|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 10:29:12 GMT -5
2) Increase in players playing both indoor and beach. This really depends on the rules over scholarships - but I think it will become easier to play both. Potentially they could do away with beach scholarships cannot play indoor - or at a minimum, the increased scholarships will allow more players to play both. In addition - I could see an expansion in beach volleyball. I expect all Big Ten and SEC schools to have beach volleyball within the next 10-15 years. Maybe Big XII and ACC, but less likely than the big 2 conferences. Maybe. With all of the new expenses, I think school will be hesitant to add sports unless it's to avoid a Title IX lawsuit (which is very possible). And with a roster max, will you really want to use up a roster spot on an athlete who will only be with you for half of the year? Maybe indoor programs will want to go the route of Nebraska and have a joke beach team so that you can double count the female athletes without increasing costs. But the reality is that the number of athletes who are good enough to be on both an indoor and beach team that are trying to be nationally competitive is still pretty small. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 27, 2024 10:44:31 GMT -5
68 schools are about to start writing checks, and you think club sports is going to go away and parents are going to trust the drivers Ed instructor to get them a scholarship plus? I would be surprised. 68 schools are about to start writing check, 300-400 are about to get out of that whole business, and a lot of the preferred walk on admissions spots at those 68 schools that semi-justified the investment are going POOF. Yes, there will be continued interest for top level athletes, and those who can be convinced they are parents of top level athletes, but the rubber is going to meet the road quickly and there will be a contraction. I could possibly see some overall roster contraction, mainly in football, but why would they set the roster limits significantly lower than the mean sizes at those 68 schools? Especially in women's sports, where Title IX compliance will still very largely be driven by overall roster numbers and scholarship numbers? In other words, if the total roster slots aren't going down (in women's sports) at those schools, then either the total non-scholarship slots will stay the same or they'll just convert to scholarship slots, right?
For the 300-400 ... why can't they just keep doing exactly what they're doing? There isn't going to be any requirement, in DI let alone DII and DIII, to pay athletes for their NIL. Just the option to do it (and I think again that's mainly aimed at DI). No DII or DIII school should be attempting anything like this stuff that's happening at the top of DI, in the slightest. They should just keep doing business as usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 27, 2024 10:48:38 GMT -5
what a waste, 5-6 roster spots for players that won't every fulfill their desire to play competitively, segregated from the student body for the most part in a semi-pro sports cacoon. Counterargument: A max roster of 16 would mean the number of athletes on Big Ten rosters would decrease. The average roster size was 16.4. And 8 of the 18 programs had rosters bigger than 18 and would need to reduce their rosters by a combined 17 athletes to get below the max. Also the smallest roster in the Big Ten last year belonged to a program that could fund adding non-scholarship athletes with NIL money. Yet they didn't and thought the roster that gave them the best chance to win a national championship was 14. Thanks for these numbers.
And so, particularly when you factor that almost every DI schools plays women's (indoor) volleyball, as it is a relatively cheap sport to have, and that they all need to use such sports to satisfy Title IX requirements ...... what possible incentive is there for the new regime to set the new volleyball roster limit to, say, less than 20??
Why not? Just because it's a max of 20, doesn't mean you have to have 20 on your roster (let alone give all 20 a (full) scholarship).
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 27, 2024 10:54:18 GMT -5
Here are my thoughts on the impact on Women's volleyball. 1) As mentioned before - this is a boom for L/DS. Top programs are going to see an increase in the quality at this position - very top programs were pretty much already there. 2) Increase in players playing both indoor and beach. This really depends on the rules over scholarships - but I think it will become easier to play both. Potentially they could do away with beach scholarships cannot play indoor - or at a minimum, the increased scholarships will allow more players to play both. In addition - I could see an expansion in beach volleyball. I expect all Big Ten and SEC schools to have beach volleyball within the next 10-15 years. Maybe Big XII and ACC, but less likely than the big 2 conferences. 3) Continued separation between power 4 conferences and the rest. But also between the Big Ten/SEC and Big XII/ACC. I can see some mid majors that do not play football potentially being reasonably competitive (West Coast/Big East). But overall - we will see the trend for the SEC catching up with the Big Ten and those 2 conferences mostly dominating the sport. 4) College volleyball players generally overall are better off going forward. The sport continues to grow along with more parity. Just not the kind of parity we are seeing in MBB, just more elite programs. Towards your point #3:
Let's say they set the roster size of indoor to 20. (aside: I have no idea about college sand (OK, if you're snobby I guess you call it beach, even if there are no actual beaches in sight), so I'm going to leave that part of the analysis out of it, though I completely agree it will be an important factor.)
