|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 25, 2024 10:40:55 GMT -5
The old way was a max of 12 scholarships.
The new way is a max of 18 scholarships.
I don't really have a ton of gushing sympathy for the 19th, 20th, 21st ... who were going to be walk-ons with no scholarship, now no longer having a roster spot. They'll have to move down the food chain of schools, and perhaps land somewhere that they actually have a chance to play. Seems like a win?
Does anyone have an idea when this will be approved? Or when will schools start telling 2025 recruits if they don’t have a spot for them on their roster? Various media reports stated that the judge is expected to rule on the proposal in the fall. Didn't see any more specific timeframe than that. I don't think there is any specific answer to your second question. I think the only reasonable answer at the moment is that if the 2025 recruit is a scholarship offer, they would be told prior to NLI signing day because the school wouldn't want to obligate itself by having the recruit sign a financial aid offer. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 25, 2024 11:44:30 GMT -5
In volleyball, it was stated that the average roster in D1 was 18.1. I'm going to assume the average roster of P4 schools is approximately the same. An average of 18.1 versus a current scholarship limit of 12 indicates that at least 1/3 of current rosters are non-scholarship players. I would think most coaches will end up "cutting" non-scholarship players before pulling a 2025 scholarship offer though a 2025 walk-on offer being pulled is a possibility. Also remember that more than the normal number of players will be out of eligibility after this season - 2020 class using their COVID year (non redshirts) and 2021 class (non redshirts) which is the first senior class that didn't get a COVID year. I also wouldn't use a single example (without any background info) as a sign of impending doom. Another way to look at the impact this will have is how Team USA constructed its Olympic roster, and how difficult it was to pick the last few spots and the alternate for 13 player roster cap. Granted, the NCAA cap is 18 and you have more subs, but if you look at a specific example, you can see the coach’s dilemma. Florida will return 5 L/DS in 2025 in Hoyle, Canaan, Cornier, Lee, and Vogel. They add Dezeney and Lily Hayes, arguably a top 5 Bro in this entire class. That’s 7 littles. That’s not feasible as that would only allow 11 other positions. I foresee programs to look at a set # at each position with max 4 L/DS, and also see some uncomfortable conversations with UF players and staff after the season. My post was really just a general speculation across the breadth of teams that will be operating under the roster limits and not trying to speculate on specific situations. However my thoughts behind it were fairly similar to the Florida situation that you outlined as most teams with 18+ rosters currently typically have a significant number of back row players with most being walk-ons. I agree that a 11 front & setters/7 back split is not likely to be the one that any coach wants for their roster. 14/4 seems to be more of the general thought. However I could see it being difficult for teams to get to the preferred split in 2025. The roster limit is still a proposal at the moment and is waiting on the judge's approval which may not come for another 2-3 months which would put it around the start of the signing period. May be difficult to rearrange the roster to the desired numbers when many recruits have already signed. So I could see the eventual 2025 rosters not being indicative of the long term roster split. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 25, 2024 14:14:21 GMT -5
I went through P4 rosters a while ago and there are only a few that look like they'll have real issues in the near future. For volleyball at least the average P4 roster size is smaller than the national average. High academic northeast schools are the ones that really inflate the average.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 25, 2024 14:35:42 GMT -5
I went through P4 rosters a while ago and there are only a few that look like they'll have real issues in the near future. For volleyball at least the average P4 roster size is smaller than the national average. High academic northeast schools are the ones that really inflate the average. Not surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 25, 2024 23:17:00 GMT -5
Does anyone have an idea when this will be approved? Or when will schools start telling 2025 recruits if they don’t have a spot for them on their roster? the question for recruits is not about those players beyond #18 do you really want to be THe #14 full schollie player with $10k a year on a team you likelly won't even play for ? are the fancy locker rooms such a big draw. and you are a top 500 player 60 P4 schools x 18 = 1080 players. First, 67 schools in the P4, plus Oregon State and Washington State who are named in the lawsuit, Notre Dame, and we've seen statements that Hawaii and USF intend to opt in. There are probably others that I've missed but that's at least 12 more schools... but they don't HAVE to go to 18. I think most coaches will leave a spot or two open incase something exciting comes along. Second, the conversation already happens with walk-ons. "If I walk-on can I earn a scholarship?" Well, in theory, if you are a starter and we have money available... "Hey everybody! I'm going to get a scholarship once I become a starter!" Very few players are self-aware enough to expect that they will be the one who is supposed to work their butt off all week and then sit on the bench for the glory of the University, but dozens sign up for that without realizing it every year. I'm sure some players will take less to go to a mid-major, be it because of playing time or academics or travel, but I'd expect most to take their shot, and then transfer when they realize what they signed on to. |
