Fighting Roster Limits in House v NCAA settlement

Everyone has been helpful. It is obvious from your post that academics are more important to you and I assume to her also. Transferring seems like it is not an option.

The Law of Unintended Consequences at work. Have read elsewhere about the end of walk-ons in all sports. Some coaches encouraged walk-ons as an insurance against transfers, injuries and just plain failures of recruited athletes.

Walk-ons will continue.

This is just the start. Athletic departments are struggling to find this new model even at the power 4 level. Unfortunately cutting roster spots will be the least of their concerns.

indystar.com

IU Athletics eliminates 25 positions in layoffs as it braces for NCAA revenue sharing

@indystar

The Indiana athletics department eliminated 25 positions as it looks to trim 10% of the budget from each of its auxiliaries and programs.

Open link

This thread, and forum in general, are full of piss poor analysis of the House settlement, it's implications, roster limits, and what it means for things like club sports and practice squads. This forum is a cest pool of idiocy.

What's a cest pool?

What I left inside your mother last night, Trebek.

Please enlighten us with your expert take on the situation.

Ya got me!

So, when you were saying this forum is a "cest pool" of idiocy, you were including yourself?

I agree. Too many posters make angry statements that everything posted false rather than politely stating what they believe to be true.

Excuse me for mistyping a phrase.

No. I am talking about the analysis indicating that the House settlement will in anyway be good for XCTF at the collegiate level. It limits opportunities without collective bargaining, it imposed rules upon non-P5 conferences without their input, and opens up the NCAA to further anti-trust litigation. So yeah, smoothbrains, good f'ing move here supporting this turd of a settlement.

C'est (pool) la vie.

No one on LRC thinks the new NCAA is good for xctf. Discussion more around what negative effect it will have.

For reasons you mention, still a good chance House settlement not approved.

New Republican government, does however appear to be considering anti-trust help for Ncaa. Sen Crux TX and AL team will play a lead in that.

This very thread includes pleas to drop the objection because roster limits are the only thing that could possibly save XCTF.

Who here supported it?

All of this is a mess and bad for most colleges and most college sports.

I think if you read between the lines that poster's thinking is.

1 - these new NCAA rules suck for xc/tf.

2- but at least they are keeping Olympic sports, and not just sports that have revenue.

3- so please don't file a lawsuit vs NCAA over roster spots

4 - because then we will just lose the whole sport, instead of some roster spots.

Valid points.

I wanted to excuse you, and I was going to say that you can learn a lesson from this, like, instead of name-calling, maybe you can calmly and rationally explain your position. Then I read your second paragraph, and I saw more name-calling.

I'll just point out that you obviously didn't "mistype" the phrase. You just don't know it. It's "cesspool".

Also, it's is a contraction, and its is the possessive. I think you meant to use the possessive. You probably just mistyped.

On the other hand, maybe you are right. Idiocy abounds!

The Law of Unintended Consequences at work. Have read elsewhere about the end of walk-ons in all sports. Some coaches encouraged walk-ons as an insurance against transfers, injuries and just plain failures of recruited athletes.

100001.onl

10.0.0.0.1 - 10.0.0.1 Admin Login

100001_hknwf4

10.0.0.0.1 - 10.0.0.1 is the default IP address to login admin panel of a router. It is often mistyped as 10.0.0.0.1 which will return an invalid webpage.

Open link

I got this,..

The point of the objection isn't to remove the roster limits all together, though. The stated objective is to grandfather in current athletes and then phase in the roster limits.

This isn't difficult to do either. Find the max XC and max TF rosters in NCAA D1.

Say its 70 for TF and 30 for XC, and the end goals are 45 and 17.

Phase in over 5 years, starting the second season following final approval of the settlement.

2025-2026 - no change

2026-2027 - 65 TF / 27 XC

2027-2028 - 60 TF / 24 XC

2028-2029 - 55 TF / 21 XC

2029-2030 - 50 TF / 19 XC

2030-2031 - 45 TF / 17 XC

Or some variation of this.

Set the scholarship limits at the proposed final roster limits - 45 TF / 17 XC.

This doesn't disenfranchise existing rostered student athletes.

More broadly though, the other items in the settlement, though are even more illegal. The direct payment cap was not collectively bargained. Conferences and schools outside of the P5 (now P4) were not involved yet are required to pay, which is a clear breach of financial duty by the NCAA to a majority of its Division 1 members. The settlement does not dismiss any future anti-trust claims, so the NCAA is only setting itself up for more lawsuits in the future, jeopardizing its own existence with this settlement.

Those items are outside the scope of OP's objection though. There are many other objections and lawsuits brewing (see South Dakota's lawsuit for example). I'd be shocked if this settlement, or any settlement, is finalized within the next 3 years.