The Big Ten and SEC can easily afford to fully stock that roster, give all 20 a scholarship, and even pay all 20 some varying amounts of money for their NIL rights.
But no matter what, you're probably not going to see more than 8-9 players significantly contributing to a team's championship season. Transfers can come in, All-Star teams can be assembled each year, that's all well and good.
My ultimate point is this: it's a matter of, how much are some talented girls going to be willing to just sit on a roster for the benefits of being on the roster but not really contributing much (if at all) to the team's success on gameday?
There are only so many of those high-contribution level slots to go around. If you want to play, you want to play. You'll go somewhere to play.
This is a fairly rambling, squishy point I'm trying to make. But I'm trying to talk myself into believing that there are enough high-level players to go around. But ... maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe it's just going to be Texas All-Transfer Stars vs Nebraska All-Transfer Stars every year for the natty. Or a handful of other programs that can copy that model.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 27, 2024 11:06:05 GMT -5
Interesting to me that the quoted $35k stipend number is not wildly off the typical stipend for STEM PhD students, which ranges between 25-35k depending on the institution. Federal fellows typically earn more than $37k. The trend these days is to accept PhD students as employees, insofar as they are usually half time Teaching or Research Assistants, and to disentangle or counter balance the time spent toward their degree from that on unrelated TA and RA obligations.
Looks like they are adopting the STEM PhD model for UG SAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 11:06:12 GMT -5
Counterargument: A max roster of 16 would mean the number of athletes on Big Ten rosters would decrease. The average roster size was 16.4. And 8 of the 18 programs had rosters bigger than 18 and would need to reduce their rosters by a combined 17 athletes to get below the max. Also the smallest roster in the Big Ten last year belonged to a program that could fund adding non-scholarship athletes with NIL money. Yet they didn't and thought the roster that gave them the best chance to win a national championship was 14. Thanks for these numbers. And so, particularly when you factor that almost every DI schools plays women's (indoor) volleyball, as it is a relatively cheap sport to have, and that they all need to use such sports to satisfy Title IX requirements ...... what possible incentive is there for the new regime to set the new volleyball roster limit to, say, less than 20?? Why not? Just because it's a max of 20, doesn't mean you have to have 20 on your roster (let alone give all 20 a (full) scholarship).
