[BobK]

Texas had 23 WVB this year. Limit coming is 18.

[BobK]

Texas had 23 WVB this year. Limit coming is 18.

[paloalto]

From what I read Texas also has a big problem in reducing their swim team.  On a UT message board they are describing the coming transition as "exit interviews".

Most of the athletes in general around the country seem to be asking for a gradual lowering of roster counts over a number of years which seems more fair to me.

[paloalto]

From what I read Texas also has a big problem in reducing their swim team.  On a UT message board they are describing the coming transition as "exit interviews".

Most of the athletes in general around the country seem to be asking for a gradual lowering of roster counts over a number of years which seems more fair to me.

[martyup]

With NIL money, aren't scholarships nearly obsolete?  There are no limits for walk-ons, right?  Why can't high NIL earning athletes just waive the scholarship and not count against the limit?

[martyup]

With NIL money, aren't scholarships nearly obsolete?  There are no limits for walk-ons, right?  Why can't high NIL earning athletes just waive the scholarship and not count against the limit?

[CompSci87]

With NIL money, aren't scholarships nearly obsolete?  There are no limits for walk-ons, right?  Why can't high NIL earning athletes just waive the scholarship and not count against the limit?

The new proposed limits are to include everyone. They are roster limits, not just scholarship limits.

[CompSci87]

With NIL money, aren't scholarships nearly obsolete?  There are no limits for walk-ons, right?  Why can't high NIL earning athletes just waive the scholarship and not count against the limit?

The new proposed limits are to include everyone. They are roster limits, not just scholarship limits.

[BobK]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

[BobK]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

[Goose]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

As I understand it Stanford students whose family income is less than 100K/year pay no tuition. Above that level financial aid is pro-rated. Is that correct? If so, I would imagine most students don't have to raise the full tuition amount, if any. This makes NIL funding a greater possibility. I wonder if, in the future, athletes can deduct their tuition as a business expense? After all, they still have to be in school (at least for now) to compete. I am unsure how merit/need scholarships are treated by the NCAA rules, but in today's brave new world they certainly shouldn't count as athletic scholarships. Since academic pursuits seemingly have little if any relationship to athletics anymore, that split should operate on finances as well.

[Goose]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

As I understand it Stanford students whose family income is less than 100K/year pay no tuition. Above that level financial aid is pro-rated. Is that correct? If so, I would imagine most students don't have to raise the full tuition amount, if any. This makes NIL funding a greater possibility. I wonder if, in the future, athletes can deduct their tuition as a business expense? After all, they still have to be in school (at least for now) to compete. I am unsure how merit/need scholarships are treated by the NCAA rules, but in today's brave new world they certainly shouldn't count as athletic scholarships. Since academic pursuits seemingly have little if any relationship to athletics anymore, that split should operate on finances as well.

[82lsju]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

As I understand it Stanford students whose family income is less than 100K/year pay no tuition. Above that level financial aid is pro-rated. Is that correct? If so, I would imagine most students don't have to raise the full tuition amount, if any. This makes NIL funding a greater possibility. I wonder if, in the future, athletes can deduct their tuition as a business expense? After all, they still have to be in school (at least for now) to compete. I am unsure how merit/need scholarships are treated by the NCAA rules, but in today's brave new world they certainly shouldn't count as athletic scholarships. Since academic pursuits seemingly have little if any relationship to athletics anymore, that split should operate on finances as well.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/0...ng-2023-24

Undergraduate families with incomes below $100,000 will not have to pay tuition, room, or board, trustees announced as they set tuition for the coming year. [2023-24]
...
Families with incomes below another threshold – $150,000 – will continue to receive at least enough scholarship support to cover tuition at Stanford.

[82lsju]

Stanford has a couple of athletes who will make the cost of Stanford but not many

As I understand it Stanford students whose family income is less than 100K/year pay no tuition. Above that level financial aid is pro-rated. Is that correct? If so, I would imagine most students don't have to raise the full tuition amount, if any. This makes NIL funding a greater possibility. I wonder if, in the future, athletes can deduct their tuition as a business expense? After all, they still have to be in school (at least for now) to compete. I am unsure how merit/need scholarships are treated by the NCAA rules, but in today's brave new world they certainly shouldn't count as athletic scholarships. Since academic pursuits seemingly have little if any relationship to athletics anymore, that split should operate on finances as well.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/0...ng-2023-24

Undergraduate families with incomes below $100,000 will not have to pay tuition, room, or board, trustees announced as they set tuition for the coming year. [2023-24]
...
Families with incomes below another threshold – $150,000 – will continue to receive at least enough scholarship support to cover tuition at Stanford.

[paloalto]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

Hickman and Andrews are two of the most elite players in the 2026 class.  Hambly can't commit to an athletic scholarship offer?   If that's the case Stanford may lose them.  They won't sit around in limbo indefinitely.  They both have plenty of options.

[paloalto]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

Hickman and Andrews are two of the most elite players in the 2026 class.  Hambly can't commit to an athletic scholarship offer?   If that's the case Stanford may lose them.  They won't sit around in limbo indefinitely.  They both have plenty of options.

