|
Post by n00b on Jul 30, 2024 15:50:01 GMT -5
You think there were a significant number of baseball players choosing Coastal Carolina over Tennessee for a bigger scholarship? Tennessee and A&M will both have their roster sizes decrease. That’s more people for mid majors to add. I think being the backup catcher at Tennessee on a full ride would sound better to most than the starter at Coastal Caroline or Missouri on a 1/2 scholarship. I foresee top level recruits still wanting to go somewhere they will play but the next tier down will likely have the choice between playing time and scholarship $. I presume money will win out. My larger point is the quality of depth at programs that choose to fully fund all available roster spot will decrease the outcome variability and we will see a higher correlation between program budget and results. How title IX and revenue sharing come into a male sport like baseball, I don't know. Cynically, I expect schools to 'emphasize' a small handful of non-revenue sports and cut others. Does Tennessee Men's Tennis team get the axe so baseball is more competitive? How many sports can a given institution go all-in on and stay compliant? For Volleyball, I think it comes down to where you are as a program. If you're trying to build a program, I could see have five middles on the roster and seeing who works. If you're an established program, I could also see not filling up and having to find reps for a 5th middle over your top 4. I don’t disagree with anything here other than… I’m no baseball insider but were recruits really turning down the chance at being the #2 catcher at Tennessee to be the starter at Coastal? I just assume baseball players are by and large choosing what’s best for them as a baseball player and figuring out how to make the money piece work wherever that took them.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 30, 2024 16:35:51 GMT -5
I think being the backup catcher at Tennessee on a full ride would sound better to most than the starter at Coastal Caroline or Missouri on a 1/2 scholarship. I foresee top level recruits still wanting to go somewhere they will play but the next tier down will likely have the choice between playing time and scholarship $. I presume money will win out. My larger point is the quality of depth at programs that choose to fully fund all available roster spot will decrease the outcome variability and we will see a higher correlation between program budget and results. How title IX and revenue sharing come into a male sport like baseball, I don't know. Cynically, I expect schools to 'emphasize' a small handful of non-revenue sports and cut others. Does Tennessee Men's Tennis team get the axe so baseball is more competitive? How many sports can a given institution go all-in on and stay compliant? For Volleyball, I think it comes down to where you are as a program. If you're trying to build a program, I could see have five middles on the roster and seeing who works. If you're an established program, I could also see not filling up and having to find reps for a 5th middle over your top 4. I don’t disagree with anything here other than… I’m no baseball insider but were recruits really turning down the chance at being the #2 catcher at Tennessee to be the starter at Coastal? I just assume baseball players are by and large choosing what’s best for them as a baseball player and figuring out how to make the money piece work wherever that took them. If a baseball player hopes to be drafted he had better be playing every day if he is a catcher: baseball that want to be drafted have first opportunity after their junior year if their first year of school is a a 4 U! You can’t get to majors sitting the bench behind someone! Or the field: and as a pitcher lots of iinnings as starter or reliever: being deep on the roster and your best life will be a college letter jacket take back up in Tennessee!
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 30, 2024 17:37:25 GMT -5
I think I expect more volleyball teams to fully fund that you seem to imply. It's not a huge jump from 12 to 18, plus it's a high profile sport. Also several women's sports will need to be fully funded, or close to it, for Title IX purposes. I expect most SEC baseball teams to be fully funded. Baseball is even more competitive than football in the SEC and a number of schools with great fan support. IMO using baseball in the Big 10 as an example was a bit misleading as baseball is not a well supported sport in the Big 10. I'm very curious how they will handle volleyball programs that don't want to deal with 18 bodies in the locker room, on the charter, and in the practice gym. Will compliance and the revenue sharing require those go used by someone? Can Cook take 15 and let... soccer have three more? Referencing your question, the scholarships could not be shifted to soccer or another sport if it causes them to exceed their roster limit. Each sport will have a roster limit that cannot be exceeded. Now if the school was going to fund all 18 VB ships and not fund three of the allowable soccer ships, the school could internally make that switch. The school is allowed to decide how many ships it wants to fund in each sport up to the maximum in each sport. As a comment, just because Cook has a smaller roster today (I believe it was 14 last year), doesn't necessarily mean he won't use all of the allowable ships when 18 becomes the number. From 2019 to 2021, my memory is that Texas never had a roster over 14. However it has been 18 the last two seasons and currently will be 20 this year. Sometimes the lower numbers aren't always planned and typically occur from unexpected departures that haven't been replaced or some other unexpected occurrence. Another thought is that some coaches my utilize the 18 ships to allow for more redshirting. With a roster of 18 last season, Texas redshirted 4 of the 5 2023 scholarship recruits. I could see easily see coaches using the extra roster flexibility to do more redshirting.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jul 30, 2024 17:41:57 GMT -5
