They reduced them almost every sport across NCAA. Because going to full scholarships puts smaller schools at a real disadvantage (they can't afford it) so they reduced the roster size. Didn't want to go back to the 60s where UCLA and Texas just gave everyone a scholarship and basically kept others from filling a squad.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
Wonder why 600 dollars? Why not 500 or a thousand? NCAA is strange.Sean98 said:They reduced them almost every sport across NCAA. Because going to full scholarships puts smaller schools at a real disadvantage (they can't afford it) so they reduced the roster size. Didn't want to go back to the 60s where UCLA and Texas just gave everyone a scholarship and basically kept others from filling a squad.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
Also, any players that have been, or will be, cut to achieve the new roster limit will be exempt from the roster limit from the duration of their NCAA career.
In short you don't have to cut anyone immediately. But if players are cut and they transfer to another team, them that player doesn't count against the 34 man limit for their new team.
Oh, and any NIL deal over $600 has to go through an NIL Clearinghouse.
It's because $600 is the threshold where the IRS gets involved for income/goods/services through third parties.dermdoc said:Wonder why 600 dollars? Why not 500 or a thousand? NCAA is strange.Sean98 said:They reduced them almost every sport across NCAA. Because going to full scholarships puts smaller schools at a real disadvantage (they can't afford it) so they reduced the roster size. Didn't want to go back to the 60s where UCLA and Texas just gave everyone a scholarship and basically kept others from filling a squad.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
Also, any players that have been, or will be, cut to achieve the new roster limit will be exempt from the roster limit from the duration of their NCAA career.
In short you don't have to cut anyone immediately. But if players are cut and they transfer to another team, them that player doesn't count against the 34 man limit for their new team.
Oh, and any NIL deal over $600 has to go through an NIL Clearinghouse.
Thanks.MaroonStain said:
$600 is a magic number to IRS.
This is correct. The expanded roster will gradually phase out as the current players deplete their eligibility. It's not limited just to walk ons. It's anyone on a roster that lost their spot as a result of teams cutting to 34.94chem said:
The original ruling eliminated walk-ons, but current ones are being grand-fathered should schools decide to carry them. I think once the current walk-ons graduate, there won't be any more. It's still a little murky to me, as well as how NIL will function in addition to the $20M payroll.
Agree.Lady Aravis said:
Losing walk-ons, in any sport, makes me extremely sad....
NIL is not supposed to come from the school or its boosters. It's supposed to come from businesses looking to profit from their association with an athlete. You aren't going to say "A&M has a budget of $X for NIL."94chem said:
The original ruling eliminated walk-ons, but current ones are being grand-fathered should schools decide to carry them. I think once the current walk-ons graduate, there won't be any more. It's still a little murky to me, as well as how NIL will function in addition to the $20M payroll.
Probably matches the $600 IRS Form 1099-MISC limit.dermdoc said:Wonder why 600 dollars? Why not 500 or a thousand? NCAA is strange.Sean98 said:They reduced them almost every sport across NCAA. Because going to full scholarships puts smaller schools at a real disadvantage (they can't afford it) so they reduced the roster size. Didn't want to go back to the 60s where UCLA and Texas just gave everyone a scholarship and basically kept others from filling a squad.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
Also, any players that have been, or will be, cut to achieve the new roster limit will be exempt from the roster limit from the duration of their NCAA career.
In short you don't have to cut anyone immediately. But if players are cut and they transfer to another team, them that player doesn't count against the 34 man limit for their new team.
Oh, and any NIL deal over $600 has to go through an NIL Clearinghouse.
twk said:NIL is not supposed to come from the school or its boosters. It's supposed to come from businesses looking to profit from their association with an athlete. You aren't going to say "A&M has a budget of $X for NIL."94chem said:
The original ruling eliminated walk-ons, but current ones are being grand-fathered should schools decide to carry them. I think once the current walk-ons graduate, there won't be any more. It's still a little murky to me, as well as how NIL will function in addition to the $20M payroll.
Lady Aravis said:
Losing walk-ons, in any sport, makes me extremely sad....
Lady Aravis said:twk said:NIL is not supposed to come from the school or its boosters. It's supposed to come from businesses looking to profit from their association with an athlete. You aren't going to say "A&M has a budget of $X for NIL."94chem said:
The original ruling eliminated walk-ons, but current ones are being grand-fathered should schools decide to carry them. I think once the current walk-ons graduate, there won't be any more. It's still a little murky to me, as well as how NIL will function in addition to the $20M payroll.
This is why NIL collectives have never made sense to me. By the very definition, NIL payouts never should have come from donations or been part of school negotiations.
I could be wrong, but I don't think she would have to give that up, but she would count against the roster limit.94chem said:Lady Aravis said:
Losing walk-ons, in any sport, makes me extremely sad....
My daughter is a walk-on who has a National Merit Scholarship and a full academic ride. Insane that she would have to give that up for an athletic scholarship.
100% correct. She will not have to give up that NM scholie. But if she's on the team she'll have to count against the roster limit.twk said:I could be wrong, but I don't think she would have to give that up, but she would count against the roster limit.94chem said:Lady Aravis said:
Losing walk-ons, in any sport, makes me extremely sad....
My daughter is a walk-on who has a National Merit Scholarship and a full academic ride. Insane that she would have to give that up for an athletic scholarship.
There will be a lot of schools that do not fully fund scholarships to the roster limit, so they will have a lot of kids on partial scholarships or simply walking on, it's just that they all count against the roster limit, whether receiving an athletic scholarship or not.
They decimated golf roster limits too. The ncaa sucks ass.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
nereus said:
The roster limit was 35 pre-covid. They bumped it up to 40 for all the players that got extra eligibility. Dropping it back down isn't that crazy for baseball. It is really just a loss of one roster slot from where it was before.
It's an IRS reporting rule. The investment firm I work for has to report loyalty benefits that exceed $600 or more, too. It keeps the reporting consistent with what goes up the IRS…dermdoc said:Wonder why 600 dollars? Why not 500 or a thousand? NCAA is strange.Sean98 said:They reduced them almost every sport across NCAA. Because going to full scholarships puts smaller schools at a real disadvantage (they can't afford it) so they reduced the roster size. Didn't want to go back to the 60s where UCLA and Texas just gave everyone a scholarship and basically kept others from filling a squad.dermdoc said:
From what I can tell decreases the roster from 40 to 34. And all 34 can be fully funded by scholarships.
I like the extra scholarship money but confused why they went down on roster size.
Also, any players that have been, or will be, cut to achieve the new roster limit will be exempt from the roster limit from the duration of their NCAA career.
In short you don't have to cut anyone immediately. But if players are cut and they transfer to another team, them that player doesn't count against the 34 man limit for their new team.
Oh, and any NIL deal over $600 has to go through an NIL Clearinghouse.
nereus said:
The roster limit was 35 pre-covid. They bumped it up to 40 for all the players that got extra eligibility. Dropping it back down isn't that crazy for baseball. It is really just a loss of one roster slot from where it was before.
94chem said:Lady Aravis said:
Losing walk-ons, in any sport, makes me extremely sad....
My daughter is a walk-on who has a National Merit Scholarship and a full academic ride. Insane that she would have to give that up for an athletic scholarship.
Sean98 said:
I think most of the sports will adjust to the roster limits just fine. Will it mean less D1 opportunities for players? Yes. But 95% of them would never do anything other than practice anyway. They can go to a lower level school if they really want to continue their career and with the crazy liberal transfer rules pop back to a bigger school should they improve.
