OUInsider - Owen Field

There were two aspects to the NCAA sanction. 15 scholly's a year for three years, and 75 max scholarship players for three years. It appears clear that USC will aggressively use attrition and "signing back" to stay at 75 players each year. (early predictions were that USC would shrink to 55-65 players, then be limited by normal limits, taking several years to get back to 85.)

All of that said, if USC is limited to 75 and everyone else is cut back from 85 to 80 then whatever competitive disadvantage was imposed on USC will be reduced. Thus - the "irony" cited in my original post on thus subject.

I would have to take a wild guess here and say that most of them can't afford to go to college without an athletic scholarship.

I remember reading in Bootleggers Boy, Coach Switzer said that he bought some of his players coats because they or their families couldn't afford to buy one and that a lot of the player's come from impoverished back grounds. Like Coach Switzer said, ever get off a plane in Lincoln, Ne. in late November, it's cold.

IMO, whenever the ncaa reduces the scholarship limit that schools can give, it takes an opportunity away from an student/athlete to go to college. There would have been a lot of 2 and 3 star players that wouldn't have been give a chance who eventually went on and became starters. And, with the number of games that are played now (up to 14), versus the seventies and eighties when a full season with a bowl game was eleven games, where does all of the money go? It sure as hell doesn't go into the players pockets.