House settlement and recruiting ...

[WhosYourDawggy]

I am going to do a more detailed post in the future, but there is one thing about the house settlement that has already been supported by the NCAA and looks to go official ... teams will have 105 scholarships for football, and also a roster cap of 105.

Let's dig into that:

1. That sucks for teams like UGA that had rosters of about 130-135, including walkons. UGA has been known for having the most aggressive practices ... that is based on having a ton of walk-ons. They are gone, for the most part. So, don't like that.

2. This means that teams will have 20 more scholarships next year. Class of 2025. Right now most schools sign about 25-30. They will be able to go as high as 45-50 now, if they choose to do so. Maybe that's why UGA and TX just took some unrated project type DL. They aren't limited by scholarship count, that's for sure.

3. But, will teams actually put 105 on scholarship?
- If they do, they have to match that on the women's side.
- Can you really add that many more good players? At some point playing time comes into consideration.
- Some of the PWOs will take up those 20 extra spots and may not get full schollies, if any.

4. Transfer portal - for those that rely on it, can you really get 20 more out of the portal? For those that use it to supplement, I don't see a change. PT is still going to be the limiting factor.

5. This may help the G5 and lower schools like UF. Teams that took a lot of PWOs that would otherwise go play at UF might now go do that since they can get a scholarship now.

For all the positives, losing 20-30 WOs sucks for us.

What am I missing? What else is there on this?

 

[Deep Creek]

I dove into this a little on another thread. You raise some good questions.

One I asked was what’s the reasoning for 105?

And four deep on both sides of the ball is 88. 17 more for ST/others. How many more do you need? A lot of these guys are good enough to play two ways in a pinch. Or even play them in spots to rest guys.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I dove into this a little on another thread. You raise some good questions.

One I asked was what’s the reasoning for 105?

And four deep on both sides of the ball is 88. 17 more for ST/others. How many more do you need? A lot of these guys are good enough to play two ways in a pinch. Or even play them in spots to rest guys.

Sorry, didn't see the other thread.

My guess it's a compromise between the teams that would like a limit and roster cap of 85 - cheaper, less money for smaller , less successful schools - and teams like UGA, Bama, tOSU who can afford to have 40-50 deep scout teams. That's about half way in between.

The more fundamental question is why are they getting rid of walk-ons, or limiting it at all? Perhaps this is a competitive balancing move. It will fundamentally change the way UGA practices, and I assume the way the top schools practice.

 

[Deep Creek]

Sorry, didn't see the other thread.

My guess it's a compromise between the teams that would like a limit and roster cap of 85 - cheaper, less money for smaller , less successful schools - and teams like UGA, Bama, tOSU who can afford to have 40-50 deep scout teams. That's about half way in between.

The more fundamental question is why are they getting rid of walk-ons, or limiting it at all? Perhaps this is a competitive balancing move. It will fundamentally change the way UGA practices, and I assume the way the top schools practice.

If we thought it was crazy when NIL and the portal cranked up, wait until the settlement is finalized. I don't think we've seen anything yet.

 

[fordman84]

I am going to do a more detailed post in the future, but there is one thing about the house settlement that has already been supported by the NCAA and looks to go official ... teams will have 105 scholarships for football, and also a roster cap of 105.

Let's dig into that:

1. That sucks for teams like UGA that had rosters of about 130-135, including walkons. UGA has been known for having the most aggressive practices ... that is based on having a ton of walk-ons. They are gone, for the most part. So, don't like that.

2. This means that teams will have 20 more scholarships next year. Class of 2025. Right now most schools sign about 25-30. They will be able to go as high as 45-50 now, if they choose to do so. Maybe that's why UGA and TX just took some unrated project type DL. They aren't limited by scholarship count, that's for sure.

3. But, will teams actually put 105 on scholarship?
- If they do, they have to match that on the women's side.
- Can you really add that many more good players? At some point playing time comes into consideration.
- Some of the PWOs will take up those 20 extra spots and may not get full schollies, if any.

