REPORT: The NCAA is expected to approve increased scholarships across multiple sports, per @RossDellenger Football 105 (+20) Basketball 15 (+2) Baseball 34 (+22.3) Softball 25 (+13) Volleyball 18 (+6)https://t.co/DIHA2742Ik pic.twitter.com/R3HqocpbYF— On3 (@On3sports) July 24, 2024
Football rosters just increased in size by 25%. Which will mean 25% more committable offers going out from Bama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc. It will give these huge programs the ability to stock more players on and use their large support staffs to sift through and evaluate more talent on campus. They'll have more opportunity to find that 3 star that becomes an All American, and the 4-5 star busts won't hurt them as bad.
This kind of sucks for upper-mid P5 programs like us, but luckily we will be able to still pull some solid players through NIL. Who this really sucks for are the G5's and low P4 teams. And especially the low G5 teams that don't have any NIL. They'll now be relying on mostly FCS level players. The low P4 and mid-upper G5's on the other hand will still be able to use NIL to get a couple solid guys, but will have huge holes in their roster due to the lower caliber of player they'll be signing out of high school.
Comments
what is the rationale behind this change? It doesn't seem to benefit anyone besides the top programs
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
It doesn't seem to benefit anyone besides the top programs is the rationale
The rationale was the same as for the Transfer Portal and NIL.
Vehicles for the "Haves" to maintain power and superiority. Nothing more and nothing less.
But just like the Portal and NIL, this will be wrapped up with plenty of pre-made P.R. spin about how its "offering more opportunity for student-athletes"
This started with teams like Boise State crashing the Party and taking the Blue Bloods NY-Bowl money. Everything that has happened since has been a coordinated effort by those same Blue Bloods to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.
The overwhelming majority of athletes aren't going to end up the slightest bit farther ahead than they did before...everyone that believed that had wool over their eyes.
Thought I'd read that the NCAA may have had to eliminate scholarship limits all together, so not surprised it is going up.
I see it as a net positive especially for the diamond sports. Might mean more opportunity for some kids that wouldn't have otherwise gotten a scholly.
It's a positive for all the other sports.
For football it's a complete negative. And football drives all change for the other sports
Speaking of Diamond sports, Nijaree Canady, star pitcher for Stanford softball last season, committed to Texas Tech today with a seven figure NIL deal in place.
There is zero reason to go up by 20. If they went up by 5 it's whatever, we take a few more guys in this recruiting and portal class. Going up by 20 is two new full units of players.
Fuente was coaching in the wrong era. 10 scholarship RB's makes total sense at 105 scholarships
But then he would simply have rolled 20-25 RBs onto the roster....
15 RB and 20 WR
You're right, Fuente really was a visionary who was ahead of his time!
This is a net positive for high school recruits in all sports.
Perhaps a dumb question, but does the scholarship increase really matter for the blue bloods? They could simply add non-scholarship athletes and pay them through NIL. This seems to only matter if it's a net roster increase.
Interesting, the ncaa increase the roster to 120 this year.
Just the difference between a kid having a "committable" vs "noncommittable" offer from a big school makes a ton of difference. You don't really see big schools take many high school players not on scholarship (if any at all). How many kids do we talk about each year possibly joining our class if they don't get a committable offer from OSU or Georgia? Now those offers will almost all be committable.
The difference between the scholarship and covering it with NIL, is you have to go out and get NIL from the donors, and there's a limited pool you can use generally reserved for transfer portal guys who can make a difference, or top recruits. Not on guys with low likelihood of seeing the field. The schools on the other hand are rolling in the TV money (especially if you're P2), so the scholarships are covered no problem. It's freebie to take more fliers on developmental guys and evaluate more potential prospects while keeping them away from your opponents. An edge the blue bloods will absolutely take.
VT intended to do this with Stone Snyder (until he bailed). I also know (from talking to my Brother-in-laws high school teammates) that Troy and Tulane (very much not blue bloods) are also doing this.
IMO, this rule change just eliminates an unenforcible loophole. This also takes power away from the collectives and gives it back to the schools - which IMO is better for the players. There are hundreds of stories of collectives not honoring/exiting their agreements; now, as a player, when you sign your LOI, you know your scholarship will be delivered for at least the next calendar year.
Like I said above, this is a good thing.
it doesn't really eliminate it, though. just makes the premise way less likely because it's way easier for the numbers to work.
as far as collective/school power balance, making the availability of the scholarship the great equalizer doesn't take so much power away from the schools, because the differentiating finances are going to still come from the collective. it's just not likely to be a scenario where a player is choosing scholarship at one school vs collective money at another.
