Of course, it’s worth noting that this team placed 37th out of 38 teams at the NE regional. Seems like this is pretty much a club team anyhow. It is D1 in the loosest sense of the word.
Sacred Heart as a whole is one of those schools that uses athletics as a massive enrollment driver. They sponsor basically any sport you could think of. If the NCAA offered lawnmower racing as a sport beginning in 2026-27, they'd be the first school to sign up to offer it. Gets kids in the door paying tuition.
why even opt into the revenue sharing in the first place? If they’re gaining so much money off tuition from student athletes paying close to full price, why change that model? Not sure about their financials so maybe getting better football and overall sports program through paying their players WILL help them make more money than not opting in, but here’s what I calculated
If 20% of their students body is a student athlete, and they cut 12% of them (or something like that) then it’s about 7200 undergrads x0.12 proportion of students cut =864 -> 864 x $73000 cost of attendance = $63 million they forego each year by losing that 12% that leaves the school
not to say 12% will actually leave the school, but it’s possible now in the future enrollment will be 12% down due to having less spots. Again idk how much they’re making off of this revenue sharing stuff, but if that money is supposed to be paid to the players so the school isn’t pocketing money from NCAA, then i don’t see how a better football team would make up for that significant of lost money from less student athletes
Sacred Heart as a whole is one of those schools that uses athletics as a massive enrollment driver. They sponsor basically any sport you could think of. If the NCAA offered lawnmower racing as a sport beginning in 2026-27, they'd be the first school to sign up to offer it. Gets kids in the door paying tuition.
why even opt into the revenue sharing in the first place? If they’re gaining so much money off tuition from student athletes paying close to full price, why change that model? Not sure about their financials so maybe getting better football and overall sports program through paying their players WILL help them make more money than not opting in, but here’s what I calculated
If 20% of their students body is a student athlete, and they cut 12% of them (or something like that) then it’s about 7200 undergrads x0.12 proportion of students cut =864 -> 864 x $73000 cost of attendance = $63 million they forego each year by losing that 12% that leaves the school
not to say 12% will actually leave the school, but it’s possible now in the future enrollment will be 12% down due to having less spots. Again idk how much they’re making off of this revenue sharing stuff, but if that money is supposed to be paid to the players so the school isn’t pocketing money from NCAA, then i don’t see how a better football team would make up for that significant of lost money from less student athletes
Looking at their EADA report, approximately 16% of their student body (less than 600 kids) are on a sport so yes, it technically would be an enrollment hit but knowing how that school operates, they're going to be fine. Lots of kids from NY, NJ and MA paying basically sticker price each year. A lot of mid-majors are trying to find ways to drum up excitement and follow the Flutie Effect. Opting in just gives them an avenue to try and stay relevant despite the fact that they're not a Power 4 school.
Please, do a little research takes 10 seconds. Anyone who was designated does not count on the roster limits. Basically, teams need to be at those numbers in 4-5 years depending on how many team members were designated.
Grandfather Clause Ensures DSAs Keep Aid, Paves Way for New Roster Caps The landmark $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement—resolving the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust suits—had been stalled after Judge Claudia Wilken refused preliminary approval over concerns that roster caps would strip scholarships and eligibility. On May 8, both sides filed amended language that grandfathers all “Designated Student-Athletes” (DSAs)—any player cut by anticipated roster limits or recruit whose offer was rescinded—so they may keep their original aid or transfer without counting against a new team’s roster cap.
Please, do a little research takes 10 seconds. Anyone who was designated does not count on the roster limits. Basically, teams need to be at those numbers in 4-5 years depending on how many team members were designated.
Grandfather Clause Ensures DSAs Keep Aid, Paves Way for New Roster Caps The landmark $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement—resolving the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust suits—had been stalled after Judge Claudia Wilken refused preliminary approval over concerns that roster caps would strip scholarships and eligibility. On May 8, both sides filed amended language that grandfathers all “Designated Student-Athletes” (DSAs)—any player cut by anticipated roster limits or recruit whose offer was rescinded—so they may keep their original aid or transfer without counting against a new team’s roster cap.
Everyone understands the rule but Sacred Heart, Lowell, and other sleazy schools are continuing to recruit very big recruiting classes despite the limit.
It's clear they are lying to recruits and a large % of the commitments are going to be off the team in 12 months time.