No way that Illinois is increasing men's track scholarships by 33. They are increasing men's football by 20. So if they increase by 33 in track and can ony increase women's track by 27, they create a deficit on 26 for Title IX from football and track.
It's so ridiculous. That this "settlement" can set rosters sizes. If you agree you can't go above it with walk on, but it's perfectly legal to restrict competition even more and have smaller roster sizes?
Can legal experts tell me how this even serves the stated purpose of helping athletes?
How does restricting NIL in the past for a women's basketball player and male swimmer have anything to do with roster sizes and limits?
What can Congress do to create a better system than the judge going forward? Is that the path? The settlement has fixed past claims and now Congress can come up with a better system going forward? That last sentence sounds like a joke.
It's so ridiculous. That this "settlement" can set rosters sizes. If you agree you can't go above it with walk on, but it's perfectly legal to restrict competition even more and have smaller roster sizes?
Can legal experts tell me how this even serves the stated purpose of helping athletes?
How does restricting NIL in the past for a women's basketball player and male swimmer have anything to do with roster sizes and limits?
What can Congress do to create a better system than the judge going forward? Is that the path? The settlement has fixed past claims and now Congress can come up with a better system going forward? That last sentence sounds like a joke.
You are late to the party.
The settlement did 2 things.
1- agreed to pay former athletes $2.7 billion.
2- agreed to pay current and ongoing athletes via revenue share.
Roster limits was actually an unnecessary part of part 2.
This was 100% football driven. With NIL, football schools did not want deep pocketed schools to hoard players by offering NIL instead of scholarship to walk on athletes.
So they chose to limit roster size. Now every school (this really is only p4 football) will have same roster size. If a school has generous boosters they can pay each player more, but can't have more players.
Xc&track plus other non revenue sports just got caught up in the mess.
Roster limits make sense for XC more than for football. Rich schools will get the best players in football due to larger donors but XC NIL deals are mostly at the individual level. However, some schools will have more scholarships available.
It's so ridiculous. That this "settlement" can set rosters sizes. If you agree you can't go above it with walk on, but it's perfectly legal to restrict competition even more and have smaller roster sizes?
Can legal experts tell me how this even serves the stated purpose of helping athletes?
How does restricting NIL in the past for a women's basketball player and male swimmer have anything to do with roster sizes and limits?
What can Congress do to create a better system than the judge going forward? Is that the path? The settlement has fixed past claims and now Congress can come up with a better system going forward? That last sentence sounds like a joke.
All of this is likely to be collectively bargained in the future... scholarships, payments and roster sizes.
The NCAA was proactive in setting roster sizes initially to serve as a starting point for collective bargaining.
Right now, at the highest levels, collegiate sports is a business. Having more employees than what are necessary is bad business.
This Opt-out vs Opt-in thing needs to be determined based on those athletic departments that actually make money on athletics vs those that are pretending to make money on athletics (ex: student athletic fees).
The revenue and non-revenue programs being lumped together is the root of these administrative problems.
It's so ridiculous. That this "settlement" can set rosters sizes. If you agree you can't go above it with walk on, but it's perfectly legal to restrict competition even more and have smaller roster sizes?
Can legal experts tell me how this even serves the stated purpose of helping athletes?
How does restricting NIL in the past for a women's basketball player and male swimmer have anything to do with roster sizes and limits?
What can Congress do to create a better system than the judge going forward? Is that the path? The settlement has fixed past claims and now Congress can come up with a better system going forward? That last sentence sounds like a joke.
Agree. The settlement benefits: 1. Plaintiff's lawyers, 2. NCAA. The attorneys get their fees and roster limits mitigates additional exposure to liability. None of it benefits the non-revenue student athletes that fall within the NCAA. Not sure if anyone ever represented their unique interests.
It's so ridiculous. That this "settlement" can set rosters sizes. If you agree you can't go above it with walk on, but it's perfectly legal to restrict competition even more and have smaller roster sizes?
Can legal experts tell me how this even serves the stated purpose of helping athletes?
How does restricting NIL in the past for a women's basketball player and male swimmer have anything to do with roster sizes and limits?
What can Congress do to create a better system than the judge going forward? Is that the path? The settlement has fixed past claims and now Congress can come up with a better system going forward? That last sentence sounds like a joke.
Agree. The settlement benefits: 1. Plaintiff's lawyers, 2. NCAA. The attorneys get their fees and roster limits mitigates additional exposure to liability. None of it benefits the non-revenue student athletes that fall within the NCAA. Not sure if anyone ever represented their unique interests.
Sadly the lawsuit was brought by student athletes from non-revenue sports. I think they thought that the money would be given out equally. It was truly foolish to do what they did. The lawsuit that they thought was going to get them paid will end up causing some of their very own programs to be downsized or cut. Non-revenue sports have been subsidized for so long at such a high level by the money sports that the athletes and coaches truly started to beleive in their own importance to the school. They believed their own hype. They could not have been more wrong. Now reality is setting in.
Agree. The settlement benefits: 1. Plaintiff's lawyers, 2. NCAA. The attorneys get their fees and roster limits mitigates additional exposure to liability. None of it benefits the non-revenue student athletes that fall within the NCAA. Not sure if anyone ever represented their unique interests.
Sadly the lawsuit was brought by student athletes from non-revenue sports. I think they thought that the money would be given out equally. It was truly foolish to do what they did. The lawsuit that they thought was going to get them paid will end up causing some of their very own programs to be downsized or cut. Non-revenue sports have been subsidized for so long at such a high level by the money sports that the athletes and coaches truly started to beleive in their own importance to the school. They believed their own hype. They could not have been more wrong. Now reality is setting in.
I thought pretty well known now that this was initiated by the lawyers, not the athletes that were then asked to participate? If the athletes had control, then they would have been pushing for something else. The lawyers pushed for this because it generated the highest payout for them.
Sadly the lawsuit was brought by student athletes from non-revenue sports. I think they thought that the money would be given out equally. It was truly foolish to do what they did. The lawsuit that they thought was going to get them paid will end up causing some of their very own programs to be downsized or cut. Non-revenue sports have been subsidized for so long at such a high level by the money sports that the athletes and coaches truly started to beleive in their own importance to the school. They believed their own hype. They could not have been more wrong. Now reality is setting in.
I thought pretty well known now that this was initiated by the lawyers, not the athletes that were then asked to participate? If the athletes had control, then they would have been pushing for something else. The lawyers pushed for this because it generated the highest payout for them.
No doubt that you are right, but the reasons I mentioned prevented the actual plaintiffs from recognizing that. Ulitmitely the NCAA is just trying survive. Without the scholarship limits the only other way to maintain control and thus justify their existence was to add in the roster limits. IF the NCAA cannot provide some kind or governing structure to at least appear that they are keeping things fair then they serve no purpose.