so let's say for arguments sake that these athletes are grandfathered in. meaning left on the roster, can the judge force the schools to use an equal amount of their budgets on them? if not, then many of these kids will end up just being on the roster in name but not receiving any of the benefits that previously went along with it.
the unfortunate issue here is that the universities need to find a way to pay for all this. they have to cut somewhere because no one is getting more revenue out of all of this.
re "forced to give an equal amount of their budgets to them," isn't that the premise of the lawsuit? the premise is the 30th man on XC at some schools might have been afforded a full except we had a rule denying the school the choice. if you say, well, but i don't want to carry this person if i have to pay for it, and i would prefer some low roster limit that excuses me to cut a bunch to offset the cost, isn't that almost conceding the premise?
i think the argument would go, this is your penance for the current group. after that, we let you control the sheer cost. and that doing so serves the academic mission. we're not dumping you out of college, or at least that college. but letting you "cut the problem" now allows you to cut precisely the kids who were on partials or walkons, who would say the scholarship limits impacted them. it's perverse. the rare kid on a full has no worries about the limits, either before or now.
side point but isn't this basically all about the smaller sports? football and hoops get to carry well beyond a full team, on fulls. i played soccer and track. we're the ones being offered partial or walkon. probably most of the kids on football are on fulls.
The premise of the lawsuit in question is that pre-NIL athletes were somehow harmed because they were not able to receive NIL. That's it. The actual lawsuit (House) has nothing to do with walk-ons or roster limits or anything else.
Academic scholarships are unrelated to athletics. Athletic scholarships can cover tuition, room, board, books. Housing and academic awards coming from athletics must be part.of the athletic scholarship and counts against the 12.6. Claiming that schools give academic awards and housing that doesn't count against the 12.6 would have allowed teams to chest the limit.
Who the hel is into running enough to be on letsrun forums, but hates it so much that they come on here to support the braindead roster limit stuff? I just can't picture the kind of guy that is that into running, but also wants the sport to suffer... very weird behavior
Interesting how the lawyers on both sides seem to care less about the collateral damage of roster cuts. It just gets in the way of the settlement that at this point suits both sides. Plaintiff's lawyers hide behind the "equity argument" when in reality spreading television money to scores of mediocre athletes on football teams, who would never be professional athletes in any other context, comes at the direct expense of athletes who have worked years to make rosters. These are true amateur athletes that are the heart and soul of NCAA athletics. Everyone realizes its is unconscionable to cut rosters solely to reward football players more than than they are already rewarded. Football is a one season sport, and outside the top athletes most of the players rely on size in the place of athleticism. Most are not close to professional athletes talent wise and are already rewarded with full scholarships. This has nothing to do with equity and everything to do with opportunity. An opportunity to win a big anti-trust case, force the hand of the NCAA and gut the heart of amateur athletics. Plaintiff's lawyers will buy a couple of extra beach houses, football will buy some Doge Chargers, and athletes who love the sports they have committed years to will be sitting at home wondering what could have been. Perfect metaphor for out times.
ordinarily academic and sports are kept separate, but what is being suggested is that a school about to cut you loose due to the roster limits makes up for it in some way, including promising academic money to help you finish if you want to stay at that school. it's not illegal aid for an athlete because you're cut. NCAA doesn't care how you scholarship non-athletes.
along those lines, they are not suing the athletic department, they are suing the schools and NCAA. the school can easily say i will give them academic money to solve the roster limits' harshness. some schools do stuff like that when they kill off a team.
I do not understand why I have to come on here and correct this misconception every time this this subject is brought up. The "roster spot" is not just being listed on the website or racing in unform. It is tied to a ton of benefits that athletes planned on getting for their four years.
This includes meals, rent stipends, tutoring, counseling, class registration, athletic tickets, academic stipends, ect. Many athletes could not afford their university without these benefits even with an athletic scholarship. They are not part of the scholarship contract and are currently lost when an athlete is cut.
That is why 1000s of objected letters have been sent. That is why the judge has delayed this settlement. Please stop spreading this false information that athletes get to keep everthing when they are cut.
You are wrong. All of the stuff you mention is nice, but it's not part of a scholarship.
A full scholarship covers tuition, room&board, fees; ie entire cost of attendance. If Alston money added, then there is even some spending money. This is all covered on your scholarship agreement.
If that athlete loses spot, but keeps aid, they are quite comfortable attending school, especially if they pick up a few hours of campus job.
The patchwork you are talking about is where coach gives them a 30% scholarship, but says you can still eat with team and live in a team apartment, which will make it feel like more scholarship. This is a problem between coach and athlete and lack of honesty.
This topic hasn't received as much coverage here as on the swimming sites. That's because there have already been numerous high profile swimmers impacted. An excellent distance swimmer who finished NCAA top 4 in 2023 but was injured last season has already been dumped. The distance events aren't as valuable as sprinters who can rack up relay points. Texas has had several recent highly rated recruits depart because the new coach Bob Bowman had no plans for them. On departure those swimmers thanked the former coach Eddie Reese for everything he did for them, while saying nothing about Bowman.
