Just from a quick look there are several sports in the same boat: Field Hockey (11 on a field) has a max of 27 Golf (5 compete, 4 count for score) has a max of 10 Softball (9 on a field) has a max of 25 M/W Tennis both have a min. of 6 compete and a max of 10 Some others that are hard to calculate what a starting lineup is...swimming, track & field, rowing, stunt, etc.
Look at it another way. No sport other than baseball has doubled or nearly doubled its scholarship limits,and baseball has to carry a lot of players (like pitchers, catchers, and specialty players) who can’t play every day. women went from 15 to 28 and men went from 13 to 28.
The 28 roster limit matters more to many Women’s Soccer programs than the scholarship limit. There are many programs that don’t fully fun 28. Programs can no longer keep developmental players, as well as some veteran players. Previously, the scholarship limits were 9.9 and 14. 28 roster limit is completely unnecessary and it is another advantage for football four programs who already have way too many built in advantages.
where is @CollegeCoachBurner with the breakdown?? I see about 450 new D1 players in the portal since May 1. for the year: 1644 total for D1 2622 from all divisions
There are some good programs that do not seem to have a problem with a 28 player roster limit, having even fewer players than that. For example, see 2024 Florida State.
Feel like this topic was in another thread but can't find it.... Agree on this. How big a roster do you want? I think the perfect number actually is 27/28, so 3 or 4 gks and 24 field players. Divides by everything. You can do everything you want in training with 20-24 field players. If you keep having injured players, then maybe stop over training your team or learn how to train your team with a good strength coach. (totally IMHO, the extended D1 preseason coming up is going to be a chance for many coaches to further overtrain their teams and won't reduce injuries at all. Just makes the season even Longer!) So, recruit 6 new players a year and have 4ish spots for transfers and of course, be ready to replace another player or 2 now and then by positional need when necessary. Actually do the work and get to know kids and families as well as you can so you don't get too many leaving. Not brain surgery. What is true is that there is a "grass is always greener" mentality going for many kids who do expect to play much earlier in college rather than really dig in and earn it. The quick fix. IMHO, this is overstated somewhat as an excuse by coaches but it is there. Kids that jumped clubs their entire youth careers, some even jumped high schools, think that's how it should work in college. I would say just don't recruit those kids, or very few of them.
Thanks for making my point. Florida State? Really? How does this help non football four programs? How does this help top 50 programs that don’t even have max scholarships? it helps the same haves vs the haves nots. Are we here for the game, or the same few programs?
In 2025, there were 23 non Power 4 teams in the NCAA RPI Top 60 ranks. Of these, 11 had rosters of fewer than 28 players: #12 Georgetown #18 Xavier #39 Utah Valley #48 Rhode Island #49 Charlotte #51 James Madison #52 Old Dominion #55 Lipscomb #57 Texas State #58 South Alabama #60 Pepperdine Most of these are fairly long-term elite non Power 4 teams. There may be good reasons for wanting to have a roster limit higher than 28 players, but having a good team does not look like one of them.
Yes, Really - if you are at a D1 program that is actually relying on women's soccer enrollment over 28 players to help pay the bills, then Why in the world did you Opt-In to the House settlement? So, ask your AD. If you are a D1 coach, not benefiting from the new House settlement environment, and so the 28 roster limit, then why are you in it? FOMO? Really? these are questions for your AD. In case you aren't paying attention, pointy football and basketball are the drivers in D1 and much of D2 and even D3. The rest of us are riding shotgun, or in the back seat...
Which coaches did you speak with? The ones I spoke with want increased roster limits for injury and developmental purposes. Other programs do not have limits less than 3 times the playing amount of players. It’s a big advantage to football four programs who already have plenty of advantages.
Some less funded programs opt in for competitive survival in recruiting. You have to do it. It allows more flexibility with partial scholarships as well. You opt in for rev share reasons too. You are not opting in to cap rosters at 28. That is required.
I simply looked at the statistics. There are some of the best coaches among the teams I listed. They could have gone to 28 but stayed below that number. As I said, there may be reasons why some coaches want more than 28 players. But if they say you have to have more than 28 to have a good non Power 4 team, the list proves they are wrong. That's all I've said, nothing more.
It seems like in the current environment it could be a good strategy for competitive teams to keep one or two spots open to be able to quickly dip into the transfer pool or reclassify an incoming recruit if needed, no?
more of these programs/coaches are cutting players then people realize. I’m not sure what percent of the portal contains these kids but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more than half.
1 of the biggest “truisms” in soccer or competitive sport generally. It’s often easier to find better new players than develop the ones you have. Now the portal reveals who’s really doing more dropping and shopping and who’s doing more developing of their players. Some of both is happening most places but you can see the patterns if you look. Why folks like @ImYouthSoccer putting data out is helpful. As a player I’d say good to know what you’re getting in to. The cliché you hear these days is “transactional vs transformational”
The fact you are using marketing terms like Power 4 is concerning to me. Many football four programs are not good.
There’s a pretty good reason to use football terms like power 4–tv money and revenue. this is dated, but how many non-power 4s do you see ahead of power 4 schools? https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances obviously only includes public schools, but point is pretty obvious. P4 conferences make more money from their all sports (particularly football) television deals. They have more revenue to spend. That’s why it’s valid, even in women’s soccer. Now some have more than others and some choose to spend more on woso than others, but it’s far more than a marketing scheme. how many p4s won a first or second round game over the last two years in woso? There’s a few, not many.
I understand, but as I posted, there were 23 teams in the NCAA RPI Top 60 in 2025 that were not in the ACC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, or SEC. That means 37 in those four conferences, whatever one wants to call them. In other words, 37 teams from those four and 23 from the other 26 conferences. I agree, however, about the overemphasis on the four conferences as there clearly are significant numbers of teams from other conferences that are better than a good number of teams from those four. Unfortunately, there are significant numbers of players who are "those four only." This is stupid, from a quality soccer perspective, but instead is based on perceived status. The NCAA formally refers to the four conferences as the Autonomy Conferences. That would be preferable to me, as I agree that "Power 4" is a marketing term that encourages selection based on perceived status rather than across the board program quality. I think I'll start using Autonomy Conferences from here on.
RPI is a pretty lousy metric as you’ve long advocated for. in 2025: 3 non power 4 in the round of 32, 2 in the 16, none in the 8 in 2024; 4 in the round of 32, 0 in the 16 in 2023: 10!! In the 32, 2 in the 16, 0 in the 8 in 2022: 9 in the 32, 3 in the 16, 0 in the 8 in 2021: 12!! In the 32, 3 in the 16, 2 in the 8, 2 in the final 4, 1 in title game (byu who was then non p4– but now is, so count how you want) obviously 2020-21 had our last non p4 winner. But I think it’s safe to say a pattern is developing and it’s not that Jerry Smith (or other non p4 brethren) has forgotten how to coach. I think we will continue to see this trend continue, but I’m happy to be proven wrong. Can Xavier, St Louis, Georgetown etc continue to win a game or two in the tournament? Maybe. But it seems doubtful, even in a sport ripe for advancement on penalties or a golden goal or a 1-0 set piece that the days of deep runs from non power 4s are done.
This is true. March Madness is increasing to 76 teams so that more 12 - 15 seeds from the Power 4 conferences can make the tournament.
Chris Henderson usually has a spreadsheet of the transfer market that he updates in real time with signings but I don’t see that this year. With player grades/tiers by position. Maybe he’s not doing that anymore? Was an interesting window into the quality and depth of transfers and where people are going for those that don’t have portal access. Apparently what’s been publicly announced is only a tiny fraction of what’s already transpired? I’d be curious to see if he does a fall/spring transfer post mortem, especially for players moving from smaller programs to big programs like the Xavier forward going to FSU he said was his top pickup in the spring portal.
It’s about tourney selection. It’s about playing the good non football four programs in the first place. Two years in a row Xavier and Saint Louis were left out despite deserved bids.
and it is gross. If they really cared in MBB they would say none of the additional spots can be granted to football four programs. But now 17-16 NIT Auburn can get a bid.