4. Transfer portal - for those that rely on it, can you really get 20 more out of the portal? For those that use it to supplement, I don't see a change. PT is still going to be the limiting factor.

5. This may help the G5 and lower schools like UF. Teams that took a lot of PWOs that would otherwise go play at UF might now go do that since they can get a scholarship now.

For all the positives, losing 20-30 WOs sucks for us.

What am I missing? What else is there on this?

105 scholarships for every team, starting in 2025/26.
Someone quote this so that the rustled OP who puts people that call out his bias on ignore can know this thread was started days ago.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

105 scholarships for every team, starting in 2025/26.
Someone quote this so that the rustled OP who puts people that call out his bias on ignore can know this thread was started days ago.

Quoting someone that is ignored still has the quote blocked.

 

[Wild Turkey]

105 scholarships for every team, starting in 2025/26.
Someone quote this so that the rustled OP who puts people that call out his bias on ignore can know this thread was started days ago.

Is there no phase-in so teams aren't forced to drop walk-ons like a hot potato? There should be some kind of threshold for walk-ons currently on campus where they are grandfathered until they graduate.

 

[fordman84]

Is there no phase-in so teams aren't forced to drop walk-ons like a hot potato? There should be some kind of threshold for walk-ons currently on campus where they are grandfathered until they graduate.

I'm hearing it isn't in effect until next fall, but I mainly am looking at baseball.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I'm hearing it isn't in effect until next fall, but I mainly am looking at baseball.

I've no issue with the 105 number for football but I'd hate for a kid that is a walkon get shut out of the program his junior or senior year because of this. They should be grandfathered in and not count towards the total but they had to have been on campus in 2024.

 

[fordman84]

I've no issue with the 105 number for football but I'd hate for a kid that is a walkon get shut out of the program his junior or senior year because of this. They should be grandfathered in and not count towards the total but they had to have been on campus in 2024.

Yeah I don't see how they can enforce it this year considering offers have already been made and accepted under the current rules. Giving everyone a full calendar year to prepare will help.

Walkons will be the ones most impacted. Sure some will be able to get a scholarship they didn't have before, but will need to see how it all shakes out in regards to what schools can afford. The bigger schools with money will be able to run max scholarships for all the sports and that will give them more room to be "buyers" on the portal.

 

[huskers1217]

I am going to do a more detailed post in the future, but there is one thing about the house settlement that has already been supported by the NCAA and looks to go official ... teams will have 105 scholarships for football, and also a roster cap of 105.

Let's dig into that:

1. That sucks for teams like UGA that had rosters of about 130-135, including walkons. UGA has been known for having the most aggressive practices ... that is based on having a ton of walk-ons. They are gone, for the most part. So, don't like that.

2. This means that teams will have 20 more scholarships next year. Class of 2025. Right now most schools sign about 25-30. They will be able to go as high as 45-50 now, if they choose to do so. Maybe that's why UGA and TX just took some unrated project type DL. They aren't limited by scholarship count, that's for sure.

3. But, will teams actually put 105 on scholarship?
- If they do, they have to match that on the women's side.
- Can you really add that many more good players? At some point playing time comes into consideration.
- Some of the PWOs will take up those 20 extra spots and may not get full schollies, if any.

4. Transfer portal - for those that rely on it, can you really get 20 more out of the portal? For those that use it to supplement, I don't see a change. PT is still going to be the limiting factor.

5. This may help the G5 and lower schools like UF. Teams that took a lot of PWOs that would otherwise go play at UF might now go do that since they can get a scholarship now.

For all the positives, losing 20-30 WOs sucks for us.

What am I missing? What else is there on this?

my big issue is that this is going to take away from men getting scholly's in other sports

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

my big issue is that this is going to take away from men getting scholly's in other sports

How so?

They have 22 million to spend. Schools will have to decide how to allocate it. The women's sports that will increase to match football and baseball, the two men's sports that will increase the most, will be things like rowing, stunt, etc. They will get scholarships but nothing more. They will be glad to get that. The football extra 20 will get scholarships and not much more. Same with baseball.

