There will be a Zoom call this Saturday 1/18/25 to discuss how to continue to fight roster limits and details on how to submit an objection. Time is running out with objections due January 31st! Please join. 2 ways to get details of the Zoom Call:
1. DM Philip Sheng on Twitter/X and he will provide you with the Zoom details
We are making some progress, but we NEED EVERY OBJECTION for the judge to see the harm being done to current student athletes!
This thread made me think of a follow up question. Will the schools have to honor scholarships for four years? Obviously that does not mean they will have a spot on the team but it does change things alot if they are required to honor those scholarships. Imagine having to pay a scholarship to a kid that you cut for four years. This could lead to rosters having open spots. I dont know the fallout but it raises an interesting question.
My question to that is: if we have a 4 year scholarship, that is a contract and what happens when the student athlete wants more money or wants to leave (transfer) within that contract time? If Nick Saban wanted to leave University of Alabama, he could leave, but he had a buyout clause in his contract. Will the athlete be on the hook?
If universities are going to be operating in a professional model, which is what this is, the athletes need to understand that they are payed to play. If they decide to not play or transfer, they are in breach of their contract and there could be financial repercussions.
90% of that money will go back to those money sports to fund the ever increasing arms race and now salary race. The 22 million cap for athlete salaries is a starting point and will definitely go up as this moves forward. When these schools made the decisions to go down this road to professional sports they also stopped pretending to care about robust athletic departments. Olympic sport opportunities at the D1 level will gradually disappear as this trend progresses. You wrongly assume that more money means that football and basketball will share it. Everything from conference realignment to the current fiasco is because football is driving the boat. Our sport that we love is in danger and the only lifeline we have is if the NCAA survives. If this settlement is not approved then the top 40-60 schools will leave and move to an unregulated pro model with no need for other sports as they will only take money away from football and basketball.
Possibly. But so far the big $ D1 schools can have cake and eat it too. Oylmpic type sports are no big deal to fund for the Bamas, OSU, UM, ND.....
The AD of U of M has stated specifically "they will not eliminate any sport whatsoever" due to this system going forward. I doubt they are alone. If you have money what would eliminating xc help?
If there are 300 programs with 20 men, that is 6000 runners. If they run 4 years, that is 1500 runners per year. So over the past 25 years, that's 37K runners. Please name 5 who were low level walk-ons who went on to become conference champs, All Americans, and professionals. If it happens 1% of the time, there would be more than 300.
not what i said at all. i am just talking about kids starting as non-varsity and moving up to varsity later. if the roster size is only varsity then this can never happen.
The NCAA in an attempt to limit their liability and ultimately just survive has to get out of the business of having control over manoey available to student athletes. In order to still regulate competative fairness they are limiting roster size instead of money amounts in the form of scholarship. Since roster limits are the new hard line then there will be no exceptions to those limits. To go over roster limits will be the same as going over scholarship limits in the old system. Without approval of this settlement which mandates roster limits instead of scholarship limits, there will be no reason for the big schools to continue on as members of the NCAA. This is the last gasp of the NCAA to try to save the current model of college sports as best it can at the D1 level. The schools were talking about leaving before this settlement. This settlement is a lifeline that comes with hard cuts. The cuts will be much deeper without it.
i still don't see why they couldn't just make the roster limits a lot bigger for sports like xc and track. let schools roster fewer kids or have only half on scholarship. i believe you because i have seen this said elsewhere but i still don't understand why. is it the schools themselves who pushed for tight roster limits so they don't have to spend too much money on non-revenue sports?
I dont think club will disappear or not be allowed but I do think that the association with the school sponsored teams will be heavily regulated since the hard line is now roster numbers instead of scholarship dollars. Too much association between the two could lead to violations. Obviously this is all speculation but limiting the spots available to a non-negotable limit forces different rules. Club sport athletes could be labeled recruitable student athletes and then recruiting rules could apply. Here is a thought......what if mid majors started recruiting from Power4 club teams. Those kids are not on rosters and thus would not have to go through the portal. There is another wrinkle for you. Who knows where this will end up in the next 2-5 years.
What violations? The school has a roster available on its website and tfffrs. Only those athletes can compete in ncaa.
As long as they are not paying a club athlete to stock an extra body, what is the violation?
Keep in mind most schools won't even be paying/scholarshipping the athletes on the roster, so why would they pay a club runner?
