This is a fallacy. Most schools do not have the money to increase the amount of scholarships. Opting in does not create wealth.

In an interview (I think on the BIG Mountain Podcast?), prior to the House settlement, Rocko said that UCD would not opt in for 25-26 because they were going to honor commitments to all students currently on team rosters. The plan was to opt in once those student-athletes graduated. That interview was posted somewhere here on Aggie Sports Talk.
Since the settlement I've heard that Davis would opt in since existing student-athletes were grandfathered in. But I haven't seen or heard any official announcement.

One of the competitive advantages of opting in is the elimination of scholarship limits, but the Big Sky has a conference limit of 63 which negates that advantage,
There are other advantages, like sharing revenue with players, and moving NIL payments in house but Davis is may not ready to do that. I think there is no deadline to opt in, not doing it now doesn’t preclude doing it later.

1

Cut the roster if it is more than 105.

1

What is the immediate benefit gained by giving up the immediate nearly nothing? Spread 63 scholarships over 105 players rather than 85? That dilutes the value of each scholarship so might not help recruiting. And maybe 85 is sufficient?

1

Lots of examples where walk-ons turn into major contributors. Lamont Shamburger is a recent example.

They only allow 58 to travel to away games under Big Sky rules. I have long thought they should get rid of the FBS and FCS distinction by compromising on something like 73 scholarships, but with the multiple ways of paying players scholarship limits are too complicated to enforce, so now they substituted roster limits. A large roster is desirable because it is difficult to predict which HS players will be good at the college level, so sorting takes place after they are on the team.

If fewer men participate fewer women are needed to meet the proportionality requirements, but if the same number if men have scholarships then the women would continue to get the proportional amount of that resource.

1

yah, can increase the number of scholarships but cannot exceed 105 on the roster. So sort of a shell game in the scholarship department. The big schools, like SEC will pour money up to the limit (the direct payment part of the settlement) into the revenue generating sports, I.e., football and men’s basketball.

Some leagues have not imposed roster limits on their teams even for those who have opted-in, and from what I understand there was a change in the settlement to allow grandfathering of players. As for direct payments for most of Big Sky there is not much to go around when you start dividing it up across large rosters. So it seems not opting in at this point in non-bigtime football programs is not a huge issue. But a lot of moving parts. The NIL “constraints” with regard to review of deals over $600 is probably gonna be a joke and the old days of money under the table will return - at least for the P4 teams.

My view is that the 105 roster limit is required because the NCAA don’t believe that can keep track of all the money flows to players and distinguish what is scholarship, what is NIL, and what is revenue sharing. That is why the roster limit is a requirement for teams that opt in, why schools can’t pay the NLI money directly or do revenue sharing without the roster limit.

Big Sky schools opting in this year: Cal Poly, Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, Sacramento State, Weber State

Big Sky schools not choosing to opt in this year: Eastern Washington, Idaho, Idaho State, Northern Arizona, Portland State, UC Davis

Here's a list of schools choosing to opt in or not in all of the FCS conferences:

https://herosports.com/fcs-schools-opting-in-out-house-settlement-bzbz/

There is no action to Opt Out. Teams either Opt In and follow the roster limit and participate in revenue sharing or they don’t, It’s a choice they can make each year.

I see. I change my wording to "schools not choosing to opt in." Thanks.

z