Not cut by attrition, there will be no grandfathering in, everything I have read says the SEC roster limits are effective next year. Already, some roster spots for 2025s have been rescinded and I suspect it's going to get worse once the portal opens and schools want to pick up those swimmers.
It sounds like schools will not be allowed to compete in NCAA championship events if they don't opt in, which should make schools that are remotely competitive opt in when they otherwise might not.
I'm unclear on what the parties think this settlement is going to accomplish. Revenue sharing is supposed to be binding on future student athletes, but they aren't class members and aren't bound by the settlement. The terms of the settlement are still very likely illegal under the antitrust laws, so it will take no time at all for another plaintiff to sue, and the settlement will provide no protection whatsoever.
I'm unclear on what the parties think this settlement is going to accomplish. Revenue sharing is supposed to be binding on future student athletes, but they aren't class members and aren't bound by the settlement. The terms of the settlement are still very likely illegal under the antitrust laws, so it will take no time at all for another plaintiff to sue, and the settlement will provide no protection whatsoever.
this was my first thought too... the only clear way to resolve this is for the legislature to get involved which seems highly unlikely.
Everyone thought track was going to have a positive outcome from the House litigation/revenue sharing/roster sizes? Not so fast! Programs are getting their numbers and rumors are already out that while a few may increase scholarship, virtually none will go all the way to 45 and even more will actually stay the same at 12.6/18 or actually reduce scholarships! Women may get a few more at a few places, but men are in big trouble overall. It’s not going to be a good situation. Think less opportunity, not more. It’s all business now and for ADs and accountants, track is bad business.
"track is bad business." Don't tell this to Grand Slam Track, they are about to light a mountain of cash on fire.
I'm unclear on what the parties think this settlement is going to accomplish. Revenue sharing is supposed to be binding on future student athletes, but they aren't class members and aren't bound by the settlement. The terms of the settlement are still very likely illegal under the antitrust laws, so it will take no time at all for another plaintiff to sue, and the settlement will provide no protection whatsoever.
this was my first thought too... the only clear way to resolve this is for the legislature to get involved which seems highly unlikely.
So this was brought up in the last hearing the judge had and since she has given preliminary approval for the settlement I presume it's unpersuasive. Remember the change that you can revenue share is just that - you can. I suspect it will go on as long as it's sustainable (basically as long as ESPN, etc are willing to throw huge dollars at schools and conferences). So at most the argument is that right NOW they aren't part of the class so have no say, but could in the future. It's also impossible to know who could potentially become part of the class. Essentially at some point there is no class because the offending action/behavior has ended and all is well.
The absolute last thing that college athletics needs is the legislature involved in this. The NCAA has screwed it up enough and since Congress is incapable of acting like actual grown adults to accomplish anything why would we want their take on this? They helped us get to this dumpster fire of a place we're at now.
this was my first thought too... the only clear way to resolve this is for the legislature to get involved which seems highly unlikely.
So this was brought up in the last hearing the judge had and since she has given preliminary approval for the settlement I presume it's unpersuasive. Remember the change that you can revenue share is just that - you can. I suspect it will go on as long as it's sustainable (basically as long as ESPN, etc are willing to throw huge dollars at schools and conferences). So at most the argument is that right NOW they aren't part of the class so have no say, but could in the future. It's also impossible to know who could potentially become part of the class. Essentially at some point there is no class because the offending action/behavior has ended and all is well.
The absolute last thing that college athletics needs is the legislature involved in this. The NCAA has screwed it up enough and since Congress is incapable of acting like actual grown adults to accomplish anything why would we want their take on this? They helped us get to this dumpster fire of a place we're at now.
the reason the legislature was mentioned is because they are the only ones who can make laws. without laws it's a free for all. if that's what you want.. all good.
(I'm not suggesting government intervention would be a win win just that that's the only way to avoid anti-trust issues... new laws carved out for college sports. not saying they would be good laws)
So this was brought up in the last hearing the judge had and since she has given preliminary approval for the settlement I presume it's unpersuasive. Remember the change that you can revenue share is just that - you can. I suspect it will go on as long as it's sustainable (basically as long as ESPN, etc are willing to throw huge dollars at schools and conferences). So at most the argument is that right NOW they aren't part of the class so have no say, but could in the future. It's also impossible to know who could potentially become part of the class. Essentially at some point there is no class because the offending action/behavior has ended and all is well.
The absolute last thing that college athletics needs is the legislature involved in this. The NCAA has screwed it up enough and since Congress is incapable of acting like actual grown adults to accomplish anything why would we want their take on this? They helped us get to this dumpster fire of a place we're at now.
There are a few problems with this:
- The opt-in structure doesn't solve the antitrust problem at all. Revenue sharing is capped, which is a pretty straightforward section 1 violation, and anyone who opts in is just opting into an illegal agreement.
- People can't become part of a class in the future. The class is defined now (it has to be because class members have a right to object to the settlement). Anyone who isn't yet a class member wouldn't have a right to object before final approval, so it wouldn't be fair to bind them. That would be inconsistent with Rule 23, and probably a violation of Due Process as well.
