TWD 1974 said:
Not my plan to promote a perpetual self-promoter, but Calipari makes an interesting argument for reducing the roster size of top-level programs. With the high turnover rate with the portal, he considers going with 8-9 scholarship players. The argument, "Why develop a player at the end of your bench who is going to leave anyway?" Is this a valid argument or is he just blowing smoke at a couple of players holding them up for more NIL money?
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40115234/amid-portal-era-calipari-hints-limiting-arkansas-roster-8-9-guys
If we're going to continue in this same direction (the sport, not Baylor specifically), I don't actually think that's a bad plan. I wouldn't go to eight or nine, but I'd definitely consider dropping the roster size to 10.
Thirteen scholarships is too many in modern college basketball, and our roster is a perfect example. We still have three scholarships available and only have enough playing time remaining for one more player. And our current roster includes a guy in Ndjonga, who is a project, and another in Asemonta, who could quickly be pushed out of the rotation with the right transfer.
What point do those last three spots serve other than to potentially hand to deserving walk-ons or stash project players that are as likely as not to transfer after a year or two, as Cal points out? A valid case can be made for the importance of those two things, but a case can made against their practicality as well.
I think it's an interesting discussion. Like I said, eight or nine is too few. You need room for a couple of young/project guys. But you don't need five scholarships for such players in this era.
And reducing the scholarship limit might be a good way to help balance the Title IX count because you can -- and probably should -- leave the women's scholarship number alone. Because there's no one-and-done rule, that sport keeps a lot of players in programs for three, four and five years.
