We're now allowed to have 17 and we had 12 before. Maybe other teams at our school are getting increases too? I have no idea. I've heard of this happening at another school too.
No. You are confused. You are not increasing the number of men after opting in. Not happening.
I don't know what to tell you in. Our entire conference opted in and we have to bring in 5 more runners. I'm sure my coach will be searching the portal and you'll still be scratching your head I guess?
You guys don't understand why a mid major would add more, so I will elaborate...
Even at the DI level some schools are dealing with an enrollment. Maybe the school has always had 12 guys on the XC team, but now the NCAA has a standard maximum of 17.
Some ADs/Presidents may push to have as few on the XC roster as possible. But some may say "if 17 is the standard, we should have 17. That is more students paying for dorms and tuition...just don't expect more scholarships or budget".
Depends on an athletic departments relationship with enrollment. P5s mostly don't consider these sort of things. Small DIs sometimes do.
I won't believe it unless it happens. None of you have provided anything but a claim. Name a school. Provide the rationale or it isn't happening. For every guy added to XC, that is 3 more male roster spots. That means the school had to add 3 female roster spots. But wait, 17 is the max for women and many schools were equalizing football that way. For every female XC runner cut, that is 3 roster spots gone for women.
I won't believe it unless it happens. None of you have provided anything but a claim. Name a school. Provide the rationale or it isn't happening. For every guy added to XC, that is 3 more male roster spots. That means the school had to add 3 female roster spots. But wait, 17 is the max for women and many schools were equalizing football that way. For every female XC runner cut, that is 3 roster spots gone for women.
your question should be, for the schools that are now supposedly adding, why were their numbers below 17 prior to the roster change rules? (not picking a side here but that's what my thought is for schools who would add)
I won't believe it unless it happens. None of you have provided anything but a claim. Name a school. Provide the rationale or it isn't happening. For every guy added to XC, that is 3 more male roster spots. That means the school had to add 3 female roster spots. But wait, 17 is the max for women and many schools were equalizing football that way. For every female XC runner cut, that is 3 roster spots gone for women.
"I won't believe it unless it happens!"
I don't care if you believe me anymore. It simply doesn't matter. My coach has to add 5 new guys for xc and it's as simple as that. The "rationale" is that our AD told my coach to do that. That's about as direct as it gets.
Meanwhile multiple people are telling you it happens. I'm not telling you the name of my school because you sound like a weirdo who would probably do something unhinged. This is not a safe place to list your personal information.
You obviously didn't read my original post about how we're cutting a handful of women to get down to 17. I'm not sure you read anything because you don't remember any details from other posts of mine. Also, I can tell by the "logic" you're listing that you actually don't understand how collegiate athletics works. The worst part about it is that you think you do understand.
For every woman that gets cut from XC, male roster spots have to get cut. Cutting women causes cuts for men, not additions. Yet you state that women are being cut and men being added. Not one team or conference has announced anything similar to what you are claiming.
I won't believe it unless it happens. None of you have provided anything but a claim. Name a school. Provide the rationale or it isn't happening. For every guy added to XC, that is 3 more male roster spots. That means the school had to add 3 female roster spots. But wait, 17 is the max for women and many schools were equalizing football that way. For every female XC runner cut, that is 3 roster spots gone for women.
your question should be, for the schools that are now supposedly adding, why were their numbers below 17 prior to the roster change rules? (not picking a side here but that's what my thought is for schools who would add)
Our school had a meeting about this whole thing to explain it to us since there was so much panic. There's also many podcasts about this you can listen to. Dan Tudor has some good ones that explain it. It seems like you need that.
With this new settlement, there isn't a rule that all the money has to go to football. It's up to the ADs to decide what to do with the money. ADs are handed a tough decision to make and some chose to spread the money out more evenly or spend a little more on successful programs of theirs who bring the best athletes to the school.
Some schools have chosen to push the money to football and cut roster numbers in other sports, sure, but not every school will do exactly that. The general idea is that there is more "freed up money" for athletic departments to use as they see fit. Yes, some schools see that it's fit to feed football.
Our school has decided to increase roster sizes for a few sports who were not yet fully funded or maxed out. Nothing has changed in the funding, just rosters. You guys realize that 5 more men isn't THAT expensive right? Lol
Yes you asked the correct question. Regardless of why they chose to have 12 previously, what would cause them to increase men now and how could they add men since women's sports will now be limited under the new rules which will have to cause cuts to men's programs.
For every woman that gets cut from XC, male roster spots have to get cut. Cutting women causes cuts for men, not additions. Yet you state that women are being cut and men being added. Not one team or conference has announced anything similar to what you are claiming.
