What Maine tries to do is play mid week D1s connected to conference roadtrips. Husson is local. Thomas is within an hour. Colby, they played a few years ago is in the same town as Thomas.
Playing D3s is not the norm. There are many years they didn’t schedule any D3s.The issue Maine has is distance to D1s. The nearest D1 is UMass Lowell 235 miles away.
@RJM posted:What Maine tries to do is play mid week D1s connected to conference roadtrips. Husson is local. Thomas is within an hour. Colby, they played a few years ago is in the same town as Thomas.
Playing D3s is not the norm. There are many years they didn’t schedule any D3s.The issue Maine has is distance to D1s. The nearest D1 is UMass Lowell 235 miles away.
That’s what I was thinking - that maybe Maine plays D3’s bc of geography. Seems like a special case.
@SpeedDemon posted:That’s what I was thinking - that maybe Maine plays D3’s bc of geography. Seems like a special case.
Another issue is the weather. They can’t play home games until April. Even then they can get snowed out or be playing in wickedly cold weather. UM Lowell is in their conference. So they have to travel 250-275 miles for non conference games. Weather can be unpredictable even in Massachusetts and Rhode Island in April. Imagine getting in a bus, making that trip and having a weekday game cancelled.
@RJM posted:Another issue is the weather. They can’t play home games until April. Even then they can get snowed out or be playing in wickedly cold weather. UM Lowell is in their conference. So they have to travel 250-275 miles for non conference games. Weather can be unpredictable even in Massachusetts and Rhode Island in April. Imagine getting in a bus, making that trip and having a weekday game cancelled.
Makes sense.
Also, no question you're a NE native - had to laugh at "wickedly". I can almost hear the accent as I read!
@SpeedDemon posted:Makes sense.
Also, no question you're a NE native - had to laugh at "wickedly". I can almost hear the accent as I read!
I didn’t realize I used the word. I typically only say wicked when I’m making fun of New Englanders. I didn’t live here from turning 16 to 56.
Growing up I was threatened with speech therapy if I didn’t speak properly (Rs where they belong and not where they don’t). I’ve always had a bit of a Brahmin Boston accent (think Charles Emerson Winchester III/Beacon Hill). That was acceptable to my mother due to its snobbish sound. She was a Jewish WASP wannabe.
I can fake the accent. It would be weh-kid-lee cold. It would be a wehkid pissah of a day.
UMaine-Presque Isle has a D3 program. Their weather makes UMaine’s (Orono, just north of Bangor) seem like Southern California. They play all away games after practicing in a gym.
I have homes in Portland ME and Nahant MA. Right now I’m sitting on my patiomoverlooking Back Cove in Portland. My kids were raised in the Philadelphia area. They were both born in metro LA.
@RJM posted:I didn’t realize I used the word. I typically only say wicked when I’m making fun of New Englanders. I didn’t live here from turning 16 to 56.
Growing up I was threatened with speech therapy if I didn’t speak properly (Rs where they belong and not where they don’t). I’ve always had a bit of a Brahmin Boston accent (think Charles Emerson Winchester III/Beacon Hill). That was acceptable to my mother due to its snobbish sound. She was a Jewish WASP wannabe.
I can fake the accent. It would be weh-kid-lee cold. It would be a wehkid pissah of a day.
UMaine-Presque Isle has a D3 program. Their weather makes UMaine’s (Orono, just north of Bangor) seem like Southern California. They play all away games after practicing in a gym.
I have homes in Portland ME and Nahant MA. Right now I’m sitting on my patiomoverlooking Back Cove in Portland. My kids were raised in the Philadelphia area. They were both born in metro LA.
don't worry you're safe from being mistaken for a native, There is no other form of the word than simply Wicked
Wicked Awesome, Wicked Pissa, Wicked Cold, there is no distinction of adjectives vs. adverbs when it comes to the all useful and revered "Wicked". ;-)
I just read a current summary of the House settlement which may be filed this week seeking Court approval.
The article quotes unnamed but supposedly reliable sources that football rosters/scholarships will increase from 85 to 105.
The sources to make the annual $20-22 million are still being identified.
Other than, perhaps 50 or so (maybe less) D1 baseball programs, none of this seems like it will equate to a golden age for the vast majority of D1 baseball programs.
Some schools outside the Power 4 are now trying to intervene claiming they were/are not parties to the lawsuit, their student/athletes won’t benefit (which seems accurate from reporting) but they are mandated to pay at least 10% of the costs.
Looks like roster size for baseball will be 34.
