NCAA to increase scholarships for sports (football roster going to 105)

[Brother Bear]

Sources: NCAA to increase scholarships for sports, with football getting roster limit of 105 players

As part of the new revenue-sharing model, by-sport scholarship restrictions will be eliminated, and schools are permitted to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters.

sports.yahoo.com

Football, with a current scholarship restriction of 85, will now have a roster limit of 105 — a 20-scholarship increase for those schools willing to give the maximum. In an important note for football, the 105 may not be a requirement until the start of the competitive season, giving coaches flexibility to go beyond that figure during preseason camp, for instance.

Another key change to the scholarship structure: All sports will be considered “equivalency sports,” meaning partial scholarships can be distributed to players. Football, basketball and other sports are currently considered “head-count sports,” which require players on scholarship to receive a full grant.

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.

I'm not sure what the scholarship limit will be at the FCS level or if it remains the same.

 

[GrizWin99]

Sources: NCAA to increase scholarships for sports, with football getting roster limit of 105 players

As part of the new revenue-sharing model, by-sport scholarship restrictions will be eliminated, and schools are permitted to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters.

sports.yahoo.com

I'm not sure what the scholarship limit will be at the FCS level or if it remains the same.

As of now, The FCS rules remain the same

 

[AZGrizFan]

it's almost like they're trying to kill lower levels of football...

 

[GrizWin99]

it's almost like they're trying to kill lower levels of football...

I actually think this might help the lower divisions. Yes FBS schools can offer more scholarships, but their rosters will be much smaller. Each FBS team will have 15+ fewer players than they’ve been able to carry recently. These players will inevitably trickle down.

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

it's almost like they're trying to kill lower levels of football...

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

That's exactly what I think they are trying to do. I've said it all along. You move forward or you die. UM and the top tier FCS programs must make the move or they will be playing for the Pop Warner Natty. I see it as a push to get the last of the FCS blue bloods to move up before they shut the doors to the ark.

This is gonna fall on deaf ears though because Montana fans detest change and love their irrelevant championship. Yeah, yeah, but bowl games... are fun. I have been to numerous bowl games and they are a blast.

1) You get to go somewhere other than fricking Chattanooga or Frisco.

2) They are fun, you get to meet new people, AND you get some cool trophies.

3) You get more revenue.

4) Apparently now they will get more scholarships, which means more opportunity for a couple more Montana kids to maybe play.

5) Teams get exposure in regions they would have never gotten exposure in.

6) Conference Championships mean something because they will be getting placement in the REAL NC.

7) Being number 135 in the nation means nothing. Wait what's that? Yeah, there are currently 134 (soon to be a few more) FBS teams in the nation. Being #1 in the FCS means you're nothing but #135 in the FBS.

8) We all know that UM would never play in an FBS Natty. I would rather they play in a bowl game that pays out $1-2 million, end the season ranked in the top 16 nationally than get excited about the Soccer mommy participation trophy.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Obviously, this will lower the number of good players coming to FCS out of high school. However, this doesn't increase FBS playing time, so this will increase the number of FBS players going into the Portal and looking for playing time, including at FCS level.

 

[garizzalies]

I actually think this might help the lower divisions. Yes FBS schools can offer more scholarships, but their rosters will be much smaller. Each FBS team will have 15+ fewer players than they’ve been able to carry recently. These players will inevitably trickle down.

What am I missing? Seems like you got it backwards and FBS rosters will grow, not shrink:

The details around roster sizes of other sports — many of which will see increases in scholarship slots — are expected in the document. No sport will see a reduction in scholarship spots, according to plaintiff attorneys. As part of the agreement, roster limits must be set at or more than current scholarship restriction for each sport.

 

[EverettGriz]

it's almost like they're trying to kill lower levels of football...

Who woulda ever thunk it, huh....

 

[mthoopsfan]

That's exactly what I think they are trying to do. [I don't agree. The ncaa is not trying to ruin lower levels; just trying to help FBS (or those who can afford more scholarships.] I've said it all along. You move forward or you die. [Schools like UM are moving forward. It's not necessary to move up to move forward. In fact, moving up without adequate funds would hurt the program.] UM and the top tier FCS programs must make the move or they will be playing for the Pop Warner Natty. [Not true. The FCS playoffs aren't going to change.] I see it as a push to get the last of the FCS blue bloods to move up before they shut the doors to the ark.

This is gonna fall on deaf ears though because Montana fans detest change and love their irrelevant championship. Yeah, yeah, but bowl games... are fun. I have been to numerous bowl games and they are a blast. [Which low level bowl games have you had a blast at?]

1) You get to go somewhere other than fricking Chattanooga or Frisco. [Why? Chattanooga and Frisco have been great.]

2) They are fun, you get to meet new people, AND you get some cool trophies.

3) You get more revenue. [You get more expenses, and the expenses would overwhelm the new revenues.]

4) Apparently now they will get more scholarships, which means more opportunity for a couple more Montana kids to maybe play.

5) Teams get exposure in regions they would have never gotten exposure in.

6) Conference Championships mean something because they will be getting placement in the REAL NC. [UM wouldn't.]

