|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 31, 2024 8:39:55 GMT -5
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. It was posted that the average roster size for D1 women's volleyball is right at 18 (18.1 I believe). P5 schools (who most likely will be the vast majority of teams with the 18 roster limit) are probably at a similar average. So I would say it's not "typical" for a team to have a roster around 22. Currently that means that 12 are on a ship and 10 are walk-ons. Most of those walk-ons realistically never play any meaningful points. So when the roster limits start and a team finds itself over the limit, some current walk-ons that never play will get cut to get to the limit. Not sure I understand why this is a problem or what problem you think the roster cap is supposed to solve.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 31, 2024 9:05:18 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. 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. Days, weeks, months... if you have a 4 year guarantee to 18 players you can "inspire" someone to transfer, put someone on a medical, or find disciplinary issues. Are there other ways to dump a player? Maybe it's a foreign player that just got found on their summer tour or something. The Utah State football coach just got let go and his players get to go in the portal off-schedule. Maybe a grad transfer decides to use that last year after all. The point is, if a player is available, with scholarships and NIL and all that, there is a lot of flexibility now. If they have 4 year guarantee scholarships all the way to the cap, they won't. Also, like you said, with the money involved, and unlimited transfers, the athletes have enough power that a 4 years guarantee probably isn't necessary. I wonder if that is in the next set of changes that go through after the settlement is adopted? However, even if it is, I would expect coaches to give themselves some flexibility until the rules change. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 31, 2024 9:16:01 GMT -5
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. A while back, I remember watching a team that had 8 scholarship players (I think it was Villanova, but don't hold me to it) and made the tournament. They hit on all 8 players, and they stayed healthy, more or less. They had zero margin for error or bad luck, but it can work. More scholarships means you can be wrong about a player. It means you can recruit redundancy to injury proof your team. It means your scrimmages in practice are just a little bit tougher. In other words, it helps, but you don't NEED 18 players to be good. I think the number of players contributing is usually between 11 and 13 and that won't change. I think 18 is high enough that it won't change things for most programs. You can have two unique sets of 8 player linesups, and a 3rd setter, and have a spot left over.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 31, 2024 9:31:37 GMT -5
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. “Solve” is the word misplaced: roster limits erased scholarship limits and head count and equivalency language. While scholarship inadequacies has been solved: roster limits creates a new situation. While some coaches did not mind very large rosters others kept their numbers lower: coaches can still have any number below 18 the new max only makes it an issue for those that carried more than 18. But few if any vb coaches find a problem needing solving with the 18 limit. Other than having ro tell a couple walk ons that they will be cut if they stay! That is a problem for a small but limited number of teams. And really more for fans than for the coaches!
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 31, 2024 9:40:30 GMT -5
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. Days, weeks, months... if you have a 4 year guarantee to 18 players you can "inspire" someone to transfer, put someone on a medical, or find disciplinary issues. Are there other ways to dump a player? Maybe it's a foreign player that just got found on their summer tour or something. The Utah State football coach just got let go and his players get to go in the portal off-schedule. Maybe a grad transfer decides to use that last year after all. The point is, if a player is available, with scholarships and NIL and all that, there is a lot of flexibility now. If they have 4 year guarantee scholarships all the way to the cap, they won't. Also, like you said, with the money involved, and unlimited transfers, the athletes have enough power that a 4 years guarantee probably isn't necessary. I wonder if that is in the next set of changes that go through after the settlement is adopted? However, even if it is, I would expect coaches to give themselves some flexibility until the rules change. We'll see. I think you are making too big an issue of the 4 year guaranteed scholarship. I've never heard a coach complain about it and that it hinders roster management with the current scholarship limit. If it is as ironclad as you think, I still don't see it becoming a significant problem with the roster limit.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 31, 2024 9:49:13 GMT -5
Days, weeks, months... if you have a 4 year guarantee to 18 players you can "inspire" someone to transfer, put someone on a medical, or find disciplinary issues. Are there other ways to dump a player? Maybe it's a foreign player that just got found on their summer tour or something. The Utah State football coach just got let go and his players get to go in the portal off-schedule. Maybe a grad transfer decides to use that last year after all. The point is, if a player is available, with scholarships and NIL and all that, there is a lot of flexibility now. If they have 4 year guarantee scholarships all the way to the cap, they won't. Also, like you said, with the money involved, and unlimited transfers, the athletes have enough power that a 4 years guarantee probably isn't necessary. I wonder if that is in the next set of changes that go through after the settlement is adopted? However, even if it is, I would expect coaches to give themselves some flexibility until the rules change. We'll see. I think you are making too big an issue of the 4 year guaranteed scholarship. I've never heard a coach complain about it and that it hinders roster management with the current scholarship limit. If it is as ironclad as you think, I still don't see it becoming a significant problem with the roster limit. With NIL, someone writes a check and voila, 13th scholarship. And the rules were pretty lax post covid - didn't Wisconsin have like 17 players on scholarship? Anyway, it may be one more thing to consider.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 31, 2024 10:32:53 GMT -5
I think you are making too big an issue of the 4 year guaranteed scholarship. I've never heard a coach complain about it and that it hinders roster management with the current scholarship limit. If it is as ironclad as you think, I still don't see it becoming a significant problem with the roster limit. With NIL, someone writes a check and voila, 13th scholarship. And the rules were pretty lax post covid - didn't Wisconsin have like 17 players on scholarship? Anyway, it may be one more thing to consider. I believe the Wisconsin 17 scholarship situation was a one-year thing. When the NCAA granted the extra COVID year, it also ruled that for the 21-22 academic year only (fall 2021 season in women's indoor volleyball), that fifth year seniors returning to use their extra year would not count against the scholarship limit. However that exception was only for that year and has not been available since.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jul 31, 2024 10:52:27 GMT -5
