D1 Mandatory Roster Cap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the difference if your kid is #30 or #40 on the team. Either way they're not seeing the field unless they beat out 30 players in front of them.

Why would you sign up for a team with over 30 roster spots. Why would you sign up with a team with over 18?

Because it's 40 in college and it's a way for your kid to get into a better school than they otherwise wood. That deep into the roster, these aren't scholarship players, so nothing lost there.

Were coaches being allowed to support that many athletes through admissions?

At schools like UNC and Stanford? Absolutely

lol no. Maybe at College of Charleston and Alcorn State.

This is right! I have no idea where people come up with this stuff.

UNC typically has between 30 and 34, last year it was 33.

Stanford has 30….

The NCAA average roster size for women’s teams is 30, meaning there are many with a lot fewer players than 30.

[Anonymous]

This isn’t new news. We were told this at a combine for a large D1 program two summers ago that the large roster sizes were because of COVID and were only through c/o 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new news. We were told this at a combine for a large D1 program two summers ago that the large roster sizes were because of COVID and were only through c/o 2024.

Teams having larger/smaller rosters by choice is very different than an NCAA-mandated roster cap.

[Anonymous]

Team at my kid's school is mostly 5th years and Seniors. Ton of transfers.

The transfer portal has really destroyed it on the male side. I can't speak to the female side.

So many kids transfer after a year or two and the coaches go into the portal for older/established players---making incoming Freshmen less desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new news. We were told this at a combine for a large D1 program two summers ago that the large roster sizes were because of COVID and were only through c/o 2024.

Six 5 years and 6 Seniors on my kid's D1 school roster next year.

[Anonymous]

The bigger implication here is that they're also shutting down/shutting out any other new sports programs.

if the college your kid wants to attend doesn't have a varsity team already—even if it has a super strong club—it's not going to be made varsity anytime soon, and there's only going to be fewer scholarship spots on teams that already exist.

Maybe some good news is that for high profile sports at high-profile schools, the players are being paid such large sums that scholarships are, ahem, academic at this point, and maybe that frees some money up for your DC? But probably, if they can save money on athletic scholarships, they'll just expand the lazy river for the football and volleyball team.

[Anonymous]

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/how-the-house-v-ncaa-lawsuit-may-cut-some-college-soccer-rosters-in-half/

Interesting analysis talking about trickle down effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, was this news brought to you by the same twitter (sorry, "X") account that said there would be a major announcement on July 1 regarding birth/grade year stuff that never happened?

Here is a link to information from a major law firm about the settlement that would bring the roster caps about:

https://www.engage.hoganlovells.com/knowledgeservices/news/what-the-proposed-house-settlement-means-for-ncaa-division-i-institutions

And here’s a quote from the link:

“Specifically, the settlement eliminates NCAA caps on the number of scholarships per sport, and instead proposes the NCAA and conferences designate roster limits by sport. Under the settlement framework, institutions will be able to fully fund scholarships for every member of a team in a given sport, so long as the overall roster stays within the prescribed limits.”

This would benefit men's soccer bigtime.

Actually, I have heard the opposite. As some D1s struggle to figure out the $ side of this, more D1 men's programs will go by the wayside. Schools can more easily get rid of non-revenue men's programs (women's have some protection by Title IX)