Big 10, ACC, Big 12 Roster Limit Predictions?

Yeah it’s going to happen for sure. They are in the same situation AND have less revenue than the SEC.

Football will win at the expense of everything else

Adding 20 scholarships to football while eliminating 20 roster spots doesn't add much cost at all. Why do you think budgets will be affected?

Paying players for one. Revenue sharing in the future.

The fact that a bunch of ACC teams have eliminated their teams and scholarships already.

Clemson built a new indoor facility, then tried to cut men’s track the same year they had their highest revenue ever!

What programs were eliminated? How recently? If not recently, it was unrelated.

What. Take a school like Northwestern for your example. If they offer 20 extra scholarships, that 20 x $80,000 in additional academic costs, never mind the weight training, housing, travel, food, etc. Walk-ons don't incur those costs and many actually pay tuition to the school.

Where do you think a school will make cuts? I know NW doesn't have XC, but for those that do, they'll look at non-revenue generating programs. Programs will simply keep 10 on their team and send the rest to the university's club running program.

Sad but true

20 walkons are being eliminated. They currently have coaching, doctors, trainers, food, gear, psychiatrists, a locker, weight room, etc. 20 additional scholarships won't cost much more than those 20 guys were costing the school. Of course, the more expensive schools will be more disproportionate. A typical P4 school costs $22K instate and $45K out of state.

They are adding 20 football scholarships.

Cutting non scholarship athletes doesn’t save any money.

SMU doesn’t have men, Boston College is non funded scholarship wise for men already, pretty sure Georgia Tech cut or tried the cut the program before, Clemson tried to cut their program, Miami is unfunded for XC.

idk about the big12 but the acc and big 10 schools tend to sponsor more sports than the sec schools. I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of those schools lower funding for some mens programs but they wont have nearly as much of an issue making mens and womens roster sizes equal with all the other womens sports they sponsor.

You responded to my message in which I provided a bunch of examples of things that will be cut and money saved by having 20 fewer guys on a football team.

Big Tenor, I think you should go look up some athletic department financials and how much they spend on a scholarship football player vs a track walk on. All data is public for public schools. Football spending is dramatically higher than any other sport per athlete by far.

Virginia Tech is a good example, the top SEC schools currently spend 100 million more athletic department wide when compared to VT. The ACC is way behind revenue wise so I imagine they will cut costs somewhere as well

Glad you agree with me. People are claiming that the additional 20 scholarships are expensive and track will cut track athletes to make up for it. You pointed out that there will be little savings from cutting track athletes. Also, the 20 football players who must be cut, were costing the school a tremendous amount which will be offset by the additional 20 scholarships.

So you think when they have separate paid coaches, doctors, trainers, and psychiatrists for those 20 walk-ons that will just be fired? or they are just going to pay all those folks 15% less because there are fewer players?

And they are going to auction off the extra lockers and weight room equipment because they don't need them now?

You do score a couple points about the less food and gear. big money saver those are.

These extra scholarships are coming from other sports and cuts to other sports are coming because they need to figure out how to pay for the revenue that's being shared.

I've always had the feeling track would be relatively safe from cuts. It's relatively cheap, safe (basically no torn ACL's, concussions, etc) and has high rates (19-20% depending on gender) of black participation.

I don't fully understand what the reduced roster size will look like. Can the SEC schools only have 10 XC runners compete each season, but still have 15 runners at practice? How will this actually limit the number of runners?

No. They can't practice. And with only 35 track spots in a sprint conference, many of the XC guys won't have roster spots in track.

I guess you tell the freshman to prepare for indoor track and skip cc. And maybe spare the older mid d specialists cc participation.

Wow, not even being able to practice is crazy. Only a few injuries away from not being able to field 7 runners

I found this in an article on SwimSwam and it makes me hopeful the other major conferences will stick to the 17/45.

"Sources also told SwimSwam that neither the ACC nor Big Ten will follow the SEC in setting the men’s swim and dive roster caps at 22. Both conferences sponsor 28 sports, seven more than the SEC, which gives them more flexibility over their roster limits than the SEC."

swimswam.com

Sources: SEC Will Set Men’s Swim & Dive Roster Limits At 22 Athletes In Wake Of House v. NCAA

Sophie Kaufman

Sources tell SwimSwam that the SEC has finalized plans to set men's swimming and diving roster limits at 22 athletes, the same number proposed in May 2024.

Open link