New NCAA Roster Caps: 17 for xc, 45 for Track

How many schools are going to actually sponsor 45 scholarships? Seems like Arkansas basically does this already.

No. That 5 and 6 number is for institutions that sponsored cross-country only and not track and field.

I think your assessment is fairly spot on except that I don't think most FCS and Group 5 will not opt out. If they opt out they will lose all of their March Madness revenue that funnels through the conference. The other factor that no one has mentioned yet is that Conferences may kick out members who opt out because revenue sharing is usually distributed through the conference. This could cause a huge conference realignment outside of the Power 4. Schools will not want to be without a conference for not opting in. Especially if they keep their football programs. Group of 5 and FCS will have to choose between Football and the rest of the athletic department and the donors at those school will not be big enough to keep funding it all.

Not if they opt out. probably leads to a new Power 4 division with different rules. And no....the NCAA is not worried about level playing field right now. They are just trying to stay relavent so they can exists.

Its not 107. They are not going to have a different 45 from indoor to outdoor(goodbye javelin only kids) the 45 indoor will be roughly the same kids outdoors and the 17 in XC count towards the 45 unless they do not run track. The max number is really 62.

Old rule. Not entirely the case any more.

What if they have no football? For instance, Mount St Marys in Maryland has made some runs to the NCAA basketball tournament in the past but no football.

Schools like that will have to choose between Bball revenue sharing and no sharing and may still face conference issues. All of the revenue sharing in the NCAA stems from the march madness tournament. Football has only ever drained athletic dept money outside of the P4

Still the rule.

bump

Can someone clarify, is this roster limit change for all D1 schools or just the P5 conferences? I've heard both answers from various coaches. Looking it up generally online also reveals both answers. Or do we simply not know yet?

I know a young lady who is 25th on her power 5 squad. She had a 1:1 last week with her coach and he told her she was safe.

Not a 800-1500 runner. Will not help the track team. How in the world can this coach grow a set and be honest. Totally not fair to the athlete when the athletic department finally holds the coach accountable.

Well, isn't there an opt-out option for the schools (choosing to be involved in profit-sharing)?

Either that or the coach is clueless or just not brave enough to be honest.

The reason I asked the above question is we are starting the recruitment process in earnest this spring for sure. Daughter's friend who is going to be a junior next year (22nd on a Big Ten School's roster) has already been told about the cutoff, but her safety is up to progress in track. 4 of the 5 above her are graduating.

Most coaches are not being honest enough. I used to be our USATFCCCA regional rep awhile back and keep in touch with the current person. Have heard and seen this coming for a long time—along with other things coming down the pipeline (track regional system getting eliminated).

As for the opt-in question, I am at a mid-major program and we were told last week in a meeting with our AD that our conference is opting in. We aren’t a powerhouse conference by any means, except maybe in cross-country, but the fear is that schools that don’t opt-in won’t be scheduled to play programs who do in the revenue sports. That will ultimately hurt the brand. Power schools want everyone to have the same restrictions as them, but not the same resources.

If you are a mid-major program that can still carry 40+ XC women while a SEC school can only carry 10, you do wield a certain advantage and attraction for a recruit. Now, you don’t have the ability to bring in a bunch of Kenyans, but you can still take a shot on a lot of people. No more of that.

Honestly, D2 is looking more appealing as a coach. Maybe JUCO. Or maybe I stop pretending to have a big boy job and just go to the private sector and actually make a good living.

That was me complaining, but all I know is that the NCAA is shifting drastically and if you have a child in the recruiting process right now—I’m sorry. This is going to be tough unless you are a stud. Ask hard questions and be persistent. Don’t be afraid that doing so will cause a coach to lose interest in your kid. There will be some good, honest coaches out there that will value your athlete.

The opt out part remains confusing. NAU can opt out and carry 30 guys on the XC team.

So if NAU opts out then they can’t participate in the profit sharing of the ncaa basketball tourney. I’m sorry…I just don’t see that happening.