No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)

The schools we’re talking about in regard to this settlement are paying actual money to the university for these costs. Private institutions (especially small ones) do things like that (I worked at one) but for what we’re talking about money is actually changing hands. Remember within these universities exist individual units and departments that have their own budgets, revenues and expenses. They aren’t keen to just waive anything if they can rake in money.

None of this changes the fact that if you’re operating under this new framework the institution can fund 17 full scholarships for XC and 45 for track. It represents a HUGE increase in expense for athletic departments if they choose. I’ve said before I cannot see any institution that can afford to fully fund all their sports. So the game now is: how do schools handle this and what choices do they make?

I agree NIL can significantly help. Say your institution says: “we’ll opt in but we can’t up scholarships”. So you’re capped at 17 and 45 roster spots, respectively, and working with 12.6 and 18. Now, nothing is stopping anyone from using NIL to fund an additional scholarship for an athlete for one of your 17 or 45. So schools that don’t fully fund (which I’m guessing will be nearly all of them) can supplement with NIL if they can - as long as they stay within their roster limits.

I could be wrong but i feel like MOST kids that go on to run in college are not running in the power 4. I have to think that most are running non power 4, divisions 2 and 3.

Since this has no bearing on divisions 2 or 3? My question is will the non power 4 schools, especially ones with no football, simply opt out and continue to have operate as they have been?

I wouldn’t be so quick to declare what will happen or who it’s not good for. Let’s see how it plays out. Irregardless, many universities are barely scraping by having sports, are they truly necessary? The NCAA is a mess because of football and it will never be regulated because it is an arms race and the “major” teams need to keep up with each other in spending and talent acquisition. Rules can be set up by Congress and the big teams will find a way to get around them in order to have an advantage and the honor or winning.

Another poster mentioned the added expense of funding additional scholarships now that the cap was raised. My comment was that it was highly unlikely a school would do that for non revenue sports.

I’m operating under the premise that most athletic departments are operating in the red so when athletic departments offer scholarships they are essentially subsidized by the schools.

It’s hard to get a good read on whether my premise is correct because the reporting requirements have changed a lot over the years.

Of course new conference alignments will dramatically change the economics of the winners and losers.

My reference to NIL alleviating the cost of scholarships for non revenue sports could be the answer for most schools. By raising $100 from 5,000 alumni could fund a good program by giving the coaches more flexibility in staying competitive. There aren’t enough billionaires to do it.

It will be interesting to see how the private schools, who have 30 to 40 runners (I.e UP/Gonzaga), get squeezed. The schools like the 95% of them paying full price through loans/financial aid/proud parents. Maybe marginally supported clubs. A minor league of sorts to see if some can crack the top 17.

It seems like the real issue here from a running perspective is the roster limits for XC and track. The scholarship expansion is a bit of a red herring. Are programs that are over this roster limit going to have to cut runners in 2025? How does this impact high school recruiting, particularly for 2025 graduates? How were these roster limits calculated? Why couldn't the roster limits only be applied to the revenue generating sports which was the source of the litigation? A possible outcome of this settlement is that scores of athletes across multiple sports will be cut in light of roster restrictions. Are some current recruits going to be asked to de-commit due to roster caps?

I feel like a broken record but scholarship expansion is very relevant because if football scholarships go up, men's track scholarships will go down. Title IX.

No, there will be roster limits for FB/BB, too. All scholarships in all sports will be equivalency, and additional compensation within the cap (22% of revenue) will be allocable on a "value" basis, so some players/athletes will get more than others. Track has a 45 man/woman roster limit; xc is 17. That seems like enough heads for a good team. But the question will be funding - how many track/xc dollars will be spent. The answer is that it will vary school to school. Rich programs, meaning programs with a good football team will probably continue funding track, and then other track programs that have done ok without big football like lesser D1 schools might continue on business as usual. The trigger is whether they opt to spend and have to stretch to spend to the cap on FB. If so, other programs will indeed be sacrificed. If you're a weak FB school in a P4 conference and your AD is going to break the bank to compete in FB, you will feel the burn in track and other no revenue sports. My 2cents

But you are not correct. Schools will be allowed to provide hundred of additional scholarships. If they bump football by 20, they can merely bump their women's track team by 20 and the water is level. Nothing else has to change.

From what I understand, Title IX implementation has not yet been addressed. Further, there is no quid pro quo relationship between football and track. The most pressing issue is the immediacy of the roster limitations and the impact that this will have on current rosters and recruits.

My guess is that, in part, football and basketball coaching salaries will decline. Right now, their sports bring in money, that in the NFL or NBA, would go in part to players. If you think a better football team is worth $5 million, then bidding for coaches that can do that has to create a $5 million dollar salary. Now, some of that $5 million will have to go to the players. Maybe even most of it.

As to non-revenue sports, it seems like a similar dynamic may cut them to. Or maybe not. If football and basketball have been competing away the economic profits in coaching salaries and fancy facilities, then perhaps the non-revenue sports will remain as they are.

In any case, is it fair to demand that college football and basketball players cross subsidize others? That is what is happening now. The players help bring in a lot of revenue, but they get locked out of most of it due to the (now defunct) NCAA rules against paying them. Instead the money goes elsewhere in the university.

Come on, College sports is an excess we don't need.

There's plenty of money around if you have alumnus support.

They can't, Rule is Every school MUST HAVE at least 6 Men's Teams and 10 Women's Teams

Sure, they "can". But after a P4 school finds the money for 20 more football rides (which they will), the AD will have a choice between finding 20 more scholarships for women's track, or cutting 20 scholarships from non-revenue men's sports. Which do you think?

I am not a Title IX expert but my understanding is schools have always demonstrated Title IX compliance by showing (1) equality of participation numbers and (2) equality of scholarship money between men's and women's sports. I don't see why this ruling would change that.

Plus,

What does this mean for Title 9? If schools were carrying extra female roster spots for track and XC for title 9, how do they fill the gap?

Do redshirts count?

How could JV and club programs work? Could they train under the same coaches and practice with the main team? Basically keep having 20* kids developing with the XC team, but some go into the season knowing they won’t race for the school that year.

The T9 cabal forgets that this is an antitrust settlement. The payment changes are not changes to scholarships. Those must be equal under t9. But when it comes to rev share and market based payment's for talent t9 is irrelevant. the next valby has no right to payment for play equal to whoever is the tight end for ole miss. Or second string punter.

Every AD will make a different decision just like they do today. Some P4 schools have 18 total sports while others have 30. That means some are funding hundreds more scholarships than others are today. Many schools have an abundance of money and the will be happy to increase football along with a few women's sports. Some schools won't increase football scholarships because they won't see value in paying the 86th guy $50K per year.

Sorry - can you name me one school that has an "abundance" of money? I don't mean endowment - that money has specific rules for how it can be used. The only reason schools won't increase scholarships when they can is that they don't have the funds to do so. I already know of at least one P4 school that was told: football and basketball will be fully funded, but that's it. Before someone screams Title IX - remember there are many ways to be compliant under Title IX and this idea that it is always a 1:1 is incorrect. No institution could do that. There's always been an allowable variance. As long as your changes keep you within that allowable variance you're still offering equal opportunities.

Notre Dame

Georgia

Alabama

Ohio State

LSU

Wisconsin

Michigan

Penn State

Oregon

Stanford

That is a good starting list of schools whose athletic departments are in good shape.