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).

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.

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?

28 is agreed but the deal is not done. No there is no need for anyone to do anything right now. Some schools who likely got too many commits are using this as an excuse to cut. I would not expect this to be that big a deal to anyone but the few who get cut. I do think the 2026's will have less slots. Nothing is for sure yet though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are already delaying and even retracting offers they've given 2025s. If your kid was expecting an offer soon, be patient. It's gonna be tough for a while.

Is that really true- that schools have been retracting 2025 offers? Is there an example of a school that has done that?

https://twitter.com/ImYouthSoccer/status/1819810616548421868

Anonymous wrote:Schools are already delaying and even retracting offers they've given 2025s. If your kid was expecting an offer soon, be patient. It's gonna be tough for a while.

Is that really true- that schools have been retracting 2025 offers? Is there an example of a school that has done that?

Schools are already delaying and even retracting offers they've given 2025s. If your kid was expecting an offer soon, be patient. It's gonna be tough for a while.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do scholarships really cost a school money anyway? Maybe a marginal amount but nothing of note. If for example a Big 10 or SEC school has to offer 14 more women’s soccer scholarships in order to remain competitive, all they’ll do is just accept 14 more students into the school at full price to make up the difference (the application demand has exploded). Or raise tuition marginally to cover it. Or cut some other program that loses money and doesn’t bring much attention to the school. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a minor shell game and really isn’t gonna hit the pockets of these big schools.

Scholarships come out of the Athletic Department budget and Big 10 and SEC schools are under pressure from state legislatures to hold the line on tuition. I think the end result of this is going to be football sucking up an increasing amount of the athletic budgets as we move towards direct payments to schools. Right now the best football programs are running $30-$50 million dollar surpluses that fund the non-revenue sports. As we get closer to a free market, having to compensate football players and balance that compensation for title IX will shrink that number. Would anyone be surprised to see mens and womens basketball, football, and then enough women's sports to balance football with the rest just being club? If an AD has to pick between having a great mens swimming team and being able to pay for a top tier quarterback, swimming is in trouble

That surplus is about to get bigger for the big conferences because they will be getting more tv revenue under the ncaa settlement. That’s why they are agreeing to offer all these additional scholarships for non-revenue sports.

And men’s football is going to get much more expensive once direct payments to players are allowed. There are several cases working there way up contending college athletes are employees and the schools have been losing most of them

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

Despite all the know it alls on DCUM, nobody knows yet. Nothing official yet and it will take a couple years to shake out

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.

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

So is this the reason why some college soccer coaches are now becoming club coaches?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do scholarships really cost a school money anyway? Maybe a marginal amount but nothing of note. If for example a Big 10 or SEC school has to offer 14 more women’s soccer scholarships in order to remain competitive, all they’ll do is just accept 14 more students into the school at full price to make up the difference (the application demand has exploded). Or raise tuition marginally to cover it. Or cut some other program that loses money and doesn’t bring much attention to the school. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a minor shell game and really isn’t gonna hit the pockets of these big schools.

Scholarships come out of the Athletic Department budget and Big 10 and SEC schools are under pressure from state legislatures to hold the line on tuition. I think the end result of this is going to be football sucking up an increasing amount of the athletic budgets as we move towards direct payments to schools. Right now the best football programs are running $30-$50 million dollar surpluses that fund the non-revenue sports. As we get closer to a free market, having to compensate football players and balance that compensation for title IX will shrink that number. Would anyone be surprised to see mens and womens basketball, football, and then enough women's sports to balance football with the rest just being club? If an AD has to pick between having a great mens swimming team and being able to pay for a top tier quarterback, swimming is in trouble

That surplus is about to get bigger for the big conferences because they will be getting more tv revenue under the ncaa settlement. That’s why they are agreeing to offer all these additional scholarships for non-revenue sports.

They're not agreeing to increase the number of scholarships. They're agreeing to up the limit of scholarships allowed and to cap the roster size at that same number. Huge difference. Individual schools will then choose if they want to spend that extra money. Most schools don't fund all their total allowed scholarships right now outside of football/mens basketball. Even women's basketball, typically considered the #3 focus in most analysis, many don't fill their current allowed rosters/scholarships in many P4 schools, even if those scholarships are "funded". You can look at Virginia school rosters and see that playing out already. Max scholarship/roster is currently 15 for WBB. Virginia Tech played last season with 12 players and made 2nd round of NCAA. In 2022/23, they rostered 13 and made the final 4 losing to eventual national champs. That's a current P4 school with arena sellouts last year, high end results, and their best player drafted into the WNBA, and they're actively not maxing their roster. There may be some increases in certain non-revenue sports because of the semantics of how the revenue sharing works, but schools will pick and choose which sports to focus on beyond football and basketball, just like they do now. The TV money has already been spent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do scholarships really cost a school money anyway? Maybe a marginal amount but nothing of note. If for example a Big 10 or SEC school has to offer 14 more women’s soccer scholarships in order to remain competitive, all they’ll do is just accept 14 more students into the school at full price to make up the difference (the application demand has exploded). Or raise tuition marginally to cover it. Or cut some other program that loses money and doesn’t bring much attention to the school. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a minor shell game and really isn’t gonna hit the pockets of these big schools.

Scholarships come out of the Athletic Department budget and Big 10 and SEC schools are under pressure from state legislatures to hold the line on tuition. I think the end result of this is going to be football sucking up an increasing amount of the athletic budgets as we move towards direct payments to schools. Right now the best football programs are running $30-$50 million dollar surpluses that fund the non-revenue sports. As we get closer to a free market, having to compensate football players and balance that compensation for title IX will shrink that number. Would anyone be surprised to see mens and womens basketball, football, and then enough women's sports to balance football with the rest just being club? If an AD has to pick between having a great mens swimming team and being able to pay for a top tier quarterback, swimming is in trouble

That surplus is about to get bigger for the big conferences because they will be getting more tv revenue under the ncaa settlement. That’s why they are agreeing to offer all these additional scholarships for non-revenue sports.

Anonymous wrote:How do scholarships really cost a school money anyway? Maybe a marginal amount but nothing of note. If for example a Big 10 or SEC school has to offer 14 more women’s soccer scholarships in order to remain competitive, all they’ll do is just accept 14 more students into the school at full price to make up the difference (the application demand has exploded). Or raise tuition marginally to cover it. Or cut some other program that loses money and doesn’t bring much attention to the school. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a minor shell game and really isn’t gonna hit the pockets of these big schools.

Scholarships come out of the Athletic Department budget and Big 10 and SEC schools are under pressure from state legislatures to hold the line on tuition. I think the end result of this is going to be football sucking up an increasing amount of the athletic budgets as we move towards direct payments to schools. Right now the best football programs are running $30-$50 million dollar surpluses that fund the non-revenue sports. As we get closer to a free market, having to compensate football players and balance that compensation for title IX will shrink that number. Would anyone be surprised to see mens and womens basketball, football, and then enough women's sports to balance football with the rest just being club? If an AD has to pick between having a great mens swimming team and being able to pay for a top tier quarterback, swimming is in trouble