- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
New cap of 105 scholarships. How does Lane approach it?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:09 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Since every player gets a cut of revenue sharing, bringing on more people makes each get a smaller cut. So, bringing on another two or three star can take money from your four and five star players. NIL can make some of it up but is never unlimited.
They will have to think long and hard about balancing depth and project players with $$$. NIL will be even more important going forward.
I don't think we actually go all the way to 105 but we may have the money so who knows. Either way it will be nice to have some headroom.
8
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:25 pm to SpartanSoul
At some point it’s going to be gluttonous. Guys already don’t wanna be seconds string, idk what having more people waiting around changes.
Best thing I can think of is with the new 1 week portal window, guys will be able to test their value but coaches will be able to guarantee them a spot to return to if all else fails. Cause the new window is going to be a mess.
Best thing I can think of is with the new 1 week portal window, guys will be able to test their value but coaches will be able to guarantee them a spot to return to if all else fails. Cause the new window is going to be a mess.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:27 pm to SpartanSoul
IMO, the only thing it should change is there should be no more walk ons. Everyone on the roster should have a scholarship.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:33 pm to BROpaneTANK
I agree about the good players that don't want to sit but I can envision a program like Texas overpaying for portal players just to deny them to an opponent. Some of them would trade some playing time for a big enough bag.
It won't be Bama of old stacking 4 & 5 stars, but they could definitely pull some important pieces away from teams.
It won't be Bama of old stacking 4 & 5 stars, but they could definitely pull some important pieces away from teams.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:35 pm to SpartanSoul
I think it means you can make more mistakes in HS recruiting or wait longer to see if a kid develops.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:37 pm to 304tiger
Interesting article I ran across looking at the news. I never thought of the Tittle IX implications.
https://www.on3.com/teams/tennessee-volunteers/news/report-sec-going-to-105-football-scholarships/
quote:
Going to 105 scholarships obviously increased the opportunity to give aid to current walk-ons. It also gives you an opportunity to sign more high school players for developmental purposes and overall gives you more numbers to work with. It also increases expenses and depending on where athletic departments are numbers wise it could me needing to add a non-revenue women’s sport for Title IX compliance would would obviously mean more expenses.
Some feel that, while more practice bodies are needed and the ability to take a “chance” on a guy who might develop into a player, more money should be allocated to those who play the bulk of the snaps in games.
https://www.on3.com/teams/tennessee-volunteers/news/report-sec-going-to-105-football-scholarships/
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:00 pm to SpartanSoul
Schools have already shown they are way more likely to cut existing men’s sports than add women’s sports.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:00 am to Xenophon
But how well would it go over to kill another sport just to bring on more players that probably won't ever see the field?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:21 am to SpartanSoul
85 was already too many.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:27 am to SpartanSoul
With NIL, we won’t approach that many. Too expensive.
No sources but just a hunch.
No sources but just a hunch.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 4:50 pm to 304tiger
quote:
there should be no more walk ons
That is now the case.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:44 pm to SpartanSoul
You double the amount of lineman and fill up the QB room with as many guys as you can.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:39 pm to SpartanSoul
Jacob Hester was a 2 star player. We could have easily passed on him, but fortunately we didn’t. I do think it allows you to reach on a few extra homegrown guys like that per year which is a good thing.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 12:23 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
85 was already too many.
Agree.
In a single game, about 55 players actually participate. In this era, I wonder if shrinking the roster to say around 65 and emphasize quality over quantity would work.
Then, explain to recruits that they are expected to be 3 and done. Obviously, there will be exceptions.
It's a new era and some coaches will figure out new ways better than others. Lane seems to be ahead of the curve.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 5:40 am to SpartanSoul
We need wuarterbacks. We need a lot of offensive linemen. We need some running backs.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 7:25 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
85 was already too many.
Pre portal it was. With the portal its not. Countless schools a year lose half their roster to the portal. Without 85 we'd have been in major trouble Kelly's first year. 105 is gluttonous and also completely a choice. You dont have to use 105. You just can.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News