How Low And Mid-Major Coaches View College Baseball Roster Rule Changes | Coaches Confidential
Image credit: (Photo by Mike Janes/Four Seam Images)
At the intersection of financial strain and roster management, mid- and low-major college baseball coaches are grappling with a new reality that feels like a game of survival.
Between the NCAA’s decision to cap regular-season rosters at 34 players and the recently agreed-upon proposal that could pave the path to 38-man fall rosters starting in the 2025-26 academic year, many programs fear their futures are in jeopardy. For these schools, the new rules represent more than just a logistical challenge—they’re a potential financial death knell for some and destabilizing force for many more.
Coaches across all levels of Division I baseball have expressed concerns that expanded fall rosters requiring Dec. 1 cuts would inevitably lead to legal battles, a mid-year transfer window or both, which mid- and low-major coaches fear could harm their programs beyond repair.
The ABCA presented the following table to Division I coaches who attended the Jan. 2 rules meeting regarding the potential fallout from Dec. 1 roster cuts.
Note that college baseball players cannot currently transfer mid-year and be eligible in the spring.
| Fall Roster Limit Number | Mid-Year Transfer Portal Entrants |
| 34 | 0 |
| 36 | 600 |
| 38 | 1,200 |
| 40 | 1,800 |
| Unlimited | More than 1,800 in the portal |
However, coaches at the mid- and low-major levels are also cognizant of the challenges associated with capping fall rosters at just 34 players, a total that could render teams undermanned in the event of fall injuries or unexpected academic ineligibilities.
Baseball America interviewed and polled 37 mid- and low-major head coaches and assistants at the annual American Baseball Coaches Association convention in Washington, D.C. about those impending roster limitations to gain a better understanding of how they feel they might be impacted.
Here are their responses, some of which have been lightly edited for clarity:
What Do You View As The Ideal Number Of Players To Carry On Your Fall Roster?
| 34 | 16.9% |
| 36 | 10.8% |
| 38 | 59.5% |
| 40 | 8.1% |
| Unlimited | 0% |
| Undecided or other | 4.7% |
Why Did You Pick The Number That You Did (Preferred Number)?
Low-major head coach No. 1 (34): “We’re going to 34-man rosters in the season, which is going to force thousands of kids out of the DI level. We live in a world right now where if you don’t get to play an extra year at the D1 level because you went to JUCO, you sue. You don’t like your situation? You sue. The big teams are going to be just fine with having roster limits for the fall that are going to make them cut kids but the low-major levels are going to get the short end of the stick. This is going to end in court and we’re going to suffer for it. We should start at 34 and end there, to tell you the truth, but we’re going to see what happens.”
Mid-major assistant coach No. 1 (36): “I want to protect the student athlete. I’d like to think we all do. I also don’t think we can start at 34 and confidently go into the fall thinking we won’t start our season at 29 players due to injury. At least at 35 or 36 we can limit the number of guys getting cut but I really don’t know. There’s no right answer for me.”
Mid-major head coach No. 1 (38): “I think 38 as opposed to 40. I think everyone would like to have two more bodies, but in the grand scheme of things, you go 38 instead of 34 or 36 and the trickle down effect will let everyone get a little bit better players. It’s good for the game of baseball as a whole. Competition is beneficial, but guys who are worried about lawsuits are valid, too.”
Mid-major head coach No. 2 (40): “This isn’t popular and I know there’s virtually no path to this, but 40 makes the most sense if we’re also increasing the number of fall exhibitions we play, which increases the demand on guys’ arms and guys will get hurt. How that isn’t the primary consideration doesn’t make sense to me. There will be teams that don’t end up filling all 38 spots for whatever reason and start their season with less than 34 able bodies.”
A System That Requires Roster Cuts Part Way Through The Academic Year Might Not Be Ideal, But Do You See Any Potential Positives?
Mid-major head coach No. 3: “It’s been proven that older wins and all the best high-major teams are going to try to be old in a world with fewer roster spots. When that happens, we’re going to have an opportunity to pick from a pot of better high school players than we’re used to and I think as you go through it, we’re even going to be able to get a little bit better players in the transfer and JUCO markets. That’s where smaller rosters will help mid-majors. One way or another we’re going to see some trickle down from the top and it will land with us.”