I think being the backup catcher at Tennessee on a full ride would sound better to most than the starter at Coastal Caroline or Missouri on a 1/2 scholarship. I foresee top level recruits still wanting to go somewhere they will play but the next tier down will likely have the choice between playing time and scholarship $. I presume money will win out. My larger point is the quality of depth at programs that choose to fully fund all available roster spot will decrease the outcome variability and we will see a higher correlation between program budget and results. How title IX and revenue sharing come into a male sport like baseball, I don't know. Cynically, I expect schools to 'emphasize' a small handful of non-revenue sports and cut others. Does Tennessee Men's Tennis team get the axe so baseball is more competitive? How many sports can a given institution go all-in on and stay compliant? For Volleyball, I think it comes down to where you are as a program. If you're trying to build a program, I could see have five middles on the roster and seeing who works. If you're an established program, I could also see not filling up and having to find reps for a 5th middle over your top 4. I don’t disagree with anything here other than… I’m no baseball insider but were recruits really turning down the chance at being the #2 catcher at Tennessee to be the starter at Coastal? I just assume baseball players are by and large choosing what’s best for them as a baseball player and figuring out how to make the money piece work wherever that took them. Tennessee's backup catcher was a transfer from NC State. Probable starter next year.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 30, 2024 17:53:11 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see if the elite programs do 18 scholarships or choose to invest more money in revenue sharing with a smaller number of players.
|
|
|
Post by sluggermatt15 on Jul 30, 2024 18:44:37 GMT -5
I think being the backup catcher at Tennessee on a full ride would sound better to most than the starter at Coastal Caroline or Missouri on a 1/2 scholarship. I foresee top level recruits still wanting to go somewhere they will play but the next tier down will likely have the choice between playing time and scholarship $. I presume money will win out. My larger point is the quality of depth at programs that choose to fully fund all available roster spot will decrease the outcome variability and we will see a higher correlation between program budget and results. How title IX and revenue sharing come into a male sport like baseball, I don't know. Cynically, I expect schools to 'emphasize' a small handful of non-revenue sports and cut others. Does Tennessee Men's Tennis team get the axe so baseball is more competitive? How many sports can a given institution go all-in on and stay compliant? For Volleyball, I think it comes down to where you are as a program. If you're trying to build a program, I could see have five middles on the roster and seeing who works. If you're an established program, I could also see not filling up and having to find reps for a 5th middle over your top 4. I don’t disagree with anything here other than… I’m no baseball insider but were recruits really turning down the chance at being the #2 catcher at Tennessee to be the starter at Coastal? I just assume baseball players are by and large choosing what’s best for them as a baseball player and figuring out how to make the money piece work wherever that took them. Agree, NIL probably plays a significant factor.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 30, 2024 21:24:15 GMT -5
For the Big East, I’m sure UConn and Villanova can get some money for the basketball teams, but what about the other teams? They do have football. The Big East will have five or six taking the money part very seriously, I think. Villanova, UConn, Marquette, Xavier, and Georgetown. Nova, UConn, and Xavier were allegedly the top three in NIL the last couple years and then a gap to Marquette and the rest. Georgetown?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 30, 2024 21:33:19 GMT -5
The Big East will have five or six taking the money part very seriously, I think. Villanova, UConn, Marquette, Xavier, and Georgetown. Nova, UConn, and Xavier were allegedly the top three in NIL the last couple years and then a gap to Marquette and the rest. Georgetown? Yes, they are plowing money into Ed Cooley and MBB. Money has never been the problem for them.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 30, 2024 22:37:25 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned but the P5 schools, who are bound to the settlement, are still committed to 4 year guaranteed scholarships, right? So unless I missed it, if they are already at 18, and Madi Skinner or Kami Minor calls asking to transfer in, they don't have room and cannot cut a scholarship player to make room, unless they fake a medical.
