New NCAA Roster Caps: 17 for xc, 45 for Track

How many schools will choose to "fully-fund" both sports? Maybe 30?

How many USF-model schools will fully fund 17/CC and just drop track. And if they did that would they be allowed to run in the NCAA champs I/Out?

I think if they don’t care about track they can just have their 17 xc athletes be their track team when track season happens… you don’t need to have 45 on track team.

Do most of the WCC conference schools follow that same model?

Where on Instagram was this?

First thought and not exactly the point of this thread, but as a coach, I feel like I need to be less conservative with training high school athletes so they can compete for more limited spots at limited schools if/when universities start cutting XC. In the last 4 years, we’ve averaged one athlete going to a university on some sort of scholarship per year. Interestingly, none of those D1 schools had football.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of major D1 schools even go up to 17 in cross country. I bet quite a few don’t.

Look at a team like Washington and their success/recruits they’ve gotten. On their website, they had 15 guys on their roster for 2023-2024 XC.

Does it apply to Ivies? Without scholarships, do they have to follow roster limits?

If they want to participate in division 1 athletics they will need to follow the rules.

I think you are correct in that most schools won't sniff giving the full amount of scholarships in cross country or track, especially on the men's side. You are talking about almost quadrupling the scholarship budget.

It sounds like the number being thrown around for revenue sharing is $22 million per year that schools can use to essentially pay athletes. Since all the media is focused on P4 I don't know if this is different for other D I schools or if it's the same across the board. From what I am reading if your school chooses not to share this money with athletes then the roster caps do not apply, but I'm not sure what scholarship limits you would have.

Great question.

if you opt out (which most Group of Five will) can you have unlimited roster size, and more importantly are you bound to the old scholarship caps?

And I will assume that a school opts in or out at the department level (all sports) and not at the per sport level. (Yes, I know that seems obvious).

So, IF the new divisions “really“ are:

Division I Opt In (Power Four, a few independents)

Division I Opt Out (Group of Five, FBS)

Division I Opt Out II (FCS)

Division II

Division III

…is there still an NCAA Division I basketball tournament as we know it? (A big consideration as this is the cash cow that feeds the system).

…should there be separate NCAA Championships (in all sports) for the Division I Opt In and another for the Division I Opt Out groups?

I didn’t read a ton but this seems pretty bad for the future of XC and track

I didn’t see anything that indicates schools need to give the max scholarships but those roster limits look to shrink teams

How many programs will get cut as a result of football expanding? Title 9 is going to be brutal to account for all those spots. They really need to just exclude football from roster counts until a women’s sport has a max in triple digits

This seems to make the most sense. I have been very confused but how you just laid it out feels right. And i believe most kids coming out of HS run at the FCS to Division 3. This appears to be something targeting the “big dogs” and allows for lower divisions to opt in and play with the big dogs if they want.

This will be super interesting to follow over the next few years.

Transfer portal is going to be wild. A few select schools will be able to afford more track scholarships. So many kids are about to be cut it is wild.

the majority of DI uses Track to balance title IX and graduation numbers. Now they can’t. I’m talking Minnesota carrying 70 XC women. FSU have a novice squad.

my prediction. True power 4 increase their football scholarships by cutting men’s scholarships. A few whales like Arkansas, Texas, Florida go ham on track and have 45 scholarships in track and dominate everything

It's a hard cap for only those that participate.

Won't impact Ivies, right?

That's now how I read it.

Those that are not defendants in the settlement case — schools and conferences in the Group of Five, FCS and non-football playing Division I programs — are bound by the roster limits, reporting system and enforcement mechanism only if they choose to share revenue with athletes. They can opt out of the new model if they decline to share revenue.

Ivies don't share money so they can have a roster of whatever they like, right?

The NCAA has not published any rules yet. I predict that the same caps will apply to all schools. They want a level playing field.

I have no idea. And is it revenue on a sport by sport basis? How much revenue does a college cross country team generate? The number must be close to, if not actually, zero.

Will the 17 cross country runners share a gift certificate to Burger King?

They mean department revenue, and the Opt IN schools are looking at something ike a $20 million dollar additional commitment per year over the next decade (they would have to revisit the dollar value at some point, based on new television contracts and other revenue streams).

Questions remain about whether part of that commitment will be direct payments, and if so, how much, and how that would be divided by sport and gender.

The number for P4 schools is estimated to be around $22 million for the first year. It's 22% of certain revenues including TV money, ticket sales and sponsorship. Not sure what it would be for non P4.

Honestly, it's a fair question. Of course schools like Alabama and Georgia and the like make a profit on athletics.

What about Podunk Directional State? Sure even their football team generates some revenue, but does it turn a profit? Is it actually cash flow positive? If not, what exactly will the athletes be sharing?