Sort of. Let's assume there is a boy who was a state champ in XC and ran 4:14 in track. He goes to a program like Michigan that has 30 guys at his level or much faster because theyvsre upper classmen. He redshirts a year and then gets sick and gets injured. He runs a few races indoor this year in 4:20, then 4:22, then 4:18. He gets cut this summer. This kid could have been a top 7 XC guy and a sub 4 minute miler had he not gotten sidetracked and he still could do it in his 5th year but he gets cut this year due to the roster limits. Saying he can transfer is silly. Where can he go as a 21 year old with a college best of 4:18 when there sre thousands of guys getting cut? He instead just decides to graduate next year rather than training hard amd doing 5 years as was his and his coach's plan.
You were talking about elite kids. At the time this example would have been cut he would not be considered elite. Could he be with time? Absolutely. True elite kids, back of pack NAU types, will mostly be able to transfer no problem. DI has been a difficult place to develop talent long before roster limits. The limits just make it next to impossible. Coaches cannot afford to. They dont have the luxury of time.
You were talking about elite kids. At the time this example would have been cut he would not be considered elite. Could he be with time? Absolutely. True elite kids, back of pack NAU types, will mostly be able to transfer no problem. DI has been a difficult place to develop talent long before roster limits. The limits just make it next to impossible. Coaches cannot afford to. They dont have the luxury of time.
Yes. Some people just aren't grasping that some elite people will be cut and certainly many elite talent will get cut. There are always guys finishing high at nationals or running crazy track times who were floundering for a few years.
Sort of. Let's assume there is a boy who was a state champ in XC and ran 4:14 in track. He goes to a program like Michigan that has 30 guys at his level or much faster because theyvsre upper classmen. He redshirts a year and then gets sick and gets injured. He runs a few races indoor this year in 4:20, then 4:22, then 4:18. He gets cut this summer. This kid could have been a top 7 XC guy and a sub 4 minute miler had he not gotten sidetracked and he still could do it in his 5th year but he gets cut this year due to the roster limits. Saying he can transfer is silly. Where can he go as a 21 year old with a college best of 4:18 when there sre thousands of guys getting cut? He instead just decides to graduate next year rather than training hard amd doing 5 years as was his and his coach's plan.
You were talking about elite kids. At the time this example would have been cut he would not be considered elite. Could he be with time? Absolutely. True elite kids, back of pack NAU types, will mostly be able to transfer no problem. DI has been a difficult place to develop talent long before roster limits. The limits just make it next to impossible. Coaches cannot afford to. They dont have the luxury of time.
It’ll be certainly interesting to see how this plays out. I’m still hoping for in depth research and reporting ANNUALLY on things like what is listed below. This seems like the ncaa should require reporting from schools and put out a report with the results.
- Number of runners on XC and track rosters in d1 year by year. (2020, 2021, 2022, etc.)
Number of runners on XC and and track rosters by class (FR, SO, JR, SR)
- Number who have full scholarships
- Number who have a partial athletic scholarship
- Number of transfers
- Number of transfers who moved to a more competitive team (tougher to get data from a survey)
- Number of transfers who moved to a less competitive team because they were not varsity (tougher to get data from a survey)
Yes. Some people just aren't grasping that some elite people will be cut and certainly many elite talent will get cut. There are always guys finishing high at nationals or running crazy track times who were floundering for a few years.
They will keep the scholarship because the cause was the roster limits.
This is not correct. As a college coach we have been told we can cut whoever and plan on having that money available immediately unless the athlete has signed a mult-year agreement.
Pretty sure this is not entirely correct. Going forward unless specifically stipulated in the aid contract, the scholarship is deemed to be a multi-year. Meaning if you gave someone a full and didn't say years 2-4 are different, the assumption is that it was a full for 4 years . Hence the contract will need to be spelled out for each year ( year 1 = 100%, year 2-4 = 0%) if you want to have flexibility. Agreed that this is for contracts going forward... however, it already works this way for the SA if the SA was a transfer. I have transfers that I can not reduce scholarship amounts on. The really fun thing about this (sarcasm) is that the contract is only binding on the school... the SA can move on if they get a better offer elsewhere but the school can't lower a SA's scholarship amount.
Add, for the most part, in the past, most P4s (not all) traditionally have honored the scholarship for 4 years.
I think most everyone who is currently on scholarship, if cut due to roster limits, would still retain their scholarship... at least at my school that would be the case. Can't speak for yours.
This is not correct. As a college coach we have been told we can cut whoever and plan on having that money available immediately unless the athlete has signed a mult-year agreement.
Pretty sure this is not entirely correct. Going forward unless specifically stipulated in the aid contract, the scholarship is deemed to be a multi-year. Meaning if you gave someone a full and didn't say years 2-4 are different, the assumption is that it was a full for 4 years . Hence the contract will need to be spelled out for each year ( year 1 = 100%, year 2-4 = 0%) if you want to have flexibility. Agreed that this is for contracts going forward... however, it already works this way for the SA if the SA was a transfer. I have transfers that I can not reduce scholarship amounts on. The really fun thing about this (sarcasm) is that the contract is only binding on the school... the SA can move on if they get a better offer elsewhere but the school can't lower a SA's scholarship amount.
Add, for the most part, in the past, most P4s (not all) traditionally have honored the scholarship for 4 years.
I think most everyone who is currently on scholarship, if cut due to roster limits, would still retain their scholarship... at least at my school that would be the case. Can't speak for yours.
