105 is the new football limit. It is being decreased by 20. It was never near the number you made up.
105 is the new football limit. It is being decreased by 20. It was never near the number you made up.
The proposed roster sizes are about the same as when I was in college thirty years ago. Every fall we would have a time trial, and they would cut down to 10 runners for XC on the Men’s side (women would keep pretty much everyone that came out to balance out football on the Title IX side). The coach would still write workouts for the guys that didn’t make the cut, but they wouldn’t be rostered. There’s actually more scholarships theoretically with the proposed “cuts”.
Old Man River wrote:
The proposed roster sizes are about the same as when I was in college thirty years ago. Every fall we would have a time trial, and they would cut down to 10 runners for XC on the Men’s side (women would keep pretty much everyone that came out to balance out football on the Title IX side). The coach would still write workouts for the guys that didn’t make the cut, but they wouldn’t be rostered. There’s actually more scholarships theoretically with the proposed “cuts”.
Talk about it how you like, there will be far fewer D1 track and XC men and women in 25-26 than there are in 24-25. And in the aggregate there definitely will not be more scholarships going out, though a few well funded programs may add some, particularly programs looking in to bring in high level international runners who would only come with a big scholarship.
they will drop runners immediately because the rule will soon say so. they will take their time on dropping any running teams because there is a delicate balance of title ix, rules requiring a minimum number of sports teams to stay in the top division (16 bowl 14 championship), budget, etc.
if you're at bare minimum or close to it, chopping running is losing as many as 4 sports. and as someone said, women's teams have until now often been offsetting football for title ix.
given the minimums i think the more likely outcome is a school put under financial pressure drops to either FBS or d2/3. if you don't have endless teams and they keep the minimums you can't just cut a bunch of teams to fix the finances. you can cut teams and be punted to d2. or you can drop to d2 to avoid the financial expectations. then maybe face the same kind of lawsuit about how you're supposedly a cartel at d2.
also, while some folks seem to think of running in terms of distance which is a year round running gig, some of the sprint and field folks are multisport people, and most importantly, usually a few football guys. i think over a few decades it's shifting towards specialization, but there may be some mentality left where track is offseason fitness work for football players. i say this because golf, swimming, soccer, etc. can't make the same argument.
side point on that. for title ix purposes if someone runs cross and track does that count as "2" athletes or just "1?"
Yes lol, cuts are very real and already happening. People just aren't talking about it in the masses yet. This is coming from a current collegiate athlete
yes it has begun. LMU cut XC men, Track men, Track women in a preemptive strike and admitted this in a public statement to begin the resource allocation to pay MBB players. Most AD's don't have the nuts to do it so they are 'waiting' for the official court ruling in March or April or whenever. I know factually that several departments will cut sports, most likely Tennis for small schools, but men's xc is DOOMED for big school since money will be now going to male football and MBB players. Title 9 doesn't work nor will the resource allocation. schools - even Ohio State- don't just have a cool 22 mill sitting around to pay players. needs to come from various areas.