That is such a wild piece of info in an era where most fans think all the players are mercenaries
Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter ScriptOhio
- Start date
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Under the new NCAA rules in 2025, football teams are only allowed to have 105 players. In addition, they can also have 105 football players on scholarship. Undoubtedly all 105 players will be on scholarship. I just wonder if Ohio State has made a decision as to how many of the 105 scholarships needs to dedicated to what positions to maintain adequate depth at all the positions; and there just wouldn't be room for some of the (current) walk-ons, etc. Hence, they are now moving on looking for an opportunity/scholarship elsewhere.
Upvote
0
I think that's the new landscape of CFB. I mentioned in another thread, this could be a good thing for smaller schools. It will make the lower divisions and conferences that much more competitive
Upvote
0
Really like TC. He could go to a MAC school and light it up. All the best and forever a Buckeye Champion!
Upvote
0
According to the AD, they’ll have around 90 scholarship athletes and keep about 15 walk-ons. Those 15 extra scholarships will be used in different varsity sports.
As I understand it now, athletic departments have a set amount of scholarships and they distribute those as they see fit.
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Just sayin':
1) That's not correct as the roster limit is per team; not a set number for a school to be allotted to it's various teams. If they only want to give out 90 football scholarships that's OK; but it would just be a cost saving thing. You just can't transfer them to another sport to exceed the NCAA roster/scholarship limit number that they are allocated.
NCAA Scholarship Limits for D1 College Sports Programs
| Sport* | Current | New | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumbling (W) | 14 | 55 | 41 |
| Baseball (M) | 11.7 | 34 | 22.3 |
| Basketball (M) | 13 | 15 | 2 |
| Basketball (W) | 15 | 15 | 0 |
| Beach volleyball (W) | 6 | 19 | 13 |
| Cross country (M) | 5 | 17 | 12 |
| Cross country (W) | 6 | 17 | 11 |
| Field hockey (W) | 12 | 27 | 15 |
| Football (M) | 85 | 105 | 20 |
| Golf (M) | 4.5 | 9 | 4.5 |
| Golf (W) | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Gymnastics (M) | 6.3 | 20 | 13.7 |
| Gymnastics (W) | 12 | 20 | 8 |
| Ice hockey (M) | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Ice hockey (W) | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Track (M) | 12.6 | 45 | 35.4 |
| Track (W) | 18 | 45 | 27 |
| Lacrosse (M) | 12.6 | 48 | 35.4 |
| Lacrosse (W) | 12 | 38 | 26 |
| Rowing (W) | 20 | 68 | 48 |
| Soccer (M) | 9.9 | 28 | 18.1 |
| Soccer (W) | 14 | 28 | 14 |
| Softball (W) | 12 | 25 | 13 |
| Stunt (M/W) | 14 | 65 | 51 |
| Swim (M) | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Swim (W) | 14 | 30 | 16 |
| Tennis (M) | 4.5 | 10 | 5.5 |
| Tennis (W) | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| Triathlon (W) | 6.5 | 14 | 7.5 |
| Volleyball (M) | 4.5 | 18 | 13.5 |
| Volleyball (W) | 12 | 18 | 6 |
| Water polo (M) | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Water polo (W) | 8 | 24 | 16 |
| Wrestling (M) | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Wrestling (W) | 10 | 30 | 20 |
2) There is currently a legal hangup on the NCAA 2025 roster limits with respect to the walk-ons:
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...uests-changes-on-roster-limits-231519741.html
NCAA settlement on hold as judge requests changes on roster limits
The NCAA and power conferences’ settlement of three antitrust cases hangs in the balance.In an order issued on Wednesday, a California judge announced that she will not approve the landmark House settlement unless changes are made to new roster limits — a concept that the settlement agreement imposes on schools and one that has led to the elimination of roster spots for hundreds and, perhaps eventually, thousands of athletes.
Claudia Wilken, the presiding judge in the case in the Northern District of California, is giving attorneys 14 days to implement a grandfather-in concept to roster limits, assuring those athletes who are on a roster do not lose their spot — something that’s happening across the country as schools reduce their rosters to adhere to the new limits.
The roster-limit concept has, for months now, been targeted by critics as the biggest failure in the settlement. Most of the objections filed against the settlement centered around the roster limitations, which power conference executives pushed for as part of the deal.
On Wednesday, as Wilken’s order hit the court docket at about 4:50 p.m. CT, those same executives — the power conference commissioners — were in the midst of a meeting with other FBS commissioners in a Dallas suburb at the College Football Playoff’s annual spring gathering.
The power conference commissioners filtered out of meetings about an hour after the ruling dropped, all of them declining comment about Wilken’s order and many of them immediately taking calls from their general counsels.
Attorneys for the power leagues and NCAA were expected to hold a briefing Wednesday night to discuss next steps, sources tell Yahoo Sports.
One of them told Yahoo Sports, “We have no choice now,” in reference to changing the roster concept.
The House settlement, as it’s often described, is arguably the most significant change in college sports history. The deal would provide former athletes with $2.8 billion in backpay for lost name, image and likeness (NIL) rights and, perhaps more important, would usher in the era of athlete revenue-sharing, where schools would be permitted to directly pay athletes under a capped compensation system.
In the wake of the order, the industry is now searching for an answer to a daunting question: What do we do now?
Several athletic administrators who spoke to Yahoo Sports on Wednesday are privately urging their conference leadership to adhere to the judge’s recommendation and to grandfather in current athletes on rosters — something Wilken suggested during an April 7 hearing in Oakland.
.
.
.
continued
Upvote
0