NCAA NCAA athletes who don't compete

[Gym_momma]

I'm curious about NCAA teams where there are certain athletes that consistently don't make the roster for meets. Do they still retain their scholarships?

 

[Mthegymqueen]

I would think most of them would be walk-ons or injured, that end up retiring or leaving teams. I haven't heard a story of anyone getting their scholarship taken away.

 

[momto8in10]

Generally, even if a scholarship is injured or medically retired, they still retain their scholarship. It all depends on what they signed in their NIL, though.
Usually, but not always, girls that never compete aren't scholarship athletes.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Not sure I understand OP question. There are plenty teams, at least in the large conferences, that have athletes that do not make line-ups and are still on scholarship. The upcoming rule change of roster limits goes into effect next year, everyone on a roster has to be on scholarship and the roster size is limited to 20. I think a few schools that are over the 20 limit will have some girls transferring out but that's a function of the roster limit versus lack of support.

 

[bookworm]

If a gymnast isn't making line ups, for whatever reason (injury, not one of the top 6 on the apparatus on the team, academics, the sky is blue...whatever) , it doesn't necessarily mean they retain their scholarship, if they have one. Gymnasts with academic money don't have an issue and if the TOP performer got injured/goes to the Olympics = not an issue but there are real grey areas with some of the rest. Coaches can make it really unpleasant to stick around and those athletes may choose to transfer elsewhere...and with the transfer portal, that is MUCH easier. Before that, anyone wishing to transfer, even if not on scholarship (i.e. Walk on whose parents were paying for everything) had to "ask" for a release from the same coach they were leaving in order to transfer...and it wasn't always granted, even if the kid was transferring out of conference (and a lot of those cases ended up in court, where the request was granted) ...and after all that, the athlete had to sit out a year...

Some kids are recruited as "preferred walk ons" knowing they'll never see the competitive floor but as back ups, team cheerleaders in the locker room/at meets; great academics that will keep the team GPA up there. Some kids don't mind this and for others, they may do it for a year or two and move on because the work outs for these gals who do not compete isn't any less than the rest of the team so that can get old if you never compete.

 

[gym_dad32608]

My understanding, based upon what I have read and conversations with head coaches, is that after this year, there are no more walk-ons. If you are on the roster, you have a scholarship. I could be interpreting things incorrectly, but at a minimum there is going to be a lot of change regarding scholarships and rosters after this year. So the scenario with walk-ons and losing scholarships is probably going to be different. Everything is hinging on what the final NCAA settlement is going to look like and how athletic departments implement the final agreement. I do know for a fact that the 20 person roster limit is going into effect this coming year.

 

[GymnastMomX2]

My understanding, based upon what I have read and conversations with head coaches, is that after this year, there are no more walk-ons. If you are on the roster, you have a scholarship.

Interesting, this wasn’t how I was interpreting things. I was reading it as the teams can basically spread money out to whoever they want or don’t want to. So some girls may have full scholarships, some may have a partial and some none. I’d assume the top schools will all be able to fund a full 20 scholarships but as you get to the lower ranked schools with less money then that may not be the case. I hope I’m wrong though!

 

[Flicfliclay]

Interesting, this wasn’t how I was interpreting things. I was reading it as the teams can basically spread money out to whoever they want or don’t want to. So some girls may have full scholarships, some may have a partial and some none. I’d assume the top schools will all be able to fund a full 20 scholarships but as you get to the lower ranked schools with less money then that may not be the case. I hope I’m wrong though!

It is this way. I'm not sure why anyone has interpreted it as every girl on the team ( 20 ) will be on scholarships. Just as you said they can use the money how they see fit between te 20 roster spots. Also some teams will not keep 20, as they never have.

 

[gym_dad32608]

Perhaps because I have been told this by head coaches at Power conferences. These changes on one hand increase more opportunities for athletes to participate in these major programs, but on the other hand will increase the disparities between the haves and the have nots. I am fairly certain that every SEC school will go up to the 20 roster limit and all those spots will be fully funded. Schools in the non-power conferences are going to not only see their $ support reduced but will have a harder time attracting athletes because they may have to start offering partials or have fewer roster spots.

 

[bookworm]

And you can use NIL money to fund athletes as well… i think that’s what funded Konnor McClain’s first year at LSU … and seriously, where the $$ comes from wouldn’t concern me

 

[Flicfliclay]

Perhaps because I have been told this by head coaches at Power conferences. These changes on one hand increase more opportunities for athletes to participate in these major programs, but on the other hand will increase the disparities between the haves and the have nots. I am fairly certain that every SEC school will go up to the 20 roster limit and all those spots will be fully funded. Schools in the non-power conferences are going to not only see their $ support reduced but will have a harder time attracting athletes because they may have to start offering partials or have fewer roster spots.