- If the settlement persists, then any non class member who later attends a revenue sharing school will have a claim.
- The fact that the district court thinks this is okay doesn't mean it is. The objecting class members have a right to appeal immediately. And anyone who isn't part of the class can just go ahead and file a new lawsuit in the future. District court rulings have no precedential value (they're only binding in the future as to the parties who were actually before the court), so other districts courts, not to mention appellate courts, wouldn't have to follow it.
- Even aside from the likely illegality of trying to bind non-parties to a settlement, the terms should probably be void for the simple reason that you can't settle a lawsuit on terms that will require one of the settling parties to commit an ongoing felony for an indefinite period in the future.
Everyone thought track was going to have a positive outcome from the House litigation/revenue sharing/roster sizes? Not so fast! Programs are getting their numbers and rumors are already out that while a few may increase scholarship, virtually none will go all the way to 45 and even more will actually stay the same at 12.6/18 or actually reduce scholarships! Women may get a few more at a few places, but men are in big trouble overall. It’s not going to be a good situation. Think less opportunity, not more. It’s all business now and for ADs and accountants, track is bad business.
"track is bad business." Don't tell this to Grand Slam Track, they are about to light a mountain of cash on fire.
Lighting a mountain of cash on fire is bad business.
This is great news for D1...... We can now eliminate the BS in our division of runners who don't belong on a D1 team and they can now go run D2 or 3.... we've been the weird sport where a 6 min mile earns you a spot on a team due to title 9.... now those kids can run D2 where they belong
The problem is that a guy like Bob Liking wouldn't get a roster spot on a P4 team. He has run 13:09. A woman like Or a woman like Emma Coburn wouldn't get a spot.
Bobby Likes was pretty darn good in highschool he would still get a spot.
I encourage you all to look up Hayden Wilde. NZ Olympic medalist in the Tri.
Didnt go to college, worked as a landscaper and trained with his local club until he was world class. Great story. Hard to do for sure but for all those that are really into it there will still be opportunities.
For high school kids, go to school where you want to go to school. Train hard, find a race and get the job done
No. You don't seem to realize what happens when hundreds of D1 spots are eliminated.
Bob was top 25 at both NXN and Footlocker his senior year. There will still be a place for someone like that even if every D1 school only brings in 1 American freshman each fall.
1- US high school students who want to land a coveted DI spot will have to either have a really good high school coach (which is unlikely) or run unattached and be coached remotely by an experienced coach or run for a club team with experienced coach.
this will effect the dynamics of the high school track because so many US high schoolers have not been developed properly.
2- high school seniors may need to take a gap yr or 2 to mature as a runner and be coached independently and run races to show D1 college coach they can add to team.... they have to be older with more training to compete with 21-24yr old international freshman.
3- Lastly, a student might attend college and train and get better until he can get scholarship.... he may end up with double major and masters degree and finally graduate from university at 25 or 26 like the international athletes
gonna be a great time for high school club coaches who can get athletes college ready!
This will likely prompt huge growth in club running separate from intercollegiate competition. That would be the only upside, as the English club system, at least, punches well above its weight in athletics.
Couple of issues I can think of with those ideas however but they aren’t bad ideas.
2 and 3 would run into problems with current NCAA compliance. With idea 2 the specific issue is delayed enrollment if the athlete graduates, competes, and doesn’t enroll in college after a 1 year gap year. The student will have to sit for a period of time depending on how many times they competed. This could be a partial season or they could lose a full season. High school kids would have to learn how to navigate the compliance system at the D1 level. D2 is actually easier from a compliance perspective.
3 would work if they were only part-time enrolled in college. If they were full time it would start their 5 year clock and they would begin to run into the eligibility issue. With internationals we leverage their educational system into loopholes in the ncaa compliance rules. Harder to do that with Americans and our system.
I think D2/D3 will probably get better, I think Low D1 Mid-Major schools will probably seem more attractive as well. If the SEC only has 35 spots it’s more important to land on any D1 roster than it is to go P4. Develop in lower divisions and transfer to D1 if you can’t go D1 out of high school
We’re gonna have kids running 4:15/9:20 in HS that aren’t even gonna make the cut for some upper level club teams. Oregon and CU and Texas and Alabama…all of em end up leaning on a 10th or 12th guy come the end of the season due to injuries, burn-out, etc. and now they’ll need to borrow runners from their farm system, aka the college club team.
I think this whole plan has a lot of downsides. I do, however, believe the worst coaches will have the hardest time. Yeah, recruiting is now even more important than it was, but if you notoriously blow up 3-5 of your best runners each season trying to push the envelope, you’re gonna cripple your squad by Conference every year. 10 runs is more than plenty for a race. For a whole season on the other hand….might want to quit having your guys run a marathon-effort 2hr long run the day after a mid-season 8k race then coming back with 10x1k on Tuesday.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.