What is the incremental cost to a typical university of each additional un-scholarshipped runner over 17/45?
The cost you are asking for could very greatly depending on the school. At the small school level $1500 avg per year multiplied by the number of kids on the team is the formula for the operating budget and a fairly safe guess. P4 schools might be 5-10k per kid. With the roster limits though there will not be anyone over the 17/45 amount. Club teams will not be allowed to have any contact with the athletic department and coaches that use the club for a farm team will proabably get major NCAA violation sanctions.
What is the incremental cost to a typical university of each additional un-scholarshipped runner over 17/45?
The cost you are asking for could very greatly depending on the school. At the small school level $1500 avg per year multiplied by the number of kids on the team is the formula for the operating budget and a fairly safe guess. P4 schools might be 5-10k per kid. With the roster limits though there will not be anyone over the 17/45 amount. Club teams will not be allowed to have any contact with the athletic department and coaches that use the club for a farm team will proabably get major NCAA violation sanctions.
So a P4 school could keep 5 extra guys and 5 extra girls in non travel squad roster spots for $50k? The kids would pay more than that in tuition and with increasing enrollment challenges, that’s a potential financial win for the schools.
Who is giving kids who wouldn’t make the main squad in Olympic sports an NIL that would cause significant competition concerns?
It really seems like the whole settlement is being made by FB minded ADs who really haven’t thought about trying to make the settlement make sense for non revenue sports.
The cost you are asking for could very greatly depending on the school. At the small school level $1500 avg per year multiplied by the number of kids on the team is the formula for the operating budget and a fairly safe guess. P4 schools might be 5-10k per kid. With the roster limits though there will not be anyone over the 17/45 amount. Club teams will not be allowed to have any contact with the athletic department and coaches that use the club for a farm team will proabably get major NCAA violation sanctions.
So a P4 school could keep 5 extra guys and 5 extra girls in non travel squad roster spots for $50k? The kids would pay more than that in tuition and with increasing enrollment challenges, that’s a potential financial win for the schools.
Who is giving kids who wouldn’t make the main squad in Olympic sports an NIL that would cause significant competition concerns?
It really seems like the whole settlement is being made by FB minded ADs who really haven’t thought about trying to make the settlement make sense for non revenue sports.
The FB minded athletic directors 100% are making decisions based entirely on football. They do not care if it makes sense for non-revenue sports. This entire new era is going to cost money. Non-revenue sports literally bring in no money and are money holes. They will most definately pay less than a regular non-athlete because of the operating cost associated with them just being on the team. There is no incentive to do this for the school. The roster limits are the only thing keeping schools from cutting these programs. The roster limits keep operating cost down and I doubt very many P4 schools actually fund 17/45 anyway. They are trying to stay relevent in FB which is getting more expensive by the day. They cannot keep extra spots with the legislation because that defeats the point of the roster limits. if they kept extra spots then it is the same as them having scholarship limits. Threy will get sued and lose and we are right back talking about roster limits.
The cost you are asking for could very greatly depending on the school. At the small school level $1500 avg per year multiplied by the number of kids on the team is the formula for the operating budget and a fairly safe guess. P4 schools might be 5-10k per kid. With the roster limits though there will not be anyone over the 17/45 amount. Club teams will not be allowed to have any contact with the athletic department and coaches that use the club for a farm team will proabably get major NCAA violation sanctions.
So a P4 school could keep 5 extra guys and 5 extra girls in non travel squad roster spots for $50k? The kids would pay more than that in tuition and with increasing enrollment challenges, that’s a potential financial win for the schools.
Who is giving kids who wouldn’t make the main squad in Olympic sports an NIL that would cause significant competition concerns?
It really seems like the whole settlement is being made by FB minded ADs who really haven’t thought about trying to make the settlement make sense for non revenue sports.
You are just now realizing that non-revenue sports don't matter to ADs?
Unfortunately, for better or mostly for worse, universities are businesses. As such they operate that way.
For too long SAs have been treated poorly by the NCAA and these universities and the SAs finally fought back. They won. Which is nice but only to a point.
