Coaches can increase or decrease scholarships as they like for each new academic year. Some schools have specific rules around the timing (eg needs to be done before fall bursar's bills are sent out). Student athletes do not need to agree to the reduction, however, they have the option to go to the portal at any time as a result.TNLAX wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:24 amMaybe I am to old school, but I don't get this comment about scholarships being cut. My experience is that if a coach is running a good program the coach will not (as a rule) decrease a players scholarship if that player is a good teammate, a good student and works hard. In order to reduce a division 1 scholarship, the student-athlete has to agree to the reduction and it has to go through a formal process. More typically I have seen a coach provide a set amount that they keep consistent or the players get a greater percentage of a scholarship each year they are with the program.LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:55 amUpDownLax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:15 pm I gotta say I’m stunned at the haul Clemson has brought in so far. I always expect UNC to have a great class but for Clemson to pull Penzcek in addition to the other 5*, wow. They are going to make things very interesting in 2026 and 2027 with what they are building.
Outstanding recruiting class, much better than I ever could have imagined.
However, it is more than likely that at least a few of these big names will likely be gone by their sophomore or junior years. Just not enough playing time to go around. This means at least a couple of these girls will have their scholarship $$ cut after a year or two which could accelerate a transfer.
If a coach gets into the habit of reducing scholarships to upper classmen, they will have a tarnished reputation fairly quickly.
I disagree about tarishing coach's reputations as long as they are clear about expectations. I think you would agree that KAH, Jenny Levy, Hannah Nielsen and Cathy Reese don't have "tarnished" reputations.
It is more rare, at least for a top 50 program, for there to be no scholarship adjustments. Good rule of thumb -- if you are getting more than 25% and don't have an on-field role (or are the primary backup at goalie or DC), then you $$ is probably going down.
Then you have the added complexity of a program in its first 4 years when a roster is weighted very young. in order to bring in new recruits, you have to reduce some scholarships, since the scholarships $$ for kids you have already recruited is greater than the $$ for kids who are leaving.