Can you explain your rationale for thinking a man has to be cut for a woman? Did you just make that up in your brain? Lol maybe at some schools?
Also, why would a team make a press release for adding 5 walk ons? Lol what obligation does a team have to post the exact number of roster spots they have every year when the rule is 17? Everyone should know that.
Title IX requires equal opportunities for males and females. You can't be a college athlete and be making these silly claims and have such a lack of understanding of the rules. As far as a man getting cut if a woman does, a female distance runner uses 3 roster spots. 1 female equalizer 3 football players or male basketball players or male soccer players.
your question should be, for the schools that are now supposedly adding, why were their numbers below 17 prior to the roster change rules? (not picking a side here but that's what my thought is for schools who would add)
Our school had a meeting about this whole thing to explain it to us since there was so much panic. There's also many podcasts about this you can listen to. Dan Tudor has some good ones that explain it. It seems like you need that.
With this new settlement, there isn't a rule that all the money has to go to football. It's up to the ADs to decide what to do with the money. ADs are handed a tough decision to make and some chose to spread the money out more evenly or spend a little more on successful programs of theirs who bring the best athletes to the school.
Some schools have chosen to push the money to football and cut roster numbers in other sports, sure, but not every school will do exactly that. The general idea is that there is more "freed up money" for athletic departments to use as they see fit. Yes, some schools see that it's fit to feed football.
Our school has decided to increase roster sizes for a few sports who were not yet fully funded or maxed out. Nothing has changed in the funding, just rosters. You guys realize that 5 more men isn't THAT expensive right? Lol
as i said, not picking sides and i don't need to listen to some recruiting service for news.
the question is simple to me, why does a roster limit rule that didn't exist previously all of a sudden cause the the AD to decide if we add more walk-ons that the increases tuition we bring in... didn't he/she know that?
maybe you are adding to guys xc, seems odd, but its certainly possible. it just seems like, due to title 9, if they are they must be dropping other men's rosters... which is entirely possible but it could have been done last year or 5 years ago too.
Title IX requires equal opportunities for males and females. You can't be a college athlete and be making these silly claims and have such a lack of understanding of the rules. As far as a man getting cut if a woman does, a female distance runner uses 3 roster spots. 1 female equalizer 3 football players or male basketball players or male soccer players.
I already addressed this. My school is 50/50 male to female ratio so we can have 50/50 roster ratios. Also, the title 9 rule applies to the entire athletic department. So, a school could double their men's swim roster and cut men's track and still stay at 50/50 theoretically as long as the total number of athletes line up. Come on guys at least have some reading retention. This isn't that complicated.
We had 12 athletes on xc and more swimmers. Now it's equal across all sports with two genders, except a couple women's sports added to accommodate the football roster.
Our school had a meeting about this whole thing to explain it to us since there was so much panic. There's also many podcasts about this you can listen to. Dan Tudor has some good ones that explain it. It seems like you need that.
With this new settlement, there isn't a rule that all the money has to go to football. It's up to the ADs to decide what to do with the money. ADs are handed a tough decision to make and some chose to spread the money out more evenly or spend a little more on successful programs of theirs who bring the best athletes to the school.
Some schools have chosen to push the money to football and cut roster numbers in other sports, sure, but not every school will do exactly that. The general idea is that there is more "freed up money" for athletic departments to use as they see fit. Yes, some schools see that it's fit to feed football.
Our school has decided to increase roster sizes for a few sports who were not yet fully funded or maxed out. Nothing has changed in the funding, just rosters. You guys realize that 5 more men isn't THAT expensive right? Lol
as i said, not picking sides and i don't need to listen to some recruiting service for news.
the question is simple to me, why does a roster limit rule that didn't exist previously all of a sudden cause the the AD to decide if we add more walk-ons that the increases tuition we bring in... didn't he/she know that?
maybe you are adding to guys xc, seems odd, but its certainly possible. it just seems like, due to title 9, if they are they must be dropping other men's rosters... which is entirely possible but it could have been done last year or 5 years ago too.
Yes with roster limits on all sports, some sports are losing athletes. That enables other sports to gain athletes. Our athletic department like the fact that they don't have to argue with coaches about roster sizes every year anymore.
Can't wait to have 5 new teammates from this rule, hopefully it makes us better over the next few years.
The numbers had to be 50/50 last year, this year, and next year. You said that women are getting cut and men are being added. 5 male distance runners occupy 15 roster spots. That requires 15 more women or 15 men being cut in other sports. But people are using tuition as a rationale. That means women have to be added but the new limits will actually require cuts in many women's sports.
Most P4 coachs don't have details yet. Some random 20 year old runner at a mid major definitely doesn't know what is going on. The last sentence of the last post solidifies the fact that this is a troll.