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.

I don't understand what the negative of opting in is for Davis if it just ALLOWS them to pay players. Does it compel them to do anything ?

Cut the roster if it is more than 105.

Well that's nothing. Football doesn't need more than 105 players in any season. Don't at least 1/3 of their players see no game action in any year? I think I saw one of the QB's or former QB's has played one game in 3 yrs ? If it was about honoring existing commitments just bring in fewer new players.

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?

I thought opting in allowed UCD to pay players but didn't obligate them to do so, such that they could do or not do it.

I was thinking dropping significatly below 105 shouldn't be a big issue since they don't use close to that in any season. They basedneed players for reserves and a practice squad but not THAT many.

High schools typically have 40-50 players, don't they ? So, doubling the roster to allow for more position specialization and increased chances of injury against more physical competition I guess ? Davis controls how many scholarships it gives and how many players it has so long as it does not exceed the limits. As a result, the only advatage (it seems to me) to having those 20 extra players is it gives you more bodies for practice games.

If UCD were to reduce its roster to 85 each year, would this have Title-IX implications ?

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.

I didn't know there was so much uncertainty on the roster; thought the recruiting coaches could make a more definitive evaluation based on limited observation before presenting an offer. I think if I were a recruit, I'd want the coaches to let me know no later than the end of the first season if he didn't see a path to me getting much playing time the next year, so I could go somewhere else, maybe to a JC. None of this having one play in one game in 3 years. Everyone wants to be in the movie, even if it's
just to say, "These pretzels are making me thirsty !", but no one wants to just be a tree.

Is title-IX dependent more on maintaining a balance of roster spots or scholarships ?

I'll tell you the reason I am asking so many questions. I've made no secret of the fact that I think UCD has some unnecessary-and maybe not unpopular but under-supported-teams. No teams are likely to be affected in the near future, but in the case of a financial crisis (like another pandemic, or a large and sustained reduction in donations) the University will have to take a look at how they can reduce expenses. In the past year Sonoma State dropped all sports; San Francisco State dropped a couple of their programs. UCD is stronger than both institutions, but it's not completely impervious. There may come a time when they have to drop programs. They did drop wrestling and rowing, so there are precedents.

Since football has so many participants it is the main reason why there are significantly more women's teams for balance. I had previously thought that it was all or nothing when counting participants toward Title-IX, like the whole football team would potentially need to be cut if multiple women's teams were to be removed. However, if you're telling me they could reduce rather than eliminate the football team, and cut the proportional amount of female sports, that changes a lot.