I sense a bit of bite in your comment, but could just be the way i am reading it. My kiddo is in the recruiting process and has had convos with both SEC, BIG12, and BIG10 coaches and all have said that they will not be giving out full 20 scholarships as well as not having 20 on their roster. I mean i guess it could just be those conference schools?

 

[bookworm]

I don

I sense a bit of bite in your comment, but could just be the way i am reading it. My kiddo is in the recruiting process and has had convos with both SEC, BIG12, and BIG10 coaches and all have said that they will not be giving out full 20 scholarships as well as not having 20 on their roster. I mean i guess it could just be those conference schools?

I don’t think it will be 20 “full scholarships” unless supplemented by NIL money… i think they can have 20 on some sort of scholarship but i don’t read this as the school being on the hook for full athletic funding for the 20 … some full, some partial, some NIL funded.

 

[Flicfliclay]

I don

I don’t think it will be 20 “full scholarships” unless supplemented by NIL money… i think they can have 20 on some sort of scholarship but i don’t read this as the school being on the hook for full athletic funding for the 20 … some full, some partial, some NIL funded.

Correct, and some are still recruiting walk-ons... As i shared above they do not have to give out money to ALL of their roster.

 

[JBS]

I have not heard that a school "must" scholarship all of the roster spots. I have heard of schools that are hoping to do just that though.

 

[GymDadWA]

Could "funding all roster spots" mean if they are on the roster than they get a scholarship but if the program can choose to roster less than the max, like 12 spots if that is all they have a budget for.

I would suspect that in the near future everything that isn't revenue generating ie not football will be on the chopping block. In my state there are major budget shortfalls and axing athletics is an easy move for university administrations.

 

[JBS]

I would say at best... everything is very unclear as of right now.

 

[gym_dad32608]

I sense a bit of bite in your comment, but could just be the way i am reading it. My kiddo is in the recruiting process and has had convos with both SEC, BIG12, and BIG10 coaches and all have said that they will not be giving out full 20 scholarships as well as not having 20 on their roster. I mean i guess it could just be those conference schools?

Not at all. My kiddo just went through the recruiting and commitment process, and in that experience we have had these conversations with the same, SEC, Big10 and ACC schools(I mean Idk which specific schools you have talked to, lol) these coaches have told us that in voting for these changes, they advocated for the limit to be raised only to 18 because of the imbalance it would create. These schools told us that while they don't necessary feel the need to have a roster of 20 (most told us the 16-18 range was their ideal), if they want, they will go up to 20 and they will be scholarship spots.

Just knowing historical precedent from other sports (football, basketball, baseball) and the extreme competitive nature of these programs (particularly in the SEC), I am very confident that rosters for these teams are going to be closer to 20 than not. I know this sounds bad, but an athlete on your team cant compete against you on another team (an old Bear Bryant strategy) so there is some incentive to try and hoard talent if you will whether done consciously or subconsciously.

Although I doubt the NCAA can effectively manage anything, they have changed the NIL rules to require more oversight into NIL deals to prevent "pay for play" situations. So in theory (who knows in practice) students now have to clearly report their NIL contracts and if they are receiving market appropriate compensation for their NIL deal. So again, in theory, the days of "we will just give you an NIL deal to cover a scholarship" should be gone. On all of our official visits, most of the NIL discussion was about "potential" versus "everyone here starts with $X NIL". Yes the potential was there, but the most active girls genuinely had to work to make it, not make some random post about something to make 10K.

In the macro, whether a school supports 16, 18 or 20 spots is somewhat irrelevant. There are going to be significant changes and trickle-down effects from the settlement in the next 2 years. Most if not all appear to negatively impact non-revenue sports. One thing is clear, programs in the major conferences like SEC and Big10 are going to have more resources and will be better positioned to weather these changes.

 

[JBS]

SEC, Big10 and ACC schools(I mean Idk which specific schools you have talked to, lol) these coaches have told us that in voting for these changes, they advocated for the limit to be raised only to 18 because of the imbalance it would create. These schools told us that while they don't necessary feel the need to have a roster of 20 (most told us the 16-18 range was their ideal), if they want, they will go up to 20 and they will be scholarship spots.

This is all what I have heard too... however... I don't think the confusion in this conversation is really about the top schools that will find the money and a way to make pretty much anything happen. I think the confusion is about the other programs.

 

[gym_dad32608]

This is all what I have heard too... however... I don't think the confusion in this conversation is really about the top schools that will find the money and a way to make pretty much anything happen. I think the confusion is about the other programs.

Agreed, which is my point with my last statement. The smaller schools/programs are really facing a lot of uncertainty. It is frustrating because they have absolutely zero say in what is going to happen. All waiting on football and basketball.

 

[momto8in10]

My understanding (my daughter is a gymnast at a Big Ten school) is that there will be a rooster cap of 20 and that the scholarship limit of 12 is being removed. That is not to say that all girls *will* have scholarships, only that all girls *can* have scholarships.