That said, some schools will give more of the 22 million to non-football. I expect Vanderbilt to give more of the 22 million to baseball and basketball, two sports we are likely to be more competitive in than football. I suspect the SEC will say schools have to spend at least a certain percentage of the 22 million on football.

 

[osubuckeye89]

I am going to do a more detailed post in the future, but there is one thing about the house settlement that has already been supported by the NCAA and looks to go official ... teams will have 105 scholarships for football, and also a roster cap of 105.

Let's dig into that:

1. That sucks for teams like UGA that had rosters of about 130-135, including walkons. UGA has been known for having the most aggressive practices ... that is based on having a ton of walk-ons. They are gone, for the most part. So, don't like that.

2. This means that teams will have 20 more scholarships next year. Class of 2025. Right now most schools sign about 25-30. They will be able to go as high as 45-50 now, if they choose to do so. Maybe that's why UGA and TX just took some unrated project type DL. They aren't limited by scholarship count, that's for sure.

3. But, will teams actually put 105 on scholarship?
- If they do, they have to match that on the women's side.
- Can you really add that many more good players? At some point playing time comes into consideration.
- Some of the PWOs will take up those 20 extra spots and may not get full schollies, if any.

4. Transfer portal - for those that rely on it, can you really get 20 more out of the portal? For those that use it to supplement, I don't see a change. PT is still going to be the limiting factor.

5. This may help the G5 and lower schools like UF. Teams that took a lot of PWOs that would otherwise go play at UF might now go do that since they can get a scholarship now.

For all the positives, losing 20-30 WOs sucks for us.

What am I missing? What else is there on this?

There's going to be way more transfer portal activity going forward than there already is, that's the clear picture to me from all of this.

I think the strategy will be to load up on more HS players though from most places with those extra scholarships. Especially for the bigger players this allows for you to pick up some lesser rated recruits that you think have potential that you wouldn't be able to bring on in the current format. It's keeping those guys more than a year or two that becomes the challenge though.

Unless you're Deion of course, he's spanking his pud over the fact that he can add 20 more portal players a year now. Guy's gonna be scouring D3 for dudes at some point.

 

[Kburjr]

Is there no phase-in so teams aren't forced to drop walk-ons like a hot potato? There should be some kind of threshold for walk-ons currently on campus where they are grandfathered until they graduate.

I don't know if it affects the true "walk on" but it may end the "preferred walkon". Those that are preferred Waltons get scholarships immediately.

 

[Goldbug]

Honest question. I'm all for the players getting some compensation for all the hard work they put into playing sports in college although free agency leaves me cold. How can you guys give a shit about "your team" when it's a bunch of mercenaries? I liked it much better back when the players had some semblance of allegiance to my favorite team. And it was a lot easier to identify with the players when they actually stuck around during thick and thin. Now these ho's are just in it for the $$$ and and fuck Goldbug and the average fan who pays good money to support the school with ticket purchases, contributions, etc. If I wanted to pull for a pro team I'd pull for one. But if (a) your players don't care about your team unless The Man is paying him/her enough to play and (b) they are just penciled in and next season there will be a whole new group of players who are passing through, where do you find the loyalty to support something like that?

 

[Deep Creek]

Honest question. I'm all for the players getting some compensation for all the hard work they put into playing sports in college although free agency leaves me cold. How can you guys give a shit about "your team" when it's a bunch of mercenaries? I liked it much better back when the players had some semblance of allegiance to my favorite team. And it was a lot easier to identify with the players when they actually stuck around during thick and thin. Now these ho's are just in it for the $$$ and and fuck Goldbug and the average fan who pays good money to support the school with ticket purchases, contributions, etc. If I wanted to pull for a pro team I'd pull for one. But if (a) your players don't care about your team unless The Man is paying him/her enough to play and (b) they are just penciled in and next season there will be a whole new group of players who are passing through, where do you find the loyalty to support something like that?