7) Being number 135 in the nation means nothing. Wait what's that? Yeah, there are currently 134 (soon to be a few more) FBS teams in the nation. Being #1 in the FCS means you're nothing but #135 in the FBS. [Not true. Good FCS teams beat and are ranked higher than some FBS teams every year.]

8) We all know that UM would never play in an FBS Natty. I would rather they play in a bowl game that pays out $1-2 million, end the season ranked in the top 16 nationally than get excited about the Soccer mommy participation trophy. [Which non-top bowl games pay $1-2 million per team?]

See my comments in brackets above. People like you want to ruin Griz football, in my view

 

[GrizWin99]

What am I missing? Seems like you got it backwards and FBS rosters will grow, not shrink:

FBS teams will not be able to roster more than 105 players, and they currently roster ~120. The “walk-ons” will be cut. This is effectively the end of FBS walk-on players.

 

[mthoopsfan]

FBS teams will not be able to roster more than 105 players, and they currently roster ~120. The “walk-ons” will be cut. This is effectively the end of FBS walk-on players.

I assume thus will help FCS. Thx.

 

[DoubleNicks]

Here's the most important quote left off from the OP:

As part of the new revenue-sharing model — beginning in 2025-26 academic year — by-sport scholarship restrictions are eliminated, and schools are permitted to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters.

Otherwise, scholarship restriction and roster limits have been two separate topics traditionally so it's necessary for one to reach the conclusion of the quote,

Football, with a current scholarship restriction of 85, will now have a roster limit of 105 — a 20-scholarship increase

But anyways, I could see this as helping the major basketball programs the most and possibly hindering less profitable olympic sports like track, especially on the male side.

For basketball coaches that can convince their school/boosters to fund the additional scholarships, it would make things a lot easier when they could just focus on getting the best 15 recruits/players each year instead of having to crunch scholarship numbers first to see what can actually be offered.

 

[Mick Belker]

1) There is still only 60 minutes of playing time. Eleven players each on offense, defense, kickoff, return, and FG teams. 55 total players, max. 50 players will never see the field. How happy will they be?

2) Schools who can't afford the increase will become less and less competitive. How long can that last?

3) Real world analogy: The U.S. forced the end of the Soviet Union by out spending them. Whether the new increase is intended to force an end to football is unknown, but this change could have that very result.

 

[OrgonGriz]

If the limit of players is 105 at that level and they all have scholarships, id say the walk on kids come to the FCS or whatever it will be called and if we are still in it. Those kids can shine at the FCS level then portal out to the “ROYAL” level of football!

 

[mthoopsfan]

Is this for Power Conferences or FBS?

I see that these schools can now offer partial scholarships too. This won't increase roster size, so it won't allow more football players on scholarship. However, I think it will help schools with baseball, where they got a nice roster size increase but probably won't want to put that many players on full scholarship.

The 105 roster limit starts at the beginning of the season. So, before the season and after the season, it looks like there can be more players on the roster. I assume they'd have to be walk-ons.

I assume these schools may try to place their non-playing scholarship guys who aren't going to play in future, with other schools, like FCS, so that the player isn't taking a roster and scholarship spot. I suppose this is also the case now.

It looked like these new "rules" were coming through the possible upcoming legal settlement of the big antitrust case.

If the new roster/scholarship limits apply to non-Power 5 conferences, I wonder how many of those schools will be able to afford the full scholarship increase. Presumably, for every new football scholarship, there will have to be a new women's scholarship. This will all be beneficial for women's sports.

Sorry if this stuff is already answered in thread. I looked mostly in various articles I found, but didn't see definitive answers.

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

See my comments in brackets above. People like you want to ruin Griz football, in my view.

I return the comment back to you. In my perspective it's people like you who refuse to move the program forward that are going to be the ruination of Griz football.

I guess if you're happy with a participation trophy, great. I would rather watch the Griz play Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, and so on and so forth than Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona, Ferris State, North Dakota Community College of Pipe welders and Drillers, etc.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I return the comment back to you. In my perspective it's people like you who refuse to move the program forward that are going to be the ruination of Griz football.

I guess if you're happy with a participation trophy, great. I would rather watch the Griz play Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, and so on and so forth than Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona, Ferris State, North Dakota Community College of Pipe welders and Drillers, etc.

The FCS national championship is not a participation trophy. It is a huge accomplishment.

Playing in a low level bowl game is closer to a partition trophy.

Who you would like to watch the Griz play doesn’t support the point you were trying make.

UM played multiple very good teams last season. The majority of teams played were good.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I return the comment back to you. In my perspective it's people like you who refuse to move the program forward that are going to be the ruination of Griz football.

I guess if you're happy with a participation trophy, great. I would rather watch the Griz play Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, and so on and so forth than Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona, Ferris State, North Dakota Community College of Pipe welders and Drillers, etc.

South Dakota State was ranked higher than all of those schools in the Sagarin.

 

['68griz]

I return the comment back to you. In my perspective it's people like you who refuse to move the program forward that are going to be the ruination of Griz football.

I guess if you're happy with a participation trophy, great. I would rather watch the Griz play Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, and so on and so forth than Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona, Ferris State, North Dakota Community College of Pipe welders and Drillers, etc.

And how do you propose that happening? None of those schools is in a conference that is begging Montana to join it. You can't move somewhere if you are not wanted.