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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

@ImYouthSoccer

[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.

Yes -- PSU has dropped a lot -- they were in the worst shape. There are a lot of unhinged coaches out there now. They are not that bright and are under a lot of pressure. No one should be dropping commits today. There is plenty of time to reshape. Having said that -- any commits with a big roster should be looking at options because next year will be bad as well.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Once the Big12 signed their media deal, lots of football fans had the Pac12 breaking up and the less valuable schools scrambling on their bingo card. Everything relating to conferences, scholarships, and pay should be viewed from a football lens and if you do, most of it makes sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

The girls are posting the decommits on twitter. They are looking for new teams. Inyouthsoccer is reposting the twitter posts of the actual girls decommitted. So the source is the actual girls that were decommitted. They are going public because they need to find new teams. Anyone PSU took would be top 200 or 300. So, there may very well be interest in those girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

2 or 3 PSU posted their de commit announcement on twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

2 or 3 PSU posted their de commit announcement on twitter.

More to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - other than ImYouthSoccer writing posts referencing 2025 anectotal de committing, what's the evidence that this is actually happening?

2 or 3 PSU posted their de commit announcement on twitter.

More to come.

There are a bunch of 25"s that got the phone call. they just aren't posting it publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

The coach will get fired before donors kids will be cut. Soccer is a non-revenue sport, donations are the closest they can get

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

The coach will get fired before donors kids will be cut. Soccer is a non-revenue sport, donations are the closest they can get

Used to be that way but now revenue is being shared. Who knows how this will shake out.

Although in general I agree a 200-300k donation will likely keep the kid on the roster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

The coach will get fired before donors kids will be cut. Soccer is a non-revenue sport, donations are the closest they can get

Used to be that way but now revenue is being shared. Who knows how this will shake out.

Although in general I agree a 200-300k donation will likely keep the kid on the roster.

I thought those donations didn't happen any more after the Varsity Blues scandal...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

The coach will get fired before donors kids will be cut. Soccer is a non-revenue sport, donations are the closest they can get

Used to be that way but now revenue is being shared. Who knows how this will shake out.

Although in general I agree a 200-300k donation will likely keep the kid on the roster.

I thought those donations didn't happen any more after the Varsity Blues scandal...

Varsity Blues was about parents giving money directly to coaches + the coaches would pocket the $$$ and give the kid a roster spot which would get the kid into the school. Most of the time the kids involved with Varsity Blues couldn't even play the sport they were rostered for.

The issue wasn't parents "donating" $$$ to get their kids into a school. The issue is schools weren't getting a taste of the action. It's completely OK to bribe a school to get your kid in. It's not OK to bribe a coach to get a kid in because the school doesn't get the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new rule being passed will change everything. Non power 4 conferences are now basically D3.

For the families that used all of their influence to shove their kids on the end of the roster at great schools...this will get very interesting. Not easy to cut a kid who's family is legacy and donated a bunch of money to the program.

The coach will get fired before donors kids will be cut. Soccer is a non-revenue sport, donations are the closest they can get

Used to be that way but now revenue is being shared. Who knows how this will shake out.

Although in general I agree a 200-300k donation will likely keep the kid on the roster.

I thought those donations didn't happen any more after the Varsity Blues scandal...

Varsity Blues was about parents giving money directly to coaches + the coaches would pocket the $$$ and give the kid a roster spot which would get the kid into the school. Most of the time the kids involved with Varsity Blues couldn't even play the sport they were rostered for.

The issue wasn't parents "donating" $$$ to get their kids into a school. The issue is schools weren't getting a taste of the action. It's completely OK to bribe a school to get your kid in. It's not OK to bribe a coach to get a kid in because the school doesn't get the money.

Ok so there are parents paying schools to get their kids on rosters ??