There’s plenty of men’s college basketball action on Wednesday, November 13, including a game featuring the No. 3 UConn Huskies host the Le Moyne Dolphins at the XL Center in Hatford, Conn.
The match kicks off at 7:00 PM EST and airs on FS1. Fans who want to watch this men’s college basketball game can do so for free at FuboTVwhich offers a free trial and $20 off your first month, or DirectTV streamwhich also offers a free trial. SlingTV does not offer a free trial, but other promotional offers are available.
The Huskies are 2-0 on the season with all games coming at home. Junior forward Alex Karaban is leading the team in points and rebounds early in the season.
- WATCH THE GAME FOR FREE HERE
WHO: Le Moyne Dolphins vs. No. 3 UConn Huskies
When: Wednesday, November 13 at 7:00 PM EST
Where: XL Center in Hartford, Conn.
Current: FuboTV (Free Trial); Garland; DirectTV stream
What is FuboTV?
FuboTV is an Internet television service that offers more than 200 channels in sports and entertainment, including Paramount+ with SHOWTIME. From the UEFA Champions League to the WNBA to international tournaments in various sports, there are plenty of options available on FuboTV, which offers a free trial and $20 off the first month for new customers.
What is DirecTV Stream?
DirectTV stream offers pretty much everything DirecTV offers except a remote control and a streaming device to connect to your television. Sign up now and get three months of free premium channels, included MAX, Paramount+ with SHOWTIME and Starz.
What is SlingTV?
SlingTV offers a variety of live programs ranging from news and sports, starting at just $20 per month for the first month. Subscribers also get one month of DVR Plus free when they sign up now. Choose from various sports packages without long-term contracts and can easily be canceled.
RELATED CONTENT:
Roster limits in minor college sports leave athletes on a chopping block as coaches search for answers
By EDDIE PELLS AP National Writer
Helping athletes find college scholarships has never been easier, but at least in some ways it has been predictable. There have always been players competing for a fairly well-defined number of roster spots, some with scholarships, some not.
This year, all that math has been thrown out as part of the fallout from the pending $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement.
Liam Barrett, director of recruiting for the US Sports Scholarships, said it was no surprise when a football player called last week to say his spot on an Atlantic 10 Conference school’s roster was gone.
That player will enter a transfer portal that will likely double in size to as many as 1,600 footballers, many like him, being removed from teams by coaches dealing with shrinking squad sizes and uncertainty about the future.
“It’s just going to make it that much harder for someone who isn’t even in the college system yet to break through,” Barrett said in explaining the cascading impact new roster limits will have on high school prospects.
Many schools, leading up to Wednesday’s deadline for the revamped National Signing Day for “non-revenue sports” — everything outside of football and basketball — were busy determining how many roster spots they will offer for the 2025-2026 school year.
This is happening because the regulation that paves the way for schools to pay their players also dictates new roster limits, forcing athletic departments to rethink the way teams — from the largest (football) to the smallest (golf) — are built.
“I hear about walk-ons and future recruits … who haven’t signed yet and are getting that tough call,” said Minnesota women’s volleyball coach Keegan Cook. “That’s cruel. It’s really hard because now a roster spot is really a limited resource, for lack of a better word, where before that wasn’t the case.
Higher roster limits don’t necessarily mean more players
At first glance, the terms of the House settlement — the agreement between plaintiffs, the NCAA and the university’s major conferences that reforms college sports — appear to be a boon for college athletes.
Scholarship limits (e.g. 85 for football and exactly 9.9 for men’s wrestling) have been abolished and replaced with roster limits (105 for football and 30 for wrestling). If a school wants to, it can offer every player on a team a scholarship.
However, it costs an exorbitant amount. Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel suggested that if his athletics department decided to fund scholarships for every available spot, education costs under the new rules would add $29 million to annual expenses that already will increase by about $21 million to boost revenues from the new pay athletes. sharing provisions in the settlement.
So choices will have to be made. Will schools give scholarships to all 105 players on their football team? If so, will they make cuts elsewhere? Or will they continue asking boosters and fans for more money to cover growing costs?
