• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Projected Roster: 2025

The other thing to keep in mind that Haslam mentioned is that it is a yearly decision. They could opt-out this year and then still opt-in next year. It makes sense - may as well see how it goes for a year, let everyone else deal with the bugs and kinks plus give the rest of your athletics ample time to figure out how to handle roster and scholarships if opting in the following year.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Opting in gives you more control to pay players, but as hoops noted, it also reduces the athletic departments operation budget by $200,000/yr for the next 10. That is significant for the football program, since it is the program most dependent on those funds. I am not sure you grasp the total picture. This settlement was a way for the big guys (that negotiated it) with the money to have the little guys without the money to finance a large portion of the settlement.
Click to expand...
I believe I have a fairly decent “grasp” on it, thank you very much. Anyone can do a deep dive as most of this has been released and scrutinized. I could be way off base, but I don’t think it is an accident that BH is keeping the roster at 105 just in case. Like I said, maybe he just wants to be ready.

Yes expenses will increase, but now we can fundraise directly to backfill. Herder’s article talked about how there will be “workarounds”.

Rumblings of MSDui opting in combined with the below comment, should scare any Griz fan:
Montana State could theoretically go to its boosters to try and raise money to support 75 scholarships, or 80 scholarships, or 85.
Click to expand...

Seems like the bsc would be dumb to attempt a conference-wide solution:
FCS conferences have been advised, for legal reasons, not to work together on scholarship limits, AKA trying to set an FCS-wide scholarship limit.
Click to expand...
 
garizzalies said:
I believe I have a fairly decent “grasp” on it, thank you very much. Anyone can do a deep dive as most of this has been released and scrutinized. I could be way off base, but I don’t think it is an accident that BH is keeping the roster at 105 just in case. Like I said, maybe he just wants to be ready.

Yes expenses will increase, but now we can fundraise directly to backfill. Herder’s article talked about how there will be “workarounds”.

Rumblings of MSDui opting in combined with the below comment, should scare any Griz fan:


Seems like the bsc would be dumb to attempt a conference-wide solution:
Click to expand...
I think you overestimate how much fundraising money is out there that hasn't already been tapped. I think there are people believing this will lead to more money, when what it will do is just change the process. Even if the BSC opts-in, I believe they will cap scholarships and nothing will really change outside the roster numbers. Football can still split 63 scholarships between 105 as they have done with the larger roster historically.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I think you overestimate how much fundraising money is out there that hasn't already been tapped. I think there are people believing this will lead to more money, when what it will do is just change the process. Even if the BSC opts-in, I believe they will cap scholarships and nothing will really change outside the roster numbers. Football can still split 63 scholarships between 105 as they have done with the larger roster historically.
Click to expand...
Nope. “Nothing will really change”? It’s a seismic shift. The tide may already be changing. We may see less kids from Fort Benton and Fairview, and more kids from LA or TX.
Sorry, I realize I keep referencing the Herder article (and I hate that guy), but he addressed this exact issue. There will be workarounds making a conference cap basically meaningless. Not sure why a conference would even risk a Sherman Act type lawsuit. Seems safer to just let the individual schools decide.
Further, this type of fundraising was never allowed before, let alone attempted, so it has not been “tapped”. Fans will be motivated to donate directly to the university’s NIL for the first time ever, and not some general fund black hole. Small business too. We are not just going to rely on the same (small) group of big time donors. Pool is much bigger now with many more options
 
garizzalies said:
Nope. “Nothing will really change”? It’s a seismic shift. The tide may already be changing. We may see less kids from Fort Benton and Fairview, and more kids from LA or TX.
Sorry, I realize I keep referencing the Herder article (and I hate that guy), but he addressed this exact issue. There will be workarounds making a conference cap basically meaningless. Not sure why a conference would even risk a Sherman Act type lawsuit. Seems safer to just let the individual schools decide.
Further, this type of fundraising was never allowed before, let alone attempted, so it has not been “tapped”. Fans will be motivated to donate directly to the university’s NIL for the first time ever, and not some general fund black hole. Small business too. We are not just going to rely on the same (small) group of big time donors. Pool is much bigger now with many more options
Click to expand...