Schools have left a scholarship open in the past, so I imagine the standard would be to go to 15 or 16 and have a couple of walk-ons who are expendable if something too good to pass up presents itself. I don't think baseball teams would go to a full 34, or football to a full 105 for the same reason, unless there is some other way to dump a player out the back door that I'm not thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jul 30, 2024 23:51:06 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned but the P5 schools, who are bound to the settlement, are still committed to 4 year guaranteed scholarships, right? So unless I missed it, if they are already at 18, and Madi Skinner or Kami Minor calls asking to transfer in, they don't have room and cannot cut a scholarship player to make room, unless they fake a medical. Schools have left a scholarship open in the past, so I imagine the standard would be to go to 15 or 16 and have a couple of walk-ons who are expendable if something too good to pass up presents itself. I don't think baseball teams would go to a full 34, or football to a full 105 for the same reason, unless there is some other way to dump a player out the back door that I'm not thinking of. This is what I was getting at earlier. Typically most schools roster more than 18 players. Regardless of whether those players are full scholarship, partial or walk on, the new cap is going to put some schools in a bind. The roster caps may benefit certain sports but I don’t see a real benefit to women’s volleyball. It would seem that with the current frenzy of early verbal commits, some schools are now overcommitted as the incoming 25 and 26 commits outnumber the number of girls graduating each year. So now the schools are relying on the certainty that players will leave via the transfer portal. Theoretically, some schools would have to rescind offers to 25 or 26 commits or cut other girls to keep the max of 18. The only upside I can see is that schools may become more careful and really assess the team needs before dishing out verbal commits knowing that they would have to go back on their word and rescind an offer if something better comes along or cut an existing player- neither of which reflects well on the coach or school.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 31, 2024 0:38:18 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned but the P5 schools, who are bound to the settlement, are still committed to 4 year guaranteed scholarships, right? So unless I missed it, if they are already at 18, and Madi Skinner or Kami Minor calls asking to transfer in, they don't have room and cannot cut a scholarship player to make room, unless they fake a medical. Schools have left a scholarship open in the past, so I imagine the standard would be to go to 15 or 16 and have a couple of walk-ons who are expendable if something too good to pass up presents itself. I don't think baseball teams would go to a full 34, or football to a full 105 for the same reason, unless there is some other way to dump a player out the back door that I'm not thinking of. This is what I was getting at earlier. Typically most schools roster more than 18 players. Regardless of whether those players are full scholarship, partial or walk on, the new cap is going to put some schools in a bind. The roster caps may benefit certain sports but I don’t see a real benefit to women’s volleyball. It would seem that with the current frenzy of early verbal commits, some schools are now overcommitted as the incoming 25 and 26 commits outnumber the number of girls graduating each year. So now the schools are relying on the certainty that players will leave via the transfer portal. Theoretically, some schools would have to rescind offers to 25 or 26 commits or cut other girls to keep the max of 18. The only upside I can see is that schools may become more careful and really assess the team needs before dishing out verbal commits knowing that they would have to go back on their word and rescind an offer if something better comes along or cut an existing player- neither of which reflects well on the coach or school. You are suggesting that teams have verbal commits for more than 18 scholarships in the incoming ‘25 year and incoming ‘26 year!? Why when the system prior to the “potential new” roster limits would there be over 18 scholarships promised for the fall of ‘25?! If this was your point amd theory its close to rididculous!
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jul 31, 2024 0:55:56 GMT -5
This is what I was getting at earlier. Typically most schools roster more than 18 players. Regardless of whether those players are full scholarship, partial or walk on, the new cap is going to put some schools in a bind. The roster caps may benefit certain sports but I don’t see a real benefit to women’s volleyball. It would seem that with the current frenzy of early verbal commits, some schools are now overcommitted as the incoming 25 and 26 commits outnumber the number of girls graduating each year. So now the schools are relying on the certainty that players will leave via the transfer portal. Theoretically, some schools would have to rescind offers to 25 or 26 commits or cut other girls to keep the max of 18. The only upside I can see is that schools may become more careful and really assess the team needs before dishing out verbal commits knowing that they would have to go back on their word and rescind an offer if something better comes along or cut an existing player- neither of which reflects well on the coach or school. You are suggesting that teams have verbal commits for more than 18 scholarships in the incoming ‘25 year and incoming ‘26 year!? Why when the system prior to the “potential new” roster limits would there be over 18 scholarships promised for the fall of ‘25?! If this was your point amd theory its close to rididculous! Uh no, I’m talking about teams that have large rosters for 2024 but only a few graduating seniors. Let’s say a team has 22 on