None of this takes into account Title IX. No way schools will fund non-revenue sports after they increase scholarships for football and basketball and then have to match that with women's scholarships.
None of this takes into account Title IX. No way schools will fund non-revenue sports after they increase scholarships for football and basketball and then have to match that with women's scholarships.
105 will be the new limit. 125 is the current limit.
85 is the current scholarship limit. It will be 105 roster cap, and the schools that can will scholarship all 105.
Larger roster men’s Olympic sports are in deep trouble, other than baseball. Soccer, lacrosse, swimming and track (and its natural companion cross country) are on the chopping block.
105 will be the new limit. 125 is the current limit.
People are mixing up roster limits with scholarship limits. NCAA will set roster limits for sports. Football roster limit will go down to 105 and scholarship limit will then be 105 (up from 85). I haven't seen info on track or cross-country. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and how many schools choose to offer 105 scholarships for football. All in all this is the beginning of either the end of college sports as we know it or a radical reorientation for not only revenue sports but non-revenue with some schools choosing to cut sports or eliminate/reduce scholarships. It will not be good for college track/cross country, regardless.
105 will be the new limit. 125 is the current limit.
To reiterate what someone else said. Current scholarship limits for FBS is 85. It will go to 105. Most schools have actual rosters currently of well over 100 - but anyone over 85 isn’t on scholarship. To my knowledge there isn’t a limit to what you can carry on your roster now. It’s likely only limited by resources.
I’ve never understood why you need 130 players when not even all your scholarship players see the playing field. Surely you can scrimmage within your scholarship players. Think about XC teams who carry large rosters. Most never score or even make a conference or post season roster.
But as many have said: cuts will be coming. No school is likely going to “fully fund” all these sports to their new limits. The money doesn’t exist. There are no cuts you can make operationally that are going to sustain even the additional scholarship costs with the new limits.
Added to the calculus is the pending legal action contemplating student athletes being employees. If that happens 100% you will see Power 4 (whatever we’re calling it now) cut programs.
I can envision that the NCAA will also re-organize the divisions. They might also change the names but, I can see this going forward:
Division I - Institutions that fully fund football, basketball, and at least a dozen other fully funded sports (Think SEC, BIG 10, Big XII, etc.)
Division II - Mostly mid-majors with FCS football, current D1 schools w/o football, and most current D2 schools (Most colleges not in P4 would likely opt for the new D2, some exceptions would be schools like Gonzaga - top flight hoops, no football might opt to stay D1 for basketball)
Division III - a mix of the current schools and some state college systems like smaller University of California campuses (Irvine, Riverside, Merced, Davis, Santa Barbara) that will keep the current prohibition against athletic aid.
The new D2 and D3 would become more competitive and most track/XC athletes will land there. D2 also benefits by raising the overall level of academics. The new D1 will be very elite as only the best talent will be recruited.
this country is in desperate need of a return to judgment/success/reward based on merit
of course most runners will cry about this, but look at the reality of professional running: 95% of pros are charity projects that will end up being a poor ROI for the sponsor. most college teams have almost no fans attend their meet. outside of friends, family and those of us on letsrun, the US does not care about running.
if you don't generate money, you don't deserve to be the benefactor of it
most collegiate runners, by the time they are seniors are totally fried and will end up running less over the course of the rest of their life than they did during the 3-4 years they ran collegiately.
scholarships ought to go to people who are going to generate money for the school, or if it's being done for the greater good of us all, it should go to those students who will excel in their field as adults/professionals
the majority of runners on scholarship in college never run seriously again after college. so these runners bring in no revenue, generate no excitement/pride on campus and then never run again after they graduate.
let's be real boys, XC/TF is a charity sport at all but a few schools that really believe in it and have great coaching staffs.
it's truly a horrible spectator sport if you aren't a die-hard runner, yet so proud of itself that's it'll fight tooth and nail at any petition for change to make it more exciting
No doubt. Trading those distance scholarships to give the tail end of the football roster more money is exactly what we need. Those additional guys sitting on the bench are really going to make an impact in the money generating area.
Look, we'll have to see how the bean counters at the colleges start to cut things up to make the money that they have work for the students, but all of this, from the absolute destruction of the Pac12 to this removal of limits, is killing anything that isn't football or basketball. And it sucks.
Like most of us, I ran in college, was never going to be a professional, and it was some of the best afternoons of my life, running with the team and making great friends while seeing how fast I could go. Sports can be and should be an integral part of the educational experience, but the amount of greed that the NCAA and schools have focussed on over the last couple years has destroyed what was a fragile balancing act for most of the students who AREN'T the top .01%.
And I just think that we can agree that it sucks, however it all shakes down.
When the cuts start coming again, without $$ and roster exceptions for football (which is what makes title IX, an imminently fair act that has been a great excuse to cut sports), it will destroy the non-revenue sports.
I can envision that the NCAA will also re-organize the divisions. They might also change the names but, I can see this going forward:
Division I - Institutions that fully fund football, basketball, and at least a dozen other fully funded sports (Think SEC, BIG 10, Big XII, etc.)
Division II - Mostly mid-majors with FCS football, current D1 schools w/o football, and most current D2 schools (Most colleges not in P4 would likely opt for the new D2, some exceptions would be schools like Gonzaga - top flight hoops, no football might opt to stay D1 for basketball)
Division III - a mix of the current schools and some state college systems like smaller University of California campuses (Irvine, Riverside, Merced, Davis, Santa Barbara) that will keep the current prohibition against athletic aid.
The new D2 and D3 would become more competitive and most track/XC athletes will land there. D2 also benefits by raising the overall level of academics. The new D1 will be very elite as only the best talent will be recruited.
D3 will benefit the most. Especially if someone sues them over not offering athletic $, they might offer it in the future. I wouldn't be shocked to see this at all. Excluding MIT, Chicago, Hopkins, Williams, and similar, most D3 also have decent academics as well.
None of this takes into account Title IX. No way schools will fund non-revenue sports after they increase scholarships for football and basketball and then have to match that with women's scholarships.
This is my take too. Schools will add 20 football scholarships immediately and then have the choice of either adding 20 women's sport scholarships or cutting 20 from non-revenue men's. I'm guessing more of the latter than the former.
Not all good news for women's sports either as cutting the football roster limit means they can cut women's roster sizes too.
Teams are effectively already going over 85 by giving NIL to “walk ons”.
Yeah, I'm curious about the Title IX implications here. I mean schools could just stop giving scholarships and manage everything through boosters and NIL. This would free schools up from the obligations of Title IX, allowing funds to be targeted to only the sports the school wants to target. Am I reading the situation this right here?
Ok, so numbers of players would need to match up. But NIL could be used to pay men while not offering the same to women, correct? My understanding is that local boosters fund a substantial fraction of NIL payments to athletes.
I have a child competing in the ACC and another in the SEC. Neither receive any NIL money nor do any of their friends in other sports at their schools.