|
Post by Not Me on Jul 25, 2024 6:02:03 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. Paying players is not NIL. Schools can directly pay players up to $20mil total for all athletes. This money will come from the school/athletic department. This is revenue sharing. Nil money will still continue to exist and get paid out on top of the payment from their Collective or outside parties.
|
|
|
Post by bborr on Jul 25, 2024 7:32:42 GMT -5
I'm pretty stunned that volleyball will surpass women's hoops which has long had a 15 scholarship maximum per season. In hoops, the players are running up and down the court all game long so substitutions off the bench are imperative. And, hoopsters are assessed fouls which limits their playing minutes as reaching 5 fouls removes them from the game. I agree with you that if they did sport to sport comparisons, but I don’t think that drove the exercise. The roster size has to be the same for men’s and women’s basketball, I think, otherwise it would create serious gender equivalency issues. With baseball being at 34, and football at 105, I think they are looking to maximize the scholarships/roster size in other women’s sports for gender equivalency appearance issues. And volleyball is a place where lots of football schools don’t have men’s volleyball, so it’s a good place to go big.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 25, 2024 7:40:37 GMT -5
The average women’s basketball roster is only at 14.1 despite having 15 scholarships. Coaches don’t want the extra players. Do you expect the average to be a perfect 15.0? 14.1 means more than 14 scholarships used on average which means many schools are using 15 scholarships. The average roster size being less than the scholarship limit appears to indicate that there are few walk-ons in women's basketball and an indication that basketball coaches don't want larger rosters, even for practice. It appears that many of the roster limit proposals are near the current average roster size.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 25, 2024 7:43:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty stunned that volleyball will surpass women's hoops which has long had a 15 scholarship maximum per season. In hoops, the players are running up and down the court all game long so substitutions off the bench are imperative. And, hoopsters are assessed fouls which limits their playing minutes as reaching 5 fouls removes them from the game. I agree with you that if they did sport to sport comparisons, but I don’t think that drove the exercise. The roster size has to be the same for men’s and women’s basketball, I think, otherwise it would create serious gender equivalency issues. With baseball being at 34, and football at 105, I think they are looking to maximize the scholarships/roster size in other women’s sports for gender equivalency appearance issues. And volleyball is a place where lots of football schools don’t have men’s volleyball, so it’s a good place to go big. Doubtful gender equivalency is driving the numbers. For example, the limit for women's swimming is about 12 more than men's swimming (IIRC 35 vs. 23) and the limit for baseball is 34 while softball is 25.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 25, 2024 9:01:40 GMT -5
Do you expect the average to be a perfect 15.0? 14.1 means more than 14 scholarships used on average which means many schools are using 15 scholarships. The average roster size being less than the scholarship limit appears to indicate that there are few walk-ons in women's basketball and an indication that basketball coaches don't want larger rosters, even for practice. It appears that many of the roster limit proposals are near the current average roster size. There are walk-ons in women's basketball. Most programs just never get to their full scholarship allocation and often are not close.
|
|
|
Post by huskersoftroy on Jul 25, 2024 10:58:19 GMT -5
Am i misunderstanding something here or is this really bad for the parity of the sport? For example, I feel like certain student athletes have ended up at Creighton instead of Nebraska due to UNL not having a scholarship available to offer. Now with this change isn’t it harder for programs like Creighton to get elite level talent if the top schools have 18 scholarships to give? I understand there needed to be an increase but 18 is a lot IMO.
Also why on earth does this go into effect in 2025 when most sports have already completed their recruitment?? What are they supposed to do if their roster is over 18?
|
|
|
Post by thedudeabides21 on Jul 25, 2024 11:36:59 GMT -5
Am i misunderstanding something here or is this really bad for the parity of the sport? For example, I feel like certain student athletes have ended up at Creighton instead of Nebraska due to UNL not having a scholarship available to offer. Now with this change isn’t it harder for programs like Creighton to get elite level talent if the top schools have 18 scholarships to give? I understand there needed to be an increase but 18 is a lot IMO. Also why on earth does this go into effect in 2025 when most sports have already completed their recruitment?? What are they supposed to do if their roster is over 18? I hope athletes keep in mind that just because they are on scholarship, it doesn't mean they'll see the court. Using your example, sure you could go to a bigger school but what if they don't play. It's easy to get caught up in the name of a program and overlook programs for which they could actually get court time.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 25, 2024 12:29:36 GMT -5
Am i misunderstanding something here or is this really bad for the parity of the sport? For example, I feel like certain student athletes have ended up at Creighton instead of Nebraska due to UNL not having a scholarship available to offer. Now with this change isn’t it harder for programs like Creighton to get elite level talent if the top schools have 18 scholarships to give? I understand there needed to be an increase but 18 is a lot IMO. Also why on earth does this go into effect in 2025 when most sports have already completed their recruitment?? What are they supposed to do if their roster is over 18? I hope athletes keep in mind that just because they are on scholarship, it doesn't mean they'll see the court. Using your example, sure you could go to a bigger school but what if they don't play. It's easy to get caught up in the name of a program and overlook programs for which they could actually get court time. Yes, the possibility of riding the bench will be a new consideration for the players.