There will be a Zoom call this Saturday 1/18/25 to discuss how to continue to fight roster limits and details on how to submit an objection. Time is running out with objections due January 31st! Please join. 2 ways to get details of the Zoom Call:
1. DM Philip Sheng on Twitter/X and he will provide you with the Zoom details
We are making some progress, but we NEED EVERY OBJECTION for the judge to see the harm being done to current student athletes!
Unless you can convince Congress to exempt football and basketball from Title IX, good luck fighting roster limits. No athletic director or university president is gonna want to mess with the cash cow that is football and basketball, especially if they're the sports that are bankrolling the rest of the sports.
If this means roster limits for the other sports, so be it.
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
Currently that is true. It is also based on the fact that they have a 22 million dollar salary cap for the department. As that goes up or is eliminated all together then the money will be an issue because the QB will want a 60 million dollar contract. Oh St. Ad said a similar statement as well. They will not cut sports but he did say that they would go to a more regional model and I am betting they are definitely cutting budgets. They may not cut the sport but if they can no longer fly you out for Peyton Jordan to race then what is the point of going D1. The mid major schools will absolutely have to make cuts to be able to compete in football. That is where the most damage will be done. The MAC schools cannot afford football now. How will they get recruits with out paying them? They will make deep cuts.
The NCAA in an attempt to limit their liability and ultimately just survive has to get out of the business of having control over manoey available to student athletes. In order to still regulate competative fairness they are limiting roster size instead of money amounts in the form of scholarship. Since roster limits are the new hard line then there will be no exceptions to those limits. To go over roster limits will be the same as going over scholarship limits in the old system. Without approval of this settlement which mandates roster limits instead of scholarship limits, there will be no reason for the big schools to continue on as members of the NCAA. This is the last gasp of the NCAA to try to save the current model of college sports as best it can at the D1 level. The schools were talking about leaving before this settlement. This settlement is a lifeline that comes with hard cuts. The cuts will be much deeper without it.
i still don't see why they couldn't just make the roster limits a lot bigger for sports like xc and track. let schools roster fewer kids or have only half on scholarship. i believe you because i have seen this said elsewhere but i still don't understand why. is it the schools themselves who pushed for tight roster limits so they don't have to spend too much money on non-revenue sports?
I think that is a complicated question to answer. Bottom line is that the schools got together and agreed on the roster limit numbers. They may have all done so for different reasons but they are collectively ok with the outcome. They could make the limits bigger but they chose not to because they are preparing for an uncertain future that will inevitably cost more money every year.
Unless you can convince Congress to exempt football and basketball from Title IX, good luck fighting roster limits. No athletic director or university president is gonna want to mess with the cash cow that is football and basketball, especially if they're the sports that are bankrolling the rest of the sports.
If this means roster limits for the other sports, so be it.
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
The NCAA doesn't want to have scholarship limits anymore because they keep getting sued for anti-trust issues as well as they don't want to have huge rosters anymore because it gets costly. They are now setting a roster limit and you can fund as many of those on the roster to a full scholarship and pay them if they please. There will still be walk-on athletes on every college program as 90+% of schools will not fund the 17 and 45 limit. Some programs will decide to still have 30 distance runners, but they will hide them on the 45 person track roster and they may not race XC until they have proven to be helpful. Certain schools will most likely do this as they want to win NCAA XC championships and know they can't win the indoor or outdoor championships. Vice Versa, some programs will hide speed/power athletes on the 17 person XC roster so they can use them in indoor/outdoor track and field.
P4 schools are currently cutting scholarships below the current maximum (12.6 & 18) because they can't fund it due to having to pay for their football and basketball programs. They are also cutting operating budgets for next year. It gets costly to fly 10 14:00 5k runners to Stanford to not qualify for the NCAA regionals. This is also one of the reasons why there is a push to bring the NCAA 1st round from 48 qualifiers to 32 qualifiers. It did not pass this year, but they will keep trying.
I dont think club will disappear or not be allowed but I do think that the association with the school sponsored teams will be heavily regulated since the hard line is now roster numbers instead of scholarship dollars. Too much association between the two could lead to violations. Obviously this is all speculation but limiting the spots available to a non-negotable limit forces different rules. Club sport athletes could be labeled recruitable student athletes and then recruiting rules could apply. Here is a thought......what if mid majors started recruiting from Power4 club teams. Those kids are not on rosters and thus would not have to go through the portal. There is another wrinkle for you. Who knows where this will end up in the next 2-5 years.
What violations? The school has a roster available on its website and tfffrs. Only those athletes can compete in ncaa.
As long as they are not paying a club athlete to stock an extra body, what is the violation?
Keep in mind most schools won't even be paying/scholarshipping the athletes on the roster, so why would they pay a club runner?
Nothing to do with pay or scholarship amount. Again this is all speculation but with roster limits you are dealing with bodies instead of money as in the old scholarship limits. If the coaches that are representing the school are coaching club kids on the side then that could be seen as a manipulation of the roster limit and thus a violation. Club kids are also not covered by athletic dept. insurance so there is a whole liability nightmare waiting to happen. These new mandates will require new rules that are proabably being written right now. I still think that club kids may be classified as recruitable athletes which may bind coaches to recruiting rules concerning their interaction with them.
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
ncaa trying to keep a competitive balance with roster limits, which is now only way to do it as schools can pay athletes unlimited money.
roster limit keeps Tennesee from spending a couple million in nil for a roster of 60 instead of just using the 12.6 scholarships.
So now Tenn still free to spend as many millions as they want, it just can only go to 10 athletes on the roster. (SEC)
So at ncaa regional, you will have well funded 10man Tenn, competing against unfunded 17man Elon.
Tenn will still win, but they won't be able to stockpile athletes, by giving them NIL money.
The roster limits force talent to be spread among more schools
This is the problem. These lawsuits just weaken the NCAA. Contrary to popular belief they are the only ones looking out for your sport. The roster limits are the only way for the NCAA to remain the regulator of college sports. They have lost every lawsuit in the last 15 years in regards to money for student athletes. The roster limits take their liability of controlling the money out of the equation. The schools can give a full ride to every athlete on their campus but have to limit spots in order to afford it. Even the power 4 have to consider this when they can fund up to 22 million towards athlete pay. If this settlement fails to get approved then the top 40-60 D1 programs will break away to start their own pro leagues. That is game over for the NCAA and for olympic sports. PLEASE DROP THIS LAWSUIT IMMEDIATLY. You are signing the execution papers of your sport if you win. It blows my mind that people think that this is helpful. Your kid is not good enough.........opportunities are earned not given.
"Opportunitues are earned not given" lol what is this boomer Chat GPT. You realize this is regarding students who have ALREADY EARNED their opportunity. This includes juniors and seniors who signed scholarships before NIL, the tranfer portal and all this other nonsense exen existed. These opportunities are currently being stolen from them and many more future athletes.
No matter how you old heads on this site try to rationalize it less spots for our high schoolers to compete in college is worse for the sport. Even though it may satisfy your Protestant work ethic fantasy to have every college team be 7 twenty-eight years old 13:30 foreigners and screw over the lives of every other kid, that is in fact worse for sport and country.
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
The NCAA doesn't want to have scholarship limits anymore because they keep getting sued for anti-trust issues as well as they don't want to have huge rosters anymore because it gets costly. They are now setting a roster limit and you can fund as many of those on the roster to a full scholarship and pay them if they please. There will still be walk-on athletes on every college program as 90+% of schools will not fund the 17 and 45 limit. Some programs will decide to still have 30 distance runners, but they will hide them on the 45 person track roster and they may not race XC until they have proven to be helpful. Certain schools will most likely do this as they want to win NCAA XC championships and know they can't win the indoor or outdoor championships. Vice Versa, some programs will hide speed/power athletes on the 17 person XC roster so they can use them in indoor/outdoor track and field.
P4 schools are currently cutting scholarships below the current maximum (12.6 & 18) because they can't fund it due to having to pay for their football and basketball programs. They are also cutting operating budgets for next year. It gets costly to fly 10 14:00 5k runners to Stanford to not qualify for the NCAA regionals. This is also one of the reasons why there is a push to bring the NCAA 1st round from 48 qualifiers to 32 qualifiers. It did not pass this year, but they will keep trying.
I agree with everything you said except for the walk on spots. If schools are on the hook for 4 years if they scholasrship a kid whether the kid is on the team or not after year one then I do not think they will give money to everyone on roster and may just decide to leave spots open for transfers where they can. Especially in Indoor. If you have to set your roster in December before the first meet but you have 5 transfers you are trying to get then you better have 5 open spots. If you dont get them can you fill those spots or are they set for the season? If you make a roster but get no money then get ready to go in the portal because they are currently trying to recruit your replacement. Even with football this roster limit kills walk on opportunities. If they dont think you are worth money why have you on the roster at all.