Again, I don't want to copy-paste the same comment from a couple pages ago, but it apparently needs reiterating: There are many athlete benefits which are not speically enumerated in the contact that can be multiple times of the value of the scholarship. Currently, these are completely lost when an athlete is cut. These must be considered in this discussion.
These include meals, tutoring, stipends, gear, and other small things. We are not just talking about some school swag to pick up chicks on campus, but meal plans and stipends to pay rent that many student athletes rely on to meet their daily living needs. These universities should absolutely be obligated to continue these benefits for current athletes IN ADDITION to their scholarship. I hope we can at least all agree on that even if we don't on the cuts themselves.
As of today 13:59 for 5K (indoor) for D1 is ranked 85th. This is with a month and a half until nats and this will only get faster in outdoor. That time is not even scoring at conference in any power 4. sub 14 for 5k is no longer what it used to be. Everyone needs to remember that coaches have to make decisions for their roster by weighing what you have done lately versus what can you potentially do. The roster limits make it much much harder to keep a kid based on future potential. If you are not top 7 or scoring points at conference or nationals then you can be cut and replaced with an international or transfer. That means that they have to decide if you are elite today not down the road. Any one of those sub 14 kids could turn into an olympian with time. Coaches no longer have time. You have to be elite right now.
If you took the top College football and basketball teams, broke them off from the NCAA and created a minor league NFL and NBA franchises, they would lose money from day 1 and be out of business after a few seasons. The reason these college programs generate huge sums of cash off their football and basketball teams is because the people piling money into tickets, merchandise and pumping ratings on broadcasts are by and large alumni or alumni adjacent (relative of, went to school with star player, etc.). So, the school is the reason these athletes create so much value.
In rightfully seeking to direct that value back to the athletes, the NCAA should recognize that the interests of the school's entire athletic program should come first before enriching the athletes who are in the sports that raise the most money. This is because without the school, those athletes would not get the same kind of cash. A quarterback for the Georgia Bulldogs is going to be worth many times more than a quarterback of the Athens, Georgia Dogwoods (a hypothetical minor league NFL team).
If I was in charge, I would required all sports, male and female, to have their entire roster on full scholarships with the old roster limits before any funds are distributed to the football, basketball, etc. players. There is plenty of money to go around at Div I schools and a system of luxury taxes like the NBA should also be in place to send funds to smaller Div I schools.
Sort of. Let's assume there is a boy who was a state champ in XC and ran 4:14 in track. He goes to a program like Michigan that has 30 guys at his level or much faster because theyvsre upper classmen. He redshirts a year and then gets sick and gets injured. He runs a few races indoor this year in 4:20, then 4:22, then 4:18. He gets cut this summer. This kid could have been a top 7 XC guy and a sub 4 minute miler had he not gotten sidetracked and he still could do it in his 5th year but he gets cut this year due to the roster limits. Saying he can transfer is silly. Where can he go as a 21 year old with a college best of 4:18 when there sre thousands of guys getting cut? He instead just decides to graduate next year rather than training hard amd doing 5 years as was his and his coach's plan.
Michigan has a pretty good club team. I'd think in this specific scenario he could just join the club team.
The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. If you're a walk-on and simply want to train with the team... don't require meals, gear, tutoring, etc... but want the coaching and training environment of a collegiate program... why, under the new rules, should the NCAA or Institution care? Remember, we are re-writing the rules here, so why couldn't this be a new rule... call it a volunteer athlete or something. You could even pay that athlete like $5 a week as an employee/contractor domestique for the team. He becomes training staff.
If that kid gets good enough to make the roster, the coach can always recruit one less kid and give them a spot. Otherwise they can run unattached. Why would this not be allowed?
There have to be ways around this debacle.
Remember too, nothing is finalized until April. So at the end of the day of the athletes band together, there is always a chance the judge allows the settlement without the roster limits, no?
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
I'm confused by your statement (or maybe you're confused by my comments?). My concern is roster limits, which effectively means the death of walk-ons even if that is not explicit. My solution was a team could theoretically carry a 17man roster with 30kids at practice if they wanted to. Just treat them as volunteers assistants, paid domestiques, or something like that. Win-win for everyone no?
You must have come through the D3 route. Coaches are paid and they don't practice with the athletes. Walk-on rules are not being changed. The limit on the number is changing but nothing else. A coach will get fired and the team will be suspended if they do what you are proposing.
Your daughter can't even make the travel roster at Tennessee. Sorry but you aren't any more entitled to a roster spot than anyone else. Either medically retire and retain the scholorship $$ or transfer out. People have been doing that for the last year because of the House Settlement and they are fine.
I actually ran D1 25y ago. But that is irrelevant. You're still not getting it. You're applying new rules while adhering to old rules. If you're going to shake things up shake things up. Change the old rules stating coaches can't work out with athletes. We're sitting here paying millions to a freshman quarterback and you're stuck on the old rule of you coaches can't run with their athletes? Are you serious? The game has changed yet you can't fathom changing it. That's weird. Why can we make massive changes to rules around athletes being paid but not make changes to how coaches or whatever you want to call them interact with rostered athletes (as in run with them).
You are very confused. Roster limits need to be established for the very things that you are proposing. Alabama would be able to have an extra 50 football players practicing and paid for with NIL money. Roster limits level the playing field so that rich schools can't pay a bunch of extra athletes.
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.