2025 Transfer Portal

Pops Freshenmeyer

Pops Freshenmeyer

Well-known member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
2,457
Free Manera said:
I thought the 105 number meant that walk-ons won't exist anymore. Am I wrong on that?
Click to expand...
I'm curious as well. I figure the walk-ons will just be practice players who don't get rostered (which will be less appealing for the walk-ons but not change a whole lot). I do wonder if there are some restrictions that will make that unfeasible.
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
It will be a 105 roster limit which will likely mean cuts in roster sizes for most (probably all) football teams.

Universities can use any combination of Scholarship players and Walk-ons, but 105 combined is the max.
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,605
Reaction score
20,077
NDWarrior said:
FYI Marcus Freeman and staff, if you're gonna go after Arch Manning, you better have that Amex Black card handy...

Click to expand...

Those miniature bottles of liquor can add up quickly. "Hey Cooper, pass me another bottle of Fireball."
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
ab2cmiller said:
It will be a 105 roster limit which will likely mean cuts in roster sizes for most (probably all) football teams.

Universities can use any combination of Scholarship players and Walk-ons, but 105 combined is the max.
Click to expand...
85 scholarships is the current limit, which will go up to 105, but my understanding is that all 105 must be under full or partial athletic scholarship - no walk-ons.

Currently, I believe up to 105 total players can practice, so theoretically as many as 20 could have been walk ons. edit: average for the big programs is as much as 128.
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
ab2cmiller said:
Not true. 105 roster limit. Schools can give out 85 scholarships if they want and can have 20 walk-ons
Click to expand...
They have to all be full or partial scholarships. No? Or at least SHOULD be to be competitive.

"Every FBS roster will now be limited to 105 athletes, a 23-spot reduction from the current average, and every one of those spots is entitled to a scholarship. While teams still have flexibility in how many scholarships they allocate, the new structure strongly incentivizes schools to fully fund all roster spots with scholarship athletes, leaving little room for non-scholarship players. This shift effectively reduces the incentive to field walk-ons, as teams will likely prioritize fully funded rosters over maintaining non-scholarship spots. As a result, the traditional pathway for walk-ons is quickly disappearing, putting the very future of the walk-on athlete in jeopardy."
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
Irish Cedar said:
85 scholarships is the current limit, which will go up to 105, but my understanding is that all 105 must be under full or partial athletic scholarship - no walk-ons.

Currently, I believe up to 105 total players can practice, so theoretically as many as 20 could have been walk ons.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. As I've stated before. Schools can give any amount of scholarships that they want not to exceed 105. If they give out less than 105 they can make up the difference with Walk-on players (no scholarship).

www.si.com

Saving Walk-On Athletes: Why NCAA Roster Limits Need Practice Squads

The NCAA’s preliminarily approved House v. NCAA settlement is poised to dismantle the traditional boundaries between amateurism and professionalization in colle
www.si.com www.si.com
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
From what I understand, schools will be allowed to exceed 105 in pre-season camp or off season workouts, but will have to be at the 105 limit at the "start of the competitive season".
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
ab2cmiller said:
That is not correct. As I've stated before. Schools can give any amount of scholarships that they want not to exceed 105. If they give out less than 105 they can make up the difference with Walk-on players (no scholarship).

www.si.com

Saving Walk-On Athletes: Why NCAA Roster Limits Need Practice Squads

The NCAA’s preliminarily approved House v. NCAA settlement is poised to dismantle the traditional boundaries between amateurism and professionalization in colle
www.si.com www.si.com
Click to expand...
It looks like they must be at 105 by the start of the season - full or partial scholarships.

So going back to my first post, what should Freeman's strategy be? Getting the ability to offer 105 full scholarships is huge opportunity for Notre Dame compared to other major Programs. It levels the playing field a little in favour of ND for once.
 
stlnd01

stlnd01

Was away. Now returned.
Messages
13,386
Reaction score
10,247
Irish Cedar said:
It looks like they must be at 105 by the start of the season - full or partial scholarships.

So going back to my first post, what should Freeman's strategy be? Getting the ability to offer 105 full scholarships is huge opportunity for Notre Dame compared to other major Programs. It levels the playing field a little in favour of ND for once.
Click to expand...
You still have the problem of guys who are good enough to be on scholarship at Notre Dame but don't want to ride the bench for multiple years, when they could transfer down a notch to a mid/lower P4 and probably start. Yes, the degree and culture can help, but only to a point.

One might think that adding 20 scholarship positions to a team would improve quality depth for a program like ours. But I haven't yet quite figured out how. Keeping players 85-105 engaged could be challenging.
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
stlnd01 said:
You still have the problem of guys who are good enough to be on scholarship at Notre Dame but don't want to ride the bench for multiple years, when they could transfer down a notch to a mid/lower P4 and probably start. Yes, the degree and culture can help, but only to a point.

