www.soonertimes.com

With the number of scholly's for softball climbing to 25 now, a new question emerges.
In the past, Coach has maintained a roster level of around 20-21 players. There were 12 Scholly's to divide up among the team plus getting other academic scholarships to fill in around the edges and that seemed to be a pretty manageable number of players. After all you only had 9 + a DP you could put on the field at any one time anyway.

But now we go up to 25. So here's the question--
Do we utilize all 25 full scholarships and increase the roster with even more and better players?
Originally, I didn't think we do that.....but now we have a new kink in the formula with the coming NIL war. So does the larger number of Scholly's now available offer some protection against surprise attacks from opposing teams trying to poach our players?

What are everyone's thoughts about roster management and the new scholarship levels we are now allowed to have?

I haven’t heard anyone explain how the new scholarships are going to be funded. The Athletic department pays out-of-state tuition for the 12 scholarships currently funded. Loosely keeping up with the new money being spent in an annual basis in athletics makes me think OU has already spent the extra $20-$30 million expected from SEC membership 2 or 3 times - now they have to find enough to fund another 50-75 (or 100) new scholarships including other sports?

Plus - how many good softball players are available? Especially if every other top team is trying to fill 25 roster slots. As good as OU has been, the “talent for the 5th or 6th pitcher, or the 3rd or 4th bat off the bench, are not really OU caliber performers. Any players good enough to contribute are not hanging around to be the 4th or 5th option if they can go somewhere else and play.

Respectfully,

Grumpy old man…

Above my paygrade, I'm sure PG will figure it OUt . If I were to hazard a guess I would say that PG will not always have all 25 spots allocated .

TN Sooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:53 pm I haven’t heard anyone explain how the new scholarships are going to be funded. The Athletic department pays out-of-state tuition for the 12 scholarships currently funded. Loosely keeping up with the new money being spent in an annual basis in athletics makes me think OU has already spent the extra $20-$30 million expected from SEC membership 2 or 3 times - now they have to find enough to fund another 50-75 (or 100) new scholarships including other sports?

Plus - how many good softball players are available? Especially if every other top team is trying to fill 25 roster slots. As good as OU has been, the “talent for the 5th or 6th pitcher, or the 3rd or 4th bat off the bench, are not really OU caliber performers. Any players good enough to contribute are not hanging around to be the 4th or 5th option if they can go somewhere else and play.

Respectfully,

Grumpy old man…

Does The Athletic department actually pay the "out of state tuition"? I would think the University would just wave the out of state penalty.

AllSooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:28 pm

TN Sooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:53 pm I haven’t heard anyone explain how the new scholarships are going to be funded. The Athletic department pays out-of-state tuition for the 12 scholarships currently funded. Loosely keeping up with the new money being spent in an annual basis in athletics makes me think OU has already spent the extra $20-$30 million expected from SEC membership 2 or 3 times - now they have to find enough to fund another 50-75 (or 100) new scholarships including other sports?

Plus - how many good softball players are available? Especially if every other top team is trying to fill 25 roster slots. As good as OU has been, the “talent for the 5th or 6th pitcher, or the 3rd or 4th bat off the bench, are not really OU caliber performers. Any players good enough to contribute are not hanging around to be the 4th or 5th option if they can go somewhere else and play.

Respectfully,

Grumpy old man…

Does The Athletic department actually pay the "out of state tuition"? I would think the University would just wave the out of state penalty.

As of a few years ago, the answer was a definitive “yes”. Things may have changed since I knew actual things about how the university rules and by-laws operate, but I doubt that has changed. The university (distinct from the athletic department) can’t just waive getting reimbursed for the expenses of education for athletes. A private institution could do this far easier than a public institution - a simple vote from trustees in most instances.

Even though state funding for most state universities has significantly eroded, they still receive state money and are chartered by the states. Changing those structures isn’t as easy as the trustees deciding to do it.

TN Sooner wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:36 am

AllSooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:28 pm

TN Sooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:53 pm I haven’t heard anyone explain how the new scholarships are going to be funded. The Athletic department pays out-of-state tuition for the 12 scholarships currently funded. Loosely keeping up with the new money being spent in an annual basis in athletics makes me think OU has already spent the extra $20-$30 million expected from SEC membership 2 or 3 times - now they have to find enough to fund another 50-75 (or 100) new scholarships including other sports?

Plus - how many good softball players are available? Especially if every other top team is trying to fill 25 roster slots. As good as OU has been, the “talent for the 5th or 6th pitcher, or the 3rd or 4th bat off the bench, are not really OU caliber performers. Any players good enough to contribute are not hanging around to be the 4th or 5th option if they can go somewhere else and play.

Respectfully,

Grumpy old man…

Does The Athletic department actually pay the "out of state tuition"? I would think the University would just wave the out of state penalty.

As of a few years ago, the answer was a definitive “yes”. Things may have changed since I knew actual things about how the university rules and by-laws operate, but I doubt that has changed. The university (distinct from the athletic department) can’t just waive getting reimbursed for the expenses of education for athletes. A private institution could do this far easier than a public institution - a simple vote from trustees in most instances.

Even though state funding for most state universities has significantly eroded, they still receive state money and are chartered by the states. Changing those structures isn’t as easy as the trustees deciding to do it.

I hear what you say and believe it, but knowing whether a student is out of state or not shouldn't make any difference. The Athletic Dept could pay the in state fee and the books would still reflect payment. But forcing the Athletic Dept to pay the out of state penalty just makes the University look "greedy". I always looked at an out of state fee was a nod to the in state participants, athletes or not. A way to keep out of state attendees from over running the campus, so to speak.
Thanks for the reply

TropicalSooner wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 12:11 pm With the number of scholly's for softball climbing to 25 now, a new question emerges.
In the past, Coach has maintained a roster level of around 20-21 players. There were 12 Scholly's to divide up among the team plus getting other academic scholarships to fill in around the edges and that seemed to be a pretty manageable number of players. After all you only had 9 + a DP you could put on the field at any one time anyway.

But now we go up to 25. So here's the question--
Do we utilize all 25 full scholarships and increase the roster with even more and better players?
Originally, I didn't think we do that.....but now we have a new kink in the formula with the coming NIL war. So does the larger number of Scholly's now available offer some protection against surprise attacks from opposing teams trying to poach our players?

What are everyone's thoughts about roster management and the new scholarship levels we are now allowed to have?

It will be very interesting to see how the increase is scholarships are used and how many teams can actually afford this expansion. I also wonder if the roster limit is tied to this number as well. I have not seen anything mentioned about the resulting roster size.

I have no idea how you keep 25 (or more) player happy at the D1 Power 4 conference level. The only way to me to do that is if there are "JV games" if you will let me use that term. If there could be a way to play all your freshman, sophomores and maybe some juniors (that are not starters) and maybe not use up eligibility for the freshman, you could have these JV games maybe once a weekend and once during the midweek. With the new 4th coach and the grad and volunteer assistants available to coach the JV games, it seems possible to do so numbers wise.

I have no idea how smaller schools can generate the money for 25 scholarships. It will be hard even for the Sooners I think. The doubling of the scholarship budget in addition to the NIL money that is now needed is all a bit much it seems.

The arrival of maybe 5 or more player for every Power 4 softball team will be a glut of talent leaving the rest of the D1 world. I think there will be 58 teams in the Power 4 conferences in 2025, so that is almost 300 players added to the those teams if the team expand to the 25 scholarships.

What I read is 25 is the maximum scholarship and the maximum roster size. School is not required to use all 25 or give out full scholarships. Similarly, schools are not required to get to the maximum 25 roster size. They can still do partial scholarships like they do now. The question for a recruit going forward could be school A offers a full scholarship versus school B only offering 0.25 scholarship, in addition to all the NIL stuff.

At the moment a school has around 12 athletic scholarships. OU tends to have around 20 (plus or minus a few) athletes on the roster

I don't know if OU will use 25 scholarships but my guess it will be very easy to use at least 20.

It wouldn't surprise me to see OU use 25. But I also would expect the number of transfers to jump up as well. When players aren't getting playing time, they transfer somewhere that they can play.

25 is now the maximum roster size?
I'm not sure it was restricted in the past. 2 years ago UCLA carried 27 players, and Iowa State had 28.
Seems like we've come across other teams that had even more.
Not that that is going to be a concern for Coach Gasso, she's never even got to the 25 level, even during the covid years.
I get that the Scholly # will be maxed out at 25, but I didn't realize they chopped the roster size too--

I can't see anything that will completely prevent player poaching for the players and programs that are into that part of the game. In fact, I can see how larger roster sizes and reduced playing time might increase the likelihood of it. I don't know. It would be nice to hear a rationale from the rule-makers as to why this is a good thing. It might BE a good thing....AND/OR have unintended consequences that are counter-productive to the goal.

Two or more things can be true at once! Solutions can solve one set of problems and create another set.

Perhaps the increase is intended to cover more players with a full scholarship rather than a partial one. An athlete puts in full-time effort to be on the team so why not get a full benefit scholarship? That seems fair.

Like all change, it takes a minute to see the outcomes.

Maybe you could use 3 of the spots for redshirts. The Sec only allows you to dress 22 from my understanding. That may change. The Tara Henry podcast was very informative. What we may start seeing is some sports getting cut in order to fund the popular sports. So your volleyball, soccer, etc may go away which is not good in my opinion. It also may knock some smaller school from being able to compete and fund sports. It really feels like there needs to be more rules put in place. Maybe some caps. What about making players sign contracts? Maybe 2 year contracts. There are less rules than in the NFL right now.

I like those ideas cclift.

There will be an impact on the smaller schools (which combined have more students/athletes and faculty than the P4), and that is unfortunate. The way I see it, the more accessibility and participation in sports by all people the better life-long and nation wide outcomes for all of us.

There is an article in a local newspaper about a community football league for young kids in Wichita being disbanded for a lack of funding. This touched my heart because it is limiting participation in sports for hundreds of young kids who will never be elite and have an agent, but who can learn and be a part of a "team" and how to belong to something bigger than themselves. They are participating IN (not just watching and consuming) sports.

I especially liked your idea about the red-shirts having a full scholarship (full time and effort = full benefits). And it would be ironic if it is all coming down to a bidding war over every Top Five recruit that the Universities start demanding contracts that demand a time frame of service....which starts to sound like the old rules that were in place to begin with! "You can't take another deal within the conference," or "You have to stay with our program for X amount of time."

The distinctions between collegiate and professional sports are rapidly disappearing.

I can't see schools requiring a multi-year contract, but I can see NIL doing something along those lines. Offering retention bonuses or back-weighting the deal so that the money increases with the years.

I couldn't see schools doing that either...or even having the right to do that.
But if the student athlete becomes an "employee" of the university--as there seems to be some slow movement in that general direction, wouldn't they be able to do that then, since the university would be paying them for their services as athletes? I would want some degree of certainty about an employee if he/she were on my payroll. Maybe I'm wrong about that so feel free to correct if I'm off base.