Should be at 105 like everyone else.  That will provide plenty of room for developmental OL and DTs and still leave NIL for portal immediate fixes.  

I'm all for expanding the rosters to 105, but for every "portal immediate fix" there are two or three portal busts.  

FSU has never replicated their portal success and I would bet that Tech won't either.

 

16 hours ago, tsip92 said:

Should be at 105 like everyone else.  That will provide plenty of room for developmental OL and DTs and still leave NIL for portal immediate fixes.  

This.

More scholarships at D1 means more spots at D2 and D3 for kids that may not have received those opportunities. More college-trained athletes for various sports (and opportunities for some kids to get out of bad life situations). My opinion from the rabbit hole is this is good for football growth internationally. This applies to all collegiate/olympic sports, but football is barely scratching the surface overseas and this increases player supply for various leagues.

Should stick with 85 even if expanded to 105 due to NIL allotment, unless the player is okay with just the scholarship and no NIL. There is already so much dead NIL on our roster that should be purged.

Edited November 26, 2025Nov 26 by SchoolColors

1 hour ago, SchoolColors said:

Should stick with 85 even if expanded to 105 due to NIL allotment, unless the player is okay with just the scholarship and no NIL. There is already so much dead NIL on our roster that should be purged.

The bottom of the scholarship roster is already getting minimal NIL. 20 more flex guys who we’d be offering preferred walk ons to will be a nice luxury. 

My main concern is that it’s already difficult to hold onto developmental players as they have playing time and NIL available at other programs… now that we are adding more spots are we just developing more players for other programs?