28 Rosters Spots/28 Scholarships for NCAA Women's Soccer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This change is going to be painful. Looking at Penn State current women’s roster, they have 33 players. Their 2025 recruit class is like 10 players. This means they will have to cut loose a lot of players in 2025 to meet the cap. The trickle down will not be fun. 25 and 26 players should be nervous about losing your spot unless you are a top recruit.

Penn State has 33 with 4 seniors and 6 grads. They have 11 2025 commits, so 34 means they need to drop 6.

My wife's cousin's daughter is one of the grad students on the Penn State team. Throughout her long (interminable?) time at PSU, they have always had really big freshman classes (she was essentially the 9th player in her class). Then plenty of people have transferred out, with a few high level players coming in each year. I think they will work it out, but it certainly won't surprise me if freshman recruiting classes get smaller, quickly.

The difference is next year they cannot exceed 28 at any given time. Nowadays, they can exceed that number and have it ebb and flow as you noted with transfers in/out. They have to cut to hit that number. Most likely the cuts will primarily come from the incoming class at the time (i.e., 2025s).

Maybe. But it will vary by team. I don't think most schools -- even those with lots of people will cut 2025s. Penn State example above -- they need to drop 6 -- not that hard. Probably lsoe 4 to ACLs anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need someone to explain what this NCAA change means to me as if I'm an 85 year old grandmother.

To be truthful --- way to early to explain anything. As of this moment there are no changes. There likely will be as a number of things have been agreed to but all is still in flux. Nothing set in stone.

But isn't it established that women's soccer rosters are capped at 28 and that therefore schools like Penn State will have to cut 2025 commits? Or is that still not for sure?

They wont cut commits - most likely 2nd or 3rd year non performers. Players they have seen a lot and gotten to know. They wont cut their 25's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need someone to explain what this NCAA change means to me as if I'm an 85 year old grandmother.

To be truthful --- way to early to explain anything. As of this moment there are no changes. There likely will be as a number of things have been agreed to but all is still in flux. Nothing set in stone.

But isn't it established that women's soccer rosters are capped at 28 and that therefore schools like Penn State will have to cut 2025 commits? Or is that still not for sure?

They wont cut commits - most likely 2nd or 3rd year non performers. Players they have seen a lot and gotten to know. They wont cut their 25's.

Don’t know about that. The quit rate is really high with the commits. Best to keep your current players vs risk it on a commit who will quit when they do not get in to games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need someone to explain what this NCAA change means to me as if I'm an 85 year old grandmother.

To be truthful --- way to early to explain anything. As of this moment there are no changes. There likely will be as a number of things have been agreed to but all is still in flux. Nothing set in stone.

But isn't it established that women's soccer rosters are capped at 28 and that therefore schools like Penn State will have to cut 2025 commits? Or is that still not for sure?

They wont cut commits - most likely 2nd or 3rd year non performers. Players they have seen a lot and gotten to know. They wont cut their 25's.

At least 17 2025s have already been decommitted by the schools. Doubtful this process is over.
https://twitter.com/ImYouthSoccer/status/1823781638347907235

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need someone to explain what this NCAA change means to me as if I'm an 85 year old grandmother.

To be truthful --- way to early to explain anything. As of this moment there are no changes. There likely will be as a number of things have been agreed to but all is still in flux. Nothing set in stone.

But isn't it established that women's soccer rosters are capped at 28 and that therefore schools like Penn State will have to cut 2025 commits? Or is that still not for sure?

They wont cut commits - most likely 2nd or 3rd year non performers. Players they have seen a lot and gotten to know. They wont cut their 25's.

At least 17 2025s have already been decommitted by the schools. Doubtful this process is over.
https://twitter.com/ImYouthSoccer/status/1823781638347907235

Yes but is this really true? It's been reported only thru ImYouthSoccer...

[Anonymous]

It is possible the reports are correct. But if so the impacted girls are people the schools had second thoughts about or girls that have been injured since the process played out.

