[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

For high school sports it is common for some roster members to not be on the field or court during games, except maybe garbage time.
In high school football it's not uncommon for 4 or 5 of the best athletes to start both ways, play offense and defense, while others on the roster never take the field.
For grammar school and high school rosters there is an obvious disparity of athleticism of skill levels among the players. However at the Major college level aren't the rosters comprised of star recruits, all of whom were sensational high school star players ? If so, why aren't college coaches inclined to give playing time to a greater number of players ?

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

For high school sports it is common for some roster members to not be on the field or court during games, except maybe garbage time.
In high school football it's not uncommon for 4 or 5 of the best athletes to start both ways, play offense and defense, while others on the roster never take the field.
For grammar school and high school rosters there is an obvious disparity of athleticism of skill levels among the players. However at the Major college level aren't the rosters comprised of star recruits, all of whom were sensational high school star players ? If so, why aren't college coaches inclined to give playing time to a greater number of players ?

[fullmetal]

Maybe a couple of reasons:

1. Playing time is earned by effort and production in practice.  Coaches may need to maintain the level of effort in practice by reserving playing time for the players who give/contribute the most during the week.  If the game is televised nationally, you bet the coaches have to make the players earn their minutes.

2. Subbing your starters out to give snaps/minutes to players typically buried at the bottom of depth charts can be interpreted as a sign that the game's conclusion has already been decided one way or another.  That's usually not a great idea if the athletic director is in charge of keeping boosters happy or proud of the team's performance...and if the athletic director is also in charge of hiring/firing coaches.

3. A team with a large lead can sometimes lose that lead in a hurry.  Subbing out starters and then having to re-insert them soon is not a good look.

4. Sometimes there's a significant talent drop-off between the two-deep players and the scout team (third- or fourth-string players).  Those latter players may not be ready to handle the opponents' starters.

Having said that, I'm generally in favor of giving more players experience.  There's always some way to give a senior scout team receiver snaps at the end of the game, whether that be a run play or a passing play...

[fullmetal]

Maybe a couple of reasons:

1. Playing time is earned by effort and production in practice.  Coaches may need to maintain the level of effort in practice by reserving playing time for the players who give/contribute the most during the week.  If the game is televised nationally, you bet the coaches have to make the players earn their minutes.

2. Subbing your starters out to give snaps/minutes to players typically buried at the bottom of depth charts can be interpreted as a sign that the game's conclusion has already been decided one way or another.  That's usually not a great idea if the athletic director is in charge of keeping boosters happy or proud of the team's performance...and if the athletic director is also in charge of hiring/firing coaches.

3. A team with a large lead can sometimes lose that lead in a hurry.  Subbing out starters and then having to re-insert them soon is not a good look.

4. Sometimes there's a significant talent drop-off between the two-deep players and the scout team (third- or fourth-string players).  Those latter players may not be ready to handle the opponents' starters.

Having said that, I'm generally in favor of giving more players experience.  There's always some way to give a senior scout team receiver snaps at the end of the game, whether that be a run play or a passing play...