I don't think this is how it is going to work out. I don't think the money pool for fundraising is anywhere near where you believe, and I think interest in small time college sports will wane with the lack of continuity on the roster. A big driver for small school fans in routing on the same kids from year to year and not the "pro" model. I think this will only benefit the new P4 schools, and maybe a few conference on the fringe. This will not make FCS football better in the current form.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I don't think this is how it is going to work out. I don't think the money pool for fundraising is anywhere near where you believe, and I think interest in small time college sports will wane with the lack of continuity on the roster. A big driver for small school fans in routing on the same kids from year to year and not the "pro" model. I think this will only benefit the new P4 schools, and maybe a few conference on the fringe. This will not make FCS football better in the current form.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we are necessarily adverse as I agree with most of what you are saying. I don’t think there is suddenly going to be a huge influx of new donations. There is a lot of potential and new opportunities to explore.
However, we won’t know unless we sign up and we cannot tap into it unless we do. This sit-back-and-wait a year because we will save $200k is nonsense. We make that slinging personal pan pizzas each home game. That type of thinking is what contributed to our slide. We need get aggressive, get out in front of this, and lead the charge to get back on top. Sitting back and giving other schools a head start seems so dumb to me. Just think about the time value of money. We may never be as competitive because we cannot get as “competitive” of a NIL account by waiting. You snooze, you lose.
The big schools negotiated this deal without us. We can either pout about that or seize it.
 
garizzalies said:
I don’t think we are necessarily adverse as I agree with most of what you are saying. I don’t think there is suddenly going to be a huge influx of new donations. There is a lot of potential and new opportunities to explore.
However, we won’t know unless we sign up and we cannot tap into it unless we do. This sit-back-and-wait a year because we will save $200k is nonsense. We make that slinging personal pan pizzas each home game. That type of thinking is what contributed to our slide. We need get aggressive, get out in front of this, and lead the charge to get back on top. Sitting back and giving other schools a head start seems so dumb to me. Just think about the time value of money. We may never be as competitive because we cannot get as “competitive” of a NIL account by waiting. You snooze, you lose.
The big schools negotiated this deal without us. We can either pout about that or seize it.
Click to expand...
I would argue $200K is the minimum. I could be wrong and time will tell. I also think this could begin the end to FCS football, as there are just too many schools that can't handle the added finances.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I would argue $200K is the minimum. I could be wrong and time will tell. I also think this could begin the end to FCS football, as there are just too many schools that can't handle the added finances.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. If we don’t step up to the plate and take the bull by the horns we could be left holding the bag.
Have I been using too many cliches in this thread? You can tell me if I’m getting too big for my britches.
 
garizzalies said:
I get that there are “cons” with opting in from the perspective of the athletic dept, but from the perspective of the football program alone, the “pros” column far outweighs those.

The football program does not give a shit about other sports’ rosters, nor the expense side. The pressure is on them to win now. There’s no pressure on the track and field team.



The handful of roster spots they might have to give up makes it a no brainer, as:
Click to expand...
What are the pros? I see none of consequence. Opting in doesn’t result in more money for athletic department. In fact, I think opting in results in less, assuming payments to the case fund don’t have to be made. FCS can already spread partials fairly broadly. Don’t know why giving one quarter to teo players would be better than giving a half to one. Tell us more. Thx

Edit: FCS can already divide to 85.
 
Last edited:
I sent this email to the athletic dept late last year:
I assume there must be something, but, after reading a number of articles, my reaction was that FCS schools shouldn’t accept the settlement.

It doesn’t seem the ncaa could withhold ncaa payments with UM’s agreement to the settlement, and I assume that the ncaa can’t take UM’s money if they don’t agree to the settlement. Is the ncaa or big FBS schools threatening to toss FCS schools aside?

I can’t imagine that the plaintiffs’ case against only some or all remaining FCS schools would be very strong, and, if so, they wouldn’t have incentive to pursue it very hard or far.

The FCS and UM sure don't need the ability to share up to $20 million of revenue per year, since they don’t have extra revenue. Or, I can’t imagine that there is much to share.

I suppose there could be a minor benefit of letting the coaches decide who gets the NIL-type money, but that must already be happening on the side.

Who wants a 105 roster limit? Who wants to be able to be able to offer up to 105 scholarships.

So, I assume there’s some hook, threat or incentive to agree to the settlement.

If there’s some article or writing out there, please refer me to it.

I’d be happy to talk by phone too.
Click to expand...
Crickets.
 
mthoopsfan said:
What are the pros? I see none of consequence. Opting in doesn’t result in more money for athletic department. In fact, I think opting in results in less, assuming payments to the case fund don’t have to be made. FCS can already spread partials fairly broadly. Don’t know why giving one quarter to teo players would be better than giving a half to one. Tell us more. Thx

Edit: FCS can already divide to 85.
Click to expand...
FCS can already divide to 85............
That is news to me.
Why only 85?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top