|
|
Post by midwestvball1 on Jul 24, 2024 22:28:11 GMT -5
I think a lot of programs will look to “endorse” a club team that is closely linked with their intercollegiate program. Lots of college program want bigger rosters on the men’s side because lots of guys find the sport and develop later compared to the women’s side. If a player competes on a club team at a school with a varsity NCAA program, they use a year of eligibility. |
|
|
|
Post by midwestvball1 on Jul 24, 2024 22:38:36 GMT -5
There is no FORMAL announcement on men's volleyball. Women are going from 12 to 18. The interesting thing is D1 and D2 have some different rules even though they compete at the same level for men's volleyball. Look to see D1 rules to go into effect and D2 be a year behind unless both have to change due to the settlement. I highly doubt that men's volleyball will go to 12 or even 18 full scholarships. A thing called Title IX. Also, I don't think that ALL schools will fully fund men's volleyball programs to that max number of scholarships. In addition, the roster limits across the board will hurt men's volleyball due to lack of schools that offer it. Transfer Portal gets even more interesting with roster limits. This may actually bring more parody to men's volleyball because bench players at top schools will trickle down to other programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr67 on Jul 24, 2024 23:00:39 GMT -5
According to the source article ( bit.ly/46m7SCY) all sports will be considered “equivalency sports.” It's still unclear if this increase also includes the men or if it's limited to the women's side. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 25, 2024 7:30:52 GMT -5
As part of the house settlement, with the new scholarship/roster limits, the Athletic is reporting... "Volleyball is going from a 4.5 scholarship limit to a roster limit of 18." So a program could now scholarship 18 players, but they can only carry 18 players. That is for women, likely they will cut other sports that are not those listed. It's possible the athletic got it wrong - I was surprised that men's volleyball was one of the sports they would report so there may be some confusion there, but with swimming going 21 men and 35 women (I think), and volleyball not having any structural issues (like pitchers in baseball needing more rest than pitchers in softball) or rules differences (men's lacrosse hits, the women really don't) I think it's safe to say that men's volleyball won't have any MORE scholarships than women's volleyball. And perhaps the rules differences go the other way - fewer subs = fewer opportunities to play = smaller roster, maybe? But for now we have a report that volleyball is going from 4.5 to 18 and that is worth discussing. Now, not every school HAS to give 18 scholarships. My guess is the football schools probably won't add any men's scholarships to Olympic sports but we'll see. Other schools are tiering their sports to focus resources (scholarships and NIL) where they'll do the most good. There are some non-football schools that may choose to elevate men's volleyball and there are some schools that may cut it completely. We'll have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 25, 2024 7:32:34 GMT -5
I’m hoping when this is officially announced it’s 4.5 scholarships and unlimited roster Or Unlimited scholarships and max 18 Otherwise, there are going to be a bunch of kids that get cut to get some of these 25-30 person rosters down to 18, or, the 2025 kids are going to get screwed when schools let their seniors graduate and don’t bring in any freshman, or a little of both. At 18, Lewis would need to cut around 40% of their kids. Why does Lewis need such an inflated roster? Half those guys will never play. So, Lewis is a D2 school and I don't know that this rule change would impact them. That's an interesting question. Perhaps the conferences sets a roster limit so the D1 and D2 members are the same? But IDK what will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by couchanalyst on Jul 25, 2024 9:54:22 GMT -5
Hopefully we know more tomorrow when the final agreement with details should be released. MVB relies on walk-ons, I can't see them cut those away to very small rosters.
This was the scariest part of that Yahoo article.
"To maintain compliance with the federal Title IX law, any scholarship increases in a men’s sport will likely need to be replicated in a women’s sport, driving up the additional costs. But not all programs can afford to add so many additional scholarships. Some administrators are in the process of “tiering” their sports by decreasing investment on certain programs and increasing investment in others. This includes staff and salary cuts as well as the reduction in scholarships from Olympic sports, especially those that generate little to no revenue."
|
|
|
|
Post by midwestvball1 on Jul 25, 2024 12:51:17 GMT -5
That is for women, likely they will cut other sports that are not those listed. It's possible the athletic got it wrong - I was surprised that men's volleyball was one of the sports they would report so there may be some confusion there, but with swimming going 21 men and 35 women (I think), and volleyball not having any structural issues (like pitchers in baseball needing more rest than pitchers in softball) or rules differences (men's lacrosse hits, the women really don't) I think it's safe to say that men's volleyball won't have any MORE scholarships than women's volleyball. And perhaps the rules differences go the other way - fewer subs = fewer opportunities to play = smaller roster, maybe? But for now we have a report that volleyball is going from 4.5 to 18 and that is worth discussing. Now, not every school HAS to give 18 scholarships. My guess is the football schools probably won't add any men's scholarships to Olympic sports but we'll see. Other schools are tiering their sports to focus resources (scholarships and NIL) where they'll do the most good. There are some non-football schools that may choose to elevate men's volleyball and there are some schools that may cut it completely. We'll have to wait and see. Men's volleyball is NOT going to 18. That is women's volleyball. It is called, the author has not heard of men having volleyball as a sport. Haha. |
|
|
|
Post by midwestvball1 on Jul 25, 2024 12:53:36 GMT -5
Hopefully we know more tomorrow when the final agreement with details should be released. MVB relies on walk-ons, I can't see them cut those away to very small rosters. This was the scariest part of that Yahoo article. "To maintain compliance with the federal Title IX law, any scholarship increases in a men’s sport will likely need to be replicated in a women’s sport, driving up the additional costs. But not all programs can afford to add so many additional scholarships. Some administrators are in the process of “tiering” their sports by decreasing investment on certain programs and increasing investment in others. This includes staff and salary cuts as well as the reduction in scholarships from Olympic sports, especially those that generate little to no revenue." Schools may cut men's volleyball as a lower tier sport or non-revenue generating. It is all about the $$$$$. |
|
|
|
Post by midwestvball1 on Jul 25, 2024 12:57:42 GMT -5
Why does Lewis need such an inflated roster? Half those guys will never play. So, Lewis is a D2 school and I don't know that this rule change would impact them. That's an interesting question. Perhaps the conferences sets a roster limit so the D1 and D2 members are the same? But IDK what will happen. If Lewis attempts to apply for D1 status in the future when D2 gets a National Championship, then they would have to follow D1 rules. Thus reducing roster size by 40%. But for now D1 and D2 rules are different. I believe conferences only have rules on match day roster size. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jul 26, 2024 14:18:06 GMT -5
going from 4.5 to 18 would be massive costs (if a team chose to go to 18 schollies)
for Long Beach (one of the lowest cost of attendance programs), that is a 13.5 x $30,000 (full schollie) = $420,000 per year
I doubt Long Beach is raising those types of funds.
