NCAA NCAA Roster Cap (Limit 20 Athletes)

[blueghost]

This new roster cap is big news in college. Here is a Reddit thread about it...



What does everyone think about this? I have been in contact with several college coaches very recently... they are all confirming that this is happening.

 

[cuuf]

Unfortunately, I think its going to impact the smaller school teams. The top 10 teams, teams in the major conferences are going to be fine and will probably benefit. Matter of fact in talking with those coaches many of them said they pushed to put the cap at 18 to help the smaller programs. Remember this isn't happening in a vacuum, it is happening in the context of the revenue sharing agreement going into place AND scholarship increases for other sports. So athletic departments have a significant budget redistribution to figure out.

 

[irichluck21]

It will effect teams like SCSU, Rutgers, and others who often have walk ons and have close to 30 gymnasts on their rosters. It is really going to limit the number of walk ons, especially for the top tiered teams. To the point that it will unlikely happen.

 

[makam]

Is the roster set in stone at the beginning of the year? If you have an injury, are you allowed to bring in a replacement? Could coaches change the roster every week to focus on who is doing best?

I'll be honest, I don't know much about the whole thing to have an informed opinion, but I did not like richer schools being able to pay "walk-on" athletes what amounted to scholarships. Sure, it might be the only way single event gymnasts get a paid education, but it also feels unfair if a school like LSU can pay for a team of 50 gymnasts in their state-of-the-art training facility and a smaller school in a rented gym or whatever has to rely on 12 gymnasts week in and out.

 

[cuuf]

Is the roster set in stone at the beginning of the year? If you have an injury, are you allowed to bring in a replacement? Could coaches change the roster every week to focus on who is doing best?

I'll be honest, I don't know much about the whole thing to have an informed opinion, but I did not like richer schools being able to pay "walk-on" athletes what amounted to scholarships. Sure, it might be the only way single event gymnasts get a paid education, but it also feels unfair if a school like LSU can pay for a team of 50 gymnasts in their state-of-the-art training facility and a smaller school in a rented gym or whatever has to rely on 12 gymnasts week in and out.

Yes, the roster is set once the school year starts. Still subject to the transfer rules and academic requirements. Of course coaches can change line-ups within those 20 spots during the season, but they cant go "find" a vaulter mid-season. In the broader sense of gymnasts, it will be good, because they have more scholarships. But no doubt, it still favors the big schools that can afford to have 20 scholarships.

 

[makam]

But the schools that can't afford 20 scholarships can still fill in with walk-ons? Who could also still have their schooling paid for by NIL?

(It does kinda suck about injury not allowing for adjustments to the roster unless you convince the injured gymnast(s) to transfer. But maybe that will help coaches see their athletes are not disposable.

 

[cuuf]

But the schools that can't afford 20 scholarships can still fill in with walk-ons? Who could also still have their schooling paid for by NIL?

(It does kinda suck about injury not allowing for adjustments to the roster unless you convince the injured gymnast(s) to transfer. But maybe that will help coaches see their athletes are not disposable.

This is where things get interesting. I have not been able to confirm if walk-ons have been eliminated, but the NIL "scholarship" will probably be eliminated. This is because, prior settlement world, NIL was delivered in 2 ways. The first way, was the way most folks generally think about NIL in that an athlete can go out and get $100 or a free meal from a local business for making a post on social media (or a signing, but you get the idea). The second way which was the source of the NIL "scholarship" which involved the universities affiliated (very important distinction) collective. These collectives pooled alumni donations and other funding sources and offered athletes some set payment to compete for the university in return for them doing some trivial activities, like a fan fest, or signing or even volunteering. But it is through these that you see the large multi-million dollar payments to football stars. In gymnastics some of the larger schools ala LSU, have collectives that actually have a chunk of funds earmarked for them. So this is how that were able to bring graduate transfers and provide money.

Now post settlement NIL collectives are supposed to be either going away or going under the direct control of the university. This is because the University will be paying athletes a share of the overall TV revenue that the university receives through its athletic TV contracts. So the first part of NIL will still exist (being able to use your Name Image and Likeness to sign a contract with a brand, etc). But the collective payment will be replaced by the revenue sharing money. It is also why the wanted to raise scholarships for programs, so an athlete is attending a school on an athletic scholarship and then they benefit from revenue share and NOT because a collective was offering more money.

 

[RedBirdie]

How does this affect Ivies that don't (technically....) provide athletic scholarships, even though they are D1?

 

[cuuf]

The settlement only affects the Ivies in the payment of damages portion of the settlement. Remember there are 2 components of the lawsuit. One is for damages that past athletes did not get paid while they were competing and the other is for athletes going forward. The lawsuit named the NCAA AND the power 5 conferences (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12). Since the NCAA was on the hook for the $2.8 billion damage payment, they are spreading that payment across ALL member institutions, including Ivies. There is a sliding scale that each conference and school is responsible for (Ivies will obviously be less but still a lot for a small athletic dept). Now the going forward part I am not sure if it includes Ivies or just the P5 conferences. The latest update from NCAA read like only the P5. But I can see how the Ivies might also be covered since these changes may not apply to them in practice. Yes the NCAA increased the roster sizes and scholarships available, but it is up to the university IF they want to offer those scholarships. The same with the revenue share, since I don't believe Ivies are getting TV revenue it doesn't apply to them.

Here is a good NYT article on it: Settlement information

Here is the recent update from NCAA: Settlement update

 

[Amber]

I did not know where to place this but I looked at the UCLA roster and Chiles is not on the roster for 2025, is she sitting out coming season?

 

[Kara]

I believe the explanation she gave was that since she's not currently enrolled in classes she can't be on the roster and that when she enrolls for the next semester she will be put back on.

 

[MaryClare]

I believe the explanation she gave was that since she's not currently enrolled in classes she can't be on the roster and that when she enrolls for the next semester she will be put back on.

That makes sense. I guess because of the tour and everything, she isn’t re-enrolling until January