That's what I'm saying - everyone was going to do this, and we can't stop them, so let's just make it the new rule. In product design, there's this analogy we use about 'paving dirt paths' (if you've set foot on the drill field, you under this analogy) - IMO this was just the NCAA paving a dirt path.
In agreement with your comment though.
For all the hand wringing about the blue bloods using this to their advantage with committable offers and so forth, there's not a lot more playing time to go around.
Eventually there will be an equilibrium between "buried on the depth chart at a big school" and "actually playing".
But the Transfer Portal solved that problem for them.
Commit to UGa to be their 6th-string MLB? No, problem, after a year or two, just drop in the Portal and try to command as much NIL as possible.
But for the VT's of the world, this potentially takes away that mid-high 3☆ that may have developed into a star. Now they will stay at UGA, OSU, ect.--while VT, Purdue, NCSU and others get to fight over their "castoffs" ---a significant percentage who simply can't really play and aren't gonna develop.
Net: more talent, more money, more for the Blue Bloods all the time.
Yep exactly. They can hoard and evaluate that talent first, then whoever is discarded will come to us or a school in our tier. Whereas currently we may get a guy with potential to make a blue blood roster, develop him and convince him to stay for 3-4 years
Look at our roster and see which big time contributors were 3*s who signed here and outplayed their rating and stayed for 3-4 years. Strong and Delane? Who else am i missing?
It's a compelling story but i really just don't think it's going to be a big seismic change in process. We can alslonow afford to be more patient with the tweeners who need to develop without having to walk them after their r-Fr season because another player came in from the portal.
The two big reasons players transfer are coaching changes and lack of playing time. More kids to blue bloods out of high school means more kids from blue bloods in the portal. Those same players are available it is just after a year or two.
(lightly edited for clarity after my morning coffee)
If Delane is a take at Georgia or Ohio state does he come here?
If Antwaun Powell-Ryland is a take at Florida, does he come here?
He already didn't come here from HS under the current system. The change has no effect.
A better example would be if Delane was a take at Georgia under the new system and is good enough to become a starter. Then he never comes here. That's how it could affect us in the future
You were thisclose to seeing my point with the APR example.
Maybe Cam Johnson sticks around and has the same career for us that Delane is having after putting on some weight instead of bolting immediately.
I bet you a dollar our recruiting doesn't crater and we position ourselves as a great portal landing spot for former blue chippers who didn't pop immediately at other P5 schools.
How many people are ahead of him on the depth chart? What's his likelihood of playing?
Zero in his mind, he's coming from high school
We'll see... I don't think UGA is going to spend to $60k/year (Tuition + room/board + Cost of living + pay for play/NIL) on a 6th string MLB. It's going to make more sense to send that extra $20k to your second string who might actually leave.
Also, players want to play on Saturdays. They're not going to sign up to buried on the depth chart.
Finally - you can make the argument that players are just going to transfer out - but Coach Pry just kept 21 starters from transferring or going to the NFL. I promise you - this was not a purely financial decision from each of them. Just look at why people leave jobs in the real word: It's because they are drastically underpaid, have no growth opportunities, or have bad managers/culture/coworkers. As long as VT can be financially competitive (not necessarily pay top dollar, but be competitive), help players develop, and maintain a good culture, we will be fine.
Agreed. Until they increase the number of players on the field or double the time in each quarter, the number of snaps is not increasing.
And everyone thinks there is unlimited NIL, but there is way less enthusiasm for paying significant dollars that projects to be the 6th string QB. I just don't see teams overpaying the back end of their roster.
And while recruits are generally fairly naïve and overconfident, the majority are not so naïve that they think as a 3-star they will be outcompeting the 5-star for playing time. Smart mid-level recruits will not be jumping into situations that they know they will be buried.
But, it will change the recruiting game enough that it will be harder to be a developmental program, especially for teams that are not good at recruiting. And teams will need to recruit the portal harder and more regularly.
You don't have to pay NIL for everyone in your high school class. But in this scenario you described, you will have lower tier teams being forced to pay above market price to keep mid-high 3 stars away from better programs. This long term means being inferior to the blue bloods on the field, every single time. Because you're wasting resources just on getting a guy who is below the mean for them to begin with
It is not "above market price" if that's the price. That's just the market.
Taking it too literal...he is essentially saying that the lower tier programs will have to pay above what the market price should be because the blue bloods will be hoarding the supply, creating artificial demand. In a real market, the product doesn't get to choose who buys it and therefore drive up the price a less desirable buyer would have to pay to entice the product to allow it to be sold to them.
Thank you for explaining that better than I would have
i just fundamentally disagree that blue bloods will hoard the supply "worse" than they are now
Out of high school? They already hoard as many as possible out of high school and now they'll have 20 more scholarships to throw out
Why does "out of high school" make a big difference?
Because
1) They usually use 50% of their eligibility before transferring out, if they do.
2) If a guy who originally would go to us after high school is now a take at UGA or Ohio State, and he's good enough to make the roster there, that's a guy we have now, but don't have under the new rules. Making it harder for us to compete with those teams. Hence the Delane example
The cfb landscape isn't what it was in 2014. Maybe players used more than half their eligibility in the past, but that's an awful assumption to base the argument on nowadays. Players are hitting the portal before even making it to fall camp after enrolling early, or redshirt their freshman year and then jump.
It is all a zero sum game when you look at playing time. If Delane is a take at OSU and plays his way onto the field, that's one more player who wants playing time who will leave.
But in that scenario Ohio State has the better player and we don't. It's bad for us. How is it that hard to understand
Hate to break it to you but Ohio State is always getting the better player
The higher rated player yes. But sometimes guys slip through the cracks and a guy who wasn't a take for them develops and ends up better than the guys on their roster. That will happen way less under the new rules.
And then what happens to the guys on their roster? They leave!
That's the same opportunity we've been working with this current team and that we will be continuing to work. This whole thing more likely to be a nothing burger than "an assault on the parity in college football" as if college football has ever had any parity.
I would tend to agree with this if the increase was like 5 or 10 scholarships, but 20 seems like a dramatically high increase. Hopefully this number wasn't arbitrary and was backed up by something.
I would still rather have Delane than they guy he passed on the depth chart and now transfers to us. Seems reasonable.
It absolutely did. Utah, TCU and Boise State had legitimate top 5 teams in the 2000's. That could never happen today. There are legitimate barriers to consistently being a top program and competing for championships that did not exist 10 years ago. This rule only compounds that.
Sure certain teams always had advantages. But 15-20 years ago even G5 programs could compete with those teams.
You're basically saying it's binary, either some teams have advantages and there's no parity, or no teams have advantages and there is. Like everything else in the world, there are degrees to how many advantages the top teams have and whether it's possible to overcome those and compete with them. If it's not possible, why even watch the sport? That's what we're trending towards and this rule and others giving the top teams more ways to remain on top
Are you aware of a 12 team playoff?
with the way the rules have changed, every single player with eligiblity is up for recruitment every single season. It just means the percentage of meaningful snaps on the roster has gone way down and even more people will transfer. I do not think you grasp the enormity of the sheer volume of player movement and how easy it is for a player to move towards available opportunity.
It's not really an equalizing factor at all, but it's definitely not the death knell you're making it out to be.
Yeah it's owned by the organization that has bet the farm on the SEC. They have a financial interest in loading it up with SEC teams then whoever else will get ratings. It's going to be 8-9 SEC or Ohio State Michigan Penn State USC Oregon every year. There is not going to be a lot of playoff opportunity outside those top programs, unfortunately.
And if you don't think they'll take every opportunity to screw someone deserving out of the playoffs just to boost ratings, just remember this year's Florida State (who is a pretty big brand in their own right)
then why do you still simp for the ACC? It's like a weird cognitive dissonance of hating changes to the sport "because we're gonna be left behind" (not a direct quote) but then somehow wishing we don't take every advantage of any opportunity we might be given.
Why watch the sport? Because it's fun and i like it.
Because we're getting screwed and it doesn't have to be this way. The networks will make less money overall by choosing to pump up small group of teams instead of promoting them all, like the did in the 2000's when a lot of us grew up watching.
Lol I guess you could do the if you can't beat em join em thing, but nah fuck that. The ACC used to make the most TV money, best case scenario to me would be to get back there, no matter how unlikely it is.
Also consolidation of the sport will kill the interest for me. What always set college football apart from other sports is 100+ total teams, 60-70 viable programs, 40-50 teams in the mix every year. We're getting closer every year to NFL lite, and that just doesn't interest me. College football content on the big networks has sucked since around 2017 when they started exclusively talking about the same 10 schools on ESPN every day. So yes I'll root for the ACC to stay alive and against consolidation
Just form another pro league and let the rest of us play college football - i.e. a varsity sport composed of student athletes that represent their university. I don't care about all the pageantry and talking heads on TV if the cost of that equals what we're moving toward. If I wanted to watch professional sports, I could just do that. Field a team from the student body. Feel free to recruit players to be student athletes to have better teams in exchange for an education, room, board, meals, etc. Play similarly composed teams from your region. Your alumni and fans will support that. We've jumped the shark. I have no desire to see who can get the biggest war chest and buy the best team.
I think it will be the opposite - if UGA wants to convince a VT starter to be 3rd or 4th string on their depth chart, then UGA will have to pay a premium. You assume UGA will pay that premium - they might occasionally, but I think paying for more scouts would be a better investment.
All things being equal will a high school recruit choose to go to Virginia Tech or Georgia? Georgia might be bringing them in to be a 3rd or 4th stringer, but that's not going to be the pitch they sell them on. In that case it will be VT that will have to pay the premium to convince them to forego that scholarship to a top team and whatever baseline NIL Georgia offers. And this will be for mid-high 3 stars now, not for guys like Chris Cole and Marcellus Barnes. Remember the amount of available spots at those top schools just increased by 25%, that is not at all insignificant.
Marcellus Barnes the high 3*-low 4* (depending on service) who signed with.... *checks notes* syracuse?
The only reason he didn't sign with us is because of the Georgia offer, you know that. The only reason he ends up at Syracuse is to follow Fran Brown, and because we likely cooled on him after the decommit (no sources but Pry and co seem to treat commitments and going back on your word very seriously)
sounds like it had less to do with being a take at a blue blood and more that our staff got possibly beaten head to head by fran brown
just wait until Fran Brown gets those 20 extra scholarships!!!
This won't hurt VT as much as Pitt, BC, or UVA, but that's because of their inability to recruit and often get the "leftover" recruits of which there will be much less. If 4-stars are still choosing VT based on regionality, relationships, etc., then the mid-to-high 3-star recruits will continue to as well. If Fuente was still at the helm, it would be an issue because he couldn't recruit and he would probably fill all twenty scholarships with lowly rated running backs.
They're high school students. They don't think they're going to UGA to be a 3rd or 4th stringer, they think they're going there to start and be the star.
And then they transfer after a year or two if that isn't the case. Nobody is waiting around to start as a r-JR anymore
Georgia is still going to have 20 more scholarship players. Which means 20 players that would have otherwise been on the roster that season at a school like to Kentucky, South Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Auburn etc.
VT and other schools on our tier will also have 20 additional scholarships which means the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges and Pittsburghs are going to be missing out on players that are a VT take in 2026 that would not have been in 2024. And thus ODU and JMU and App State are going to be missing out on players who would otherwise be on their rosters.
It's 100% a talent hoarding effect that will have the effect of nerfing the roster of every school that is not a Tier 1A program.
Not to mention squashing the walk-on tradition across college football. Along with the bump in scholarships comes a hard cap of 105 rostered players. Sure some guys that were walk-on status will get scholarship offers under this system, but not most of them. The really unproven guys are going to have to give up their dream of walking on at VT or Clemson to either attend their favorite school and play intramurals or accept an offer from Georgia Southern or ODU with the hope of one day transferring to their favorite school. There will be no more roster spots offered up to longshot walk-ons because it will cost too much
Transfer portal eliminates the need for walk-ons. Players will sign on at lower levels and show they can play and transfer up.
Wow, Pitt whips our ass regularly with our leftovers
In my opinion the scholarship limits have been rendered worthless by NIL, at least for the blue bloods. Already at scholarship limit? Well Joe, we can't offer you a scholarship, but how about an NIL deal that covers your tuition, room & board, books, etc.
I think the thing everyone is forgetting is that these kids want to play. The big schools might get more out of high school, but those kids are going to transfer after they realize they won't get any run. The portal is very quickly becoming the way teams are going to build. I've been watching the ACC kickoff interviews and more coaches are talking about the importance of the portal. This is only going to make it more important.
I think we will see more high school students take a shot at a blue blood but then have more freshmen/sophomores transferring out when they had a scholarship but never cracked the depth chart and then get further buried by next years 5 stars.
it's just holistic roster management on a level we've never seen before because it is no longer a five year rolling window. every roster spot in the country, literally all of college football, is up for grabs every year and the teams that thrive will be the ones who improve their roster from the portal and best retain their own talent.
I agree. I can't imagine being a head coach today dealing with all these developments and new responsibilities on top of everything else they were asked to do previously. And the resource you are managing are 15- to 22-year-old athletes. Ugh.
I don't blame Saban one bit for hanging up his whistle. He has multi-generational wealth, rings, and god status in CFB....what more could you possible need?
Hookers and Blow?
which is attainable with money...
I do wonder if he does have any real political desires or if those are just rumors. It would be an iconic situation and story if Saban along with Tuberville were the Senators of Alabama, especially since they both would likely be on opposite sides of the aisle.
I'd like to stay within CG's, but I'll say...I wouldn't be too sure they'd be on opposite sides....
Even if they aren't politically, they certainly are on opposing sides in regards to football which is probably just as important in Alabama.
In Alabama, the two parties aren't democrat and Republican, it's Tide and Tigers.
touche
6 or 7 year window.
I hear you and understand your (and other's) position, but I think the point many are making is that this will allow the P2 programs the ability to sign 20 more players than they otherwise could have in the past. This means 20 more players per school who otherwise would likely have fallen down to the rest of us. That also means that there's a greater chance that within those 20 players there will be more Dorian Strongs who will perform above their rating/expectation and become a starter (or at least a major contributor). The players who will transfer out will be those that either didn't live up to their higher rating/expectation or performed exactly how they were rated (i .e., a mid three star), but regardless, they will be lower performers. The result will be a greater concentration of top tier players in the P2.
Bingo.
20 more players over 3-5 years of a player. So an average of 5 more scholarships per class.
Also noteworthy that it's a limit on roster size as well, so no more walk-on positions and will reduce the roster number for pretty much every P4 school, as the current average roster is 115. So, that's another thing to handle.
It's going to take a new balancing act, where every scout team member is a scholarship player and every special teams player (backup K/P/LS) is on scholarship. Will teams want veteran practice-squad members to run scout teams like they have now? I don't think it's a logical conclusion that each of those positions are now going to be taken by a 3-star HS recruits that have aspirations of playing time.
But I do agree that overall, more HS recruits and portal players will have an opportunity to be an SEC or B1G roster. But it's also true that more underclassmen players will also want to transfer out because they don't want their entire collegiate career to be on a scout team. And in few seasons, HS recruits will also take notice and adjust as well.
2,680 less spots on rosters at D1. D2 probably benefits from that.
I think this does solve a problem but it will have so many unintended consequences. The transfer portal is full of guys that don't get picked up, now there is space for them allowing them to get a degree. Which is good. This makes some of those hard conversations not as hard because those fringe guys either can stay or find another team that has more room than before. This is a win for student athletes, but not for the sport.
In addition, this adds room for all those 6th and 7th year players so that should make some one pretty happy/s
This just makes me think Cartman and the Crack Baby Athletic Assocation in South Park:
"Get a degree? What do you me...OHHH, yes! Of course, get a degree! Yes, our 'student-athletes' are only concerned about getting a degree. Of course."
lol DC gonna be talking about 8th and 9th year seniors for the next decade
Its so rare, that it happens constantly.
From the On3 article (emphasis mine):
I think that should have been written as "have to". I am pretty sure our athletic department isn't chomping at the bit to find ways to be able to spend more money!
This is going to bust a lot of budgets. Non-P2 schools are going to be hard pressed to cover the huge increase in scholarship expenses.
If athletic budgets are flush with cash, why are there student fees? Why isn't ever asst coach making 7 figures?
The accounting is very fuzzy to me as to how every school is supposed to absorb these extra scholarship costs to keep up with the proverbial arms race....
These major programs panhandle too at every turn. It's disgusting how often they beg for money.
Yep, you think it's bad now, just wait.
I saw an article that said football scholarships can be partial, and that the new roster limit will match the 105. This is just wierd.
Saw the same. Football players set to get up to $23M per P5 program and that is above room and board already provided. Men's and womens basketball will be eligible for payments too but much smaller average amounts
The settlement is a two edge sword to all schools because they shell out the $23M to football at P5 and then receive no NCAA Tournament basketball revenue for all schools for ten years as that is how NCAA plans to pay off settlement.
Interesting because I saw at least one statement that says Title IX still applies.
Everything I've seen on title IX is that it's unclear. Lots of lawyers speculating with different opinions. Assume is courts will figure out downstream (after someone challenges).