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. It was posted that the average roster size for D1 women's volleyball is right at 18 (18.1 I believe). P5 schools (who most likely will be the vast majority of teams with the 18 roster limit) are probably at a similar average. So I would say it's not "typical" for a team to have a roster around 22. Currently that means that 12 are on a ship and 10 are walk-ons. Most of those walk-ons realistically never play any meaningful points. So when the roster limits start and a team finds itself over the limit, some current walk-ons that never play will get cut to get to the limit. Not sure I understand why this is a problem or what problem you think the roster cap is supposed to solve. There are plenty of DS/L who play meaningful minutes and that are not on scholarship. Some may now get money/more money while others will not be offered roster spots in favor of filling out roster with point scorers especially those that can also defend.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 31, 2024 11:53:01 GMT -5
It was posted that the average roster size for D1 women's volleyball is right at 18 (18.1 I believe). P5 schools (who most likely will be the vast majority of teams with the 18 roster limit) are probably at a similar average. So I would say it's not "typical" for a team to have a roster around 22. Currently that means that 12 are on a ship and 10 are walk-ons. Most of those walk-ons realistically never play any meaningful points. So when the roster limits start and a team finds itself over the limit, some current walk-ons that never play will get cut to get to the limit. Not sure I understand why this is a problem or what problem you think the roster cap is supposed to solve. There are plenty of DS/L who play meaningful minutes and that are not on scholarship. Some may now get money/more money while others will not be offered roster spots in favor of filling out roster with point scorers especially those that can also defend. I'm going to say it will be a bit of both. I think it will be typical of coaches to keep at least as many DS/L on the roster as they play regularly today. However if they have six DS/L on today's roster with 3 of them walk-ons that never play meaningful points, then I wouldn't expect all of those to be on the roster under the 18 limit. I think the best way to illustrate my thought is an example. A coach currently plays 3 DS/L on a regular basis and one is on scholarship (meaning the other 11 ships are OH/MB/S). Under the new roster limit, I would expect that coach to still have 3 DS/L that play regularly and perhaps one more as depth. If the team has a full roster, that means at least 14 scholarship OH/MB/S instead of the current 11 so I also believe most coaches will have additional front row players and setters. What will also be interesting to see is how many coaches now carry 3 scholarship setters.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jul 31, 2024 12:01:25 GMT -5
There are plenty of DS/L who play meaningful minutes and that are not on scholarship. Some may now get money/more money while others will not be offered roster spots in favor of filling out roster with point scorers especially those that can also defend. I'm going to say it will be a bit of both. I think it will be typical of coaches to keep at least as many DS/L on the roster as they play regularly today. However if they have six DS/L on today's roster with 3 of them walk-ons that never play meaningful points, then I wouldn't expect all of those to be on the roster under the 18 limit. I think the best way to illustrate my thought is an example. A coach currently plays 3 DS/L on a regular basis and one is on scholarship (meaning the other 11 ships are OH/MB/S). Under the new roster limit, I would expect that coach to still have 3 DS/L that play regularly and perhaps one more as depth. If the team has a full roster, that means at least 14 scholarship OH/MB/S instead of the current 11 so I also believe most coaches will have additional front row players and setters. What will also be interesting to see is how many coaches now carry 3 scholarship setters. I think 3 paid setters will more common. Starting setter, setter in waiting and a backup setter.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 31, 2024 12:22:21 GMT -5
With NIL, someone writes a check and voila, 13th scholarship. And the rules were pretty lax post covid - didn't Wisconsin have like 17 players on scholarship? Anyway, it may be one more thing to consider. I believe the Wisconsin 17 scholarship situation was a one-year thing. When the NCAA granted the extra COVID year, it also ruled that for the 21-22 academic year only (fall 2021 season in women's indoor volleyball), that fifth year seniors returning to use their extra year would not count against the scholarship limit. However that exception was only for that year and has not been available since. Right, but among the reasons why nobody complained about 4 year scholarships, I think that relieved some of those situations.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 31, 2024 12:35:09 GMT -5
There are plenty of DS/L who play meaningful minutes and that are not on scholarship. Some may now get money/more money while others will not be offered roster spots in favor of filling out roster with point scorers especially those that can also defend. I'm going to say it will be a bit of both. I think it will be typical of coaches to keep at least as many DS/L on the roster as they play regularly today. However if they have six DS/L on today's roster with 3 of them walk-ons that never play meaningful points, then I wouldn't expect all of those to be on the roster under the 18 limit. I think the best way to illustrate my thought is an example. A coach currently plays 3 DS/L on a regular basis and one is on scholarship (meaning the other 11 ships are OH/MB/S). Under the new roster limit, I would expect that coach to still have 3 DS/L that play regularly and perhaps one more as depth. If the team has a full roster, that means at least 14 scholarship OH/MB/S instead of the current 11 so I also believe most coaches will have additional front row players and setters. What will also be interesting to see is how many coaches now carry 3 scholarship setters. And now we play 2 liberos, so if you are subbing in 2 DS you may play 4, and want a backup. 5 littles would leave 13 OH/MB/S. For a 5-1 S-3 MH-4 OH-4/5 RS-2 DS-4/5 For a 6-2 S-3/4 MH-4 OH/RS-6/7 DS-4
|
|
|
Post by bborr on Jul 31, 2024 13:11:46 GMT -5
Scholarship #17 and 18 will play little or not at all. I think going forward a lot of good teams will normally try to stop at about 16 for a roster size — so there is always room for a Landfair or Carlson or Rutherford if a perceived need arises.
