110 rule

[Not the goal]

Why does the rule limiting fall camp before the start of classes to 110 players exist? What problem is it trying to prevent?
What is the actual rule number that sets this? I searched the NCAA rules and after jabbing my pen in my eye repeatedly, gave up on finding the actual rule.
I read an article recently (sorry don't recall which one) that said an injury that prevents a player from participating in the rest of "camp" is the only way to free up a new spot. True or false?
If it's true, our walk-ons must be much more injury prone than scholarship athletes since they're over-represented in the lost for the rest of camp group.

 

[ShortSideOption]

Why does the rule limiting fall camp before the start of classes to 110 players exist? What problem is it trying to prevent?
What is the actual rule number that sets this? I searched the NCAA rules and after jabbing my pen in my eye repeatedly, gave up on finding the actual rule.
I read an article recently (sorry don't recall which one) that said an injury that prevents a player from participating in the rest of "camp" is the only way to free up a new spot. True or false?
If it's true, our walk-ons must be much more injury prone than scholarship athletes since they're over-represented in the lost for the rest of camp group.

Quite literally is just an “equal out the playing field” rule. Much like only 85 scholarship players per school.

 

[Not the goal]

Quite literally is just an “equal out the playing field” rule. Much like only 85 scholarship players per school.

Does a roster size rule that covers 3 weeks out of the year have any effect on parity? Does having a larger roster for preseason practices provide a significant advantage? If having a bigger roster is that much of an advantage, then why not limit it for the season? Not that I favor that at all. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.
To be clear, those are not questions directed at you.

Unless you were the one who wrote the rule. You weren't, were you?

 

[Hville]

Does a roster size rule that covers 3 weeks out of the year have any effect on parity? Does having a larger roster for preseason practices provide a significant advantage? If having a bigger roster is that much of an advantage, then why not limit it for the season? Not that I favor that at all. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.
To be clear, those are not questions directed at you.

Unless you were the one who wrote the rule. You weren't, were you?

Well I think *** already answered it by saying it's a parity thing. It's an NCAA thing. Evidently they have copied other organizations such as the NFL that use a step system to allow staffs a way to slowly and fairly get down to a manageable roster size.

 

[Not the goal]

But it doesn't work like the NFL to pare down roster size. After 3 weeks, then they let you have as big a roster as you want. And again, how does that restriction for 3 weeks increase parity? I get 85 schollies. I would get a roster restriction that was for the year. But a 3 week roster restriction?
I think "it's an NCAA thing" is the best answer. There are plenty of stupid rules to complain about. I'll move on.

 

[Show Me State Red]

But it doesn't work like the NFL to pare down roster size. After 3 weeks, then they let you have as big a roster as you want. And again, how does that restriction for 3 weeks increase parity? I get 85 schollies. I would get a roster restriction that was for the year. But a 3 week roster restriction?
I think "it's an NCAA thing" is the best answer. There are plenty of stupid rules to complain about. I'll move on.

Good questions. I guess I never gave the 110 man roster limit much thought until your OP. The parity angle may make more sense if we knew how many teams are limited by the 110 man roster to start the season.

 

[707194959725]

Why, it's to offset the county scholarships, of course. :O O: