The pending House settlement had an impact on the portal and many teams are getting creative in building their rosters.
www.si.com
"Roster Construction Philosophies Vary
The pending House settlement’s changes to how rosters will be constructed has had a significant impact on the portal. Teams can roster 15 players going forward, but all 15 can be on scholarship instead of the old 13-scholarship cap. That said, just because all 15 may receive a scholarship doesn’t mean staffs will allocate precious revenue share and NIL dollars to players at the back end of their rosters.
Even the biggest budgets nationally, believed to be just north of $10 million for a handful of top-tier programs, can vanish quickly if spread around 12 to 15 players. Some will operate with a traditional 12 to 13 players and allow their walk-ons to stay on the team in those final few roster spots; others may take it even further and focus all their resources to nine or 10 players and backfill the remaining roster spots with dart throws. You’ll see very few teams fill all 15 roster spots with players talented enough to make a real impact that season, both for budgetary and also chemistry reasons.
One high-major staff I spoke to this week has spent its entire budget on nine players and is now looking for two to three freshmen or transfers who’d come for nothing other than a scholarship, which are extremely hard to find in this day and age.
Some staffs have saved a few dollars here and there for those end-of-bench filler pieces, referred to by some GMs and personnel staffers as “minimum contracts” that often end up in the $100,000 range to woo freshmen or junior-college players who’ll largely serve as developmental pieces and practice bodies. But those end-of-bench value pieces can sometimes end up becoming critical role players after injuries or missed evaluations blow up projected rotations, so keep an eye on those moves around the margins.
Big picture though, there has been an emphasis in conversations with several top assistants and GMs on avoiding overpaying for players projected to come off the bench.
One program I spoke to earlier this cycle said they wanted to ensure they spent 75% of their overall budget on their projected starting five after spreading their dollars around far too much the previous year, and that general framework is something that has been echoed in a number of conversations in recent days and weeks. The thinking: Spending $500,000 each on two mediocre wings is less efficient than betting big on a $700,000 or $800,000 potential high-level starter and using a developmental piece in the $200,000 range behind them."