One might think that adding 20 scholarship positions to a team would improve quality depth for a program like ours. But I haven't yet quite figured out how. Keeping players 85-105 engaged could be challenging.
Click to expand...
Fair, but I think this would be a challenge for any Program. I think ND has an edge here. They can recruit an extra couple 2-3 star type D linemen each year who have excellent grades and they can stick it out maybe for a Masters Program. Maybe an extra OL each year. That's 15 scholarships right there. 5 x 2 DL + 5 x 1 OL. All 300lbs. by the time they are seniors.
 
Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
13,485
Reaction score
14,225
Sanctions or not, what's the culture going to be like?

ND beats Ohio State, that's one team of mercenary millionaires that didn't get the job done. Oregon and Texas are both out too. Until someone proves that spending all this money wins you anything, buyer beware.
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
Irish Cedar said:
It looks like they must be at 105 by the start of the season - full or partial scholarships.

So going back to my first post, what should Freeman's strategy be? Getting the ability to offer 105 full scholarships is huge opportunity for Notre Dame compared to other major Programs. It levels the playing field a little in favour of ND for once.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no REQUIREMENT that you have to have everyone on some kind of scholarship (full or partial). In the Power 4 conferences, I would venture to guess everyone on the 105 roster will receive at least a meaningful partial because they have financial resources. If ND chose to not at least give a partial scholarship to a "walk-on" type of player, there would be negative press in the process given the huge amount of money that the program generates.

In the Group of 5 you will not. Many of those schools won't have the resources and I'm guessing that many of those teams will have some players receiving a partial scholarship that will be very small.

It's why basically all the articles about the elimination of walk-ons uses phrasing like "it will effectively eliminate walk-on's" because in most cases the walk-on type of player will be thrown a bone of a few thousand dollars. Are they on a partial scholarship? I guess you could say that, but they are basically a walk-on at that point. The schools will still have the ability to offer no scholarship at all, but I'm guessing those cases will be extremely rare since the discounting of tuition at most schools is a bit of a shell game.

We really are talking about semantics at this point.
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
ab2cmiller said:
Again, there is no REQUIREMENT that you have to have everyone on some kind of scholarship (full or partial). In the Power 4 conferences, I would venture to guess everyone on the 105 roster will receive at least a meaningful partial because they have financial resources. If ND chose to not at least give a partial scholarship to a "walk-on" type of player, there would be negative press in the process given the huge amount of money that the program generates.

In the Group of 5 you will not. Many of those schools won't have the resources and I'm guessing that many of those teams will have some players receiving a partial scholarship that will be very small.

It's why basically all the articles about the elimination of walk-ons uses phrasing like "it will effectively eliminate walk-on's" because in most cases the walk-on type of player will be thrown a bone of a few thousand dollars. Are they on a partial scholarship? I guess you could say that, but they are basically a walk-on at that point. The schools will still have the ability to offer no scholarship at all, but I'm guessing those cases will be extremely rare since the discounting of tuition at most schools is a bit of a shell game.

We really are talking about semantics at this point.
Click to expand...
Understood that it is not a requirement technically.

Nevertheless, this is a great opportunity for Freeman IMO. He still can set aside 5-6 of the 105 for players like Kros, Vinci, Buckner, Tafelski etc. (kind of like the PWO Program today), maybe try to find an extra kicker or two. and optimize the remaining 14-15 or so scholarship spots to find some longer term Projects. ND is in a great positioning to maximize the benefit of this new rule.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
I've heard that most teams are going to live between 90-95 recruited scholarship guys with still some walk ons because there has to be room for portal guys, etc. Walks ons aren't going to transfer but scholarship guy #102 is extremely likely to.
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
NDpendent said:
This scholarship increase will not help Notre Dame get any more top 300 kids. What it will do is help make more room for those 500-700 ranked kids whose dream offer in ND and is locker room cultural fit but will unlikely be more then a depth piece
Click to expand...
I completely agree. But IMO that is really important - RJ Oben was ranked 889, Jared Dawson was ranked 775, Davion Dixon is 665, Gordie Sulfsted 656, Jason Onye was 629, Donovan Hinesh was 502 etc. etc. Sign me up. 2 more of these types of guys every year is what ND always needs.
 
Last edited:
D

DomeFieldAdvantage

Well-known member
Messages
327
Reaction score
529
I think the way you approach it isn't so much about adding more bottom of the rankings guys, but expanding the roster size at positions of need and then also allowing yourself the safety of getting someone you like committed while also going for a higher ranking player that is willing and able to commit later in the process.
 
I

Irish Cedar

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
What's the over/under for ND Players who will enter the Portal after the NC?

