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.
none of the 'other stuff' was mentioned in the contract signed by the SA and the school... hence the only thing the school has to honor is the scholarship amount.
sure the kid loses that and it's not great but we are where we are due to greed on all sides.
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
Same logic why the Ivy antitrust suit for not offering athletic scholarships was thrown out. Can't argue any damages when you could go to Stanford or Duke (or others) and get $
“Individual conferences,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still.”
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.
Nobody is getting a walk on spot at SEC schools. That's the whole point.
Actually, they do -- especially on the women's side. I have heard Texas, Florida and UNC are already schools that plan on going to 35 full scholarships. Not everyone will do this, but a fair amount will.
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
Same logic why the Ivy antitrust suit for not offering athletic scholarships was thrown out. Can't argue any damages when you could go to Stanford or Duke (or others) and get $
“Individual conferences,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still.”
I understand what you are saying and why it's legally valid, but I disagree with the court here.
Imagine you a junior at an SEC school now: You have a 12 month lease for next year signed, you have already registered for (and possibly payed for) classes next semester, the deadlines to transfer and sign leases at most other colleges have passed without some kind of waiver, and you would probably have to repeat an ENTIRE YEAR of undergrad at another college to get a degree due to credit requirements.
You cannot simply "just leave" at this point in the school year, at least not without taking very significant financial and time costs. I don't know why so many people (and seemingly the courts here) act like hopping in the transfer portal is some easy task.
This argument of "you should have picked a different conference" might apply to current high schoolers or even freshman, but current juniors and seniors signed their NLIs before this all even was on the radar. It is not just to penalize them for knowledge they could not have possibly had in 2020 or 2021.
The more prestigious private d3s are super expensive (though sometimes have great need based scholarships for low income students).
The less prestigious d3s have merit based aid that is usually tied to high school gpa. Essentially it's price discrimination to try to get stronger students. Where I work, a top student paid about the same tuition as the in state public schools. Not a single student pays the "sticker price". This is very common if not universal among the lower tier private colleges.
Same logic why the Ivy antitrust suit for not offering athletic scholarships was thrown out. Can't argue any damages when you could go to Stanford or Duke (or others) and get $
“Individual conferences,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still.”
I understand what you are saying and why it's legally valid, but I disagree with the court here.
Imagine you a junior at an SEC school now: You have a 12 month lease for next year signed, you have already registered for (and possibly payed for) classes next semester, the deadlines to transfer and sign leases at most other colleges have passed without some kind of waiver, and you would probably have to repeat an ENTIRE YEAR of undergrad at another college to get a degree due to credit requirements.
You cannot simply "just leave" at this point in the school year, at least not without taking very significant financial and time costs. I don't know why so many people (and seemingly the courts here) act like hopping in the transfer portal is some easy task.
This argument of "you should have picked a different conference" might apply to current high schoolers or even freshman, but current juniors and seniors signed their NLIs before this all even was on the radar. It is not just to penalize them for knowledge they could not have possibly had in 2020 or 2021.
no one is saying it's fair but that's not the issue here. the courts can weigh in on the laws as they relate to the contract. thats what courts do. since the contract does not mention anything you have listed then they can't enforce it simply because you or I think it's unfair.
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.
Nobody is getting a walk on spot at SEC schools. That's the whole point.
Are you implying that there are no walk-ons and all kids in the SEC on scholarship? if so, that completely false.
Also if your guys has really run 1:51, he definitely could walk-on somewhere in the SEC. You're leaving something out like grades, SAT/ACT scores, criminal issues, etc that is deterring schools for taking him as a walk-on. Go look at UF's roster and all of there 800 meter guys. You think every one of them is on some sort of scholarship? Mouse don't play that way and doesn't put a ton in the distance program there. This is why they haven't had a decent men's program in a very long time.
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 hasn't ruled that part of the settlement unfair. She is trying to nudge them to correct (in her eyes) that issue by not ruling on the settlement and making them check in with her (essentially strong arming this part of the deal to her liking) She doesn't have the authority to change the settlement on her own.
