|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jul 24, 2024 14:44:47 GMT -5
Still only six players on the court at a time. This is just going to make the transfer portal crazier. I don't see how this proposed change and what you're saying relate. Teams already can, and do, have rosters of 18+ players with only 6 players on the court at a time (really 7 starters plus many teams use 2 DSs for 3 rotations each), and there are already players who transfer for playing time and many players who don't. This change may lead to more transfers, but I fail to see how there will be more transfers for playing time than there are already.
|
|
|
Post by skolgophers on Jul 24, 2024 14:47:13 GMT -5
The volleytalk gods knew we were bored so they had to give us something to talk about. Who isn’t projected to be on the roster next year? He just means that no team that expected to have over 18 players on the roster will be able to once this change takes effect. That will be a few awkward phone calls for some coaches to make. Sad for those athletes though.
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jul 24, 2024 14:52:48 GMT -5
On the one hand potentially good for DS/L as some will not get money or more money. However with the limit now, some teams will have to cut back somewhere so that will probably be the DSs too as those were often the walk-on roster spots that inflated roster sizes.
Guessing the OH/DS will become more valuable - someone that can hit and play defense.
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Jul 24, 2024 14:56:10 GMT -5
The volleytalk gods knew we were bored so they had to give us something to talk about. Who isn’t projected to be on the roster next year? He just means that no team that expected to have over 18 players on the roster will be able to once this change takes effect. This could get real spicy... Imagine a school has 18 on its roster and 4 seniors graduate at the end of the first semester. Could the program bring in 8 transfers from the portal for spring semester and 'cut' it down to 18 at a to be determined deadline? I don't see many athletes signing up for that but if a final four favorite needs an RS and you want the spotlight. Maybe? Given the unlimited transfers, anyone 'cut' could just go find a home somewhere else come August 1st? Just madness Sounds a lot like NFL minicamps.
|
|
|
Post by jeepers on Jul 24, 2024 14:56:43 GMT -5
Still only six players on the court at a time. This is just going to make the transfer portal crazier. I don't see how this proposed change and what you're saying relate. Teams already can, and do, have rosters of 18+ players with only 6 players on the court at a time (really 7 starters plus many teams use 2 DSs for 3 rotations each), and there are already players who transfer for playing time and many players who don't. This change may lead to more transfers, but I fail to see how there will be more transfers for playing time than there are already. The tweet says 18 scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jul 24, 2024 14:58:15 GMT -5
He just means that no team that expected to have over 18 players on the roster will be able to once this change takes effect. This could get real spicy... Imagine a school has 18 on its roster and 4 seniors graduate. Could the program bring in 8 transfers from the portal for spring semester and 'cut' it down to 18 at a to be determined deadline? I don't see many athletes signing up for that but if a final four favorite needs an RS and you want the spotlight. Maybe? Given the unlimited transfers, anyone 'cut' could just go find a home somewhere else come August 1st? Just madness Sounds a lot like NFL minicamps. There'll be a little adjustment at first, but you have over a year to plan for it. Also, not EVERY school is going to be able to afford 18 scholarships, not even Power 4 schools.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 24, 2024 15:12:22 GMT -5
He just means that no team that expected to have over 18 players on the roster will be able to once this change takes effect. This could get real spicy... Imagine a school has 18 on its roster and 4 seniors graduate at the end of the first semester. Could the program bring in 8 transfers from the portal for spring semester and 'cut' it down to 18 at a to be determined deadline? I don't see many athletes signing up for that but if a final four favorite needs an RS and you want the spotlight. Maybe? Given the unlimited transfers, anyone 'cut' could just go find a home somewhere else come August 1st? Just madness Sounds a lot like NFL minicamps. Worth noting that it is still impermissible for a Power 4 school to pull a scholarship for athletic reasons. I suspect smart coaches will try to stay at like 16 athletes so if a transfer or two becomes available, they can add without the bad publicity of kicking a kid off the team.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 24, 2024 15:13:58 GMT -5
This could get real spicy... Imagine a school has 18 on its roster and 4 seniors graduate. Could the program bring in 8 transfers from the portal for spring semester and 'cut' it down to 18 at a to be determined deadline? I don't see many athletes signing up for that but if a final four favorite needs an RS and you want the spotlight. Maybe? Given the unlimited transfers, anyone 'cut' could just go find a home somewhere else come August 1st? Just madness Sounds a lot like NFL minicamps. There'll be a little adjustment at first, but you have over a year to plan for it. Also, not EVERY school is going to be able to afford 18 scholarships, not even Power 4 schools. Plus we don’t know how revenue sharing will work yet. Even if they can afford 18 scholarships, will Nebraska volleyball really want to give player #18 a $40,000 scholarship when they could take that $40k and just give it to their starting setter?