the roster in 2024 and graduates 4 players. That would leave them with 18 for 2025 if nobody enters the portal. Now the issue is, this school has already handed out verbal commits for 2025. So under the new rules, if nobody transfers out that school has to either cut existing players or rescind offers to hold to an 18 player roster right? I’m going to assume that redshirts still count as a rostered player. My issue isn’t really about the scholarship part as much as I can’t see how this benefits collegiate women’s volleyball except that it may slow the frenzy of handing out verbal offers to graduating high school sophomores as teams assess their future needs. The roster cap will force schools to choose players more carefully or leave some open spots for the unicorn that might fall out of the sky. Otherwise schools will be in the ugly position of rescinding offers or cutting girls to make way for the next best thing.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 31, 2024 7:56:50 GMT -5
You are suggesting that teams have verbal commits for more than 18 scholarships in the incoming ‘25 year and incoming ‘26 year!? Why when the system prior to the “potential new” roster limits would there be over 18 scholarships promised for the fall of ‘25?! If this was your point amd theory its close to rididculous! Uh no, I’m talking about teams that have large rosters for 2024 but only a few graduating seniors. Let’s say a team has 22 on the roster in 2024 and graduates 4 players. That would leave them with 18 for 2025 if nobody enters the portal. Now the issue is, this school has already handed out verbal commits for 2025. So under the new rules, if nobody transfers out that school has to either cut existing players or rescind offers to hold to an 18 player roster right? I’m going to assume that redshirts still count as a rostered player. My issue isn’t really about the scholarship part as much as I can’t see how this benefits collegiate women’s volleyball except that it may slow the frenzy of handing out verbal offers to graduating high school sophomores as teams assess their future needs. The roster cap will force schools to choose players more carefully or leave some open spots for the unicorn that might fall out of the sky. Otherwise schools will be in the ugly position of rescinding offers or cutting girls to make way for the next best thing. If school has 22 and 4 scholars grad and there are 4 scholars commited keeping roster at 22: yes 4 walk ons have to be trimmed to keep at 18!. Its not about being careful its about having large rosters full players who rarely if ever play
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jul 31, 2024 8:24:55 GMT -5
Uh no, I’m talking about teams that have large rosters for 2024 but only a few graduating seniors. Let’s say a team has 22 on the roster in 2024 and graduates 4 players. That would leave them with 18 for 2025 if nobody enters the portal. Now the issue is, this school has already handed out verbal commits for 2025. So under the new rules, if nobody transfers out that school has to either cut existing players or rescind offers to hold to an 18 player roster right? I’m going to assume that redshirts still count as a rostered player. My issue isn’t really about the scholarship part as much as I can’t see how this benefits collegiate women’s volleyball except that it may slow the frenzy of handing out verbal offers to graduating high school sophomores as teams assess their future needs. The roster cap will force schools to choose players more carefully or leave some open spots for the unicorn that might fall out of the sky. Otherwise schools will be in the ugly position of rescinding offers or cutting girls to make way for the next best thing. If school has 22 and 4 scholars grad and there are 4 scholars commited keeping roster at 22: yes 4 walk ons have to be trimmed to keep at 18!. Its not about being careful its about having large rosters full players who rarely if ever play Its my understanding that the scholarship element isn’t relevant though to the cap at 18. If 4 girls graduate and 2 were walk ons and 2 were scholarship it still doesn’t change the fact that the school cannot add more players at that point without cutting existing players or rescinding offers. The point I’m making is that the roster cap doesn’t solve much for college volleyball. It seems to benefit certain sports like baseball or football much more.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 31, 2024 8:26:59 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned but the P5 schools, who are bound to the settlement, are still committed to 4 year guaranteed scholarships, right? So unless I missed it, if they are already at 18, and Madi Skinner or Kami Minor calls asking to transfer in, they don't have room and cannot cut a scholarship player to make room, unless they fake a medical. Schools have left a scholarship open in the past, so I imagine the standard would be to go to 15 or 16 and have a couple of walk-ons who are expendable if something too good to pass up presents itself. I don't think baseball teams would go to a full 34, or football to a full 105 for the same reason, unless there is some other way to dump a player out the back door that I'm not thinking of. There are likely to be a number of changes at the P5 level when this is implemented, so the 4-year guarantee may or may not continue. Frankly I've always wondered if this is as ironclad as posters seem to think. The reason is that I've cannot recall seeing any discussion of the 4-year guarantee on a discussion board other than VT. Also can't recall any coach, athletic director, or player talking about it over the years. So I wonder if it really exists in the form that some posters think it does. Also typically a star player doesn't become available at the last minute before the season (which is likely when a team has to be at the limit). Most transfers occur after the season ends and then a coach has months to clear a roster spot if that's a problem.
|
|