Let me get this straight: in an era in which evidence of long-term impact of concussions is becoming more and more clear, the NCAA is going to arrange for thousands more college football players? So that eventually they have to pay lifetime health costs for all these people?
I hope the mid-majors do sue the pants off the NCAA.
Honestly, this is about time. The whole 11.7 scholarship limit has been ridiculous for years.
@anotherparent posted:Let me get this straight: in an era in which evidence of long-term impact of concussions is becoming more and more clear, the NCAA is going to arrange for thousands more college football players? So that eventually they have to pay lifetime health costs for all these people?
I hope the mid-majors do sue the pants off the NCAA.
To that point, per @KendallRogers
A lot more scholarships are 100% heading to @NCAABaseball One VERY important clarification is that teams can spread 18 scholarships, for instance, over 34 players. Yes, you can give out 34 fulls, but you can also increase from 11.7 to 18-20, and then spread that over 34 players. One mid-major coach just told me: "That makes this situation way, way more doable for mid-majors."
@ARCEKU21 posted:Looks like roster size for baseball will be 34.
This is good news for the 34 players that will be on the rosters at the 30-50 D1 schools that will be the most competitive. It is bad news for everyone else. Currently D1 roster limits are at 40 players, but most also have some redshirts in the program that don’t currently count against that number. For the sake of easy math let’s assume 4 of those per team. Reducing the rosters from 44 to 34 (which must include ALL players in the program) means that up to 10 players per team will be looking for a new home - assuming that they continue to play. There are 305 D1 baseball programs. If 10 players are sent packing from every program that would result in over 3.000 D1 ballplayers looking for a new home. Granted, it would take the maximum from every program to reach that number so it won’t be that bad. But even if it’s only half it will create a huge ripple effect as 1500 players trickle over to D2, D3, NAIA & JuCo. And it will continue to make things the hardest on HS kids trying to make a college roster. All the people that have been counting the years until all the older players age out need to understand that it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. And by the time it does a significant number of Colleges/Universities will probably have dropped their baseball programs. It’s never going back to the way it used to be before Covid. The days of “if you want to play bad enough, there is a place for you” are gone. IMO everything that has happened is about getting the very best players in college baseball playing against each other (instead of against lesser competition) every game of every week of every season. That is what MLB wants because that’s what serves them the best. But is it the best thing for the general public? Is it the best thing for your good (but not great) college player?? Is it the best for HS players trying to move on??? The answer to all those questions is NO. It is not.
@adbono posted:That is what MLB wants because that’s what serves them the best. But is it the best thing for the general public? Is it the best thing for your good (but not great) college player?? Is it the best for HS players trying to move on??? The answer to all those questions is NO. It is not.
Is it good for MLB, when fewer people play baseball? Not in the long run.
@anotherparent posted:Is it good for MLB, when fewer people play baseball? Not in the long run.
You’re right. In the long run it isn’t the best thing for MLB to have fewer people playing baseball. It’s only better for making it easier to scout the very best college players. And I think that’s all MLB cares about. Because, in case you haven’t noticed, the people that are running MLB at the moment are getting pretty good at making bad, and short sighted, decisions that fans don’t want
@adbono posted:This is good news for the 34 players that will be on the rosters at the 30-50 D1 schools that will be the most competitive. It is bad news for everyone else...
So long story short - the expanded rosters are now shrinking, the draft was shortened, the transfer portal was created, the donors can now pay students to attend their school, and the only schools that could afford full rides across the board are now given access to them.
Definitely the Golden Age of college baseball.
The positive: These will be the best college baseball teams ever assembled so if you're a fan of high level baseball you will get it.
Stanford softball, which has been to the World Series each of the last 2 years, just lost the best softball pitcher in the nation to Texas Tech, which has never been to the WS. Reporting and her social media indicates she is getting NIL money in the 7 figures.
It portends to be a Golden Age for a few at the top!
@infielddad posted:Stanford softball, which has been to the World Series each of the last 2 years, just lost the best softball pitcher in the nation to Texas Tech, which has never been to the WS. Reporting and her social media indicates she is getting NIL money in the 7 figures.
It portends to be a Golden Age for a few at the top!
She's probably the best softball pitcher ever, save for Ueno from Japan.
Good for her!
I can see this being good for players at low level D1s who do well in their freshman and/or soph years. If you're one of those players now you go into the portal and you have a options. After next season these same caliber player will have more options.
@nycdad posted:I can see this being good for players at low level D1s who do well in their freshman and/or soph years. If you're one of those players now you go into the portal and you have a options. After next season these same caliber player will have more options.
