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

You've only pointed out the athletic departments that generate the most revenue. What about their expenses? That's the factor in determining what they can/cannot add. I think you (and most for that matter) are vastly underestimating the expenses an athletic department generates. Tell me how many of these departments are in the black at the end of their fiscal year? THAT is what tells you the state of their financial health - not simply the amount of revenue they generate.

Very few schools (maybe none) are going to be spending extra money on all sports due these changes.

More likely, as you state, ADs will decide to pick a choose who they will fully fund and who they won't. That seems obvious.

Since we know that will happen, we can likely expect that most schools will underfund track and/or XC.

So, what decisions should a track and/or XC HC be considering to navigate going forward? (Assuming they want to be successful and not just collect a paycheck).

I'm looking for ideas here because that's what will be needed.

Tennessee

Texas

Texas A&M

Florida

Arkansas

that’s just a few more added

When ADs go to the donors to explain that they will be more competitive with more scholarships, donations will increase.

at like 20 schools

and who do you think is funding NIL at these schools?

The same donors, silly. Notre Dame funds 85 scholarships. They get creative with NIL to fund a bunch more guys above 85. Now they will be able to fund 105 through scholarships. If donors were funding an additional 40 walk-ons, they now can donate the money above board for the 20 scholarships and still have additional funding for another 20 which can't be used for football scholarships. Most football schools will receive additional donations. This isn't controversial. The money already exists and more money will be donated for other sports because donors know that a better overall reputation benefits football and basketball indirectly.

even assuming you are correct that there is all this unlimited money at some schools... like I said, it will be about 20 schools.

the bottom line is schools are going to drop sports. revenue sharing and additional football scholarships will dictate that. i'm willing to bet (figure of speech) even at schools like ohio state.

One more reason to eliminate any tax benefits garnered by donating to athletic programs. Bribes should be taxed at a very high rate.

Title IX will go away if college athletes are deemed employees, and women's sports will likely be gutted. There are no Title IX restrictions on hiring employees.

Stanford? We're only a couple years removed from them trying to drop a whole bunch of Olympic sports.

I would agree with this as well. So the numbers USA Today is using are from 2022 - so I assume 21-22 which are misleading. Coming out of the pandemic costs in athletic departments were MUCH lower than they typically are, mainly from having disrupted seasons and much less travel. So I would take lot of those numbers with a grain of salt. Even Ohio State for 22-23 reported less profit to EADA - $15 million vs the $25 you see on the USA Today numbers. Even so - they are decidedly not the norm if you look at the list. But just doing some quick math - using 24-25 COA at Ohio State you're looking at roughly $60k for a full scholarship (I'm using non-resident). Just the additional football and basketball scholarships (22 in total) run you an additional $1,320 million a year. And this is doable for them, as it would be for Texas and a few others. The problem is their margins are not shared by the vast majority of schools. If they used all of their $15 million of profit and spent it on scholarships they're funding 200 additional scholarships which wouldn't get all the sports they sponsor to their respective limits.

They'll do what every other school will do - fund those that are the most successful. Leave others unchanged. They may be lucky enough to not cut back in any current sports but there will be those that do.

Also remember: saying there's NIL money that can fund it - that is different than saying an institution is offering you a scholarship. You're receiving money from an outside entity - not the institution. Think of it this way - NIL is simply having a sugar daddy to pay your tuition. But the whole: "guaranteed for 4 years" and other scholarship rules wouldn't apply. If said donor decided to take it back - they absolutely can. I suspect you're saying these donor are now going to donate this money to the university to endow actual scholarships. Maybe they will but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that schools are going to have tough decisions to make regarding who gets full support and who doesn't.

1. Court potential NIL sponsors. Smaller brands. Donors. Maybe local businesses around the college town. Whatever.

2. Support club XC and club track at their school. Make the clubs if they don't exist, get funding for them. Due to the roster limits for varsity, the clubs can become the new JV.

Thanks to everyone who posted to this thread. It helped me catch up quickly on the potential pros and cons of this change. As a parent of a college runner, I’m wondering if this will open opportunities for him or close them.

That said, I’m trying to take insights from the early actions. For example, I read that the Cal Baptist HC took the distance job at Georgia because GA committed 10 additional scholarships (5 men / 5 women) for distance events only starting in 25-26. Seems proof that the rich will attempt to get richer. I haven’t seen examples of different decisions yet.

side bar - didn’t some Ivy alumni sue the schools / conference over the rule re no athletic scholarships? anyone know the status? as long as the ivies are generating revenue from sports it’s hard to imagine they’d win their case in court.

But if its just an uninhibited spend-a-thon, devoid of any bounds, many will not be interested. A rich donor base can equalize things when some reasonable bounds are in place. Absent that, the few giants will simply dominate even further.

Felt like this might be relevant to bring back up since the argument of: the schools that make money will be just fine.

This is (according to USA Today) the most profitable athletic department in the country and they're eliminating scholarships for a sport. Now, it could be worse - it could be cut. This is the only sport I've seen publicly named but I've heard there are others, but don't know what they are. Now imagine what's about to happen at other athletic departments.

Quite honestly given the number of opposition lawsuits filed in the House case I feel confident this settlement is dead in the water. Schools will go ahead and adopt the new roster limits and will revenue share in hopes that it somehow helps mitigate the damages that will inevitably be paid, but the NCAA is dead. With it you're going to see the death of college athletics as we know it. Mostly because everything is trying to be solved solely through the lens of worrying about the two revenue sports (and really it's just football). The problem is you can't solve it by treating football the way NFL teams operate. NFL teams are solely worried about their revenues funding that sport - NOT an entire department.

One day someone (and who knows I have a lot of thoughts on this having been in this world for a long time) will write about what got us here and all the missteps that happened along the way. At the same time everyone will wax poetic about the good ol days when there used to be college athletics.