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Jul 24, 2024 15:16:32 GMT -5
There'll be a little adjustment at first, but you have over a year to plan for it. Also, not EVERY school is going to be able to afford 18 scholarships, not even Power 4 schools. Plus we don’t know how revenue sharing will work yet. Even if they can afford 18 scholarships, will Nebraska volleyball really want to give player #18 a $40,000 scholarship when they could take that $40k and just give it to their starting setter? This is a really good point, I think.
|
|
|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jul 24, 2024 15:23:31 GMT -5
I don't see how this proposed change and what you're saying relate. Teams already can, and do, have rosters of 18+ players with only 6 players on the court at a time (really 7 starters plus many teams use 2 DSs for 3 rotations each), and there are already players who transfer for playing time and many players who don't. This change may lead to more transfers, but I fail to see how there will be more transfers for playing time than there are already. The tweet says 18 scholarships. Max 12 scholarships with unlimited roster size --> max 18 scholarships with max roster of 18. Still doesn't change how many players will transfer for playing time. Already, someone transferring for playing time should snag an open scholarship or get equivalent compensation through NIL, or they lack self-awareness. Maybe a player moves from a school that can't fund 18 schollies to one that can, but that has nothing to do with playing time like the comment I replied to discussed.
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on Jul 24, 2024 15:27:11 GMT -5
Plus we don’t know how revenue sharing will work yet. Even if they can afford 18 scholarships, will Nebraska volleyball really want to give player #18 a $40,000 scholarship when they could take that $40k and just give it to their starting setter? This is a really good point, I think. I don't think that's how it works, right? NIL and scholarship funds I'd imagine are two separate things. I don't think you can give 16 scholarships and then allot that unused money to NIL.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Jul 24, 2024 15:29:26 GMT -5
This is a really good point, I think. I don't think that's how it works, right? NIL and scholarship funds I'd imagine are two separate things. I don't think you can give 16 scholarships and then allot that unused money to NIL. Not when schools eventually get the power to just directly pay the players is what I think he means. The whole premise of them being a separate party from the NIL happenings is not going to realistically last lol
|
|
|
Post by usavolleyball on Jul 24, 2024 15:35:09 GMT -5
Another important point: All sports will be considered "equivalency" sports. No more requirements for full scholarships. Schools can structure it however they want, as long as they don't exceed the roster limit. This is probably more important to non-revenue sports, and smaller schools, who will have more tight budgeting, I would think. Are you sure about that?
|
|
|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jul 24, 2024 15:35:56 GMT -5
This is a really good point, I think. I don't think that's how it works, right? NIL and scholarship funds I'd imagine are two separate things. I don't think you can give 16 scholarships and then allot that unused money to NIL. I swear the whole inception of this was allowing schools to pay student athletes directly, so instead of spending athletic department funds on a 17th player's scholarship, they could spend those funds on paying their top player(s) more.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 24, 2024 15:42:32 GMT -5
There'll be a little adjustment at first, but you have over a year to plan for it. Also, not EVERY school is going to be able to afford 18 scholarships, not even Power 4 schools. Plus we don’t know how revenue sharing will work yet. Even if they can afford 18 scholarships, will Nebraska volleyball really want to give player #18 a $40,000 scholarship when they could take that $40k and just give it to their starting setter? "Uh, Coach Rhule, you need to pull a kid's scholarship." "What do you mean? Why?" "Because John Cook doesn't want to scholarship his 18th player. He wants the cash for another player." "Somebody give him the damn cash, I'm not giving up my 3rd string long snapper!" ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|