certain sports. We may/could also consider funding (full scholarships) for a majority of a full roster. Either way, I don't envision us not increasing scholarships to at least some of our sports. Softball being one. Not sure there ever needs to be the maximum allowed in any sport moving forward. Including football. I could see us funding 75 football scholarships (as an example) as an offset (down from 85) to helping other sports. We don't need that amount for football in today's environment. I do see this as part of our revenue sharing moving forward. Glad you posted this, we were just talking about this the other day on the baseball board.

85 number as other P5 schools will

sports like softball. This new policy should eliminate any advantage that a private school has.

supplement equivalency sport partials with academic aid (need based or merit based).

which helps in scholarship-limited sports like track & field that recruit athletes from lower-income families. Stanford, Northwestern, and the Ivies have similar arrangements.

I would think the mindset is bigger football rosters to account for 1. Slower development from HS recruiting 2. Space to add transfers 3. More depth to hedge transfer outs 4. The bigger gap between p4 and g5+ schools in funding means add as many players as you can and leave the JMUs with even fewer options.

speculating as an alternative to monies that could go other places, there are some advantages to trimming to 75 (should we ever decide to do it). And some of this depends on what comes down the pike re: distribution of revenue sharing (several issues with this), and eventual contracts for players (how long they are committed to being here). We aren't sure how the revenue distribution will impact an entire department. Do we have to distribute per sport? Does football revenue still need to be spread over some other sports? How does Title IX impact this? Just lots of unknowns still. It is easy for the House settlement to say each Power 4 school needs to share $22-$26M dollars annually, but hard to untangle so many questions as to the how's and where's. There is also some discussion to reducing rosters anyways, and we are moving towards a more pro like football environment. NFL rosters currently are 53 players, with (I believe) 16 players on a practice squad. That is 69 players (and I realize an NFL team can sign anyone from another teams practice squad). And I am not suggesting the NFL roster format. But, I think 75 is very doable. Part two of a 75 man roster, you can maximize your revenue distribution (on a higher per capita basis per man). You can get more bang for the buck. If the sport goes to contracts, the transfer out scenario changes dramatically. We now know what the roster would look like so that bet becomes hedged. I think you still will have enough roster room to add transfers if needed. The JMU's of the world are going to have a harder time handling the "bright lights appeal" of the new revenue sharing model around the Power 4 level. I also think the days of keeping a roster of 85 and being able to properly develop all of them are slowly going away. Just don't see that the patience is there anymore (from both the coaching staff and the players). It is also more cumbersome with "keeping guys engaged" in future plans. I am not saying this will happen, but think that COULD be an option for us and we could survive fine being down 10 overall scholarships. I am quite certain, however, we will be increasing scholarships to some of the other sports, and that will be part of an interesting financial scenario for us (and everyone) to navigate. We do have some "room" in our current budget to add expenses, and the new CFP payouts will give us approx. $14M per year. Will be interesting to see what we end up doing. ** Edited by VTScoop at 5/25/2024, 3:41:37 PM

reduces the game day roster down to 46-man.

85 is more than needed. Too many guys go four years and hardly ever play on O or D ** Edited by UpperQuad at 5/25/2024, 10:57:01 AM ** Edited by UpperQuad at 5/25/2024, 10:57:39 AM

FCS team could have more than 63 players on the roster as long as the total amount of scholarships offered doesn't exceed the equivalent of 63 full scholarships. It is worth noting that the Patriot League has placed a limit of 15 equivalent scholarships per season and a total cap of 60 equivalent scholarships. In terms of the FCS conferences that offer football scholarships, I believe the Patriot League is the only conference to set the cap below the bylaw cap.

money to be transferred from coaching staff salaries and the number of coaches. Fewer coaches for fewer players and fewer players for fewer coaches. Think we'll see football programs become smaller before the big mean ugly act of cutting non-revenue programs starts.