Any guesses how many might come IN still via the Portal?
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Allegedly with the new rules/guidance on revenue sharing they are going to be counting collective funds against a compensation cap starting soon. Has anyone else heard definitively on this? There are some rumors that the reason people spent big on these last recruiting/transfer classes is that it will be the last time they "legally" can.

This is a huge mistake, IMO, as it's just going to lead to cheaters vs rule followers again. No way teams in the SEC or Oregon or Miami will follow the "cap" and they will route other funds through shell companies or some nonsense.
 
D

DomeFieldAdvantage

Well-known member
Messages
327
Reaction score
529
ab2cmiller said:
Again, there is no REQUIREMENT that you have to have everyone on some kind of scholarship (full or partial). In the Power 4 conferences, I would venture to guess everyone on the 105 roster will receive at least a meaningful partial because they have financial resources. If ND chose to not at least give a partial scholarship to a "walk-on" type of player, there would be negative press in the process given the huge amount of money that the program generates.

In the Group of 5 you will not. Many of those schools won't have the resources and I'm guessing that many of those teams will have some players receiving a partial scholarship that will be very small.

It's why basically all the articles about the elimination of walk-ons uses phrasing like "it will effectively eliminate walk-on's" because in most cases the walk-on type of player will be thrown a bone of a few thousand dollars. Are they on a partial scholarship? I guess you could say that, but they are basically a walk-on at that point. The schools will still have the ability to offer no scholarship at all, but I'm guessing those cases will be extremely rare since the discounting of tuition at most schools is a bit of a shell game.

We really are talking about semantics at this point.
Click to expand...
Even at the P4 level, there maybe still be walk ons and partial scholarships because there is something in the settlement about the "new" scholarship amounts coming from the same revenue sharing pool of money. However, I do not know if that is a required or an allowed thing. If its required, then these extra scholarships will be directly limiting how much the schools can give their players. If its just allowed, then it is a different story.

The interesting part for a school like ND is that if it is required, then our new no loan policy could help us if we just give partial scholarships and have financial aid cover the rest, or no scholarship and have NIL payments cover what aid doesn't. There were rules preventing this in most cases before, but it seems like a loophole with the new rules.
 
MacIrish75

MacIrish75

The New Logo is a Jinx
Messages
9,197
Reaction score
17,750
DomeFieldAdvantage said:
I think the way you approach it isn't so much about adding more bottom of the rankings guys, but expanding the roster size at positions of need and then also allowing yourself the safety of getting someone you like committed while also going for a higher ranking player that is willing and able to commit later in the process.
Click to expand...
This is my thought as well. You should take about a half dozen 3* DTs and tweener WR/TE or OLB/DE types with upside because you’ll routinely play a rotation of 5-6 DTs per game and you can find a guy or two to give you 8-10 snaps from that group. You might be able to find a project athlete who maybe with some time in a college S&C program can blossom into a stud.
 
D

DomeFieldAdvantage

Well-known member
Messages
327
Reaction score
529
IrishLax said:
Allegedly with the new rules/guidance on revenue sharing they are going to be counting collective funds against a compensation cap starting soon. Has anyone else heard definitively on this? There are some rumors that the reason people spent big on these last recruiting/transfer classes is that it will be the last time they "legally" can.

This is a huge mistake, IMO, as it's just going to lead to cheaters vs rule followers again. No way teams in the SEC or Oregon or Miami will follow the "cap" and they will route other funds through shell companies or some nonsense.
Click to expand...
There is supposed to be a Deloitte arbiter that will determine if third party deals meet true market rates and are real NIL deals, but it seems like everyone involved thinks it will fail at the first lawsuit. While I do worry ND might try to play by the rules again, I hope they are getting comfortable enough with the current landscape and realize it really won't be that different.

But otherwise you are right. Up until I believe July 1st, its still the wild west, so collectives are kind of in the position of having a deadline to spend the money they have. That's why you are seeing such inflated numbers this year (Beck for $4m vs Ward for $1.5m last year) and also why guys like Singleton and Allen might be returning.
 
NDWarrior

NDWarrior

Well-known member
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
2,441
Yes, it's coming apparently in July this year. This is a good long piece by Ross Dellenger that outlines the coming post NIL Wild West era. With NIL era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. How will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?
It sounds like via a number of ways, the usual big $ blue bloods will find ways around the "salary cap" for schools, stated to be $20.5 mill. per team this coming year, starting this July. And yes, there will be a clearinghouse, operated by Deloitte, charged with verifying the authenticity of the "above the cap" deals using “fair market value” rates, and poised to eliminate phony booster-backed compensation agreements so prevalent in the industry over the previous three years. But the article seems to imply there will be the usual end arounds by the big boosters / collectives and tons of legal challenges which is probably making a lot of lawyers salivate. Sounds like it's going to be unchartered and messy territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top