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on Jul 31, 2024 14:07:08 GMT -5
I'm so curious about this 4 year guarantee that is being referenced. That sounds like one of those wives tales that exists to make parents feel better but I"m not aware of many 4 year offers being handed out at all over the last several years at the P4 level and the ones of shorter duration are always back loaded and often times get repurposed before they ever make it to the initially awarded player. Its a harsh reality but I've first hand seen it in several Power programs. None of these guarantees are as rock solid as they are made out to be.
I'm also not a huge fan of the 18 player limit. There are plenty of P4 programs sitting over the 18 player limit and they are going to have to do some serious pruning in the current group as well as the commitment group. There are several areas that I believe this hurts.
1) Player development. Not a lot of players coming out of high school are physically built or ready to walk on the floor and play immediately in the P4 conferences. There is a significant physical difference in grown women that have been playing 4-5 years and rising high school seniors. One summer is not enough to fully prepare the vast majority of girls to be ready. Have larger rosters allows for a group of girls to get on campus, acclimate in so many ways mentally and physically to the increased demands and do so without the pressure of a year of eligibility going out the window but still have the opportunity to practice, pick up the increased speed of the game and actually learn the game. The learning curve from an IQ standpoint is steep. Its fun to watch some of the fringe kids that made the team that are young grow and develop over a year or two and see who actually makes it/rises to the occasion and who doesn't. At 18, that margin of error for a coach is thin in terms of long term program development at the higher levels and will likely get more scarce depending on how long the ACC can hold on.
2) I know we are talking sports but very few of these girls are going to play professionally. There is an aspect of this from the student perspective that a talent can be utilized to leveraged to really impact their adult lives after volleyball. I know its crazy but these ladies are not one dimensional athletes. They are people playing a sport at a very high level to get an education to be be impactful in the world in a way that does not involve volleyball. Walk Ons and limited scholarship players get access to an amazing array of academic support resources that are not provided to the general population in such a structured and integrated sort of way and many times, non P5 schools don't have the resources to execute those support mechanisms in as cohesive or comprehensive sort of of way. There are girls that make dedicated decisions to attend P4 schools even without a scholarship to be on the team and compete but they know that the number of things they can leverage to launch them post college are invaluable. Many of those girls will now not have access to those opportunities. It's sad that so many of decisions are being made treating this as professional sports and that it is all about sports and are completely ignoring the student/academic side of being an athlete.
There is no one advocating for the athletes in these settlements beyond the monetary aspect. The NCAA is trying to just exist. The conferences are trying to maximize money and visibility using the students athletic achievements but there is a gap where it seems ADs are forgetting that they are part of an educational institution and there are athletes in sports that want more than just to play and be famous and get paid for college.
The last item is that there are girls that get under recruited and are willing to bet on themselves. The ability to walk on to a roster and prove out your worth and impact a team is much more limited now as coaches are not incentivized to take a flyer or risk on one of those type players. I know they aren't common but the number of walk ons that start on P4 teams is higher than you would think and I love to see those players rewarded and for the whole system to not be about who did the best job getting their name out there in high school. I'm not speaking about the 5-7 sure things in each class. Those are a special case but we can't build an entire ethos around what is best for 5-7 players and not pay attention to largest portion of student athletes.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 31, 2024 14:38:41 GMT -5
I'm so curious about this 4 year guarantee that is being referenced. That sounds like one of those wives tales that exists to make parents feel better but I"m not aware of many 4 year offers being handed out at all over the last several years at the P4 level and the ones of shorter duration are always back loaded and often times get repurposed before they ever make it to the initially awarded player. I was writing multi-year scholarship agreements a decade ago. They're very real. It's league policy for multiple conferences. Describe "seen it first hand."
|
|