Will there be low or even mid level D1? NCAA head Baker has said 95% of college athletes face extinction with House and other pending litigation relating to paying athletes.
@SpeedDemon posted:She's probably the best softball pitcher ever, save for Ueno from Japan.
Good for her!
She is plenty good! Better than Jennie Finch? Soon to wealthier!
@infielddad posted:Will there be low or even mid level D1? NCAA head Baker has said 95% of college athletes face extinction with House and other pending litigation relating to paying athletes.
Charlie is politicking, that's his job. I don't know what's going to happen. I think this is less clear than what has happened since 2020. A lot of what came after 2020 happened in a bubble for college baseball. This isn't. So when thinking about funding baseball schools also have to think about funding the additional scholarships in other sports. Will be interesting how it plays out.
@nycdad posted:Charlie is politicking, that's his job. I don't know what's going to happen. I think this is less clear than what has happened since 2020. A lot of what came after 2020 happened in a bubble for college baseball. This isn't. So when thinking about funding baseball schools also have to think about funding the additional scholarships in other sports. Will be interesting how it plays out.
Even if he is politicking athletic directors at non-power 4 schools are and will face financial challenges likely to be extreme, at least in the short term. Even if 95% is embellishing, it seems clear mid and low level will be challenged financially more intensely especially compared to Power 4.
I haven't read what he said. If he said 95% of NCAA athletes face extinction, that's beyond embellishment IMO. Yes low levels will be challenged, and some will likely discontinue their programs. I think mid majors is a wait and see. Some coaches from some schools (Austin Peay for example) have come out and said they think it'll benefit them because of the decreased roster sizes. Schools, coaches, players, parents will need to adapt.
Assuming Power 4s offer 34 scholarships (or close to it), that will leave the Austin Peays scrambling for players who would have held roster spots 35-40. They will do that in an NLI environment, possibly be required to pay players as employees (on top of any scholarship dollars) while their AD tries to identify funding to pay each school’s share of the $300,000,000 required under the House settlement.
I hope the coach is right. As with Baker, maybe he is also messaging optimism without fully acknowledging House and the pending lawsuit moving forward to have athletes determined to be employees?
Discontinuing programs seems harsh. D3 has operated without scholarships, and with unlimited enrollment, all this time. Players seem to like it. Perhaps more schools will drop to D3 or D2.
Really, the NCAA should allow schools to be different levels for different sports. That way schools could have D1 basketball programs but D3 baseball (or whatever else).
I mean, at this point does anyone care about the overall organization of the NCAA? It seems just ridiculous in every way.
I don't think programs will dissolve - but I do think athletic directors and school boards will get together and say if we can't compete - why are we funding 11.7 or 12 or whatever it is. A coach who only had 9 funded scholarships was likely begging his AD to get them fully funded - now you can't even ask for 12, 13, 14 if the competition has 34.
The thing is the roster sizes were 35 pre covid so the idea that they are shaving down rosters is not true, it is reverting back to the norm (minus 1).
There has been a lot of reporting going on that mid majors are happy about the change. Notice they mostly go unnamed. I think of programs like UConn, Coastal, Troy. Fun, competitive programs who already had the deck stacked against them - what happens there?
@PABaseball posted:I don't think programs will dissolve - but I do think athletic directors and school boards will get together and say if we can't compete - why are we funding 11.7 or 12 or whatever it is. A coach who only had 9 funded scholarships was likely begging his AD to get them fully funded - now you can't even ask for 12, 13, 14 if the competition has 34.
The thing is the roster sizes were 35 pre covid so the idea that they are shaving down rosters is not true, it is reverting back to the norm (minus 1).
There has been a lot of reporting going on that mid majors are happy about the change. Notice they mostly go unnamed. I think of programs like UConn, Coastal, Troy. Fun, competitive programs who already had the deck stacked against them - what happens there?
Roster sizes were 35 before Covid. But there are a couple of significant changes that make the difference more than one. 35 was the limit in the spring - not the fall. Fall rosters often exceeded 50. And the 35 in the spring didn’t include redshirts, grey shirts etc. The new limit of 34 applies to fall and spring. And it includes every player in the program. So much more restrictive than the old norm minus one.
Are we witnessing the “end” of baseball as we knew it? This could ultimately have massive implications to the economy. Think about it, less opportunity for kids to play baseball in college, probably will mean less kids playing travel/aau, so that means a lot of these team will disappear, less kids doing showcases, less overnight tournaments, will fields go unused? Less hotels being used, less restaurants being frequented. Less bats/gloves, the list goes on and on.
the good news will be that aau will go back to what it used to be, competitive teams.
this will take multiple years to happen (5+), but I wouldn’t be surprised if does. No way parents will continue to fork out money if their kids doesn’t have a shot at playing at the next level.
