FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[bleedpurple]

More Mount commits..

Zach Voss        FB/MLB  5-9, 200         Pulaski, TN
John Jefferson  OL   6-0,  265              Ambler, PA
Joey Hoffner     WR/SS  6-0,  190        Manor, PA
Collin Gilbert   QB/CB  5-10,  170        Columbiana, OH
Lane Breyer     DT/NG/OLB   6-1, 222  Kettering, OH

Wow, Mount must be getting close to their 300 player roster limit! 

[jknezek]

More Mount commits..

Zach Voss        FB/MLB  5-9, 200         Pulaski, TN
John Jefferson  OL   6-0,  265              Ambler, PA
Joey Hoffner     WR/SS  6-0,  190        Manor, PA
Collin Gilbert   QB/CB  5-10,  170        Columbiana, OH
Lane Breyer     DT/NG/OLB   6-1, 222  Kettering, OH

Wow, Mount must be getting close to their 300 player roster limit! 

I always thought that was a budgeting floor, not a player ceiling? 

[TailGate]

Forgot one...

Trenton Giddings LS/C    5-10, 215 Tampa, FL

It could be 500 - the number on the roster (above certain threshold) has no bearing.  Provides no advantage on the field. Kids want to be a part of something great, and it helps enrollment at the school if they allow greater participation.  Only the top kids play anyway - same anywhere.   If you have to go "7 deep" for a player - you are not a factor.   Probably more of a disadvantage to have to try and manage that large of a number of kids..... 

[emma17]

Forgot one...

Trenton Giddings LS/C    5-10, 215 Tampa, FL

It could be 500 - the number on the roster (above certain threshold) has no bearing.  Provides no advantage on the field. Kids want to be a part of something great, and it helps enrollment at the school if they allow greater participation.  Only the top kids play anyway - same anywhere.   If you have to go "7 deep" for a player - you are not a factor.   Probably more of a disadvantage to have to try and manage that large of a number of kids.....

I see both sides of this one.
Too many kids on the roster is a disadvantage as it waters down coaching time and prevents reps w top players and groups.

However, I have no doubt that programs like Mt have figured out how to separate the 1's, 2's and 3's from the rest and get them the proper reps and attention.
This leaves the other 100-140 players (all of whom I assume played HS ball and know the competitive nature of Mt) with a number of years to develop their skills and bodies and ultimately get noticed - all while learning Mt's offense and defense.

[jknezek]

I just consider it yet another mark of Mounts unprecedented bravery in overcoming challenges. After all...

"Mount is at a disadvantage like never before..... "

[02 Warhawk]

4 out of 5 --in the past 5, is significant.  Has the "tide has turned"?  Yak all you want about history and tradition - but Mount needs to step up their game - or its just HISTORY.  There's a lot riding on the next few years.  Sure hope some of these new recruits can get in the mix early and contribute.....  including any Florida guys!   UWW isn't afraid to play them young.

It does suck that Mount has to play schools with HUGE (D-I) enrollment and CHEAP (really CHEAP) tuition - but it is what it is.  But - that's why each Championship was sweeter than the last and such a huge testament to the caliber of coaching, recruiting,  and grit of the kids at Mount. 

Looking towards the FUTURE....

It could be 500 - the number on the roster (above certain threshold) has no bearing.  Provides no advantage on the field. Kids want to be a part of something great, and it helps enrollment at the school if they allow greater participation.  Only the top kids play anyway - same anywhere.   If you have to go "7 deep" for a player - you are not a factor.   Probably more of a disadvantage to have to try and manage that large of a number of kids..... 

You must be a politician (flipping sides on your DIII views)

[TailGate]

Number on the roster is a different number than the number enrolled - wouldn't ya say?

[jknezek]

Number on the roster is a different number than the number enrolled - wouldn't ya say?

I would say that number on a roster has a stronger bearing on how many good football players you have access to than number enrolled at a school. Common sense and all that...

[MasterJedi]

Number on the roster is a different number than the number enrolled - wouldn't ya say?

UWW can only have 100 on their roster, so the size of the school is irrelevant. Mount can have as many as they want, they have the advantage.

[02 Warhawk]

Number on the roster is a different number than the number enrolled - wouldn't ya say?