|
|
|
Post by SayonaraTachikara on Aug 26, 2024 7:24:58 GMT -5
the question for recruits is not about those players beyond #18 do you really want to be THe #14 full schollie player with $10k a year on a team you likelly won't even play for ? are the fancy locker rooms such a big draw. and you are a top 500 player 60 P4 schools x 18 = 1080 players. First, 67 schools in the P4, plus Oregon State and Washington State who are named in the lawsuit, Notre Dame, and we've seen statements that Hawaii and USF intend to opt in. There are probably others that I've missed but that's at least 12 more schools... but they don't HAVE to go to 18. I think most coaches will leave a spot or two open incase something exciting comes along. Second, the conversation already happens with walk-ons. "If I walk-on can I earn a scholarship?" Well, in theory, if you are a starter and we have money available... "Hey everybody! I'm going to get a scholarship once I become a starter!" Very few players are self-aware enough to expect that they will be the one who is supposed to work their butt off all week and then sit on the bench for the glory of the University, but dozens sign up for that without realizing it every year. I'm sure some players will take less to go to a mid-major, be it because of playing time or academics or travel, but I'd expect most to take their shot, and then transfer when they realize what they signed on to. Great points. I am really curious to see how this is going to affect historicallly decent mid-major programs like Dayton , WKU , Towson etc… |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 26, 2024 8:41:41 GMT -5
I’m still not seeing the big change in roster composition that many are predicting. Nebraska’s NIL could allow them to have an unlimited number of players on their roster this year getting their school paid for. And they have 14. I don’t think many athletes want to sit the bench. And I don’t think many coaches want to spend time managing unhappy non-starters instead of focusing on the starters.
Also, I still imagine that scholarship #18 could be money that gets redirected towards a starter’s revenue share. But it’s yet to be seen how exactly schools handle that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 26, 2024 10:25:47 GMT -5
Also, I still imagine that scholarship #18 could be money that gets redirected towards a starter’s revenue share. But it’s yet to be seen how exactly schools handle that. Management of revenue sharing funds and scholarship funds will be interesting to follow. In the settlement proposal, it was stated that $2.5 million (?-might have been a different number) of scholarship funds could count toward the revenue sharing max. However if I'm one of the schools that will want to max their revenue sharing funds, I'm not going to apply any scholarship money toward the revenue sharing cap. So if I'm a school already at the revenue sharing cap, saving that #18 scholarship doesn't increase the revenue sharing funds. Will be interesting to see how each school handles revenue sharing vs. scholarships. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 26, 2024 21:00:08 GMT -5
Also, I still imagine that scholarship #18 could be money that gets redirected towards a starter’s revenue share. But it’s yet to be seen how exactly schools handle that. Management of revenue sharing funds and scholarship funds will be interesting to follow. In the settlement proposal, it was stated that $2.5 million (?-might have been a different number) of scholarship funds could count toward the revenue sharing max. However if I'm one of the schools that will want to max their revenue sharing funds, I'm not going to apply any scholarship money toward the revenue sharing cap. So if I'm a school already at the revenue sharing cap, saving that #18 scholarship doesn't increase the revenue sharing funds. Will be interesting to see how each school handles revenue sharing vs. scholarships. Agree with the bolded. Major schools will want to say that they max fund all their roster spots with scholarships, and then max fund the rev share. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 27, 2024 9:18:35 GMT -5
Management of revenue sharing funds and scholarship funds will be interesting to follow. In the settlement proposal, it was stated that $2.5 million (?-might have been a different number) of scholarship funds could count toward the revenue sharing max. However if I'm one of the schools that will want to max their revenue sharing funds, I'm not going to apply any scholarship money toward the revenue sharing cap. So if I'm a school already at the revenue sharing cap, saving that #18 scholarship doesn't increase the revenue sharing funds. Will be interesting to see how each school handles revenue sharing vs. scholarships. Agree with the bolded. Major schools will want to say that they max fund all their roster spots with scholarships, and then max fund the rev share. What I haven't seen discussed is the minimum revenue sharing and/or scholarship spending, whether a stated minimum or expected one. I feel certain the plaintiffs, and probably the court, have an expectation that the schools will have a significant revenue sharing pool and also likely expect increased scholarship spending. Since the statements said that the schools could offset up to a stated amount ($2.5 mil?) of revenue sharing with (increased?) scholarship spending, that sounds a lot like a minimum. In other words, the schools are expected to spend the entire cap with revenue sharing and increased scholarship spending. I wonder if this is correct. If there is a minimum, and a high one as I speculated above, I wonder if that minimum applies to non-P5 schools that elect to opt-in to revenue sharing? |
|
|
|
Post by fatandfurious on Aug 27, 2024 12:00:06 GMT -5