[Anonymous]

I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

P4 2026 recruiting has been robust. No slowing down. I don't think coaches are caring at all at this point about numbers. They will deal with 28 players when mandated and not a year before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

How would all this work for Ivies as they don't give athletic scholarships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

The article is wrong. All players won't be getting full rides. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

The article is wrong. All players won't be getting full rides. Ridiculous.

This is a good explanation of the expanded scholarships, written from an MSU perspective, but it still applies:

"The important details include $2.8 billion dollars in back pay for current and former athletes (mostly football and men's basketball players) dating back to 2016 (paid out over 10 years) and, more significantly, revenue sharing with current athletes, with schools paying their athletes up to 22% of certain inventory (media rights, sponsorships and tickets sold) — which, for the 2025-26 school year, will total close to $22 million for each of the power five conference schools, Michigan State included. There will also supposedly be new NCAA oversight with third-party NIL deals, though we'll see whether there is any teeth to that enforcement. There is some recent legal resistance to the settlement, but, as it stands, this is what’s coming. And, in some form, where it’s headed regardless.
...
Football will go from 85 scholarships to 105 allowed, men’s basketball from 13 to 15 (women’s basketball is already at 15), men’s ice hockey from 18 to 26, women's volleyball from 12 to 18, baseball from 11.7 to 34, softball from 12 to 25, wrestling from 9.9 to 30 and so on and so forth.

There are two big caveats here. First, no school can afford all of these extra scholarships. They’re not just free things to give out. Athletic departments pay that tuition. Secondly, and what’s been underreported, is that a portion of each school’s revenue-sharing cap is tied to the number of scholarships it currently has in each sport. For every scholarship you add, without taking one away, it cuts into a portion of that nearly $22 million in revenue a school can share with athletes, up to $2.5 million. For example, if MSU added 20 football scholarships, two in men’s basketball and eight in hockey, the cost of those scholarships — roughly $30,000 per scholarship for in-state tuition — would be taken out of the money it could pay athletes. "


https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2024/08/17/msu-football-the-biggest-story-in-college-sports-is-flying-under-the-radar/74806933007/

My guess is that the push will be to maximize the amount of direct payment money available to football which will mean more direct-payments to female athletes to comply with title IX. but not a lot more scholarships; football already has 85 and teams will prefer giving the 10th guy on the roster 10 or 15k more rather than giving the 86th guy a scholarship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This change is going to be painful. Looking at Penn State current women’s roster, they have 33 players. Their 2025 recruit class is like 10 players. This means they will have to cut loose a lot of players in 2025 to meet the cap. The trickle down will not be fun. 25 and 26 players should be nervous about losing your spot unless you are a top recruit.

Penn State has 33 with 4 seniors and 6 grads. They have 11 2025 commits, so 34 means they need to drop 6.

My wife's cousin's daughter is one of the grad students on the Penn State team. Throughout her long (interminable?) time at PSU, they have always had really big freshman classes (she was essentially the 9th player in her class). Then plenty of people have transferred out, with a few high level players coming in each year. I think they will work it out, but it certainly won't surprise me if freshman recruiting classes get smaller, quickly.

The difference is next year they cannot exceed 28 at any given time. Nowadays, they can exceed that number and have it ebb and flow as you noted with transfers in/out. They have to cut to hit that number. Most likely the cuts will primarily come from the incoming class at the time (i.e., 2025s).

Maybe. But it will vary by team. I don't think most schools -- even those with lots of people will cut 2025s. Penn State example above -- they need to drop 6 -- not that hard. Probably lsoe 4 to ACLs anyway.

PSU seems to be to most active dropping 2025's. The players are announcing on twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this gave a good explanation of where things stand in terms of paid scholarships and recruiting.

https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/why-the-ncaas-increase-in-scholarships-wont-prevent-roster-shrink-in-college-soccer/

I don't understand - this article says all players need full scholarships? Reqlly?

