NCAA House Settlement A No Go - Unless roster limits are adjusted

Isn't the point that coaches want more roster spots? It's nuts to me that college athletics has become so transactional.

My problem with the original settlement was that walk-on athletes would get screwed over in cc and track. If we are going to protect 80 "extra" football players, many of whom will never see the field in a game why can't we protect "extra" cc or track athletes. In my coaching career I have had over 20 walk-on athletes earn DI All American honors. We seem to forget the development of athletes in the right situation blossoming. It seems like some on this thread are talking like some extra are just crap athletes. Not true. Make the roster numbers in track and cc fair, not excessive, but fair.

Varsity sports are still part of the education system and possess a fundamental goal to cultivate the virtue courage.

If he runs well there is the portal…

first, reminding people what the case is about, the abstract theory is NCAA was denying everyone on a d1 their shot at a full plus NIL (in theory) via scholarship limits. at which point roster limits feels like an odd replacement for scholarship limits. trading one limit for another. and i know there are competitive concerns, but just saying.

second, if the idea is to give something back to the kids who were denied that potential scholarship and sponsor money (had there been no scholarship limits or rules on sponsorships), rewarding them instead with "guess what, you're cut," is double-punishment. one year you were on a partial or nothing when the court found that illegal. next year after saying fix it, you're gone.

third, the obvious solutions are some mix of "back pay," roster security/grandfathering, allowing sports fulls for the whole roster for teams who are willing, slowly bringing the limits down, or at least covering the kids' schooling for their bachelor's for the ones who would get cut under limits.

the people saying, "but college sports are competitive and people get cut," ok, but we're doing this because the NCAA/colleges got sued. saying schools can cut kids and owe them nothing backwards or forwards lets them offload/outsource their problem, and acts like there wasn't even a lawsuit for them.

the people saying, "but my kid planned on a ruthless settlement," dude, where's your morality, this could be your kid. i think you're missing if we change this to phased in limits, maybe what happens is your kid goes to school x but gets cut as the limits phase in the future, and you're back at school y in the end anyway. what you've done has just shortcutted the process. and you can always transfer.

and roster security/grandfathering/covering their academics don't have to be permanent. you can just say the existing kids either get taken care of financially, or their schooling covered but the team moves on, or they stay on the team for the extent of eligibility, as they would be arbitrarily impacted by roster limits. and then when those kids graduate, it's "hard" roster limits.

either that or you phase it in where the adjustment is to some extent addressed by graduation/quitting for a couple years.

I do not understand why I have to come on here and correct this misconception every time this this subject is brought up. The "roster spot" is not just being listed on the website or racing in unform. It is tied to a ton of benefits that athletes planned on getting for their four years.

This includes meals, rent stipends, tutoring, counseling, class registration, athletic tickets, academic stipends, ect. Many athletes could not afford their university without these benefits even with an athletic scholarship. They are not part of the scholarship contract and are currently lost when an athlete is cut.

That is why 1000s of objected letters have been sent. That is why the judge has delayed this settlement. Please stop spreading this false information that athletes get to keep everthing when they are cut.

Academic stipend must be counted as scholarship. Rent must he counted as scholarship. Game tickets, tutor, doctors, meals in athletic dining facility, counselor, etc, yes. But none of that is really changing what the student will have to pay except for a minimal amount.

I wish that was true, but it is not. These things can be part of a scholarship, but at many schools they are wrapped up into single academic award that is not part of the scholarship. I personally know guys who will not be able to pay their rent next semester due to losing this.

In what world is entire year's worth of food and medical care a "minimal amount" ?! We are talking about thousands of dollars, which is absolutely a lot for many American families.

you don't need to come on here and tell us all you know. we are aware. we get it's not fair to the kid.

however, the judge is ruling on a case that has to do with payment to former SAs. she should decide on if the settlement is fair for them... no idea why she wants to weigh in on how the schools are going to pay for it.

in almost all cases the kid still gets their scholarship and most likely if the kid stays and the school is cool could still get their class registration, tutoring, academic advising, etc... stipends are going away for almost all track athletes anyway (it due to lack of funding because of revenue share, which is what this whole thing is about)... and athletic tickets... seriously?,,, who cares, like that is some big loss that these kids need.

of course, 1000s of letters have been sent. it sucks but then so did dropping all those men's sports back in the 80s when title 9 was initiated... it sucked for all those men's teams which no longer exist.

This topic hasn't received as much coverage here as on the swimming sites. That's because there have already been numerous high profile swimmers impacted. An excellent distance swimmer who finished NCAA top 4 in 2023 but was injured last season has already been dumped. The distance events aren't as valuable as sprinters who can rack up relay points. Texas has had several recent highly rated recruits depart because the new coach Bob Bowman had no plans for them. On departure those swimmers thanked the former coach Eddie Reese for everything he did for them, while saying nothing about Bowman.

Numerous other examples. One swim mom of a current freshman wrote on SwimSwam comments that she didn't think it was fair that her daughter should be asked to do campus visits with a recruit who might take away her roster spot. Big mess all around. Consequently SwimSwam has had many articles spotlighting the judge's theme that grandfathering roster limits was her top priority.

so let's say for arguments sake that these athletes are grandfathered in. meaning left on the roster, can the judge force the schools to use an equal amount of their budgets on them? if not, then many of these kids will end up just being on the roster in name but not receiving any of the benefits that previously went along with it.

the unfortunate issue here is that the universities need to find a way to pay for all this. they have to cut somewhere because no one is getting more revenue out of all of this.

If a school has university owned apartments and dining halls for athletes, no problem. Priority registration? Absolutely necessary for athletes. Tutoring? No worries because that is part of the school’s academic mission.

I have no sympathy for losing rental credits, stipends, car leases, fine dining, and the other ancillary stuff. That should never have been part of the athletic aid agreement. Tuition, three hots and a cot, and first pick of classes is enough. The extra stuff is why most college athletic departments are in the red and why Olympic sports get trimmed. If a basketball player is getting NIL money and wants a penthouse apartment or a house in a gated community, he can pay for it himself.

"making me do visits when i might get cut" feels like an emotional blackmail argument, spinning the general ickiness and uncertainty of the original roster limits idea. i did some hosting. it was not necessarily competely voluntary. i personally would take being handed a recruit as some degree of faith in my core status and positive take on the program. i doubt you would place your school's fate in the hands of the last walkon whose status is unclear and who might be a little malcontented.

it also feels a little like seeking special treatment. like if i am going to be doing this assure me specifically i have a role next year. my argument -- it's implicit. but if the plan was to tell everyone after conference, and otherwise regular operating order, and you want special information just to do your part of the job......meh

i will say the more this becomes about money the more students will see every little thing as transactional. what's in it for me. each item.

Boohoo? They'll just have to do this at several other programs.

re "forced to give an equal amount of their budgets to them," isn't that the premise of the lawsuit? the premise is the 30th man on XC at some schools might have been afforded a full except we had a rule denying the school the choice. if you say, well, but i don't want to carry this person if i have to pay for it, and i would prefer some low roster limit that excuses me to cut a bunch to offset the cost, isn't that almost conceding the premise?

i think the argument would go, this is your penance for the current group. after that, we let you control the sheer cost. and that doing so serves the academic mission. we're not dumping you out of college, or at least that college. but letting you "cut the problem" now allows you to cut precisely the kids who were on partials or walkons, who would say the scholarship limits impacted them. it's perverse. the rare kid on a full has no worries about the limits, either before or now.

side point but isn't this basically all about the smaller sports? football and hoops get to carry well beyond a full team, on fulls. i played soccer and track. we're the ones being offered partial or walkon. probably most of the kids on football are on fulls.

there is no reason this has to be an on-off switch where you have to chop immediately. i get you're into darwinian but there are various ways to transition this and we don't have to pick the most brutal, thunderdome approach possible.

i mean, you get, say, credits may not transfer. the school might run on a different credit/term system. financial aid might be different. you might like to stay but not play -- but have it paid for. i don't see the rush to guillotine a bunch of runners, and even if you felt compelled to do so, there are ways to do it that are either more phased or cushion it a little. some of which you can do your darwinian thing and cut people, but you then owe them money or a scholarship to the school if they stay at the school while giving up running.

that and not everyone wants or can afford to just play the market and attend any old school after indulging in the portal. sometimes it was your hometown school, or nearby for the family.

re the side benefits discussion, if you do the school a solid and take their roster limits hit, the premise is you should be owed some penance. you were denied by the scholarship limits before. and by roster limits for next year.

so you get some modified version what they get. full tuition, room, and board -- but you're in the regular chow line and dorms. early access to scheduling like an athlete. workout access but in the regular student gym. season passes for sports -- though i am not sure how many i want to watch as a cut athlete, let's be real.

the further we go down the list the more goofy it feels, but if it's what we give jocks, so be it. it's not permanent, it's a transition for cut kids with a finite eligibility clock.

to me it's like why not let them play it out if the coach and them want. do some staggered drops over 3-4 years. basically as people graduate or quit the numbers go down.

to me it's absurd to solve the underlying issue of athlete benefits, by cutting athletes to free the money. i am sure it's what the school and accountants cooked up to limit costs.

I don't think we disagree then. I was not talking about penthouses and fine dining, but instead the "three hots and a cot" that many Olympic sport athletes will lose if they are cut.

Yes, many have families that can help cover those costs, but many do not. Even for the ones that do, this would represent a significant financial burden. That is exactly what the judge is outlining and trying to prevent.