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
ncaa trying to keep a competitive balance with roster limits, which is now only way to do it as schools can pay athletes unlimited money.
roster limit keeps Tennesee from spending a couple million in nil for a roster of 60 instead of just using the 12.6 scholarships.
So now Tenn still free to spend as many millions as they want, it just can only go to 10 athletes on the roster. (SEC)
So at ncaa regional, you will have well funded 10man Tenn, competing against unfunded 17man Elon.
Tenn will still win, but they won't be able to stockpile athletes, by giving them NIL money.
The roster limits force talent to be spread among more schools
I at least understand this answer. Where I got confused is NIL money is not the same as an athletic budget. So larry ellison's GF can still fund that one athlete for 10 mil out of HS, but its still one spot. I think i got it. BUT, why would having non scholarship non nil spots harm anyone? or create unfair advantage?
Can we go back to square 1, i got lost. I can see the roster limit for scholarships--known expenses. Why is house v ncaa keeping anyone form havinga non scholarship athlete from competing with larger roster? The school can make up its own mind if it wants to "fund" the non scholarship athletes? They still pay 68K in tuition every 12 months.
ncaa trying to keep a competitive balance with roster limits, which is now only way to do it as schools can pay athletes unlimited money.
roster limit keeps Tennesee from spending a couple million in nil for a roster of 60 instead of just using the 12.6 scholarships.
So now Tenn still free to spend as many millions as they want, it just can only go to 10 athletes on the roster. (SEC)
So at ncaa regional, you will have well funded 10man Tenn, competing against unfunded 17man Elon.
Tenn will still win, but they won't be able to stockpile athletes, by giving them NIL money.
The roster limits force talent to be spread among more schools
The solution to this problem is just to much more tightly regulate the quidpro quo nature of these NIL deals. Coaches should not be allowed to "offer" these deals to high schoolers as some kind of alternative scholarship, even with the wink and nod routine that Carlson is known for.
These deals should required be paid out to the market value of someone's NAME, IMAGE, AND LIKENESS. I have no doubt that for some major sport athletes that might be in the six or seven figures, but if the coach can't actually prove that an 8:50 high schooler will sell 70k/year worth of tickets and merchandise they shouldn't be allowed to give it as an "NIL" deal.
This is the problem. These lawsuits just weaken the NCAA. Contrary to popular belief they are the only ones looking out for your sport. The roster limits are the only way for the NCAA to remain the regulator of college sports. They have lost every lawsuit in the last 15 years in regards to money for student athletes. The roster limits take their liability of controlling the money out of the equation. The schools can give a full ride to every athlete on their campus but have to limit spots in order to afford it. Even the power 4 have to consider this when they can fund up to 22 million towards athlete pay. If this settlement fails to get approved then the top 40-60 D1 programs will break away to start their own pro leagues. That is game over for the NCAA and for olympic sports. PLEASE DROP THIS LAWSUIT IMMEDIATLY. You are signing the execution papers of your sport if you win. It blows my mind that people think that this is helpful. Your kid is not good enough.........opportunities are earned not given.
"Opportunitues are earned not given" lol what is this boomer Chat GPT. You realize this is regarding students who have ALREADY EARNED their opportunity. This includes juniors and seniors who signed scholarships before NIL, the tranfer portal and all this other nonsense exen existed. These opportunities are currently being stolen from them and many more future athletes.
No matter how you old heads on this site try to rationalize it less spots for our high schoolers to compete in college is worse for the sport. Even though it may satisfy your Protestant work ethic fantasy to have every college team be 7 twenty-eight years old 13:30 foreigners and screw over the lives of every other kid, that is in fact worse for sport and country.
Lol....no boomer here, proud gen X that knows how to function without help or opportunity. The roster limits are the only way forward for olympic sports. The alternative is unlimited football and basketball budgets at the expense of the rest of the athletic department. The sport will survive at lower levels no matter what but the big schools will drop us to win football games without the NCAA to help regulate. Not taking the settlement is the death nail for the NCAA. I agree with you that this is not good for the sport. I also agree that this kills opportunities for true freshman. I think this entire thing is the opposite of what college athletics is supposed to be........but here we are. It is about survival now. Our sport is expendable. To be clear these kids have not earned these opportunities. They have earned their scholarship. Those opportunties have always been fleeting. Any kid could be cut from a roster at any time and that has always been true. The new limits just make the whole process more cruel. This is now professional sports. Kids wanted to get paid so this comes with the territory. Pro sports are about production not opportunity.