[BobK]

They and two others are committed to Stanford with a scholarship offer.

[BobK]

They and two others are committed to Stanford with a scholarship offer.

[BostonCard]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

House refers to Grant House, a former ASU swimmer, not “The House” (of Representatives), who is one of the lead plaintiffs (along with Sedona Prince) in the class action lawsuit.  The issue is that the settlement has had preliminary approval, but would need final approval from the class members (former NCAA athletes).  Here’s the last update I could find.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5826004...ia-wilken/

If finalized, the agreement would establish $2.78 billion in retroactive damage payments for former college athletes dating back to 2016 who did not have the opportunity to earn compensation for their NIL. It would also allow college athletic departments to opt into revenue sharing directly with current and future college athletes, starting at north of $20 million annually per school.

“We are pleased that we are one step closer to a revolutionary change in college athletics that will allow billions in revenue sharing,” Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in the House case, said via statement.

Another critical aspect of the settlement from the NCAA’s perspective is renewed enforcement of NIL rules intended to eliminate pay-for-play payments that have become commonplace among booster-led NIL collectives. The proposed terms allow the NCAA and power conferences to form a “designated enforcement agency,” which the revised agreement specifies would focus on NIL deals stemming from individuals affiliated with an NIL collective, involved in a player’s recruitment, or from families that have contributed more than $50,000 to a university’s athletic department over the course of their lifetime.

As for the roster limits, the roster limits are larger than the old scholarship limits, but for certain sports (eg, those with many walk-ons), may be smaller than average rosters: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ter-limits

The new maximum roster size for 19 of 43 NCAA sports would be smaller than the current average roster in those sports. A handful of sports, including football, baseball and women's soccer, would be disproportionately affected. Those reductions already have forced many coaches to renege on verbal promises they made despite the pending uncertainty about roster sizes.

My son has a friend on the baseball team at UCLA who is likely affected. He was a late bloomer and walk-on, but good enough to earn playing time. Unfortunately for him, because the school wants to keep its commitment to the recruited players on scholarship, his coach recommended he go to community college for a year, and then be recruited to transfer back to UCLA as a roster player a year later.

I fail to understand how this arrangement is good for the educational future of the “student”-athlete.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

House refers to Grant House, a former ASU swimmer, not “The House” (of Representatives), who is one of the lead plaintiffs (along with Sedona Prince) in the class action lawsuit.  The issue is that the settlement has had preliminary approval, but would need final approval from the class members (former NCAA athletes).  Here’s the last update I could find.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5826004...ia-wilken/

If finalized, the agreement would establish $2.78 billion in retroactive damage payments for former college athletes dating back to 2016 who did not have the opportunity to earn compensation for their NIL. It would also allow college athletic departments to opt into revenue sharing directly with current and future college athletes, starting at north of $20 million annually per school.

“We are pleased that we are one step closer to a revolutionary change in college athletics that will allow billions in revenue sharing,” Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in the House case, said via statement.

Another critical aspect of the settlement from the NCAA’s perspective is renewed enforcement of NIL rules intended to eliminate pay-for-play payments that have become commonplace among booster-led NIL collectives. The proposed terms allow the NCAA and power conferences to form a “designated enforcement agency,” which the revised agreement specifies would focus on NIL deals stemming from individuals affiliated with an NIL collective, involved in a player’s recruitment, or from families that have contributed more than $50,000 to a university’s athletic department over the course of their lifetime.

As for the roster limits, the roster limits are larger than the old scholarship limits, but for certain sports (eg, those with many walk-ons), may be smaller than average rosters: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ter-limits

The new maximum roster size for 19 of 43 NCAA sports would be smaller than the current average roster in those sports. A handful of sports, including football, baseball and women's soccer, would be disproportionately affected. Those reductions already have forced many coaches to renege on verbal promises they made despite the pending uncertainty about roster sizes.

My son has a friend on the baseball team at UCLA who is likely affected. He was a late bloomer and walk-on, but good enough to earn playing time. Unfortunately for him, because the school wants to keep its commitment to the recruited players on scholarship, his coach recommended he go to community college for a year, and then be recruited to transfer back to UCLA as a roster player a year later.

I fail to understand how this arrangement is good for the educational future of the “student”-athlete.

BC

[paloalto]

They and two others are committed to Stanford with a scholarship offer.

My original question was why Hickman and Andrews have not publicly announced their commitment to Stanford.  Unless I'm missing something, you haven't answered that.  If they have the scholarship offer, committed to Stanford, and there is room on the 2026 roster, why not say something publicly?  Maybe it's because admissions is not finalized.

I'm assuming Hickman and Andrews and the two other recruits keep the 2026 roster under the 18 player limit. I'm excited about the possibilities for 2026 so this is of interest to me.

[paloalto]

They and two others are committed to Stanford with a scholarship offer.