You could argue why have a limit at all? The schools want to limit costs. While some don't, plenty of schools are able to achieve Title IX compliance without inflating roster sizes. The public discussion is that they're going to be reducing football roster sizes. My guess is that that might happen with just about every sport. Do soccer teams really need more than 30 athletes? Do baseball teams really need 40? As I've stated before, the participation component of Title IX won't be any different going forward. There isn't a new need for female participants unless they've been out of compliance and are now just worries about a lawsuit. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 27, 2024 12:40:35 GMT -5
It is my understanding that this doesn't impact athletes' ability to earn NIL. NIL would be on top of the ~ $20m per university payments to athletes. NIL going through universities is independent of the payouts.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 27, 2024 12:45:40 GMT -5
Here are my thoughts on the impact on Women's volleyball. 1) As mentioned before - this is a boom for L/DS. Top programs are going to see an increase in the quality at this position - very top programs were pretty much already there. 2) Increase in players playing both indoor and beach. This really depends on the rules over scholarships - but I think it will become easier to play both. Potentially they could do away with beach scholarships cannot play indoor - or at a minimum, the increased scholarships will allow more players to play both. In addition - I could see an expansion in beach volleyball. I expect all Big Ten and SEC schools to have beach volleyball within the next 10-15 years. Maybe Big XII and ACC, but less likely than the big 2 conferences. 3) Continued separation between power 4 conferences and the rest. But also between the Big Ten/SEC and Big XII/ACC. I can see some mid majors that do not play football potentially being reasonably competitive (West Coast/Big East). But overall - we will see the trend for the SEC catching up with the Big Ten and those 2 conferences mostly dominating the sport. 4) College volleyball players generally overall are better off going forward. The sport continues to grow along with more parity. Just not the kind of parity we are seeing in MBB, just more elite programs. Towards your point #3:
Let's say they set the roster size of indoor to 20. (aside: I have no idea about college sand (OK, if you're snobby I guess you call it beach, even if there are no actual beaches in sight), so I'm going to leave that part of the analysis out of it, though I completely agree it will be an important factor.)
The Big Ten and SEC can easily afford to fully stock that roster, give all 20 a scholarship, and even pay all 20 some varying amounts of money for their NIL rights.
But no matter what, you're probably not going to see more than 8-9 players significantly contributing to a team's championship season. Transfers can come in, All-Star teams can be assembled each year, that's all well and good.
My ultimate point is this: it's a matter of, how much are some talented girls going to be willing to just sit on a roster for the benefits of being on the roster but not really contributing much (if at all) to the team's success on gameday?
There are only so many of those high-contribution level slots to go around. If you want to play, you want to play. You'll go somewhere to play.
This is a fairly rambling, squishy point I'm trying to make. But I'm trying to talk myself into believing that there are enough high-level players to go around. But ... maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe it's just going to be Texas All-Transfer Stars vs Nebraska All-Transfer Stars every year for the natty. Or a handful of other programs that can copy that model.
We are already seeing players take scholarships to play with Nebraska/Texas/etc.. where there isn't room to play, rather than go somewhere else and start on scholarship. But we do have DS's going somewhere to start on scholarship rather than be a walk-on at a top program. Many of those players are now going to take the scholarship for the better program and be the #1 or #2 DS. This is going to help many of those #5-25 programs at the margins at the expense of those sub 35-50 programs. Again - this is just speculation on my part, I am interested in where I could be wrong. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 27, 2024 12:57:47 GMT -5
2) Increase in players playing both indoor and beach. This really depends on the rules over scholarships - but I think it will become easier to play both. Potentially they could do away with beach scholarships cannot play indoor - or at a minimum, the increased scholarships will allow more players to play both. In addition - I could see an expansion in beach volleyball. I expect all Big Ten and SEC schools to have beach volleyball within the next 10-15 years. Maybe Big XII and ACC, but less likely than the big 2 conferences. Maybe. With all of the new expenses, I think school will be hesitant to add sports unless it's to avoid a Title IX lawsuit (which is very possible). And with a roster max, will you really want to use up a roster spot on an athlete who will only be with you for half of the year? Maybe indoor programs will want to go the route of Nebraska and have a joke beach team so that you can double count the female athletes without increasing costs. But the reality is that the number of athletes who are good enough to be on both an indoor and beach team that are trying to be nationally competitive is still pretty small. This is in part where I am probably