105 Player Rosters - Not So Fast?
- Thread starter king_kong_
- Start date
If they are going to limit rosters, it makes no sense to set the limit for the current year, especially AFTER a bunch of people sign on to a program not knowing it will happen. Total BS.
Its really not hard to set this for a future date and give teams and players time, and incoming freshmen a heads up.
Its really not hard to set this for a future date and give teams and players time, and incoming freshmen a heads up.
Is the scholarship limit currently 85?
There are scholarships only, not NIL or walk one?
All 105 are on scholarship going forward?
No more walk one?
On paper it looks like an increase of scholarships.
Is the problem guys getting cut or the limit? That seems to be what the judge is concerned about. Why now?
I did talk to a buddy who coached NAIA level and asked how all of this was going to affect HS kids. He believes that more tweeter kids are looking at CC ball since that won’t count against their D1 eligibility. It seems to make sense, go CC for one or two years and see if you can get a D1 look, if not you still have four years for lower division. Interesting take.
There are scholarships only, not NIL or walk one?
All 105 are on scholarship going forward?
No more walk one?
On paper it looks like an increase of scholarships.
Is the problem guys getting cut or the limit? That seems to be what the judge is concerned about. Why now?
I did talk to a buddy who coached NAIA level and asked how all of this was going to affect HS kids. He believes that more tweeter kids are looking at CC ball since that won’t count against their D1 eligibility. It seems to make sense, go CC for one or two years and see if you can get a D1 look, if not you still have four years for lower division. Interesting take.
Well from what I've read the key word is "can". Roster and scholarship "can" be 105. Had read that some notable $ec schools were planning on offering more than 85 even though they can.
We'll see.
Exactly. You can’t just tell teams with 140 you have to be at105 this year. The 105 will be a thing not until 2027 IMO.
entire SEC agreed on 85 scholarships this season
SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement
The SEC has provided some guidelines for 2025 rosters as college football programs await the final terms of the historic court settlement
www.cbssports.com
Why not? Their position, I assume, is they actually raised the number of scholarships by 20 total. The only people playing will be on scholarship guaranteeing more players across the country will share the revenue by getting their education paid for. I get the transition part but adding 20 schools to every team across the country is pretty big. But what do I know, I am just trying to figure some of this out, but not very hard.
You have recruiting classes coming in and 26 recruits already committed. I hear what you are saying with the unlimited scholarship.i just think it would make more sense to set a Time down the road to get to the 105 . I think teams have already done it for the most part. I don’t think this lawsuit has any kind of chance. But it would have made more sense to have this effective in at least 26.
They can go ahead and add 20 schollies
The problem is the 2024 class players of any team who walked on or committed to teams with more than 105 players didnt realize the ncaa was about to limit roster spots. Do you understand why thats wrong?
The 105, scholly or no, should have been down the line and current rosters grandfathered in. Should have been a 2027 or 2028 thing. You cant sucker punch players who had no idea it was going to happen.
It seems the problem is the lawsuit filed by the players. It is ironic that the number of scholarships has increased but the SEC is sticking with 85? That doesn’t make sense as well. Back to the lawsuit, sounds like it is in its final stages of approval and there won’t be a long period of time to pause into anything. When judges make decisions, assuming it came from a judge, they are more black and white. Stop this now and start this tomorrow because of the law suit, no ease into it, Judges don’t think that way. They don’t let a father ease into child support. I suppose from their perspective, they believe they are helping players by setting a higher number of scholarships.
I don’t know what the average number of players on a D 1 team is. Does anyone have this data?
Last edited:
I don’t understand why a player who wants to walk on can’t anymore because the roster is limited to 105, they are paying their own way
I thought about this some more last night and read a couple articles but don't pretend to have the answers. It all comes down to the law- suit and the settlement that really hasn't been completely settled, that what the judge is looking at now as I understand it.
