Increasing scholarship limits is a bad idea, in my opinion. Back when there were 105 scholorships, the major teams at the time could load up on so much more talent, and left very little for the weaker teams. There's a reason why the B1G used to be called Big Two, Little Eight. Michigan and Ohio State would get pretty much any recruit of note in the B1G recruiting area, and the lesser teams had to fight over the scraps. Imagine in the current time, if you kept your scholarship even if you were 4th string, would you transfer? I think reducing scholorships down to 85 leveled the playing field a little bit. It means that 20 guys on your team wouldn't get scholorships. Do you think that a 4* recruit would play at a team, no matter how much he loved that team, if he didn't get a scholorship? Especially considering that the majority of highly talented players can't afford to go to college without scholorships? If anything, I'd like to see a different breakdown.
I'd rather see a limit of 65 or 75 full ride scholarships, with the rest bein partial scholorships, for "walk on" players, as long as the total number of full or partial scholorships doesn't exceed 105. But that's just me.
It's like the NFL draft, it prevents the biggest brands from getting all of the best players and encourages a trend towards parity. Granted, a 5* prospect would rather go to the top schools, but the scholarship limits means that a single school can't amass a full 105 5* players. It takes a very passionate player to be a 5* and to play for a school without a scholorship. Basically unheard of. So that 5* that doesn't get the scholorship to that top school will instead go to a slightly weaker or less prestigious school that actually can offer the scholorship.
