In "NIL," transfer-without-restrictions, 105-roster-spots-vs-85-scholarships era, what does a loss of scholarships even mean, and what real impact would it have?

Would a roster of 105 still stand, with any lost scholarships made up by "walk-on" "NIL" recipients, or would the number of roster spots be reduced by a like number? In the former case it the impact would seem to be almost for a program with a big "NIL" warchest. But the impact of roster spot reductions (if in the 3, 5 or even 10 range) would also seem to be minimal. It WOULD reduce the number of players available for scout team duty, and could impact depth, particularly with multiple injuries in a single position group.

But...

In 2014 the Buckeyes won a national championship with just 82 scholarship players. There were a couple contributors outside that 82, but they would certainly have been included within a full roster of 90 or a hundred.

In "the old days" it was important to have recently-recruited freshman (and sophomores and red-shirt freshmen) who were not yet ready to contribute who were being readied for future years. Although still beneficial, in the current era with "NIL" inducements and players able to play immediately upon transferring, programs can plan to fill future needs in part through the portal, relieving the need to stock up on as many players "in development."

My point is that there would need to be a much larger reduction in roster size (from 105) to be as impactful as a reduction of 3 or 5 scholarships (from 85) under the rules of even a couple years ago.

And so if, for example, some unnamed (and unmentionable) program were found to have cheated and then thumbed their (booger-filled) noses at the NCAA, how many scholarships/roster positions would need to be cut to have any meaningful impact?