I went through P4 rosters a while ago and there are only a few that look like they'll have real issues in the near future. For volleyball at least the average P4 roster size is smaller than the national average. High academic northeast schools are the ones that really inflate the average. Not surprising. This has probably been addressed but I’m not slogging through 47 pages of posts to find it: which NCAA schools have really large rosters? I’m talking those with 18 or more? Are there schools that are known for it? |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 27, 2024 12:53:05 GMT -5
This has probably been addressed but I’m not slogging through 47 pages of posts to find it: which NCAA schools have really large rosters? I’m talking those with 18 or more? Are there schools that are known for it? Don't remember anyone posting a list of the schools with large rosters or even much mention of any specific schools. The primary info that I've used is that the average D1 roster last year (or maybe it was 2022) was 18.1. One thing to remember is that the schools which will have the roster limit are those that will be providing revenue sharing to its athletes. Right now, those schools are the ones in the P5 conferences since they are the ones being sued along with the NCAA. There is a provision that other schools can opt into revenue sharing and if they do, they will also be subject to the roster limits. The expectation at the moment is that there will only be a handful of other schools opting into revenue sharing. So most likely the number of schools subject to roster limits will be under 100. |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Aug 27, 2024 14:41:18 GMT -5
Agree with the bolded. Major schools will want to say that they max fund all their roster spots with scholarships, and then max fund the rev share. What I haven't seen discussed is the minimum revenue sharing and/or scholarship spending, whether a stated minimum or expected one. I feel certain the plaintiffs, and probably the court, have an expectation that the schools will have a significant revenue sharing pool and also likely expect increased scholarship spending. Since the statements said that the schools could offset up to a stated amount ($2.5 mil?) of revenue sharing with (increased?) scholarship spending, that sounds a lot like a minimum. In other words, the schools are expected to spend the entire cap with revenue sharing and increased scholarship spending. I wonder if this is correct. If there is a minimum, and a high one as I speculated above, I wonder if that minimum applies to non-P5 schools that elect to opt-in to revenue sharing? I may be misremembering, but for the former P5 schools who are named in the suit, isn't the settlement that they are expected to spend the full amount on compensation? If they don't, doesn't that jeopardize the settlement? I'm sure there is SOME grey area for players who transfer out of their financial agreements, or go pro or otherwise leave money on the table, but I would imagine the average amount used among those schools named in the suit would have to be very high. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 27, 2024 15:08:25 GMT -5
What I haven't seen discussed is the minimum revenue sharing and/or scholarship spending, whether a stated minimum or expected one. I feel certain the plaintiffs, and probably the court, have an expectation that the schools will have a significant revenue sharing pool and also likely expect increased scholarship spending. Since the statements said that the schools could offset up to a stated amount ($2.5 mil?) of revenue sharing with (increased?) scholarship spending, that sounds a lot like a minimum. In other words, the schools are expected to spend the entire cap with revenue sharing and increased scholarship spending. I wonder if this is correct. If there is a minimum, and a high one as I speculated above, I wonder if that minimum applies to non-P5 schools that elect to opt-in to revenue sharing? I may be misremembering, but for the former P5 schools who are named in the suit, isn't the settlement that they are expected to spend the full amount on compensation? If they don't, doesn't that jeopardize the settlement? I'm sure there is SOME grey area for players who transfer out of their financial agreements, or go pro or otherwise leave money on the table, but I would imagine the average amount used among those schools named in the suit would have to be very high. I cannot recall this being specifically stated, but it is reasonable that this is an expectation by the plaintiffs. Also if the cap amounts weren't also the expected payments, why would there need to be the offset provision where a certain amount of increased scholarship money could be applied to the revenue sharing? I made the post because I realized that I've seen reports on the "cap" but hadn't seen specific language on a minimum amount that must be spent, but felt there must be some expected level of spending. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 27, 2024 20:13:21 GMT -5
Agree with the bolded. Major schools will want to say that they max fund all their roster spots with scholarships, and then max fund the rev share. What I haven't seen discussed is the minimum revenue sharing and/or scholarship spending, whether a stated minimum or expected one. I feel certain the plaintiffs, and probably the court, have an expectation that the schools will have a significant revenue sharing pool and also likely expect increased scholarship spending. Since the statements said that the schools could offset up to a stated amount ($2.5 mil?) of revenue sharing with (increased?) scholarship spending, that sounds a lot like a minimum. In other words, the schools are expected to spend the entire cap with revenue sharing and increased scholarship spending. I wonder if this is correct. If there is a minimum, and a high one as I speculated above, I wonder if that minimum applies to non-P5 schools that elect to opt-in to revenue sharing? Great questions.
Looking forward very much to Judge Wilken's review of the proposal and hopefully some more details to be settled.
|
|
