An 'antiquated' signing class limit poised to be punted

“If they have 85 scholarships, and you can't sign 85 kids, you're doing every kid that's left in that portal without a scholarship an injustice,” added Bielema. “That's the number one driving force.

"I think it's also unfair to the schools. Sometimes in transition, kids are going to leave. A couple coaches have lost astronomical numbers. That's unfair for them to not believe they can get to 85 kids, when there are 85 kids that they should be able to get to. That's just a complete disservice to both the players, the student-athletes and the schools.”

But, help appears to be on the way for a system that currently caps schools at signing 25 players—plus up to seven more to replace portal attrition—annually. In fact, the DI Council is expected to approve the elimination of initial counters this week.

The solution: A staff can sign as many players as needed each year to reach the 85-man limit. Lose a player, replace a player.

“When I took over as the head coach, there's naturally going to be a transition,” said Bielema. “We couldn't even get to 85 scholarships. There will be schools this year that may have only 60, 65, 70 kids on scholarship because they hit the 25/7 rule and they can't keep signing kids. So, it's absolutely an injustice not only to the kids, but to the programs, that it is not one-for-one. It has to go to the one-for-one model.”

A word of caution: Some feel schools may use a one-for-one signing policy to run players off, knowing they can be replaced under the revised system.

“They do it already,” said a Big Ten head coach. “It doesn't happen very often in the Big Ten, at least I have not heard that.”

Another Big Ten coach is against the idea of expanding signing classes because he thinks the change would benefit power programs, who presumably would be able to sign players in expanded classes that likely would have gone to other schools lower in the pecking order.

“Well, it looks like they're probably going to do away with the 25 limit, is my guess,” said the Big Ten coach. “But, I’m against it. I'm in the minority, where I don't want to change that rule quite yet. It's all to benefit the elite. It's gonna go to whatever the elite wants. So, that's why there's no reason to fight it. But, no, I would be against that. Just because it benefits the elite.”

Increasing the size of signing classes may not be enough for some schools, who could get creative with NIL as a way to push past the 85-scholarship limit.

“Obviously, there's pay-for-play going on and anybody who thinks it's not has got their head in the sand,” said a Group of Five head coach. “But what’s to stop a team from saying: ‘OK, I want more than 85 guys on scholarship, so my collective is going to pay for 30 more guys to be on full-ride.’

“Do a couple commercials for me and we'll give you enough money so you will basically be on full scholarship. Now, I got a numbers advantage, you know what I mean?”

That’s a worry for another day, as it’s hoped the NCAA can stem the tide of collectives being used as recruiting inducements. For now, the concern is schools being able to play with fully filled rosters.

“I think that's in the best interest of the players and the teams,” said a Big 12 coordinator. “It would be hard for us to get to 85 without that rule.

“We had some people leave when we took the job. And then we had some more leave after the season. If you cap us at 25, what do you do when one of your guys that you're counting on goes in the portal? We just had a couple of players at a position last week go in the portal. What do you do? You end up playing the season with 75 scholarship players, or whatever it is left. I don't think any coach wants that.”

Membership Info: Sign up for GoldandBlack.com now | Why join? | Questions?

Follow GoldandBlack.com: Twitter | Facebook | YouTube

More: Gold and Black Illustrated/Gold and Black Express | Subscribe to our podcast