Numerous other examples. One swim mom of a current freshman wrote on SwimSwam comments that she didn't think it was fair that her daughter should be asked to do campus visits with a recruit who might take away her roster spot. Big mess all around. Consequently SwimSwam has had many articles spotlighting the judge's theme that grandfathering roster limits was her top priority.
so let's say for arguments sake that these athletes are grandfathered in. meaning left on the roster, can the judge force the schools to use an equal amount of their budgets on them? if not, then many of these kids will end up just being on the roster in name but not receiving any of the benefits that previously went along with it.
the unfortunate issue here is that the universities need to find a way to pay for all this. they have to cut somewhere because no one is getting more revenue out of all of this.
Exactly. We're already seeing SEC teams start to cut players. Even if the judge ends up allowing roster spots to be grandfathered in, there's no way to force schools to actually honor that. Programs that choose to grandfather athletes might feel like they're doing the right thing, but they're going to face major recruiting challenges for years because of the roster backlog. It's unfortunate, but cuts are going to happen no matter how the House settlement plays out. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't
I do not understand why I have to come on here and correct this misconception every time this this subject is brought up. The "roster spot" is not just being listed on the website or racing in unform. It is tied to a ton of benefits that athletes planned on getting for their four years.
This includes meals, rent stipends, tutoring, counseling, class registration, athletic tickets, academic stipends, ect. Many athletes could not afford their university without these benefits even with an athletic scholarship. They are not part of the scholarship contract and are currently lost when an athlete is cut.
That is why 1000s of objected letters have been sent. That is why the judge has delayed this settlement. Please stop spreading this false information that athletes get to keep everthing when they are cut.
You are wrong. All of the stuff you mention is nice, but it's not part of a scholarship.
A full scholarship covers tuition, room&board, fees; ie entire cost of attendance. If Alston money added, then there is even some spending money. This is all covered on your scholarship agreement.
If that athlete loses spot, but keeps aid, they are quite comfortable attending school, especially if they pick up a few hours of campus job.
The patchwork you are talking about is where coach gives them a 30% scholarship, but says you can still eat with team and live in a team apartment, which will make it feel like more scholarship. This is a problem between coach and athlete and lack of honesty.
You are speaking about hypothetical full scholarships, I am referring to reality. For all intensive purposes, full athletic scholarships (as in the kind that actually pay for everything) do not exist for male American distance runners in major conferences in 2025. I know sub 4 milers who don't even have a half scholarship.
For all but maybe a dozen guys in the country, they are in the exact situation you describe in your final paragraph. They have a partial scholarship that helps out a lot with tuition, but rely on team benefits to meet their living needs. Maybe you would say it shouldn't be that way, coaches should be more honest, ect. I would agree with you. But that is not the reality we live in. The reality is a lot of guys (and gals) are in this situation, and the settlement needs to keep their interests in mind. That is what the judge is doing.
Who the hel is into running enough to be on letsrun forums, but hates it so much that they come on here to support the braindead roster limit stuff? I just can't picture the kind of guy that is that into running, but also wants the sport to suffer... very weird behavior
Honestly you summed up in two sentences what I have been trying to say about these cuts for months. We can debate all day about legal definitions, grandfathering, revenue sharing, the portal, and all this nonsense. But at the end of the day, these policies are going to royally mess up the lives of lots of kids and parents, not to mention ruining the sport at the college level for future generations. All for what, a third string football player to have another million dollars? Really?! Why are you here if you hate our sport so much, maybe go to letsnotrun.
Who the hel is into running enough to be on letsrun forums, but hates it so much that they come on here to support the braindead roster limit stuff? I just can't picture the kind of guy that is that into running, but also wants the sport to suffer... very weird behavior
Honestly you summed up in two sentences what I have been trying to say about these cuts for months. We can debate all day about legal definitions, grandfathering, revenue sharing, the portal, and all this nonsense. But at the end of the day, these policies are going to royally mess up the lives of lots of kids and parents, not to mention ruining the sport at the college level for future generations. All for what, a third string football player to have another million dollars? Really?! Why are you here if you hate our sport so much, maybe go to letsnotrun.
maybe one person here is not agreeing it sucks for these kids and that guy is probably trolling you.
everyone else recognizes it sucks for the kids. it sucks for the sport in general but unfortunately, sad as it makes you feel... football, and basketball to a lesser extent, are the money earners.
these universities are businesses and they are being forced to share their revenue with the money earners... it sucks for the kids and the sport of track and field but these businesses have to operate like businesses... the money for revenue sharing has to come from somewhere. the schools have no choice. they are being told they have to share revenue. the money has to come from somewhere. whether you or i think a 3rd string qb should get a million dollars or not doesn't play into it.
you can be mad and can want it to be fair. but as you so succinctly put it in post 52 unfortunately ' that's not the reality we live in'...
just recognize if the judge forces the schools to keep 'extra' kids on the roster the money they spend on them will come from somewhere else in the program... the team meals will be lessened, or there will be less gear, or there will be less travel, or their will be less stipend money, or the team won't get parking passes, or there will be one fewer athletic trainer or PT...etc etc etc
no one is wishing this on the sport or the kids, so stop claiming that's the case
Your statement may be true but that means the cuts are good for the remaining kids. Schools could choose to carry 10 or 15 kids today rather than 25 and provide more benefits to the smaller number.