missing the potential Title IX implications. I have the assumption that there are many more male non scholarship athletes than female non scholarships? If this is true - then either male participation is higher than female participation or female scholarships are more than male? I have assumed the former? If the p4 conferences go to basically no walk-ons with the same participation - then we end up with more male scholarships than female and we are looking for males sports to eliminate or women sports to add. And this would make beach a cost effective women's sport to add. But I agree - if the roster limit (which becomes the scholarship limit) is still restrictive and beach scholarship players cannot play indoor, then there probably wouldn't be much change. But we are talking about what seems like a minimum of 4 more scholarships for women's VB - and being able to double up with beach would get you more options in the gym and for your legal roster (would it be possible to have 18 scholarship players on your team - 2 of them being beach scholarships - then be able to designate your 16 player roster each match? - or does a hypothetical 16 max roster mean that only 16 players are eligible for the entire year and not a per match limit?). If it is a per match limit - then teams will want to leverage depth with beach players. Another consequence I forgot to mention - going back to cost cutting matchups for the NCAA tournament. Instead of seeding through 32 - go back to maximizing drive in matches. This would be a disappointment for the sport if it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 13:11:45 GMT -5
This is in part where I am probably missing the potential Title IX implications. I have the assumption that there are many more male non scholarship athletes than female non scholarships? If this is true - then either male participation is higher than female participation or female scholarships are more than male? I have assumed the former? If the p4 conferences go to basically no walk-ons with the same participation - then we end up with more male scholarships than female and we are looking for males sports to eliminate or women sports to add. And this would make beach a cost effective women's sport to add. But I agree - if the roster limit (which becomes the scholarship limit) is still restrictive and beach scholarship players cannot play indoor, then there probably wouldn't be much change. But we are talking about what seems like a minimum of 4 more scholarships for women's VB - and being able to double up with beach would get you more options in the gym and for your legal roster (would it be possible to have 18 scholarship players on your team - 2 of them being beach scholarships - then be able to designate your 16 player roster each match? - or does a hypothetical 16 max roster mean that only 16 players are eligible for the entire year and not a per match limit?). If it is a per match limit - then teams will want to leverage depth with beach players. Another consequence I forgot to mention - going back to cost cutting matchups for the NCAA tournament. Instead of seeding through 32 - go back to maximizing drive in matches. This would be a disappointment for the sport if it happens. Maybe. But I see the solution to that will be allowing fewer walkons in men's sports while keeping female roster sizes about the same. I don't know that for certain, but the conversation about football roster sizes has been public. And if they're willing to significantly trim football roster sizes, then they'll definitely be willing to do it in sports like baseball, soccer and track. Football alone cutting 30 walkons will be pretty significant to Title IX implications. And it's always worthwhile to mention that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued. We'll see how much of that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on May 27, 2024 13:13:12 GMT -5
what a waste, 5-6 roster spots for players that won't every fulfill their desire to play competitively, segregated from the student body for the most part in a semi-pro sports cacoon. Counterargument: A max roster of 16 would mean the number of athletes on Big Ten rosters would decrease. The average roster size was 16.4. And 8 of the 18 programs had rosters bigger than 18 and would need to reduce their rosters by a combined 17 athletes to get below the max. Also the smallest roster in the Big Ten last year belonged to a program that could fund adding non-scholarship athletes with NIL money. Yet they didn't and thought the roster that gave them the best chance to win a national championship was 14. not really a counter argument, it's schollies that are most important. I seriously doubt there's much extra added cost beyond 12-13, since it's now walk-ons. the issue isn't the Big 10 the 'issue' will really be the non P4 funding in terms of schollies available going forward, and if that can be maintained. if 100-150 schools just give up of competing (which is a real question mark) that's towards 1000 less schollies available, but maybe who cares, those are not going to likely be pro or AA Olympic athletes anyway for the most part. just don't know how that will shake out. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 27, 2024 13:16:33 GMT -5
