105 Scholarships

[VeloClone]

It would have been nice for the NCAA to have tapered down the roster limit and tapered up the scholarship limit over a few years. It would be nice if walk-ons had the opportunity to finish their careers where they started if they so chose to instead of having to find a different program to keep playing.

 

[Cyclone Pfan]

I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument in limiting the roster size with walk-ons included at the same time as increasing the scholarship limit.

What is the perceived benefit to doing this? Would it really benefit any P4 school to shrink the actual roster size?

It's to prevent high NIL schools from hoarding talent.

Football gets 105
M/W Basketball gets 15
M/W Wrestling gets 30
Baseball/Softball gets 35(?)

It's up to each school to figure out how to compensate (or not) those scholarships.

The pending $22M player fund plays into the equation as well.

 

[BACyclone]

Not defending it at all, but just trying to imagine what some schools could to do go around this with "walk-ons":

• Top-10 HS kid
• You tell him he can get $1MM in NIL day 1, but for the team roster rules, he is going to be a walk-on.
• Tuition is paid through boosters/collective/NIL, but not the athletics scholarship

I suppose this is possible, but play this out just a little bit. I think if you're saying 105 kids get a scholarship PLUS many of those are getting NIL -- some of the remaining players potentially above 105 don't get a scholarship but DO get some NIL funding.

My point is that the number of schools with the resources to do the above scenario you lay out has to be pretty small.

I don't think this rule helps Iowa State or competitive balance in any way. On the contrary, it forces a school like Iowa State (or any school) who wants to compete at the highest level to increase its scholarship funding to the 105 level. PLUS they cannot benefit from developing additional players over the 105 limit to contribute in their program.

So the elite programs can still fully fund and apply NIL resources to their 105 players at a higher level (105 players + $22M + extra NIL) than the rest of the schools, while no other players can contribute to the program.

I think this type of rule is just about the worst direction you would want to maintain competitive balance for a school like Iowa State. We benefit significantly from being able to develop local kids from walk-on to contributor to (hopefully) scholarship player, as a developmental program.

 

[Aclone]

Why does the NCAA give a rip about roster limits? What difference does it make if you have 10 walk ons or 50 walk ons if that is what the school/program wants to do?

Can't wait until the big money programs start stashing players away that would be good players for the Iowa States of the world.

screw the NCAA.

The argument is that it’s giving a chunk of those walkons a chance to have a scholarship somewhere.

I think that’s specious.

I’m no expert, but I think what it’s doing is combatting “walkons” who are full y funded by NIL money. I mean, assuming that’s even a thing?

 

[Cyclone Pfan]

I suppose this is possible, but play this out just a little bit. I think if you're saying 105 kids get a scholarship PLUS many of those are getting NIL -- some of the remaining players potentially above 105 don't get a scholarship but DO get some NIL funding.

My point is that the number of schools with the resources to do the above scenario you lay out has to be pretty small.

I don't think this rule helps Iowa State or competitive balance in any way. On the contrary, it forces a school like Iowa State (or any school) who wants to compete at the highest level to increase its scholarship funding to the 105 level. PLUS they cannot benefit from developing additional players over the 105 limit to contribute in their program.

So the elite programs can still fully fund and apply NIL resources to their 105 players at a higher level (105 players + $22M + extra NIL) than the rest of the schools, while no other players can contribute to the program.

I think this type of rule is just about the worst direction you would want to maintain competitive balance for a school like Iowa State. We benefit significantly from being able to develop local kids from walk-on to contributor to (hopefully) scholarship player, as a developmental program.

Nothing prevents isu from fully funding only 85 scholarships and asking 20 kids to develop on their own dollar.

A choice the AD could make is to stay competitive with a smaller number of athletes.

To be clear, no schools can roster more than 105. I believe this is a benefit to isu. 'Bama players 106-120 now have to find a new home instead of getting NIL to ride the bench. Hopefully those trickle down to isu.

 

[madguy30]

Some kids would rather play instead of being a practice dummy. CMC can sell playing time.

And when this happens they'll find some other way to keep the top schools there.

 

[isucy86]

Some SEC school is going to have one heck of an intramural team that happens to practice at the same place and time as the varsity team. Oh, and their intramural team will be NIL funded and just happen to have players make the varsity team after their underclassmen years. But they won’t be on the team, until they are.

