Breaking - SEC to limit men's rosters to 10/35 for XC / TF, respectively

Yes 12.6 is the current total scholarship allotment allowed for a program that sponsors both xc and track. 10 and 35 is the rumored new ROSTER limits. I think the confusion lies in the language saying cannot reduce below the current ncaa minimum. Currently there are no roster minimums or maximums so the language must be referring to scholarships. Now going forward your total allowable scholarship allotment can be 17 and 45. For the SEC it will be 10 and 35. That’s because you could award a scholarship for everyone on your roster - up to the limit. You don’t have to and most won’t. But my reading of it is: you can set your roster number at whatever but your scholarships available cannot fall below the current ncaa minimum which is 12.6 for a program that sponsors both track/xc. And I’ll say it again - it could be written clearer and have no issue if anyone has a different reading of it. That’s my take.

But I doubt they do that (Vanderbilt Model) at most schools. The Power 4 is a minority in the grand scheme of college sports at the D1 level.

Are they going to do the Vandy model at

Naval Academy or Patriot League as a whole?

UMBC or America East as a whole?

Or even Georgetown or Big East as a whole?

I could be wrong but there are so many schools who don’t even have football or if they do, they will NEVER be a major player.

I could be wrong. I certainly have before.

12.6 is the current MAXIMUM. There is no NCAA minimum for track (look at BC men, no scholarships)

Can someone explain what the Vandy model is based on? Why is their situation unique? Curious why they don't offer more sports in general like WF, Duke etc. who will also have to deal with the ramifications of these rulings.

good post. it's depressing how few posters recognise

- there is a direct link between paying the young black men generating the revenue

- this is essentially the death of most white ncaa sports in current form

this thread has a lot of rubbish re-arranging deckchairs on the titanic about scholarships here and roster size there. not a lot of people thinking through long term implications.

personally i happen to think it's a great thing, most of you won't.

but it's nice to see a post that at least has it's eyes open to what this means strategically

You’re confused about your point of confusion and are mistaken about what I said. Scroll back a page or two brother.

Agree, it's been a long time coming. It should result in a significant uptick in the quality of the product in competition for both men and women. There is little to no downside overall, it just pulls away the charitable illusion for Walk-On Willie or Wendy that existed solely due to largesse that had been gained for many decades by taking from others.

Ok so a few things. I am very aware there’s no current minimum. I’m not the one who stated “cannot drop below current ncaa minimums”. Take it up with whoever wrote the settlement. I’m just trying to ascertain what they’re referring to. Since there is most definitely no minimum roster number (let’s not get into sport sponsorship - which hey, maybe that’s what they were going for) it figures it refers to the current scholarship limits (which in the new system would clearly not be a limit but a minimum). Doesn’t really matter to me. My only reason for posting is to make clear that the SEC setting a roster max of 10 for xc doesn’t violate any ncaa minimum. Yes 10 is less than 12.6 but that’s irrelevant. 12.6 is for track/xc combined. If that’s the comparison you want to make then you’d have to take xc and track separately. For the sake of argument then the number would be 5. 5 scholarships is the current max for a school who only sponsors xc. 10 is more than 5 so it’s all good.

There will be some clarification at some point but I wouldn’t expect it to lean in the way of being generous in forcing schools to do more. If schools really wanted to try and help all their sports they’d not take their football team to 105 just because they can. Stay at 85. That’s more than enough. Helps with finances and really helps title ix. But what one does everyone will follow because we have to be competitive and if my competition is doing it - I must too. Just a new front in the arms race.

Once again, Sarah Lorge-Butler and Runner’s World with a scoop that Gault and LRC should have, but could not get.

I think I interpret the language differently. To me number of scholarships “permissible” means that they can offer at least as many scholarships as they always have for any given sport. But I don’t think it means there is a minimum number allowed. They can drop down to 10 or 8 if they need to in order to limit men’s scholarships to accommodate the increase in men’s football scholarship (which can now go up to 105). Not sure if my take is correct but that’s the way I read it.

it's not a scoop to get sent a press release earlier than everyone else

Of course he was an elite high schooler. He won Great American with ease and then did the same at NXN south regional. I will admit that he didn’t have insane track times but I don’t think he started running track until 11th grade and only ran one track event his senior year before everything was shut down due to covid.

I think that the minimum might have to do with that NCAA minimum athletes at a minimum number of competitions rule to be considered as sponsoring a sport (remember the 10K runner from one of the california schools that didn't get to go to nationals last year?).

Come on. They could always recruit white foreigners. Problem solved.

Great

So can anyone help me with this:

how do I see this in reality XC: just a squad of 10 persons with full ride? or 20 with half rides? or 10 full rides and 10 (or more) walk-ons?

And with the TF squad, will that be 35 sprinters and field athletes with 10 distance (XC) guys, or just 25+10? And what with walk-ons or guys with an academic scholarship?

I mentioned entitlements earlier. In XC, The championship group wont look much different except a little more spread out. T&F as a team sport will be completely over. D1 2nd tier athletes will give it up to stay in their academic programs or transfer to lesser schools to continue pursuing athletic goals with some transferring up if they can develop enough. D3 champ or D1 nobody? Just a matter of opportunities.

Graham Blanks is a good example of a few things. Pretty good hs athlete that wouldnt probably be offered at a lot of places by jr year. Found a great fit for him and was able to adapt while growing and developing. With foreign influence at ncaa champs, he had time, a place and the help he needed at Harvard which by the way also is capable of helping throwers and jumpers quite well.

Yes, fewer opportunities for lesser athletes but still plenty of places for them to go and be developed. D1 programs wont stop recruiting foreign athletes anytime soon so 2nd tier Americans might just have to figure out how to manage their engineering, medical and law degrees at non P4 schools. If the older D1AA programs can survive, they will thrive.

Non revenue sports need to figure out how to break away from dependency on FB $$$. Im afraid what that looks like is government sponsored clubs like other parts of the world. Solves your foriegn recruitment problem for American tax dollars.

Roster spots. 10 total in XC amd 35 total in track. Scholarships will probably remain at 12.6.

Any mention of Blanks only discredits anything else in your post. Blanks ran 4:17/9:13 junior year and won multiple state championships. Keep in mind that he ran those times in a different era.