Counterargument: A max roster of 16 would mean the number of athletes on Big Ten rosters would decrease. The average roster size was 16.4. And 8 of the 18 programs had rosters bigger than 18 and would need to reduce their rosters by a combined 17 athletes to get below the max. Also the smallest roster in the Big Ten last year belonged to a program that could fund adding non-scholarship athletes with NIL money. Yet they didn't and thought the roster that gave them the best chance to win a national championship was 14. not really a counter argument, it's schollies that are most important. I seriously doubt there's much extra added cost beyond 12-13, since it's now walk-ons. the issue isn't the Big 10 the 'issue' will really be the non P4 funding in terms of schollies available going forward, and if that can be maintained. if 100-150 schools just give up of competing (which is a real question mark) that's towards 1000 less schollies available, but maybe who cares, those are not going to likely be pro or AA Olympic athletes anyway for the most part. just don't know how that will shake out. I still want to know what kind of school might make that decision and why they would do it. An autonomy school? A Group of 5 FBS school? FCS? State school? Private? Non-basketball D1? D2? D3? |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on May 27, 2024 13:17:37 GMT -5
68 schools are about to start writing check, 300-400 are about to get out of that whole business, and a lot of the preferred walk on admissions spots at those 68 schools that semi-justified the investment are going POOF. Yes, there will be continued interest for top level athletes, and those who can be convinced they are parents of top level athletes, but the rubber is going to meet the road quickly and there will be a contraction. I could possibly see some overall roster contraction, mainly in football, but why would they set the roster limits significantly lower than the mean sizes at those 68 schools? Especially in women's sports, where Title IX compliance will still very largely be driven by overall roster numbers and scholarship numbers? In other words, if the total roster slots aren't going down (in women's sports) at those schools, then either the total non-scholarship slots will stay the same or they'll just convert to scholarship slots, right? For the 300-400 ... why can't they just keep doing exactly what they're doing? There isn't going to be any requirement, in DI let alone DII and DIII, to pay athletes for their NIL. Just the option to do it (and I think again that's mainly aimed at DI). No DII or DIII school should be attempting anything like this stuff that's happening at the top of DI, in the slightest. They should just keep doing business as usual.
except there is no more business as usual. that's the rub your best players aren't staying or going to stay. maybe that's ok for a fan base to be even more 2nd tier than they already are. maybe fans won't get frustrated and give any more for a product that suffers. maybe it won't suffer what you are suggesting is they just 'take it' and like it. lol....ok then! |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 27, 2024 13:21:34 GMT -5
if 100-150 schools just give up of competing (which is a real question mark) that's towards 1000 less schollies available, but maybe who cares, those are not going to likely be pro or AA Olympic athletes anyway for the most part. just don't know how that will shake out. Which schools would do that? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 27, 2024 13:22:56 GMT -5
This is in part where I am probably missing the potential Title IX implications. I have the assumption that there are many more male non scholarship athletes than female non scholarships? If this is true - then either male participation is higher than female participation or female scholarships are more than male? I have assumed the former? If the p4 conferences go to basically no walk-ons with the same participation - then we end up with more male scholarships than female and we are looking for males sports to eliminate or women sports to add. And this would make beach a cost effective women's sport to add. But I agree - if the roster limit (which becomes the scholarship limit) is still restrictive and beach scholarship players cannot play indoor, then there probably wouldn't be much change. But we are talking about what seems like a minimum of 4 more scholarships for women's VB - and being able to double up with beach would get you more options in the gym and for your legal roster (would it be possible to have 18 scholarship players on your team - 2 of them being beach scholarships - then be able to designate your 16 player roster each match? - or does a hypothetical 16 max roster mean that only 16 players are eligible for the entire year and not a per match limit?). If it is a per match limit - then teams will want to leverage depth with beach players. Another consequence I forgot to mention - going back to cost cutting matchups for the NCAA tournament. Instead of seeding through 32 - go back to maximizing drive in matches. This would be a disappointment for the sport if it happens. Maybe. But I see the solution to that will be allowing fewer walkons in men's sports while keeping female roster sizes about the same. I don't know that for certain, but the conversation about football roster sizes has been public. And if they're willing to significantly trim football roster sizes, then they'll definitely be willing to do it in sports like baseball, soccer and track. Football alone cutting 30 walkons will be pretty significant to Title IX implications. And it's always worthwhile to mention that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued. We'll see how much of that happens. Participation (or more specifically opportunities) and expenditures are two different things. The suggestion that Title IX is irrelevant unless somebody gets sued is intellectually lazy. It's going to be a significant point of attack. |
|