There will be ways to get around the roster limits. It is just a limit of how many can play that year.

With 105 scholarship players, how soon before we hear the need for junior varsity games to help develop players 55-105? With the expansion of analysts on each team, they could coach the games so the primary staff doesn't have too.

 

[isucy86]

Nothing prevents isu from fully funding only 85 scholarships and asking 20 kids to develop on their own dollar.

A choice the AD could make is to stay competitive with a smaller number of athletes.

To be clear, no schools can roster more than 105. I believe this is a benefit to isu. 'Bama players 106-120 now have to find a new home instead of getting NIL to ride the bench. Hopefully those trickle down to isu.

Not sure Bama walk-ons are significantly better than ISU walk-ons. Have always viewed the walk-on program as a numbers game. If you have 40 walk-ons vs. 20 there is a better chance of developing one that can be on two-deep.

 

[superiorcyclone]

I don’t know if everyone caught this or not, but the NCAA is expanding scholarship limits across sports next year. Specifically for football, that will be 105 total,up from 85, and Coach Campbell has mentioned that he was going to talk to Jamie about how they could manage that. If we can afford it.

That’s fine.

And here’s where the other shoe drops.

That 105 isn’t just the scholarship limit, it’s the total roster limit.

Walkons included.

So, currently there are (without counting) 35 walkons on the squad, almost all of whom are underclassmen. Even if ISU still only offers 85 scholarships next year (that seems doubtful), there will only be room for twenty of these kids.

In other words, most of the current walkons are screwed.

Either they are going to have to quit football to stay at ISU, or transfer out if they want to keep playing.

This is dumb. At the very least, phase the extra 15 slots out.

Oh yeah…and when Matt Campbell says that 101 of the 120 currently on the roster have played this year? This is the reason why. About half or more of the 19 who haven’t played are scholarship freshmen or injured. He’s giving the walkons a chance to play in a Cyclone uniform, at least once in their lives.

Before that opportunity is taken away from them.

Because that’s exactly who Matt Campbell is.

What would help the sport, Iowa State, and most other schools financially would be lowering the amount of scholarships and kids who could be on a team. 105 scholarships also creates Title 9 issues.

 

[CyCloned]

I think the theory is that if they limit the roster to 105 then teams like tOSU and Bama can't take 200 kids and stockpile talent that would otherwise be able to play elsewhere. It all sounds good, but I can see blue blood teams dropping guys that are hurt or don't pan out off their rosters and going out and buying replacements at any point during the year. Some schools might have to start splitting scholarships like wrestling used to do. It is going to be the wild west out there with these new rules and the NIL.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

With the 105 scholarships, there cannot be any walk-ons. You are either on scholarship and get all the advantages of being on scholarship or you cannot be part of the program. Now if you only have 85 scholarships, you could ask 20 players to walk on. There is no rule that you have to use all 105 scholarships, much like some coaches would keep one or two open for basketball.

 

[heitclone]

Will these mean they have to find 20 extra schollies on the women's side of the AD too?

 

[superiorcyclone]

Will these mean they have to find 20 extra schollies on the women's side of the AD too?

You would think. It seems like a backhanded way to spread the wealth.

 

[FatNTired]

This is a serious question and maybe not the right spot for this but it is regarding scholarships. I know, based on the tax code, ISU essentially has to spend all athletic revenue each year to be considered non-profit. Can ISU contribute to or start an endowment fund for athletic scholarships? I know donors can do something like that. I know there would need to be a LARGE endowment fund for something like this but if you could even get it started with just a few million that could eliminate the need going forward of funding some scholarships each season as the interest/earnings from an endowment would handle some of those.

I don't know about legalities or anything at all about this which is why I ask.

You’re on to it but it’s the opposite: donors have long been asked to endow scholarships offsetting athletic department costs. More difficult now with significant revenue, but helps ensure programming is funded in perpetuity.

 

[c.y.c.l.o.n.e.s]

What does this do to title IX. If the football team adds 20 scholarships then do we also have to add another women’s sport? Or maybe drop a men’s sport?

Edit: Didn't see that Heitclone already asked this.