I'm old school and I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the SAs favor and they continue pushing it in that direction. Most will say 'well, that's capitalism', which I won't argue with, however, if we are going to say that's just how capitalism works- market rates and whatnot, then no one can be upset by the universities making business decisions that work for them.
What that means unfortunately is some SAs will have to suffer because as someone above wrote. 'they can't have it both ways.'
You are just now realizing that non-revenue sports don't matter to ADs?
Unfortunately, for better or mostly for worse, universities are businesses. As such they operate that way.
For too long SAs have been treated poorly by the NCAA and these universities and the SAs finally fought back. They won. Which is nice but only to a point.
I'm old school and I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the SAs favor and they continue pushing it in that direction. Most will say 'well, that's capitalism', which I won't argue with, however, if we are going to say that's just how capitalism works- market rates and whatnot, then no one can be upset by the universities making business decisions that work for them.
What that means unfortunately is some SAs will have to suffer because as someone above wrote. 'they can't have it both ways.'
I always viewed track (and to a lesser extent, xc) as being one of the non-revenue sports that's the safest from cuts. Relatively cheap, low severe injury rates (think concussion, ACL or similar tear, etc), and roughly 20% rates of black participation (xc about 8% - probably mostly Kenyans)
I feel for all the athletes right now. The roster limits are too low in some sports, particularly if the SEC enacts those lower limits, but I wonder if it's not best to focus the public pressure on conferences enacting unrealistic limits rather than the idea of roster limits in the settlement as a whole.
The damage has already been done already to the class of 2025 recruiting class, I know kids told directly by coaches that they would have been a recruit any other year but with roster limits they need to look elsewhere. I think it's hard to put in a grandfather clause without even further hurting the kids coming up behind current college athletes. So it just gets very difficult to legislate who can be hurt by this and who has to be protected.
I know all of this comes from very good parents trying to protect their kids in an unfair system, but I also think so many things are culminating right now outside of roster limits (foreign recruiting services, NIL money, etc etc). It's all very difficult and I think all the athletes have to take a hard look at their situations and do what works best for them.
Good luck. You don't get to share millions of dollars in revenue with athletes and then get to have unlimited rosters. Thats not how this is going to work. Team are going to cut spots and whole sports whether you sue the NCAA or not.
Can't have it both ways! Reap what you sow.
I don't understand what you mean by that comment. My athlete never asked for multimillion dollar amounts or to be part of this class action settlement. They just want to keep their roster spot that is only being taken away because of the settlement. If current student athletes could be grandfathered in, that would be fair. As it is, thousands are going to be cut only because of the ridiculous roster limits (I'm especially talking about XC here).
I don't understand what you mean by that comment. My athlete never asked for multimillion dollar amounts or to be part of this class action settlement. They just want to keep their roster spot that is only being taken away because of the settlement. If current student athletes could be grandfathered in, that would be fair. As it is, thousands are going to be cut only because of the ridiculous roster limits (I'm especially talking about XC here).
Mom, I feel sorry for your kid. I really do.
The reap what you sow is a general comment about the overall trend. As the poster above said for years the SAs got nothing and it was unfair. They fought back and they have 'won'. Unfortunately, they won with no guard rails and they keep pushing and pushing because they can.
The sad sad result however is that they have changed the college landscape for ever. There will be big winners and lots of people who will be stepped on. And far far fewer opportunities for those to play college sports as we know it. You are going to see many schools drop sports to the club level because it's all gotten out of hand.
It's unfortunate and I feel bad for your kid but it will be worse for kids who are just now entering HS. It was fun while it lasted.
You are just now realizing that non-revenue sports don't matter to ADs?
Unfortunately, for better or mostly for worse, universities are businesses. As such they operate that way.
For too long SAs have been treated poorly by the NCAA and these universities and the SAs finally fought back. They won. Which is nice but only to a point.
