FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[Trin9-0]

My take on the roster limits is that player 85 through 120 at Trinity, Wesleyan, Tufts, etc. isn't going to make any difference at any NESCAC program. The kids just want to be a part of the team and they should have every right to show up and practice and have the experience of being a college football player.

The same teams that were good when we had roster limits are the same teams that were good without them. Similarly, the same teams that were bad when we had roster limits are the same teams that were bad without them.

Devanney made several excellent points against roster limits when he joined nescacman's podcast. If you haven't listened, take a minute (it comes at the 57:34 mark):

Also, Frank Rossi of the @D3FBHuddle podcast has reported that a NESCAC parents group is ready to sue the league over football roster limits:

"Sept. 7, 2025 — After attempts to work with the NESCAC to change the conference's policy on roster limits for football teams at NESCAC schools were met with resistance and new, potentially stricter policies, a group of NESCAC parents has indicated to "In the (D3FB) Huddle" ("ITH") their intent to potentially sue the NESCAC conference for discriminatory practices toward football players and programs, according to a point person for the group of parents, who spoke with ITH on the condition of anonymity.

Until 2025, the NESCAC had a roster limit for football of just 75 players, but that limit was not imposed during COVID-impacted years when fifth-year players were prevalent. In April 2025, though, the NESCAC made two important changes: 1) for the first time ever, starting in 2026, the NESCAC will participate in the NCAA Division 3 Football Playoffs; and 2) the roster limit for football would be re-established to 84 players maximum per team and would be enforced again starting in the 2025-2026 school year. Over 300 parents signed off on letters provided to ITH, in which they implored the NESCAC to change this policy. One letter stated, "We are writing on behalf of and in solidarity with families and players at every NESCAC school who will be hurt by the newly mandated roster limit of 84 football players. With some insight into the consequences of this arbitrary and capricious action, we hope you will come to understand the insensitive and discriminatory nature of this policy." Furthermore, the parents stated, "Now, weeks before preseason begins, these players face the prospect of losing not only their place on the team but also the community, purpose, and structure that football provides. Football is not only an extracurricular activity for them; it is a central part of their identity, a driver of academic discipline, and a foundation for friendships and support networks that extend far beyond the field."

The group claims based on empirical data, that roster limits have not worked even when they were imposed. "If the goal is competitive parity, the historical record is clear: Roster Caps Do Not Work. Over the last 20 years, NESCAC Football championships have been consistently captured by the same small group of programs, regardless of roster size....In the four post-COVID seasons, when the previous 75-person roster limit was removed, championships went primarily to the same group: Middlebury (.5), Trinity (1.5), Williams (1), and Wesleyan (1). Four NESCAC football programs, Bates, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Tufts, have not won a league championship since 2000. Roster limits do not drive parity in performance or outcome. They have not had an impact on league balance."

Despite the parents' call to action, the NESCAC Presidents last week reaffirmed the 84-person roster limit for football while still instituting no roster limits on any other sports. In addition, according to sources, the NESCAC is fearful that schools that had the most parental involvement in the letters cited above will voluntarily breach the limits this year, leading to the Presidents requiring their NESCAC Athletic Directors to create and agree on sanctions for roster limit violations. Those new sanctions may be announced as early as this Tuesday.

According to ITH's anonymous source, "[N]o one's clear whether the sanctions are going to be heavy and draconian. If you carry more than 84 players...then you might be precluded from postseason play. You [might not] be eligible for a championship. We don't know what the sanctions will be. On the other end of the spectrum, it could be a wrist slap. It could be window dressing. Who knows?"

In one of the letters, the parents made clear their intentions (in boldfaced text) if the roster limit was not removed, let alone the potential for additional sanctions: "We wish to make clear that we intend to swiftly pursue all appropriate avenues until this decision is reversed. We hope for quick and amicable resolution without the need for legal action." The second letter, signed by about half of the 300 parents involved, suggests similar potential issues: "Breach of Implied Contract: The recruitment process and prior season participation created reasonable expectations that roster cuts may violate [law], potentially exposing NESCAC institutions to civil action and reputational damage." The ITH source stated that many of the parents are indeed prepared to take legal action if the conference does not reverse their present stance.

