owned a set of golf clubs could get a college scholly. Didn’t even need to break 100. NFL does ok with 53 on the active roster could go down to 70 easy. Maybe lower still be kids that walk on.

 

[MomentInTheSun]

Yes. Just for the sake of evening the playing field more

 

[Fillup Marschell]

Been in favor of it since Nick took over up the road.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

For whoever voted no, I'd love to hear your argument. This thread is a judgement free zone.

 

[FormerlyKnownAsSOLLY]

For whoever voted no, I'd love to hear your argument. This thread is a judgement free zone.

I voted NO because I'm an oulde and I don't want ANYTHING to ever change because I cannot deal with it. All about the CREED and all...

 

[FormerlyKnownAsSOLLY]

I voted NO because I'm an oulde and I don't want ANYTHING to ever change because I cannot deal with it. All about the CREED and all...

I just changed my vote to YES because I'm an oulde and because I can and because it's my prerogative to do so.

 

[ShenaniganZ]

I voted NO because I'm an oulde and I don't want ANYTHING to ever change because I cannot deal with it. All about the CREED and all...

I just changed my vote to YES because I'm an oulde and because I can and because it's my prerogative to do so.

Lulz

 

[ALLTIGER85]

I voted no because I read the thread first and like being different.

I have no care in the matter, like voting on a President. Sry ouldes.

 

[WDE_Tarp]

I voted no because of my contrarian nature. Also, if you limit scholarships it might provide more parity in the middle of the field, but I see it helping teams like bama more. Other schools have to take more chances on developmental projects. As a high school coach it's already tough to get kids in suburbia scholarships and I don't want it to become even harder.