How about not approving the settlement at all because it is a transparent money grab framed within the guise of equity? Why was this case settled at all? Why didn't it go to trial allowing evidence of the collateral damage to all of amateur athletics for the benefit of a few? The fact the settlement is not being approved under these conditions suggests that settlement was a poor decision.
Honestly you summed up in two sentences what I have been trying to say about these cuts for months. We can debate all day about legal definitions, grandfathering, revenue sharing, the portal, and all this nonsense. But at the end of the day, these policies are going to royally mess up the lives of lots of kids and parents, not to mention ruining the sport at the college level for future generations. All for what, a third string football player to have another million dollars? Really?! Why are you here if you hate our sport so much, maybe go to letsnotrun.
maybe one person here is not agreeing it sucks for these kids and that guy is probably trolling you.
everyone else recognizes it sucks for the kids. it sucks for the sport in general but unfortunately, sad as it makes you feel... football, and basketball to a lesser extent, are the money earners.
these universities are businesses and they are being forced to share their revenue with the money earners... it sucks for the kids and the sport of track and field but these businesses have to operate like businesses... the money for revenue sharing has to come from somewhere. the schools have no choice. they are being told they have to share revenue. the money has to come from somewhere. whether you or i think a 3rd string qb should get a million dollars or not doesn't play into it.
you can be mad and can want it to be fair. but as you so succinctly put it in post 52 unfortunately ' that's not the reality we live in'...
just recognize if the judge forces the schools to keep 'extra' kids on the roster the money they spend on them will come from somewhere else in the program... the team meals will be lessened, or there will be less gear, or there will be less travel, or their will be less stipend money, or the team won't get parking passes, or there will be one fewer athletic trainer or PT...etc etc etc
no one is wishing this on the sport or the kids, so stop claiming that's the case
Just pushing back a little because I think the lawsuits and settlement are pushing a false narrative. I think at an any given school there are at most 5 athletes that earn the university significant money. Often it is zero.
The money comes from the school’s brand value and its graduates being supportive of the school, not the athletes. You could just swap any given athlete out for anyone else, it doesn’t matter with 98% of FB and BB players.
maybe one person here is not agreeing it sucks for these kids and that guy is probably trolling you.
everyone else recognizes it sucks for the kids. it sucks for the sport in general but unfortunately, sad as it makes you feel... football, and basketball to a lesser extent, are the money earners.
these universities are businesses and they are being forced to share their revenue with the money earners... it sucks for the kids and the sport of track and field but these businesses have to operate like businesses... the money for revenue sharing has to come from somewhere. the schools have no choice. they are being told they have to share revenue. the money has to come from somewhere. whether you or i think a 3rd string qb should get a million dollars or not doesn't play into it.
you can be mad and can want it to be fair. but as you so succinctly put it in post 52 unfortunately ' that's not the reality we live in'...
just recognize if the judge forces the schools to keep 'extra' kids on the roster the money they spend on them will come from somewhere else in the program... the team meals will be lessened, or there will be less gear, or there will be less travel, or their will be less stipend money, or the team won't get parking passes, or there will be one fewer athletic trainer or PT...etc etc etc
no one is wishing this on the sport or the kids, so stop claiming that's the case
Just pushing back a little because I think the lawsuits and settlement are pushing a false narrative. I think at an any given school there are at most 5 athletes that earn the university significant money. Often it is zero.
The money comes from the school’s brand value and its graduates being supportive of the school, not the athletes. You could just swap any given athlete out for anyone else, it doesn’t matter with 98% of FB and BB players.
Pro is different.
that's a different issue. should the athletes get some of the revenue earned from media contracts and fan support?
In my opinion the answer is they already get a lot so I am not in favor of it
However, they won the lawsuit and continue to win all anti-trust lawsuits so the schools have no choice.
Your statement may be true but that means the cuts are good for the remaining kids. Schools could choose to carry 10 or 15 kids today rather than 25 and provide more benefits to the smaller number.
obviously this is true. they could have fewer numbers and fewer numbers divided into the same budget means more per individual. is that good for the sport? likely not
I feel bad for the kids but this judge is supposed to be ruling on this class action suit (were these former SAs harmed) not how the colleges intend to find the money to pay for it. Roster limits should not be an issue she weighs in on.
The truth is (and she probably knows) there will be future lawsuits filed by future athletes who feel this settlement doesn't provide them enough anyway.
The only way around all these lawsuits is for congress to pass carve out laws for college sports.
Actually, the way around these lawsuits is for the schools to just stop violating the Sherman Act. This settlement is absurd because it allows the schools to keep committing antitrust violations.
We allow these kinds of agreements in the context of collective bargaining because of the so-called non-statutory antitrust carve-out for labor law. But this isn't collective bargaining. There's no valid union here; it's just class action plaintiffs' lawyers. They're colluding to harm a large percentage of the class they purport to represent by formalizing an ongoing conspiracy in restraint of trade.