IMO this would never had happened without media money getting so big as to drive coaching salaries and such through the roof. Seeing that, the “hey, what about us?” cranked up.

 

[fordman84]

Honest question. I'm all for the players getting some compensation for all the hard work they put into playing sports in college although free agency leaves me cold. How can you guys give a shit about "your team" when it's a bunch of mercenaries? I liked it much better back when the players had some semblance of allegiance to my favorite team. And it was a lot easier to identify with the players when they actually stuck around during thick and thin. Now these ho's are just in it for the $$$ and and fuck Goldbug and the average fan who pays good money to support the school with ticket purchases, contributions, etc. If I wanted to pull for a pro team I'd pull for one. But if (a) your players don't care about your team unless The Man is paying him/her enough to play and (b) they are just penciled in and next season there will be a whole new group of players who are passing through, where do you find the loyalty to support something like that?

The idea of scholarships dates back to pre-media and big money contracts. Pre-1980's it was a scenario where the scholarships summed up to more than the coach made. That equation flipped with these latest contracts and thus its time to update how the money gets shared around.

 

[Goldbug]

The idea of scholarships dates back to pre-media and big money contracts. Pre-1980's it was a scenario where the scholarships summed up to more than the coach made. That equation flipped with these latest contracts and thus its time to update how the money gets shared around.

You are evading the point I made. I agree the players should get some $$$. I made that point in the first sentence. How do you defend free agency when most players are now hired guns with zero allegiance to anything but their potential income when deciding to play at a particular school or remain there? How do you defend there being no guardrails regarding transfers? Where is the advantage to fostering a system where the players flat don't care about their "commitments"? The amount of money they are going to get pales in significance to the harm done when they can pull up stakes and move on a whim. They flat don't give a shit about the fans or the school. Those are irrelevant in the minds of the majority of players. A school with the resources of your and my favorite teams can afford anything they want. But who the hell wants to pay for that when the return is what? I'm not convinced the return is anything more than when George Steinbrenner was trying to buy World Series championships. (But the way, I did one deal with George and he was a good guy. We financed a shipping deal for him.) Mercenaries leave me cold. Especially when they won't stay bought and can move on down the road with no consequences.

 

[fordman84]

You are evading the point I made. I agree the players should get some $$$. I made that point in the first sentence. How do you defend free agency when most players are now hired guns with zero allegiance to anything but their potential income when deciding to play at a particular school or remain there?

I don't see a reason to defend that. The second they leave school for the pro's that system kicks in, so why protect them from it during college? If given the opportunity to play in the NFL less than a handful of student CFB players would care enough about their education to forego the NFL for the diploma. They would go get the money and get the paper later, so the "they are getting a free education" argument stopped being relevant two decades ago.

How do you defend there being no guardrails regarding transfers? Where is the advantage to fostering a system where the players flat don't care about their "commitments"? The amount of money they are going to get pales in significance to the harm done when they can pull up stakes and move on a whim. They flat don't give a shit about the fans or the school. Those are irrelevant in the minds of the majority of players. A school with the resources of your and my favorite teams can afford anything they want. But who the hell wants to pay for that when the return is what? I'm not convinced the return is anything more than when George Steinbrenner was trying to buy World Series championships. (But the way, I did one deal with George and he was a good guy. We financed a shipping deal for him.) Mercenaries leave me cold. Especially when they won't stay bought and can move on down the road with no consequences.

Again, no defense needed IMO. Is there anything preventing a college teacher, a coach, a president, an AD, etc from leaving the school? Even if they are under contract they still can leave for another job with zero penalty other than some money. But for some reason a kid who is getting paid/scholly needs different rules? Even outside of sports non-compete clauses have been decimated because they stifle competition.

I get that this new system feels like "mercenaries" but it is no more mercenary like than any pro sport, any corporate America job, or pretty much any other facet of life. It's just different and will take time to adjust and accept.

 

[Peter Gozintite]

Homes settling is a very common occurrence, particularly within the first year after construction