The legal theories become clearer when reviewing the second letter, in which those parents raised Title IX and specific legal concerns. "Implementing roster limits disproportionately affecting football compared to other sports may violate equal protection requirements under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act....Current federal regulations state that 'college athletic departments with $50,000,000 or less in revenue...or that do not have any revenue-generating sports should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots...' NESCAC institutions appear to fall under these protections." Interestingly, the House vs. NCAA settlement affecting Division I sports includes roster limits for ALL sports, according to a recent NCAA governance FAQ document: "If a Division I institution opts in to the settlement, the roster limits apply to all NCAA-sponsored teams at the institution. For a Division I sport on a Division II or III campus, if the institution opts in to the settlement, the roster limits apply to all Division I sports."

There have been other NCAA Division 3 conferences with varying types of football roster limits, but locating current such limits is not easy since COVID often forced the need to allow larger rosters. With the House vs. NCAA settlement, there is also an expectation that more would-be Division I football players may need to drop down to lower divisions because of the inability to walk onto Division I teams as easily as they once could. Yet, according to ITH's source, some NESCAC Presidents are not going to allow that to take place for their own reasons at their schools. "[T]here's a legendary story about, I think it was the Amherst president at one point saying the reason why we want roster limits, this is going back to the '70s and the '80s when they put the 75-person-roster limit in place, was just because we don't want more football players on campus. It's that simple. And the total absence of any justification or explanation around why football is being singled out, it raises a lot of questions. And I think there are a handful of very powerful, highly endowed institutions in the NESCAC — Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, they just don't want more football players. But that is as close to justification as anybody has been able to come because the league is otherwise silent on why this seems to be important."

According to the source, the NESCAC Presidents have not raised their own Title IX or budget justifications during discussions related to this roster limit policy, and they have not responded specifically to the parents' Title IX and federal law arguments in the most recent re-affirmation of football roster limits. He includes that the parents' next steps are to see the new sanctions later this week and to see which of the about 300 parents are willing to help fund the litigation they are intent to undertake to reverse the policy. "[W]e've signaled to all of the parents that the next step is likely to be legal." Whether or not that happens appears to be squarely in the hands of the NESCAC Athletic Directors and Presidents this week."



I am of the opinion that a concern over Title IX legal action is the only reason we have a 9th game and playoff participation in the league, starting next season. My guess is roster limits will be short lived and the league will enforce a game day roster limit but allow schools to have "practice squads" for kids who just want to be part of the team but are ineligible to play/dress on game days.

[Nescacman]

Devanney made several excellent points against roster limits when he joined nescacman's podcast. If you haven't listened, take a minute (it comes at the 57:34 mark):

I am of the opinion that a concern over Title IX legal action is the only reason we have a 9th game and playoff participation in the league, starting next season. My guess is roster limits will be short lived and the league will enforce a game day roster limit but allow schools to have "practice squads" for kids who just want to be part of the team but are ineligible to play/dress on game days.

Hs7-2, appreciate the shout out for the podcast, 9 Weeks: A NESCAC Football Podcast...Coach Devanney did a nice job on the podcast and we appreciate him coming on...

We agree with Hs7-2's assessment of where this is going to end up...stay tuned.

NM

[nescac1]

Charlie I've been banging the drum of bigger class sizes at NESCAC schools for awhile. An extra 100 kids per class won't change the institutional feel and there is effectively limitless demand. I noted that Williams enrolled 583 this year and class sizes had been gradually creeping up to the 550-560 range over time.  That may be an unexpected outlier or maybe a sign of bigger classes in the future. With a few new dorms I think Williams with so many massive new facilities (but alas no new permanent indoor athletic complex yet) could easily handle 600 or even a bit more per class.   

[Pat Coleman]

Also, Frank Rossi of the @D3FBHuddle podcast has reported that a NESCAC parents group is ready to sue the league over football roster limits:

What was wrong with the link I posted to this post earlier today that you had to post the whole story?

[Charlie]

Charlie I've been banging the drum of bigger class sizes at NESCAC schools for awhile. An extra 100 kids per class won't change the institutional feel and there is effectively limitless demand. I noted that Williams enrolled 583 this year and class sizes had been gradually creeping up to the 550-560 range over time.  That may be an unexpected outlier or maybe a sign of bigger classes in the future. With a few new dorms I think Williams with so many massive new facilities (but alas no new permanent indoor athletic complex yet) could easily handle 600 or even a bit more per class.   