With these additional costs with the extra scholarships, all the more important to get the out of state athletes eligible for in-state tuition to help offset these new costs. We know the state of North Carolina has already done this. This could make the difference competitively or possibly keeping some sports that may otherwise be cut. Any insight where we stand Commonwealth-wise on this front? It would appear that we, both VT and UVA, have had a good relations with legislators in Richmond to have brought the NIL in-house to the athletic departments.

check on that actually. In theory (and practically), someone has to pay for that revenue difference. And it would be applicable to all public schools in the state. But will try to find out some more about that soon.

saying that they will actually get more? Are you saying they won’t cut some Men’s Olympic Sports all together? Revenue sports will be better, Women with Title IX should be better, but Men’s Olympic sports is where I am concerned. Are you telling me they will be better off too? If so, could you tell me why you feel this way?

scholarships. This would be done as part of the revenue sharing model. Both men's and women's sports. Maybe not all sports, but there will be increases for sure. I expect softball and baseball to be included (as examples since those are two sports we have been talking about). We will not let other peer schools increase theirs significantly and we sit still (at least in some sports). Now to what level, time will tell. Any scholarship increase will have to be done judiciously with respect to Title IX.

A LOT to be figured out! Must be some really stressful times for all involved in college athletics.

I really think they should reduce the roster size for sports like softball. Coaches hoard players that they never intend to play, so they now transfer. The portal is gonna be close to 800 or so D1 players alone. Limit the rosters and maybe some of these players will find an actual 4 year home to compete at. 20 softball players per school is more than enough. But actually, baseball doesn't need their roster size either. MLB plays 162 plus games a year with a 25 man roster.

Schools should agree to reduce rosters/scholarship players to recoup some of the salaries they will be paying out. Sanctions if caught cheating.

and can get players from other teams practice squads.

in CFB but, the NFL carries 53, has a practice squad and should injury strike they can fill the roster spot from practice squad or unsigned free agents. The colleges do not have that option and injury could deplete the roster even more and make practice difficult as well. College versus pro is a substantially different animal.

Free of charge.

I agree with you that it is in reality a free farm system for the NFL. However, the roster structure and support structure makes the college program a substantially different animal.

That allows for a three-deep roster on O and D with four extra scholarships to be used for a kicker, punter, long snapper and another QB if the HC wants to use them that way. The money from those 15 scholarships can be used in a number of ways on other sports - like 30 half scholarships spread amongst the olympic sports.

The thing that I think is difficult is the whole partial scholarship deal. I do not envy any coach in today's environment having to decide that Play A gets a full ride, Player B gets 25%, and Player C gets 10% or just books. That is just crazy. If you want to go to 20 players and all of them on a full ride ,I could live with that.

Baseball is a different animal though. About 2/3 of the college roster consists of pitchers. Major League Baseball has the minor league teams to store and develop players. So, MLB has options that college doesn’t.

IMO we've come to expect too much of that in college sports. Couldn't do that with a smaller roster and reduced scholarships. At the college level it shouldn't be abnormal to see some baseball or softball pitchers batting, or some football players going both ways, or the second or third string center doing the long snapping, or a wide receiver who also punts, or a right fielder who throws in the high 90s coming in to close a game. Your comment about pitchers on a roster reminded me of Earl Weaver's theory about the number of starting pitchers he felt comfortable with. He believed 4 starters was ideal when other managers liked 5. Earl wanted his top four pitchers to pitch more often. He didn't like the idea of the #5 guy taking a start away from his #1 guy in the rotation. In most cases, 3 games/days of rest should be fine outside of the occasional doubleheader when he would use another starter who might be a long-reliever type pitcher. Why play your 5th string guy when your #1 guy is ready to go? Really his theory followed the old saying - you play your best players.

I didn't think of it as you brought up baseball.

From theri story: "But while football is the big fish, other sports could truly reap the benefits. Baseball teams are limited to 11.7 scholarships on a 39-man roster. That could change, but the Title IX implications could also be significant as schools would then have to fund 27 additional scholarships for women's sports." "The increased scholarship obligations will be yet another major cost for universities. Not every program will be able to handle them, which will create yet another gap."