|
Post by jwvolley on Jul 24, 2024 14:51:29 GMT -5
I’ve been anticipating some pin transfers out after this season, considering the log jam that’s been building up. This just increases the likelihood of that IMO. How does scholarship limit increase relate to any mandatory limit on roster size? Has there ever been a limit to roster size on scholarship sports in the NCAA? It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport
|
|
|
Post by hornfanaustin on Jul 24, 2024 15:01:20 GMT -5
How does scholarship limit increase relate to any mandatory limit on roster size? Has there ever been a limit to roster size on scholarship sports in the NCAA? It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport yup, missed it:
The NCAA has finally moved on reform of roster sizes, opening the door for programs to offer more scholarships than before.
According to a report from Yahoo! Sports, power conference commissioners finalized the roster-size limits under which athletic departments will be able to allocate millions of dollars in new scholarships. Football will have a roster limit of 105, up from the 85-man NCAA scholarship limit that currently exists.
Baseball will also see a massive increase in scholarship / roster size, going from 11.7 scholarship slots to 34. Basketball will increase from 13 to 15. Softball will increase from 12 to 25, while volleyball will increase from 12 to 18.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 15:20:50 GMT -5
It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport yup, missed it:
The NCAA has finally moved on reform of roster sizes, opening the door for programs to offer more scholarships than before.
According to a report from Yahoo! Sports, power conference commissioners finalized the roster-size limits under which athletic departments will be able to allocate millions of dollars in new scholarships. Football will have a roster limit of 105, up from the 85-man NCAA scholarship limit that currently exists.
Baseball will also see a massive increase in scholarship / roster size, going from 11.7 scholarship slots to 34. Basketball will increase from 13 to 15. Softball will increase from 12 to 25, while volleyball will increase from 12 to 18.
What is proposed, and likely will be adopted, is that roster size limit and scholarship limit are now the same. Essentially the partial scholarship system in many sports is being eliminated. It's a boost for baseball, for example, as 34 is the current roster size limit or very close to it. In their case, rosters will remain essentially the same while every player could be given a full scholarship. It appears some sports may get a big boost in scholarships, but the roster limit is significantly below the size of current teams. On another site, a top follower of our swimming program says our typical men's team has over 40 swimmers but the scholarship limit is around 11 IIRC. The new proposed limit for both is 23.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 15:23:53 GMT -5
Sounds like that would also be the roster size limit. Curious if the roster limit is going to take effect at the same time as the scholarship allowance? Texas has 20 players on their roster right now. You lose 5 after this season and bring in 5 freshmen, which keeps it at 20. If the roster limit is 18, a couple roster players would have to go. Losing two returnees off the current roster won't be that difficult. Typically we have at least that many transfer out.
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jul 24, 2024 15:33:23 GMT -5
yup, missed it:
The NCAA has finally moved on reform of roster sizes, opening the door for programs to offer more scholarships than before.
According to a report from Yahoo! Sports, power conference commissioners finalized the roster-size limits under which athletic departments will be able to allocate millions of dollars in new scholarships. Football will have a roster limit of 105, up from the 85-man NCAA scholarship limit that currently exists.
Baseball will also see a massive increase in scholarship / roster size, going from 11.7 scholarship slots to 34. Basketball will increase from 13 to 15. Softball will increase from 12 to 25, while volleyball will increase from 12 to 18.
What is proposed, and likely will be adopted, is that roster size limit and scholarship limit are now the same. Essentially the partial scholarship system in many sports is being eliminated. It's a boost for baseball, for example, as 34 is the current roster size limit or very close to it. In their case, rosters will remain essentially the same while every player could be given a full scholarship. It appears some sports may get a big boost in scholarships, but the roster limit is significantly below the size of current teams. On another site, a top follower of our swimming program says our typical men's team has over 40 swimmers but the scholarship limit is around 11 IIRC. The new proposed limit for both is 23. 23 swimmers? or 23 swimmers/divers combined?