The article is wrong. All players won't be getting full rides. Ridiculous.

This is a good explanation of the expanded scholarships, written from an MSU perspective, but it still applies:

"The important details include $2.8 billion dollars in back pay for current and former athletes (mostly football and men's basketball players) dating back to 2016 (paid out over 10 years) and, more significantly, revenue sharing with current athletes, with schools paying their athletes up to 22% of certain inventory (media rights, sponsorships and tickets sold) — which, for the 2025-26 school year, will total close to $22 million for each of the power five conference schools, Michigan State included. There will also supposedly be new NCAA oversight with third-party NIL deals, though we'll see whether there is any teeth to that enforcement. There is some recent legal resistance to the settlement, but, as it stands, this is what’s coming. And, in some form, where it’s headed regardless.
...
Football will go from 85 scholarships to 105 allowed, men’s basketball from 13 to 15 (women’s basketball is already at 15), men’s ice hockey from 18 to 26, women's volleyball from 12 to 18, baseball from 11.7 to 34, softball from 12 to 25, wrestling from 9.9 to 30 and so on and so forth.

There are two big caveats here. First, no school can afford all of these extra scholarships. They’re not just free things to give out. Athletic departments pay that tuition. Secondly, and what’s been underreported, is that a portion of each school’s revenue-sharing cap is tied to the number of scholarships it currently has in each sport. For every scholarship you add, without taking one away, it cuts into a portion of that nearly $22 million in revenue a school can share with athletes, up to $2.5 million. For example, if MSU added 20 football scholarships, two in men’s basketball and eight in hockey, the cost of those scholarships — roughly $30,000 per scholarship for in-state tuition — would be taken out of the money it could pay athletes. "


https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2024/08/17/msu-football-the-biggest-story-in-college-sports-is-flying-under-the-radar/74806933007/

My guess is that the push will be to maximize the amount of direct payment money available to football which will mean more direct-payments to female athletes to comply with title IX. but not a lot more scholarships; football already has 85 and teams will prefer giving the 10th guy on the roster 10 or 15k more rather than giving the 86th guy a scholarship

Any guesses about what the effects will be are just that - guesses. It's impossible to know how all this will play out. When NIL became a thing, there were all sorts of predictions most of which didn't pan out. Did anyone have the Pac-10 breaking up and California teams joining the ACC on their bingo cards a few years ago? Changes are coming. The landscape will look at lot different in a few years. And there will be consequences good and bad that we haven't even considered yet. Rather than speculating and worrying, I would be preparing to adapt quickly to the changes as they come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This change is going to be painful. Looking at Penn State current women’s roster, they have 33 players. Their 2025 recruit class is like 10 players. This means they will have to cut loose a lot of players in 2025 to meet the cap. The trickle down will not be fun. 25 and 26 players should be nervous about losing your spot unless you are a top recruit.

Penn State has 33 with 4 seniors and 6 grads. They have 11 2025 commits, so 34 means they need to drop 6.

My wife's cousin's daughter is one of the grad students on the Penn State team. Throughout her long (interminable?) time at PSU, they have always had really big freshman classes (she was essentially the 9th player in her class). Then plenty of people have transferred out, with a few high level players coming in each year. I think they will work it out, but it certainly won't surprise me if freshman recruiting classes get smaller, quickly.

The difference is next year they cannot exceed 28 at any given time. Nowadays, they can exceed that number and have it ebb and flow as you noted with transfers in/out. They have to cut to hit that number. Most likely the cuts will primarily come from the incoming class at the time (i.e., 2025s).

Maybe. But it will vary by team. I don't think most schools -- even those with lots of people will cut 2025s. Penn State example above -- they need to drop 6 -- not that hard. Probably lsoe 4 to ACLs anyway.

PSU seems to be to most active dropping 2025's. The players are announcing on twitter.

Um where?