HOWEVER, if the schollies or NIL are enough for Tuition, then 13.5 x $15,000 = $200,000 per year,
Beach is fortunate they can get SoCal walk ons or partial schollies for as little as guys paying tuition only right now. Not saying players want to commute from home for 4 years, but it's probably one reason Beach has got a few really good players on the cheap.
I simply do not get why even WVB would go to 18 players, that's a P4 power grab if ever there was one. I can see 14, but 18? it's just stock-piling players, and where it's really going to hurt mid-majors in WVB is mid-majors can right now get some quality walk-ons for DS etc. and now a lot of those players may forego playing time just to get a spot at a P4 full ride.
it sounds good on paper to say 'wow, we are giving out more women's schollies, everybody wins" and yes funding education is great, just don't see how that does anything but widen the chasm between P4 and the rest. I can't imagine every Big West team will fund 18. Maybe (?) Hawaii, possible Beach/Davis/Poly/UCSB/UCSD a portion, but everyone else? they won't have the funds, teh P4 is presumably getting all this extra schollie money from football. maybe 18 is simply a way of letting them go to more football schollies. Football is just so out of control. 85 players is more than enough.
65 is fine, but of course the coaches always want more, more, more, it's just grotesque what football is doing
|
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Jul 26, 2024 16:58:02 GMT -5
I don’t understand this at all lol but it’s looking like this actually won’t get talent spread out to different programs around the country vs stacking rosters with high level bench warmers?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Jul 26, 2024 17:05:47 GMT -5
going from 4.5 to 18 would be massive costs (if a team chose to go to 18 schollies) for Long Beach (one of the lowest cost of attendance programs), that is a 13.5 x $30,000 (full schollie) = $420,000 per year I doubt Long Beach is raising those types of funds. HOWEVER, if the schollies or NIL are enough for Tuition, then 13.5 x $15,000 = $200,000 per year, Beach is fortunate they can get SoCal walk ons or partial schollies for as little as guys paying tuition only right now. Not saying players want to commute from home for 4 years, but it's probably one reason Beach has got a few really good players on the cheap. I simply do not get why even WVB would go to 18 players, that's a P4 power grab if ever there was one. I can see 14, but 18? it's just stock-piling players, and where it's really going to hurt mid-majors in WVB is mid-majors can right now get some quality walk-ons for DS etc. and now a lot of those players may forego playing time just to get a spot at a P4 full ride. it sounds good on paper to say 'wow, we are giving out more women's schollies, everybody wins" and yes funding education is great, just don't see how that does anything but widen the chasm between P4 and the rest. I can't imagine every Big West team will fund 18. Maybe (?) Hawaii, possible Beach/Davis/Poly/UCSB/UCSD a portion, but everyone else? they won't have the funds, teh P4 is presumably getting all this extra schollie money from football. maybe 18 is simply a way of letting them go to more football schollies. Football is just so out of control. 85 players is more than enough. 65 is fine, but of course the coaches always want more, more, more, it's just grotesque what football is doing the 12 -> 18 is a by product of the new rules where scholies are unlimited and revenue sharing is allowed which is happening because of NIL conflicts and somehow helps the NCAA avoid an issue that they have been accused of in the lawsuits... that is how I have read it. The rooster limits I assume are to provide some form of an upper limit on programs. The actual report has been issued and I have only read a few news stories but it sounds like only the power 70 schools will have to follow the roster limits and only if they want to offer revenue sharing to any one or more of their athletes. The rules are being put into place to try and limit benefits of NIL deals and put limits on incentives schools can offer athletes while avoiding more lawsuits. "Those that are not defendants — schools and conferences in the Group of Five, FCS and non-football playing Division I programs — are bound by the roster limits, reporting system and enforcement mechanism only if they choose to share revenue with athletes. They can opt out of the new model if they decline to share revenue." sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-leaders-file-landmark-agreement-in-antitrust-cases-heres-what-was-settled-and-whats-next-210539610.htmlWhich of the "70 power schools" have men's VB? |
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Jul 26, 2024 17:36:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by couchanalyst on Jul 26, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 26, 2024 18:51:28 GMT -5
To me, that reads that schools that opt out of revenue sharing and simply follow the old NCAA rules will be allowed to have uncapped rosters. But that means remaining at 4.5 scholarships. And it's worth noting this is at a university level, not sport by sport. So Ohio State, UCLA, USC, etc will definitely be capped at 18 athletes. Somebody like Saint Francis will almost certainly not opt in to revenue sharing, so their roster would remain uncapped, but they'd keep the 4.5 scholarship cap.
|
|