In the mean time, more opportunity for your kid to get a football scholarship…..
With the 34 man roster limit, I am guessing we are going to see more two way guys in college baseball next season.
@anotherparent posted:Discontinuing programs seems harsh. D3 has operated without scholarships, and with unlimited enrollment, all this time. Players seem to like it. Perhaps more schools will drop to D3 or D2.
Really, the NCAA should allow schools to be different levels for different sports. That way schools could have D1 basketball programs but D3 baseball (or whatever else).
I mean, at this point does anyone care about the overall organization of the NCAA? It seems just ridiculous in every way.
Athletic directors have always had the option to petition the NCAA to compete at a different level for a sport. Jiohns Hopkins is D3 in everything but lacrosse where they are D1.
Interesting tweet about the changes coming to college baseball.
https://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898
hthttps://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898tps://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898
@Master P posted:Interesting tweet about the changes coming to college baseball.
https://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898
hthttps://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898tps://x.com/HPBAac/status/1816492861044805898
Cunningham is usually on target. One of the points he makes hasn’t been discussed as much as the others IMO. And that is “college baseball isn’t meant to be for everyone.” I believe that a lot of the changes being put in place are designed to weed lesser players out of top D1 programs. This will have a trickle down effect as lesser players are replaced with better players at every level. A lot of guys that want to play will be introduced to club ball.
Dallas Baptist, D2 with D1 baseball.
D2 baseball only gives 9 full scholarships.
And many are very expensive.
A buddy and I were discussing this change today and how it is going to work for the fall. Will there be a set day you have to be at 34 players in the fall, or is it day one of practice. If it's day one, it's just going to be a blood bath. The example in my head is close to the situation I am familiar with.
Let's say you have 40 players on the roster at the end of the spring season 2025. You also have about 8 true redshirts. You also have one of the top recruiting classes coming in, with a couple of guys that will go in the draft. Plus you always pick up a handful of the top players from the portal. How do you even start to do the math for this if you have to be at 34 players day one?
Also, in just looking ahead at roster management, the days of redshirting are going to be extinct. I could see a medical redshirt for a top prospect. But other than that, if a redshirt counts against the number, that option is pretty much going to fade away.
Personally, I think the counting of all 34 in the fall is the best aspect of this change. All the things that ARCEKU21 says will have to happen have been problems for years. Yes, coaches are going to have to be more careful in their recruiting, and are going to have every incentive to develop the players they bring in, because it will matter in the spring.
One question: will it have to be the same 34 in fall and spring? Or will they be able to cut a bunch in December and bring in new ones? That would make things somewhat more chaotic than they are already, although it already happens too.
I guess since I am an accounting guy, I am intrigued on how the calculations will happen for this. Didn't even think about having to wait on current players being drafted and waiting to see if they will sign or not. "Freshman recruit #5, hold off coming to campus early until we see who signs and if we get anyone from the portal".
I do agree with the statement that was posted on X, that we are going to see a wave of 2025 kids starting to de-commit from schools and think twice about where they are going.
Another thing, if scholarships can be spread among all players, I think this gives a bit more power to the players. All players are going to want at least some athletic money, to show they are on the roster. Coaches won't be able to say as easily, "you have academic or need-based scholarships, so I'm not giving you athletic money." Currently, some of those not on athletic money have been "redshirts" which was basically "we don't want you right now."
Will make it that much more complicated for coaches in non-power conferences.
I think this is a good thing.
Some here might have sons involved in programs that do the right thing. It should force coaches not to over recruit.
It takes a lot of planning (adding and subtracting) and it's hard work between spring and fall exit interviews, adding and/or losing players in the portal, losing or not losing players in the draft.
As far as I am aware, redshirt players do count on a D1 roster. If there are 34, 35 allowed on a roster, that is your roster regardless of redshirt vs non redshirt players, athletic vs academic.
Aren't academic players essentially walk ons?
Therefore, recruiting will change. How? I don't know the details as of yet. A coach that I know has been on the road all summer watching juniors. Also watching those that will sign their NLI in November. If programs have a solid and successful program (D1, 2 or 3), no sweat.
Remember, these new rules don't happen for another year.
We need to stop speculating and sit back and let it play out.
As far as I am aware, the official roster is the one submitted before the first official game.
JMO