I'm old school and I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the SAs favor and they continue pushing it in that direction. Most will say 'well, that's capitalism', which I won't argue with, however, if we are going to say that's just how capitalism works- market rates and whatnot, then no one can be upset by the universities making business decisions that work for them.
What that means unfortunately is some SAs will have to suffer because as someone above wrote. 'they can't have it both ways.'
I always viewed track (and to a lesser extent, xc) as being one of the non-revenue sports that's the safest from cuts. Relatively cheap, low severe injury rates (think concussion, ACL or similar tear, etc), and roughly 20% rates of black participation (xc about 8% - probably mostly Kenyans)
Gotta ask... what do black participation rate have to do with your statement?
And, btw, there are many injuries in track (and XC). from a medical cost standpoint it's not cheap.
I always viewed track (and to a lesser extent, xc) as being one of the non-revenue sports that's the safest from cuts. Relatively cheap, low severe injury rates (think concussion, ACL or similar tear, etc), and roughly 20% rates of black participation (xc about 8% - probably mostly Kenyans)
Gotta ask... what do black participation rate have to do with your statement?
And, btw, there are many injuries in track (and XC). from a medical cost standpoint it's not cheap.
It's not viewed as a 'country club' sport whose particiupants are >95% wealthy whites (and Asians)
Women's equestrian is 87% white and 12% other (almost all Asian)
I disagree. Athletes made decisions based on the rules at the time. Some chose a school because they could run there. They now are off the team living 1000 miles from home. Future athletes will know what the rules are and will decide accordingly.
. By the way the club alternative will not happen at the college level. There will be a club system but it will be privatized.
What do you mean? There already is NIRCA. Its going to be the option for a lot of would be student athletes who want to go to flagship state schools but can't make a team (if there even is one).
What is the incremental cost to a typical university of each additional un-scholarshipped runner over 17/45?
What’s the point of having an un-scholarshipped runner on a team if they make no contribution whatsoever for the cause? should we start handing out participation trophies?
Nonsense. Now that the schools are paying their athletes in money sports they are also getting far larger TV deals, esp. with conference consolidation, so they have the money for the larger rosters; they just don't want to give even the pittance needed to fund the other teams. Who said they had to give full rides to every athlete on a roster? This is actually the biggest issue of our time for our sport and now is the time to protest. Congress and judges alike do not tend to mess with larger #'s of committed middle- and upper-class parents who object to a position that greatly affects their children, and coaches are aligned with parents on this one.
What’s the point of having an un-scholarshipped runner on a team if they make no contribution whatsoever for the cause? should we start handing out participation trophies?
there used to be this interesting thing called development. an 18 year old would come in as a freshman and not compete on varsity, then they would get better over time and be varsity as a junior/senior. this was back when roster sizes were larger than the travel squad. it was a pretty cool concept actually
So a P4 school could keep 5 extra guys and 5 extra girls in non travel squad roster spots for $50k? The kids would pay more than that in tuition and with increasing enrollment challenges, that’s a potential financial win for the schools.
Who is giving kids who wouldn’t make the main squad in Olympic sports an NIL that would cause significant competition concerns?
It really seems like the whole settlement is being made by FB minded ADs who really haven’t thought about trying to make the settlement make sense for non revenue sports.
The FB minded athletic directors 100% are making decisions based entirely on football. They do not care if it makes sense for non-revenue sports. This entire new era is going to cost money. Non-revenue sports literally bring in no money and are money holes. They will most definately pay less than a regular non-athlete because of the operating cost associated with them just being on the team. There is no incentive to do this for the school. The roster limits are the only thing keeping schools from cutting these programs. The roster limits keep operating cost down and I doubt very many P4 schools actually fund 17/45 anyway. They are trying to stay relevent in FB which is getting more expensive by the day. They cannot keep extra spots with the legislation because that defeats the point of the roster limits. if they kept extra spots then it is the same as them having scholarship limits. Threy will get sued and lose and we are right back talking about roster limits.
can you explain why threat of lawsuits mean schools can't give extra spots or impose scholarship limits? i don't get it. i thought they just have to share revenue.