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 15:41:29 GMT -5
What is proposed, and likely will be adopted, is that roster size limit and scholarship limit are now the same. Essentially the partial scholarship system in many sports is being eliminated. It's a boost for baseball, for example, as 34 is the current roster size limit or very close to it. In their case, rosters will remain essentially the same while every player could be given a full scholarship. It appears some sports may get a big boost in scholarships, but the roster limit is significantly below the size of current teams. On another site, a top follower of our swimming program says our typical men's team has over 40 swimmers but the scholarship limit is around 11 IIRC. The new proposed limit for both is 23. 23 swimmers? or 23 swimmers/divers combined? The statement was 23 swimmers/divers combined.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Jul 24, 2024 15:43:43 GMT -5
Sounds like that would also be the roster size limit. Curious if the roster limit is going to take effect at the same time as the scholarship allowance? Texas has 20 players on their roster right now. You lose 5 after this season and bring in 5 freshmen, which keeps it at 20. If the roster limit is 18, a couple roster players would have to go. Losing two returnees off the current roster won't be that difficult. Typically we have at least that many transfer out. True. They just wouldn’t be replaced by transfers in.
|
|
|
Post by austinhorn21 on Jul 24, 2024 16:11:35 GMT -5
Losing two returnees off the current roster won't be that difficult. Typically we have at least that many transfer out. True. They just wouldn’t be replaced by transfers in. thats what the college volleyball world wants anyways. So people should be happy. 😊
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jul 24, 2024 17:37:07 GMT -5
Mine's August 1st and I'll log in ad see all orange of taken seats. if you do log in, let us know if anything in the chairback sections is available. i suspect not, but strange things can happen I'm 30 mins before you, which is a shock. All those non-voluntary parking donations are paying off, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jul 24, 2024 17:56:25 GMT -5
if you do log in, let us know if anything in the chairback sections is available. i suspect not, but strange things can happen I'm 30 mins before you, which is a shock. All those non-voluntary parking donations are paying off, I guess. the email specifically mentioned the "minimum annual gift to purchase priority parking" and that i'm below that minimum
#buslife
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jul 24, 2024 18:04:18 GMT -5
How does scholarship limit increase relate to any mandatory limit on roster size? Has there ever been a limit to roster size on scholarship sports in the NCAA? It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport IMO this is a step on the wrong direction for a couple of reasons: - the smaller scholarship number has diffused talent to lower ranked programs, mid-majors etc. Increasing the schollie count means that programs like TX and Nebraska will hoover up more top talent. Those additional talented players are likely to sit the bench before transferring out after 1-2 seasons, rather than being potentially 4-year starters elsewhere. - I think the means the end of quality walk-ons at programs like Texas. Which is a shame, since the walk-ons we have had the last two seasons have contributed so much to team culture - it's not always visible on tv, but if you attend live matches and watch the sidelines, players like Ewert, Miller, Crownover, Heinrich, and Pierce have been the team's biggest hype men and getting everyone fired up
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jul 24, 2024 18:29:36 GMT -5
It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport IMO this is a step on the wrong direction for a couple of reasons: - the smaller scholarship number has diffused talent to lower ranked programs, mid-majors etc. Increasing the schollie count means that programs like TX and Nebraska will hoover up more top talent. Those additional talented players are likely to sit the bench before transferring out after 1-2 seasons, rather than being potentially 4-year starters elsewhere. 2. I think the means the end of quality walk-ons at programs like Texas. Which is a shame, since the walk-ons we have had the last two seasons have contributed so much to team culture - it's not always visible on tv, but if you attend live matches and watch the sidelines, players like Ewert, Miller, Crownover, Heinrich, and Pierce have been the team's biggest hype men and getting everyone fired up Um. It’s a huge step in the wrong direction. It’s a legal settlement done to prevent a much larger triple damages tort loss, not a mindful consideration of how to best govern collegiate sports. It’s a shotgun marriage, not a long courtship. It starts with schools needing to pay their student athletes $20 million per year. This isn’t about creating an equitable competitive structure. This about paying student athletes a portion of the revenue collegiate sports is generating. Especially football, although the payout will be more generalized. Texas has for years campaigned for more scholarships and fully funding partial scholarship sports but has met a dead end because other schools have more limited resources. Now other schools will be forced to step up. There’s no question this is going to have huge ramifications on the competitive landscape, many of which are unforeseen. Also, this isn’t some kind of final solution - no intent to reference the Holocaust there. This is a stopgap created through litigation. There’s more massive changes to come until Congress passes some kind of legislation to address collegiate athletics. And there’s simply no appetite for it in the current political climate.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 24, 2024 18:30:35 GMT -5