My original question was why Hickman and Andrews have not publicly announced their commitment to Stanford.  Unless I'm missing something, you haven't answered that.  If they have the scholarship offer, committed to Stanford, and there is room on the 2026 roster, why not say something publicly?  Maybe it's because admissions is not finalized.

I'm assuming Hickman and Andrews and the two other recruits keep the 2026 roster under the 18 player limit. I'm excited about the possibilities for 2026 so this is of interest to me.

[BobK]

More

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...uture/amp/

[BobK]

More

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...uture/amp/

[paloalto]

Thanks BC for the ESPN link.  I hope this gets finalized sooner rather than later.  IMO it would have been better to make the implementation date for 2027 or 2028.  The NIL enforcement agency looks like a quagmire of uncertainties right now.

[paloalto]

Thanks BC for the ESPN link.  I hope this gets finalized sooner rather than later.  IMO it would have been better to make the implementation date for 2027 or 2028.  The NIL enforcement agency looks like a quagmire of uncertainties right now.

[BobK]

That would be 18 for 2026. However the 18 as you saw above is not yet the rule.

[BobK]

That would be 18 for 2026. However the 18 as you saw above is not yet the rule.

[BACardinal]

Off topic but here is a match from a couple days ago with Kathryn Plummer going against Caitie Baird. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/zY4Gr1K1Mdo...rp6h3371sP

[BACardinal]

Off topic but here is a match from a couple days ago with Kathryn Plummer going against Caitie Baird. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/zY4Gr1K1Mdo...rp6h3371sP

[paloalto]

Thanks for the link BACardinal.   Boden looking good.   All the coaches on both teams were male and all were wearing suits; white shirt and tie.

---

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...gue-talent

Hambly is killing it on the recruiting trail.  2025 class looking good.  2026 class very good with two recruits out of Texas.  Rumor has it two highly recruited 2026 players wanted to come to Stanford but apparently roster limit won't allow; we'll see how things shake out.

As far as I can tell, being in an East Coast conference has not hurt Stanford recruiting at all for WVB.

[paloalto]

Thanks for the link BACardinal.   Boden looking good.   All the coaches on both teams were male and all were wearing suits; white shirt and tie.

---

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...gue-talent

Hambly is killing it on the recruiting trail.  2025 class looking good.  2026 class very good with two recruits out of Texas.  Rumor has it two highly recruited 2026 players wanted to come to Stanford but apparently roster limit won't allow; we'll see how things shake out.

As far as I can tell, being in an East Coast conference has not hurt Stanford recruiting at all for WVB.

[johnbar]

John Cook has retired from Nebraska.

Louisville's Dani Busboom Kelly is Huskers' new coach.

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/john...t-nebraska

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/dani...head-coach

[johnbar]

John Cook has retired from Nebraska.

Louisville's Dani Busboom Kelly is Huskers' new coach.

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/john...t-nebraska

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/dani...head-coach

[BigJohn043]

New rankings for 2026. Here are the Stanford possibles.  We are thinking 4 of these 5
Hickman # 6 and college posted is Stanford
Andrews # 24 also college posted is Stanford
Roslon # 38 no college
Udoye # 52 no college
Nguyen # 56 no college

That is a big step up in the rankings for Hickman.  Last I saw she was in the teens.  I love me a 6-5 lefty OPP.  She is a big of a project though.

Andrews looks really good to me.  MBs are always lower on the rankings.  Great wrist snap.  He blocks go straight down which means she is penetrating the net.  Looks like a pretty athletic 6-4 to me.

We still aren't recruiting monster booming pins the way we need to in order to really compete for titles...

[BigJohn043]

New rankings for 2026. Here are the Stanford possibles.  We are thinking 4 of these 5
Hickman # 6 and college posted is Stanford
Andrews # 24 also college posted is Stanford
Roslon # 38 no college
Udoye # 52 no college
Nguyen # 56 no college

That is a big step up in the rankings for Hickman.  Last I saw she was in the teens.  I love me a 6-5 lefty OPP.  She is a big of a project though.

Andrews looks really good to me.  MBs are always lower on the rankings.  Great wrist snap.  He blocks go straight down which means she is penetrating the net.  Looks like a pretty athletic 6-4 to me.

We still aren't recruiting monster booming pins the way we need to in order to really compete for titles...

[johnbar]

John Cook has retired from Nebraska.

Louisville's Dani Busboom Kelly is Huskers' new coach.

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/john...t-nebraska

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/dani...head-coach

And now Mary Wise has retired from Florida after 24 years.

https://floridagators.com/news/2025/2/6/...asons.aspx

[johnbar]

John Cook has retired from Nebraska.

Louisville's Dani Busboom Kelly is Huskers' new coach.

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/john...t-nebraska

https://huskers.com/news/2025/01/29/dani...head-coach

And now Mary Wise has retired from Florida after 24 years.

https://floridagators.com/news/2025/2/6/...asons.aspx

[paloalto]

34 years with 25 SEC championships.  It's sad she never won a NC.

[paloalto]

34 years with 25 SEC championships.  It's sad she never won a NC.