This might be the biggest load of crap of all time… 4:10 and 9:00 kids won’t have to go D3 lol. I’m a mid major coach and we would take those kids every day of the week and they would get plenty of their school paid for. I know we aren’t the only school that would pay a lot for those type of athletes!
Mid major coach - what kind of money are you offering 1:51 800 kids? Because I personally know a 1:51 senior who can’t even get a walk on spot at SEC schools, much less money.
Schools who arent fully-funded like Iona, Portland, EKU, Furman still offer big scholarships to 4:08 and 8:55 high schoolers. These types of schools make NCAA CC most years and always have a couple studs on the track. They also don't cut scholarships. Colorado, UNC, Tennessee, and UVA's of the world give you a couple years, but they have been running kids off like the former posts alluded to.
its time for prostyle clubs to form. Hire a coach or two, get a general manager and a fundraiser and start putting together clubs around the country that form their own leagues.
Do we expect to see the deepest cuts in the SEC since they have committed to roster limits of 10 in men's xc ? Don't know that the ACC and Big10 has committed to those roster limits.
Schools who arent fully-funded like Iona, Portland, EKU, Furman still offer big scholarships to 4:08 and 8:55 high schoolers.
These schools absolutely have the full scholarship allotment to dish out. Just because they spend all of it on distance kids, or the school isn't in a big time football conference, doesn't mean they aren't fully funded.
No way they're fully funded or they would perform better. Elite XC programs like Iowa State and Wisconsin have top level performers in other ecent groups.
Isn't DIII, except for Wisconsin, all very expensive private schools?
No. There are tons of DIII public schools. Most of the SUNYs, some of the CUNYs, a bunch of PSUs, Montclair State, TCNJ, Keene, Montclair, Stockton, Camden, Newark, WPU, Ramapo, Rowan, CNU, St. Mary's, University of Mary Washington, Eastern Connecticut, Western Connecticut, MCLA, UMass-Boston, UMass Dartmouth, Westfield, Plymouth, Bridgewater State, Worcester State, Framingham, Southern ME, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine Academy, a bunch of WUs
It looks like the NCAA settlement judge wants to grandfather in people who are already on college rosters, however, you have some conferences that have already agreed to reduce roster spots on their own, below the stated minimum's (to avoid major gaps between scholarships given from one college to the next in their conference).
If both of these things happen, wouldn't it create a situation where you have smaller rosters, while also having folks who are currently on the back end of those rosters, with guaranteed roster spots, occupying spots for up to 3 more years?
I saw an Insta video of a guy putting one rubber band after another around a watermelon, until one finally caused it to explode in his face.
That's the NCAA. It stangled the student-athletes more and more, with more and more rules and governance and silliness, and restrictions and suppression and hoarding the resources for the departments and the coaches...
It looks like the NCAA settlement judge wants to grandfather in people who are already on college rosters, however, you have some conferences that have already agreed to reduce roster spots on their own, below the stated minimum's (to avoid major gaps between scholarships given from one college to the next in their conference).
If both of these things happen, wouldn't it create a situation where you have smaller rosters, while also having folks who are currently on the back end of those rosters, with guaranteed roster spots, occupying spots for up to 3 more years?
I would think if conferences tried to keep their new smaller rosters (that were only put in as a response to the settlement) after the judge has already ruled that piece of the settlement unfair, it would open those conferences up to lawsuits from cut athletes? I'm not a lawyer or anything can someone weigh in here?
It looks like the NCAA settlement judge wants to grandfather in people who are already on college rosters, however, you have some conferences that have already agreed to reduce roster spots on their own, below the stated minimum's (to avoid major gaps between scholarships given from one college to the next in their conference).
If both of these things happen, wouldn't it create a situation where you have smaller rosters, while also having folks who are currently on the back end of those rosters, with guaranteed roster spots, occupying spots for up to 3 more years?
I would think if conferences tried to keep their new smaller rosters (that were only put in as a response to the settlement) after the judge has already ruled that piece of the settlement unfair, it would open those conferences up to lawsuits from cut athletes? I'm not a lawyer or anything can someone weigh in here?
the judge is saying that the NCAA can't force schools to cut athletes already on the roster and has to grandfather them in. That doesn't mean the school can't artificially limit their own roster and cut the athlete if they want to.
I would think if conferences tried to keep their new smaller rosters (that were only put in as a response to the settlement) after the judge has already ruled that piece of the settlement unfair, it would open those conferences up to lawsuits from cut athletes? I'm not a lawyer or anything can someone weigh in here?
the judge is saying that the NCAA can't force schools to cut athletes already on the roster and has to grandfather them in. That doesn't mean the school can't artificially limit their own roster and cut the athlete if they want to.
Yeah but this isn't just the schools or coaches making decisions in isolation. The SEC is forcing its member schools and coaches to cut athletes (that they otherwise would not cut) as a direct response to this settlement. Surely that same standard would apply to them as a conference as it does to the NCAA as a whole.
The schools only have to honor the financial commitments made in the student athletic aid contract. If you were getting $5000/year in athletic aid, then the school will continue to award you $5000/year if you stay until the termination date of the contract. You just won’t have a roster spot. If you leave school or transfer, that nullifies the contract.
IMHO, the courts will only care about the money aspect should suits be brought. The argument will be that roster spots are like a job-not guaranteed. If the school honors their fiscal promise as stated in the contract, then they have met their obligation.
The schools only have to honor the financial commitments made in the student athletic aid contract. If you were getting $5000/year in athletic aid, then the school will continue to award you $5000/year if you stay until the termination date of the contract. You just won’t have a roster spot. If you leave school or transfer, that nullifies the contract.
IMHO, the courts will only care about the money aspect should suits be brought. The argument will be that roster spots are like a job-not guaranteed. If the school honors their fiscal promise as stated in the contract, then they have met their obligation.
This is technically true, but missing a key point that I always see left out of this discussion. They can keep the scholarship money, but for many athletes that is actually a small fraction of what they receive from the school.
P4 athletes receive meals, financial academic awards, rent stipends, clothes, tutoring, counseling, registration times, athletic tickets and more from the school. We are not talking about a trivial amount of money here. I personally know athletes who rely on these benefits to feed and house themselves.
Those can and will be taken away under this. agreement. Who cares if a kid can keep his textbooks if he is now having to go to the food panty to feed himself? It is not "just" a roster spot. It is all the benefits of being a student athlete that these kids signed contracts under the impression they would be receiving for four years.
the judge is saying that the NCAA can't force schools to cut athletes already on the roster and has to grandfather them in. That doesn't mean the school can't artificially limit their own roster and cut the athlete if they want to.
Yeah but this isn't just the schools or coaches making decisions in isolation. The SEC is forcing its member schools and coaches to cut athletes (that they otherwise would not cut) as a direct response to this settlement. Surely that same standard would apply to them as a conference as it does to the NCAA as a whole.
No. Because an athlete does not have to go to that school in that conference. they have a choice. whereas an ncaa rule is supposed to apply to all schools and thus the athlete doesn't have a choice