It is a part of the agreement. Schools will be able to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters but those roster sizes will be capped at different numbers per sport IMO this is a step on the wrong direction for a couple of reasons: - the smaller scholarship number has diffused talent to lower ranked programs, mid-majors etc. Increasing the schollie count means that programs like TX and Nebraska will hoover up more top talent. Those additional talented players are likely to sit the bench before transferring out after 1-2 seasons, rather than being potentially 4-year starters elsewhere. 2. I think the means the end of quality walk-ons at programs like Texas. Which is a shame, since the walk-ons we have had the last two seasons have contributed so much to team culture - it's not always visible on tv, but if you attend live matches and watch the sidelines, players like Ewert, Miller, Crownover, Heinrich, and Pierce have been the team's biggest hype men and getting everyone fired up Your concerns seem a bit contradictory. Programs like Texas and Nebraska already get quality players to walk on who otherwise could get a scholarship at other quality schools and that fact has nothing to do with the current scholarship limits. But that aside, what is confusing to me is that you think that Texas hoarding talent is a bad thing (or at least you said it contributes to a "wrong direction"), but then lament that losing quality non-scholarship players is a "shame" for Texas specifically as it relates to team culture.
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jul 24, 2024 18:40:13 GMT -5
IMO this is a step on the wrong direction for a couple of reasons: - the smaller scholarship number has diffused talent to lower ranked programs, mid-majors etc. Increasing the schollie count means that programs like TX and Nebraska will hoover up more top talent. Those additional talented players are likely to sit the bench before transferring out after 1-2 seasons, rather than being potentially 4-year starters elsewhere. 2. I think the means the end of quality walk-ons at programs like Texas. Which is a shame, since the walk-ons we have had the last two seasons have contributed so much to team culture - it's not always visible on tv, but if you attend live matches and watch the sidelines, players like Ewert, Miller, Crownover, Heinrich, and Pierce have been the team's biggest hype men and getting everyone fired up Your concerns seem a bit contradictory. Programs like Texas and Nebraska already get quality players to walk on who otherwise could get a scholarship at other quality schools and that fact has nothing to do with the current scholarship limits. But that aside, what is confusing to me is that you think that Texas hoarding talent is a bad thing (or at least you said it contributes to a "wrong direction"), but then lament that losing quality non-scholarship players is a "shame" for Texas specifically as it relates to team culture. I think if we had 18 scholarships to give, Texas would not be giving the extra 6 to players like Kenna Miller (sad but true). That and the 18 roster limit would mean that she could not play at Texas in any capacity -- so she's either forced out of the sport (if she likes Texas as a university and wants to get her degree there) or has to transfer to keep playing.
|
|
|
Post by hornshouse23 on Jul 24, 2024 18:40:33 GMT -5
IMO this is a step on the wrong direction for a couple of reasons: - the smaller scholarship number has diffused talent to lower ranked programs, mid-majors etc. Increasing the schollie count means that programs like TX and Nebraska will hoover up more top talent. Those additional talented players are likely to sit the bench before transferring out after 1-2 seasons, rather than being potentially 4-year starters elsewhere. 2. I think the means the end of quality walk-ons at programs like Texas. Which is a shame, since the walk-ons we have had the last two seasons have contributed so much to team culture - it's not always visible on tv, but if you attend live matches and watch the sidelines, players like Ewert, Miller, Crownover, Heinrich, and Pierce have been the team's biggest hype men and getting everyone fired up Your concerns seem a bit contradictory. Programs like Texas and Nebraska already get quality players to walk on who otherwise could get a scholarship at other quality schools and that fact has nothing to do with the current scholarship limits. But that aside, what is confusing to me is that you think that Texas hoarding talent is a bad thing (or at least you said it contributes to a "wrong direction"), but then lament that losing quality non-scholarship players is a "shame" for Texas specifically as it relates to team culture. I was trying to figure how to say the same thing here. I’m not sure I’m fully following the logic in the OP
|
|