Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
sealhall74 wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:43 am
An interesting question to ask is this: Does a college football squad need to be over 100 bodies? I think you could do a decent job with about 70-75 and keep more of them happy and strong. Coaches/trainers could then give each more personal attention.
Doing so would make 0-11 a Macomb tradition. You'd kill starters. You'd have no scout team. No depth in games. And not much would top announcing to recruits that WIU wasn't up for being D1 like not fielding a full team, so you'd have both fewer and lower quality players.
I disagree. A pro-team can carry 53 players plus 16-member practice squad, though only 47 can dress for games (48 if they have at least 8 offensive linemen). So that's a total roster size of 69 players who play a longer season of wear and tar on the body.
The idea of 100+ for college teams is really about perceived opportunity. Beyond 30-40, few ever get in the game.
Putting the time and expense into fewer would create more from what you have.
sealhall74 wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:43 am
An interesting question to ask is this: Does a college football squad need to be over 100 bodies? I think you could do a decent job with about 70-75 and keep more of them happy and strong. Coaches/trainers could then give each more personal attention.
Doing so would make 0-11 a Macomb tradition. You'd kill starters. You'd have no scout team. No depth in games. And not much would top announcing to recruits that WIU wasn't up for being D1 like not fielding a full team, so you'd have both fewer and lower quality players.
I disagree. A pro-team can carry 53 players plus 16-member practice squad, though only 47 can dress for games (48 if they have at least 8 offensive linemen). So that's a total roster size of 69 players who play a longer season of wear and tar on the body.
The idea of 100+ for college teams is really about perceived opportunity. Beyond 30-40, few ever get in the game.
Putting the time and expense into fewer would create more from what you have.
You're comparing apples to oranges. A 25-30yo vetted as a professional athlete is capable of much more than a 17-22yo out of HS who is still in some aspects learning the game. You wouldn't expect a TA to have the same capabilities as a Dept head, correct?
If a 70-/53-man roster were sustainable in D-1 FB, there'd be an ESPN 30-for-30 on The Gritty (or Scrappy, your choice) Team Who Did More With Less. But there's not.
Scott Lawson - Board Admin