So there are 134 D1 Teams at 85 scholarships each is 11,390 total. They added 20 more for 14,070. Why? I have no idea except to provide a cushion for more student athletes in FB. Nebraska is probably the one school that has the most players, around 140, so 20 will be gone technically. I suppose the thought is if they are good enough to play, they should get a scholarship and likely could find a place to play somewhere as I doubt some schools are even using all of their 85, but don't know. The real kicker, possibly, is the income distribution for NIL among players. You have a set amount of money that is available and a set number of players gleaning it. So Nebraska can't have 30 walk ons who theoretically can dip into the NIL pot, they have to control it somehow or you are going to have variable numbers all over the country. Who wouldn't want to go play somewhere that is getting NIL even if you are a walk on status?
Schools will have to decide how to cut and how many to keep. I noticed we didn't back off from bringing in new guys this year. The schools have skin in the game with an increased number of athletes they have to house, feed, transport and take care of if they decide to go that route with expanded rosters. I get the "let's phase into and out of this" theory but that creates to many variables that are going to dip into the pocket books of schools. While Nebraska is doing well financially, I don't think that is the case everywhere. The Ohio State was running a huge deficit which can't last forever. All of this is just my opinion of course. It is a cruel world when change happens.
I didn't mean the judge ease into it.
I meant the judge should strike this down and then the ncaa should be smarter about it and be more player focused going forward.
So let each school decide for themselves how many players they want to carry. Problem solved.
to help you understand, the reason the NCAA did this is because teams could have 85 scholarship players, then "walk ons" who were paid by NIL. This could create a competitive imbalance and be unfair to some schools. I get it. I just don't get it that they told schools THIS YEAR they have to do it and many players signed on to teams that are over 105 without knowning they could be cut by the ncaa. Its bad for the kids to do it so suddenly.
This MIGHT be the last year hopefully. Some court will probably rule they have unlimited eligibility
I found this on the situation. It appears that the phase in is a sticking point with the judge.
The settlement that has loomed over college sports for the past year, and will eventually lead to schools directly paying their athletes, is inching closer to the finish line. But not without a few last-minute hiccups, Jeff and I write.
Catch up quick: Federal judge Claudia Wilken held a hearing on Monday in a small Oakland courtroom, where about 75 people — including attorneys for the plaintiff (college athletes) and defendant (the NCAA and power conferences) — gathered for a seven-hour proceeding to settle three antitrust cases involving athlete compensation, Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger reports.
The key terms of the settlement:
The roster cap, explained: Most NCAA sports have a scholarship limit but few have a limit on how many athletes they can roster. Under this new policy, they do, which would represent a drastic change for some sports. Consider cross country, where many teams have 30+ runners (many not on scholarship). The new formal roster limit would be 17.
What's next: Lawyers from both sides have been asked to report back in one week to determine if revisions can be made, though they've already been granted more time if needed. "We've got to talk to our clients about it," said an NCAA attorney. "We think we can get it over the finish line," said one of the lead plaintiff attorneys.
The settlement that has loomed over college sports for the past year, and will eventually lead to schools directly paying their athletes, is inching closer to the finish line. But not without a few last-minute hiccups, Jeff and I write.
Catch up quick: Federal judge Claudia Wilken held a hearing on Monday in a small Oakland courtroom, where about 75 people — including attorneys for the plaintiff (college athletes) and defendant (the NCAA and power conferences) — gathered for a seven-hour proceeding to settle three antitrust cases involving athlete compensation, Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger reports.
The key terms of the settlement:
- Revenue-sharing: Division I schools may share up to 22% of their annual revenues (roughly $20.5 million in the first year) directly with their athletes.
- Back pay: The NCAA will pay $2.8 billion to Division I athletes who played between 2016-2024 and weren't entitled to the full benefits of NIL.
- Roster limits: Scholarship limits will be replaced with roster limits, which will allow every athlete to be eligible for a scholarship while cutting the number of spots available.
The roster cap, explained: Most NCAA sports have a scholarship limit but few have a limit on how many athletes they can roster. Under this new policy, they do, which would represent a drastic change for some sports. Consider cross country, where many teams have 30+ runners (many not on scholarship). The new formal roster limit would be 17.
What's next: Lawyers from both sides have been asked to report back in one week to determine if revisions can be made, though they've already been granted more time if needed. "We've got to talk to our clients about it," said an NCAA attorney. "We think we can get it over the finish line," said one of the lead plaintiff attorneys.