Somewhat baffling because these schools despite the academics are there to make money. I know many of these schools have the capability to expand there student population. Again I am not saying for football purposes but no reason they could not all be at the size of Wesleyan , Tufts etc. I feel that the endowment and financial windfall from increasing there numbers while maintaining there academic integrity and prowess would be easy and a win/win for everyone.

Well this situation is never going to fix itself at least for 2025.

Lets hear the predictions for this weeks games !!

[Gray Fox]

Why expand the size when the population cliff is looming.

[jumpshot]

Many people, including even some presidents of higher educational institutions, are under the misapprehension that increasing the number of students increases the "profitability" of the institution. The reality is that some colleges, including certain ones in NESCAC, operate at a "deficit". Each enterprise is situational with various key factors, including breakeven point, analytical consideration of contingent liabilities, such as capital calls and pension obligations, liquidity constraints, impaired investments, etc. Be wary of blanket statements of solutions ....

[Charlie]

Predictions for Week One

                         Winner

Bates v Amherst          Bates
Trinity v Colby          Trinity
Middlebury v Wesleyan    Middlebury
Williams v Hamilton      Hamilton
Bowdoin v Tufts          Bowdoin

[blitzBowdoinblitz]

Predictions for Week One

                         Winner

Bates v Amherst          Bates
Trinity v Colby          Trinity
Middlebury v Wesleyan    Middlebury
Williams v Hamilton      Hamilton
Bowdoin v Tufts          Bowdoin

Love to see the prediction here. Not sure how Tufts plans to hang with the rest of the league without Berluti (great career by the way). Think it is too big of a hole to dig themselves out of. Unless they have another freshman QB who will guide them next 4 years (definitely not the case). Think this should be a nice tune up game for our boys just like last year. I think Watson will take over this team and run all over the historically bad Tufts run defense to get our season going. My prediction: Bowdoin 35 Tufts 10

[nescac1]

I'm not sure where this idea that Tufts will be a bottom-feeder without Berlutti is coming from.  Tufts was 29-14 in the five years prior to the Berlutti era. There is still plenty of talent on hand and Bowdoin has to replace a ton from a defense that struggled last year. If anyone wins that matchup by 25, it will be Tufts. 

[NESCACFball24/7]

I'm not sure where this idea that Tufts will be a bottom-feeder without Berlutti is coming from.  Tufts was 29-14 in the five years prior to the Berlutti era. There is still plenty of talent on hand and Bowdoin has to replace a ton from a defense that struggled last year. If anyone wins that matchup by 25, it will be Tufts. 

100% agree. Lets be very candid about berlutis career at Tufts. He was a very talented player but his best year came when he had two of the best receivers we have ever seen in the league in Lutz(delaware and NFL) and Richardson(USC). The year after lutz left his numbers fell off a little but last year without either of them his number fell off a cliff and it was clear that he significantly benefited from those two being there. Almost any starting qb at one of the top 2-3 teams in the league during this period SHOULD have looked like a world-beater with those two at wideout.

[lumbercat]

Berluti was very dangerous in his early years because he was a double threat and a headache to game plan against. When the all world Tufts receivers emerged he was still a problem but his running threat diminished as they turned him into more of a one dimensional drop back QB. Either way Tufts is always a formidable opponent but if they kept him running they might have fared better. They became more predictable even with those great all world receivers as a more one dimensional offense.
 
I know The Czar of NESCAC recruiting, Coach Civetti, has less influence in the Elephant offense these days with the newbie OC he brought in but this McDonald kid is only a front man for a continuation of the Civetti approach, which is:    if your strength is running the ball just run it into the ground........If you can throw the ball, just throw it like there is no tomorrow.

Maybe personnel changes this fall in Medford will encourage a more balanced offense instead of always pounding things to your strength. The one dimensional power game works on a lot of the nescac teams but it won't fly in Hartford. Bring a balanced, unpredictable game plan- the only team that has gotten away with a one dimensional attack in certain years has been Trinity.