The small sports model will change
Most smaller, so-called Olympic sports have long operated in a different world. For example, some divide their 9.9 scholarships and hand out partial aid to, say, twenty players. They then add depth with walk-on athletes, some of whom hope to receive student aid in the future.
Under the new system, some schools could choose to eliminate one or two sports altogether. Others will reduce roster size, either by choice or because the new roster limits actually make them smaller.
In wrestling, for example, the settlement requires a limit of 30 athletes. Some of the country’s top programs have as many as 35 wrestlers on their teams, many of whom pay their own way.
“Wrestling can provide access to college for so many young men and women who would otherwise not have that opportunity,” said Mike Moyer, executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches Association. “Any time you start to limit the opportunities, it’s always a shame.”
Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh estimated his campus sports will lose between 80 and 100 athletes by the time changes take place for the 2025-2026 school year.
Nebraska AD Troy Dannen told Huskeronline he is determined not to cut scholarships or sports, which is a $200 million operation in Nebraska. He asks coaches and other administrators to start thinking outside the box.
“Is there a better way to assign?” he said.
Minnesota has eliminated three men’s sports — indoor track, tennis and gymnastics — during the pandemic, now easing the pain.
“That decision, in retrospect, looks really strategic at this point,” Gophers AD Mark Coyle said.
Football gets special treatment as a money maker
Underlying the entire college sports model is the reality that football, with the help of men’s basketball, generates the millions in revenue that funds every other sport on the average campus.
The SEC helped its 16 schools answer some questions this fall by announcing it would keep the 85-scholarship limit intact through 2025, while allowing teams to fill the remaining 20 spots with walk-ons. The 105 roster spots would actually be a net loss, as the average roster size of major school football teams is over 120.
Last spring, there were reports that the SEC would limit swim rosters to 22, which is eight fewer than the new limit. Because women’s swimming teams are currently limited to 14 scholarships and men’s swimming teams to 9.9, the new limit, if true, could dramatically increase the number of scholarships for those teams, but also reduce roster sizes that in some cases exceed 40 swimmers .
All of these choices raise the possibility that the era of the walk-on athlete — the scrappy grinders who do it for the love of the game, school or both — could be coming to an end. The opportunities to develop diamond-in-the-rough athletes could also be lost.
“It’s like we don’t care if you’re a walk-on, there’s no spot for you on the roster,” said Steve Roush, executive director of the local Southern California Swim Committee. “That could have some devastating consequences for our grades at the collegiate level.”
Waiting for the consequences: the American (and other) Olympic teams
One of the least understood dynamics in American sports is the enormous impact college athletics has on the number of medals the U.S. wins every four years at the Summer Olympics.
The world’s most dominant Olympic team (the US led the medals in Paris with 126) pulled 67% of its athletes from the NCAA pipeline.
Reducing the number of players in collegiate Olympic sports programs could ultimately hurt U.S. prospects, along with the overall quality of the Olympic movement itself (about 8.5% of athletes not representing the U.S. also competed in NCAA sports ).
“There is a lot of concern about the impact this will have on Olympic sports,” said Rich Bender, executive director of USA Wrestling, who also sits on the board of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. “It doesn’t take much of an imagination to think that if resources are drastically reduced, the athletic department probably won’t consider cutting back on football and basketball spending. So where are you going?
At best, there will be a huge shift, but not less common spots
Despite some gloomy predictions, it is not all doom and gloom among the experts. Some see missed opportunities for fringe athletes at larger schools as an opportunity for them to join smaller programs and actually get some playing time.
Others believe colleges feel the deep connection to Olympic sports.
“The good news is there’s a lot of awareness: ‘Hey, it’s not cool to cut programs,’” Bender said.
Most see more stability in 2026 or 2027, after the settlement in the House of Representatives is finalized and schools, conferences and the NCAA have finalized the numbers.
However, there is uncertainty for the coming school year. As Dannen, Nebraska’s athletic director, put it: “There are a hundred questions I don’t have the answers to.”
___
AP sportswriters Dave Campbell in Minneapolis and Steve Megargee in Milwaukee contributed.
The Associated Press contributed to this article