|
|
|
Post by gofaster88 on Jul 25, 2024 12:35:37 GMT -5
There is no way this is going to happen unilaterally for a D1 programs. I can't imagine the Ivy's even with their endowments are all of a sudden start offering 105 scholarships for their football team. When in the past they offered zero athletic scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 25, 2024 13:28:40 GMT -5
The average roster size being less than the scholarship limit appears to indicate that there are few walk-ons in women's basketball and an indication that basketball coaches don't want larger rosters, even for practice. It appears that many of the roster limit proposals are near the current average roster size. There are walk-ons in women's basketball. Most programs just never get to their full scholarship allocation and often are not close. Yes, there are walk-ons. As much as I follow women's college hoops, can't say I recall any walk-on playing much or making a significant contribution in a game. I doubt teams have more than one walk-on a season. and most probably have zero. For whatever reason, being a walk-on in basketball isn't prevalent. Texas had one walk-on last starting in 2022-23 and because there was an unexpected open scholarship to start the following Fall, it was awarded to her. So, for the sake of this discussion Texas had zero walk-ons and all 15 scholarships were allotted for 2023-24. Since injuries are becoming more and more common, head coaches who don't allot all 15 scholarships are flirting with disaster. I do think late unexpected outgoing transfers make it difficult to fill every scholarship; but, the transfer portal deadlines will correct that, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 25, 2024 13:45:10 GMT -5
There are walk-ons in women's basketball. Most programs just never get to their full scholarship allocation and often are not close. Yes, there are walk-ons. As much as I follow women's college hoops, can't say I recall any walk-on playing much or making a significant contribution in a game. I doubt teams have more than one walk-on a season. and most probably have zero. For whatever reason, being a walk-on in basketball isn't prevalent. Texas had one walk-on last starting in 2022-23 and because there was an unexpected open scholarship to start the following Fall, it was awarded to her. So, for the sake of this discussion Texas had zero walk-ons and all 15 scholarships were allotted for 2023-24. Since injuries are becoming more and more common, head coaches who don't allot all 15 scholarships are flirting with disaster. I do think late unexpected outgoing transfers make it difficult to fill every scholarship; but, the transfer portal deadlines will correct that, IMO. You are underestimating the number of walk-ons. Texas filling its scholarships in one year does not change that women's basketball teams almost always leave multiple scholarships open, and rarely get to 15 even with walk-ons.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 25, 2024 14:23:55 GMT -5
Yes, there are walk-ons. As much as I follow women's college hoops, can't say I recall any walk-on playing much or making a significant contribution in a game. I doubt teams have more than one walk-on a season. and most probably have zero. For whatever reason, being a walk-on in basketball isn't prevalent. Texas had one walk-on last starting in 2022-23 and because there was an unexpected open scholarship to start the following Fall, it was awarded to her. So, for the sake of this discussion Texas had zero walk-ons and all 15 scholarships were allotted for 2023-24. Since injuries are becoming more and more common, head coaches who don't allot all 15 scholarships are flirting with disaster. I do think late unexpected outgoing transfers make it difficult to fill every scholarship; but, the transfer portal deadlines will correct that, IMO. You are underestimating the number of walk-ons. Texas filling its scholarships in one year does not change that women's basketball teams almost always leave multiple scholarships open, and rarely get to 15 even with walk-ons. Do you have factual numbers to support your thoughts on women's hoops walk-ons in Division I?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 25, 2024 15:38:26 GMT -5
You are underestimating the number of walk-ons. Texas filling its scholarships in one year does not change that women's basketball teams almost always leave multiple scholarships open, and rarely get to 15 even with walk-ons. Do you have factual numbers to support your thoughts on women's hoops walk-ons in Division I? Do you have factual numbers to support your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by gazelle1 on Jul 25, 2024 16:19:31 GMT -5
There is no way this is going to happen unilaterally for a D1 programs. I can't imagine the Ivy's even with their endowments are all of a sudden start offering 105 scholarships for their football team. When in the past they offered zero athletic scholarships. I went to Harvard, and I can say with certainty that the alumni and administration don't really care about football. They do care about crew and ice hockey, and maybe field hockey as well. Technically, Harvard doesn't offer athletic scholarships, but I always found it interesting how they managed to get some of the best rowers on their crew teams every year. I would bet that a lot of those crew athletes somehow manage to obtain "need" based scholarships or something like it.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 25, 2024 16:26:21 GMT -5
Do you have factual numbers to support your thoughts on women's hoops walk-ons in Division I? Do you have factual numbers to support your thoughts? I do not. I provided one factual example which is one more than you have provided. Since you replied to me that "You are underestimating the number of walk-ons" I just figured you had some numbers or examples to back it up.
|
|