I would say that number on a roster has a stronger bearing on how many good football players you have access to than number enrolled at a school. Common sense and all that...

Now that i would say

[TailGate]

There are news articles online regarding Ohio State and other big schools with roster sizes in the 100 range - these articles talk about the relatively small percentage of guys in the recruiting class who ever see the playing field.  Can't imagine that anything much over 100 is a real factor - for Mount or anywhere else- other than putting tuition money in the bank for the school.

[02 Warhawk]

There are news articles online regarding Ohio State and other big schools with roster sizes in the 100 range - these articles talk about the relatively small percentage of guys in the recruiting class who ever see the playing field.  Can't imagine that anything much over 100 is a real factor - for Mount or anywhere else- other than putting tuition money in the bank for the school.

A quick hypothetical here:

Team A has 300 players on its roster, and can only dress 60 for a game.
Team B has 100 players on its roster, and can only dress 60 for a game.

Theoretically, which team's depth would probably have the better quality of players?

(Hint: Cream rises to the top)

Edit: I use the words "hypothetical", "theoretically" and "probably" because I believe this advantage isn't all that concerning. If it was, public schools (specifically the WIAC), wouldn't stand a chance against the private schools in DIII. Like we stated before, it all boils down to how serious the school's administration is to athletics. That's the real advantage in my opinion.

With the success UWW and UMU has had over the past 10 years - and looking at how different these two institutions are - the one similarity they share is that both schools are serious about its athletics (especially football). So this whole private vs public, comparing tuition, comparing enrollment, roster size, etc.. etc.. etc. It's all pointless. The institution's commitment to athletics to me is the key.

[Dr. Acula]

The other similarity is great coaching.  That goes a long way.

[bleedpurple]

There are news articles online regarding Ohio State and other big schools with roster sizes in the 100 range - these articles talk about the relatively small percentage of guys in the recruiting class who ever see the playing field.  Can't imagine that anything much over 100 is a real factor - for Mount or anywhere else- other than putting tuition money in the bank for the school.

A quick hypothetical here:

Team A has 300 players on its roster, and can only dress 60 for a game.
Team B has 100 players on its roster, and can only dress 60 for a game.

Theoretically, which team's depth would probably have the better quality of players?

(Hint: Cream rises to the top)

Edit: I use the words "hypothetical", "theoretically" and "probably" because I believe this advantage isn't all that concerning. If it was, public schools (specifically the WIAC), wouldn't stand a chance against the private schools in DIII. Like we stated before, it all boils down to how serious the school's administration is to athletics. That's the real advantage in my opinion.

With the success UWW and UMU has had over the past 10 years - and looking at how different these two institutions are - the one similarity they share is that both schools are serious about its athletics (especially football). So this whole private vs public, comparing tuition, comparing enrollment, roster size, etc.. etc.. etc. It's all pointless. The institution's commitment to athletics to me is the key.

Yes, yes, yes.  My initial "300 roster limit" post was tongue in cheek. Mount has the right to operate their football program however they want within the rules of the OAC and NCAA. I do know the UW-W coaches are not that fond of the 100 player roster limit, especially on cut-down day. But my sense is they would prefer somewhere around 125 (and this is just a sense, not information from a coach).  There are some really good players that do not make the team. But, as I've said before, champions could care less about "advantages". Either their own or others.  IMO the most important of both Mount's advantages and UW-W's advantages are advantages they have created, not advantages they have had handed to them.

[formerd3db]

Warhawk, Tailgate, bleedpurple and all:

Interesting discussion regarding the roster limits.  Some of this has been discussed on the boards in the past in addition to the current discussion.  As you have mentioned, some DIII conferences have a roster limit of 100; we also know that the NCAA has a limit for playoff rosters.  However, do you know if some conferences that allow more than the 100 player roster have a limit on the number of players who can dress for home games and/or the travel squad for away games?  Most schools that I know usually limit travel rosters to anywhere from 53 to perhaps maybe (maybe) 60 at the most, in part, due to obvious costs, and again, if there is no conference limit.  It is also my understanding that, in some conferences, schools can dress as many players as they want to for home games, including over 100+ if desired (I know Hope does), again, if there are no conference mandates limiting that situation also.  What is your understanding regarding all these scenarios?