| FTBL Is the next rule change allowing more than 25 initials?

The idea seems to be leaving the total of 85 scholarships for football the same but allowing schools to sign more than 25. If a school loses 15 to the portal, should they be allowed to sign 40 in the next class?






Like many first-year coaches, Shane Beamer dealt with roster turnover last season that put his South Carolina team shy of reaching full capacity.

The Gamecocks entered the 2021 season having 79 players on scholarship—six short of the maximum 85 spots allowed by the NCAA. And yet, those six scholarships—fully paid tuition, books and fees—were never used because of the NCAA’s annual signing limit policy, which restricts schools to signing no more than 25 new players every year.

“I couldn’t get my roster back up to 85 to be competitive [numerically],” Beamer says. “That’s six unused scholarships.”

Kansas coach Lance Leipold is dealing with something much worse. The Jayhawks, pending more transfer movement this summer, will enter next season in the low 70s in roster numbers. That’s more than a dozen unused scholarships.

“Is that a safety issue?” Leipold asks. “You're worried about your numbers and depth and you’re playing players you wish you had more time with or had redshirted.”

Many within the college football industry say it’s time the 25-man signing policy changes. Soon, that could happen. College leaders are exploring what would be yet another groundbreaking change in an era of transformation within the industry: the elimination of annual signing limits in football. Under the concept, teams could sign an unlimited number of players each year as long as they remain at or below the NCAA-maximum 85 scholarships.

The discussions are serious enough that such a proposal has been widely socialized among coaches and athletic administrators, some of whom believe the issue has a legitimate shot at passing in time for this upcoming signing class. Signing caps are expected to be a central discussion topic starting next month, when a slew of FBS conference meetings transpires—the first of which begins Monday in Phoenix with the Big 12, Mountain West, Pac-12 and Big Ten.

There is plenty of pushback against the proposal. While eschewing annual signing limits would provide schools a solvent to an increasingly difficult problem—managing a roster in the age of excessive transfers—skeptics have worries. For starters, will the plan further open the door for coaches to purposely turn over their rosters by cutting players and replacing them with signing classes of upwards of 40?

It’s a concern from many administrators and some coaches alike. However, the exodus of players into the transfer portal combined with signing limitations has prevented many programs from reaching the 85-scholarship mark. The rate of transfers, at its highest in college football history, has many schools entering next season down more than 10 scholarship spots and others in the 60s, more than 20 shy of the 85 number, coaches say.

It’s a “necessity” to get rid of the yearly signing cap, says former Duke coach David Cutcliffe, now in an administrative role with the SEC office. “There’s no way to manage your roster,” he says. “There are teams out there scared to death of having a couple of injuries at a certain position and they might not be able to play.”

 

Several athletic administrators and college sports insiders discussed the Transfer Committee’s concepts under the condition of anonymity. They include (1) eliminating scholarship caps on sports that offer only partial scholarships; (2) abolishing the limitation on the number of coaches per team; (3) expanding direct payments from schools to athletes; (4) reconfiguring the recruiting calendar; and (5) implementing closed periods in the NCAA transfer portal. At least the first three items will be left in the decision-making hands of individual conferences, if the concepts are approved.

They could have just left it alone; first Wednesday of February. Dellenger suggested this in the form of a question.

And what if the recruiting calendar featured no evaluation or quiet periods?

Do those turn to dead periods or contact periods?

That's a good article. They're using employee and athlete in the same breath. "Radical changes." Yes, sir.

I wondered who was on the "Transformation Committee." Here's two of the 21.

The Transformation Committee, chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio athletic director Julie Cromer, has been tasked by Emmert and an executive group of school presidents to rewrite D-I policies by August. Now, some believe the process will stretch into the fall.
 
Back
Top Bottom