I referenced minimum in my initial post, but I meant maximum. No court can rule conference-set maximum rosters illegal. You cant force schools to have a minimum number of players. Guaranteed roster spots seems mostly impractical to me. I don't know how you can tell a school to guarantee a roster spot to an underperforming athlete. How do we know that said school wasn't going to cut this athlete, even without any NCAA changes.
The ONLY way that what the judge could work would be if we allowed expanded roster sizes for schools who WANT to keep those grandfathered athletes and it would need to be measured on a body for body basis to allow them to go over the maximum only for those athletes. Something similar to say a practice squad for football or even guys that are on the 53 roster, but usually inactive, but this still doesn't solve the problem of conferences like the SEC that are choosing to go beneath the minimum, as if they are already beneath the maximum, they would lose the advantage of going over the maximum for the guaranteed athletes.
To me the grandfather clause seems impossible to enforce. Kids have already been cut are they forced back on the team? And how does that experience work out for them. People who haven't been cut yet, how would they prove that's the reason for the cut? And then how do you ensure a team isn't less successful because they can't make the cuts they would have made any other year?
And then the grandfathered athletes take funds needed for incoming classes. It just seems like it might make things even worse.
I understand what you are saying and why it's legally valid, but I disagree with the court here.
Imagine you a junior at an SEC school now: You have a 12 month lease for next year signed, you have already registered for (and possibly payed for) classes next semester, the deadlines to transfer and sign leases at most other colleges have passed without some kind of waiver, and you would probably have to repeat an ENTIRE YEAR of undergrad at another college to get a degree due to credit requirements.
You cannot simply "just leave" at this point in the school year, at least not without taking very significant financial and time costs. I don't know why so many people (and seemingly the courts here) act like hopping in the transfer portal is some easy task.
This argument of "you should have picked a different conference" might apply to current high schoolers or even freshman, but current juniors and seniors signed their NLIs before this all even was on the radar. It is not just to penalize them for knowledge they could not have possibly had in 2020 or 2021.
Life is tough. Wait til you change jobs, get fired, get right sized, go bankrupt, battle cancer, divorce etc.
You have the option to stay at your school and finish your degree without being on team. Many students opt for this choice too, simply by quiting the team without 'roster limits' and becoming regular students. It's not a bad option, since you can keep your apartment and won't have to transfer credits. You may still even have eligibility to run, if you decide to do a masters. School should still continue your package for senior year.
Now, if you CHOOSE to transfer, then it's your responsibility to deal with your lease, credits etc. You were not forced to choose that college, that off campus housing etc. Look at all your options and costs, then make a decision, but please stop bitching about it.
Grandfathering would be a mechanism for the school to use to retain an extra athlete. It wouldn't guarantee the athlete a roster spot. That isn't guaranteed today. Only the scholarship is guaranteed and only up to the amount in the agreement. The funding is tied up today or if grandfathered.
I understand what you are saying and why it's legally valid, but I disagree with the court here.
Imagine you a junior at an SEC school now: You have a 12 month lease for next year signed, you have already registered for (and possibly payed for) classes next semester, the deadlines to transfer and sign leases at most other colleges have passed without some kind of waiver, and you would probably have to repeat an ENTIRE YEAR of undergrad at another college to get a degree due to credit requirements.
You cannot simply "just leave" at this point in the school year, at least not without taking very significant financial and time costs. I don't know why so many people (and seemingly the courts here) act like hopping in the transfer portal is some easy task.
This argument of "you should have picked a different conference" might apply to current high schoolers or even freshman, but current juniors and seniors signed their NLIs before this all even was on the radar. It is not just to penalize them for knowledge they could not have possibly had in 2020 or 2021.
Life is tough. Wait til you change jobs, get fired, get right sized, go bankrupt, battle cancer, divorce etc.
You have the option to stay at your school and finish your degree without being on team. Many students opt for this choice too, simply by quiting the team without 'roster limits' and becoming regular students. It's not a bad option, since you can keep your apartment and won't have to transfer credits. You may still even have eligibility to run, if you decide to do a masters. School should still continue your package for senior year.
Now, if you CHOOSE to transfer, then it's your responsibility to deal with your lease, credits etc. You were not forced to choose that college, that off campus housing etc. Look at all your options and costs, then make a decision, but please stop bitching about it.