Mid-major head coach No. 4: “Well, we’re all going to have to make a choice and programs that choose to focus on development and roster building from the high schools will benefit. If transfers and fifth-year JUCO players are making up high-major rosters, especially for teams that can pay to add the best available talent, the first-year players who don’t have a roster spot need somewhere to go. We’ll take them.”
Low-major head coach No. 2: “I don’t know about positives yet, but I do think that for those of us who have been coaching for long enough remember the days of 35 roster spots and the 11.7 (scholarships), this really isn’t that different from that. I guess you could say if you had that system down, you can have this new system down. That’s a good thing.”
Low-major assistant coach No. 1: “I’d hope there are families that see the chaos and want to invest in stability. The lower major programs might not be the prettiest route, but we could be when the high majors are going through constant turnover and paying players and whatever else you can think of. [Our program] has always recruited kids that wanted to be a part of it and we’ll be able to continue to do that.”
What Concerns You?
Low-major head coach No. 3: “What concerns me? What concerns me is that there will be lawsuits from parents and players who think they were cheated out of opportunities even though they knew what they were signing up for, and that we will lose the power to govern ourselves as a sport and that those lawsuits could kill programs at the bottom of the financial spectrum. We’re opening the door for chaos right now and the low-majors will suffer first.”
Mid-major assistant coach No. 2: “You saw the Vanderbilt quarterback sue and come out on top and now we’re heading toward five years to play five, right? The NCAA hasn’t done much winning in these court battles, and our new reality will probably end up being decided by someone who follows that same path of calling in the lawyers and letting a court decide. All it takes is one.”
Low-major head coach No. 4: “Well, you heard it during the D1 rules meeting the other day about how us low-major guys are worried that this could all end up burning out our program or putting us in a position where we can’t keep up. We won’t be paying much more than 11.7 scholarships even in the new model anyway.”
Mid-major assistant coach No. 3: “The chaos and unknown. We learned a little about the future of our sport at ABCA but we don’t have any true answers and haven’t in a long time. There’s still a lot to figure out.”
Mid-major assistant coach No. 4: “I always worry about injuries and how they could impact our team and that will be an even bigger concern for me with smaller rosters.”
Low-major assistant coach No. 2: “I’m just worried that we’re not actually going to settle at 38 for the fall. High majors want more players, which I get. Their commissioners are making the final say, really.”
Low-major assistant coach No. 3: “That we aren’t putting the student athlete first even though it might seem like we are. If we aren’t going to start and end at 34, kids will be put in impossible situations halfway through their school year.”
Is A Mid-Year Portal Window A Good Compromise To Help Mitigate Potential Lawsuit?
Mid-major assistant coach No. 5: “I hope that doesn’t happen. It would cause tampering to explode and make getting kids admitted to school a real pain. That honestly just sounds awful.”
Low-major head coach No. 5: “The mid-year window is an inevitability, the way I see it. We can sit around and complain about the portal and our guys getting taken and all that. But what’s complaining going to do? You just keep working and keep developing guys. Will we have opportunities to bring in older guys? Absolutely. And we will. But we’ve got to earn our way by being able to develop.”
Mid-major head coach No. 5: “Absolutely not. You think we have a problem with transfers and tampering now? That would be a disaster.”
Mid-major head coach No. 6: “Honestly, if there was a way to limit how many players a school can take or something it could be good.”
The Idea of An Off-Roster Taxi Squad Was Popular—Why?
Mid-major head coach No. 7: “I’d think to eliminate concerns about lawsuits, you could have 38 to start school then declare a 34-man roster Dec. 1, but still carry those four players for practice, workouts, lifts, team meals, etc. and not have to make cuts. If it shakes out that way we could actually really develop some guys slowly, avoid court and all continue to thrive.”
Mid-major assistant coach No. 6: “Because it’s in the best interest of the athlete. Until we have a mid-year window, where does the kid who got cut go? Division II? JUCO? NAIA? Well that could disrupt him academically and limit degree progress. By keeping them around, we actually help them and don’t throw kids to the curb.”
Low-major assistant coach No. 4: “Just goes back to injuries. Need to have some extra guys ready to go to keep the 34 filled out.”
Low-major head coach No. 6: “It’s better than the mid-year transfer window for sure and might be a protection against these lawsuits.”