This is a multi-billion dollar legal settlement , not a random act of God like getting cancer of your house burning down. "Life isn't fair" is simply not good enough here. If it was, why even have a legal system at all? You could simply solve every legal dispute with that dumb boomer platitude.
Many athletes cannot just leave and become regular students at their current college, as I have already explained. They financially planned for and picked their college with the assumption that certain things would be paid for by the school (which are outside the NLI scholarship) and some would quite literally have to eat at soup kitchens to feed themselves without those benefits. This is a real legal principle known as promissory estopel.
They also cannot just transfer without suffering similar severe financial harm, as I have also previously explained. Thus, they are a harmed party by this settlement. They have a legal right to voice objections and delay it, as has been done. "Life isn't fair" is not a legal rebuttal that would hold up in court. Perhaps if the NCAAs lawyers would have used that on Monday they would have convinced the judge to not delay it.
Why don't they wait until the season is over, meaning AFTER the NCAA Meet is over before making cuts for NEXT Year?
Also when I was in College, Schools could put restrictions and list certain Schools you can NOT Transfer to EXAMPLE if you wrestled for Oklahoma State they could for example say you Cant go to The University of Oklahoma or Iowa (Yes I know Steve Mocco transferred from Iowa to Oklahoma state which surprised me) But can for examle Texas Longhorns tell an Athlete they can not go to The Florida Gators or USC Trojans? Just examples
I’m interested to see how the Big 12 approaches the roster limits and if they eventually go with the 10/35 roster like the SEC (and likely Big 10) go with.
Does BYU emphasize the club team for their guys coming off mission? Does OSU bring in 10 Kenyans? Does Colorado cut even more freshman after their one year tryout? Does Utah or West Virginia women become a powerhouse going 35 full to offset football increases since they don’t have a men’s track budget to cut? Can Texas Tech even have Kenyans going forward with new proposed state legislation?
Big 12 will be an interesting ride the next couple years
This is a multi-billion dollar legal settlement , not a random act of God like getting cancer of your house burning down. "Life isn't fair" is simply not good enough here. If it was, why even have a legal system at all? You could simply solve every legal dispute with that dumb boomer platitude.
Many athletes cannot just leave and become regular students at their current college, as I have already explained. They financially planned for and picked their college with the assumption that certain things would be paid for by the school (which are outside the NLI scholarship) and some would quite literally have to eat at soup kitchens to feed themselves without those benefits. This is a real legal principle known as promissory estopel.
They also cannot just transfer without suffering similar severe financial harm, as I have also previously explained. Thus, they are a harmed party by this settlement. They have a legal right to voice objections and delay it, as has been done. "Life isn't fair" is not a legal rebuttal that would hold up in court. Perhaps if the NCAAs lawyers would have used that on Monday they would have convinced the judge to not delay it.
That all sounds nice. Judged asked parties to consider changes to settlement. We will see if they are implemented.
Grandfathering in all current student athletes would be a good solution. I'm just not sure either party supports this. Surprisingly, the trial lawyers representing the students did not want this...and they in theory represent the students!
I understand your point of view, I just fear that no one in a power position cares, time is of the essence, and you are about to just get steamrollered.
Even with grandfathering roster spots, many kids already cut have made plans by now for '25 Fall semester, and won't want old roster spot back.
If kids end up in the Street. They can 1- go to financial aid and apply for grants & loans to continue as a regular student.
2- take off a hardship year, get a job, then reconsider next step in college/athletic life. Starbucks for example offers free tuition to employees for ASU online program. Evans scholarship offers full scholarship to golf caddies, who work 2 seasons to some very prestigious schools, including Northwestern.
they are fully funded, it’s just harder to recruit as a mid major, trust me when I say kids will take a 1/2 from wisco over a full from a mid major, hard to pass up when you see them get 4th at NCAAs.
they are fully funded, it’s just harder to recruit as a mid major, trust me when I say kids will take a 1/2 from wisco over a full from a mid major, hard to pass up when you see them get 4th at NCAAs.
This is exactly the kind of CHOICE kids make, and are then shocked when it does not all go smoothly.
