How will the NCAA vs. House ruling affect NCAA D1 Track & Field/Cross-Country (Power 4 vs. mid-major differences, too) in the short-term and long-term??
Also, how does this ruling impact D2, D3, Juco & NAIA short & long-term??
Short term, if I understand it correctly the winners will be programs willing to make strategic roster limit cuts and then keep those athletes and bring in transfers to have a larger training pool for a few years.
Losers are HS kids and anyone not obviously ready to score points this next year.
I dont know how this will be tracked. Let's assume a team had 30 XC runners. 5 graduated leaving 25. The new limit is 17 but the new limit doesn't impact current members. Can a team bring in 17 new members and retain the current 17 to have 42 this fall?
Short term, if I understand it correctly the winners will be programs willing to make strategic roster limit cuts and then keep those athletes and bring in transfers to have a larger training pool for a few years.
Losers are HS kids and anyone not obviously ready to score points this next year.
HS kids who are already signed are grandfathered in. Teams can carry a large roster for at least one more year but they will apparently have to get down to the limit if they want to be able to sign anyone new going forward.
How will the NCAA vs. House ruling affect NCAA D1 Track & Field/Cross-Country (Power 4 vs. mid-major differences, too) in the short-term and long-term??
Also, how does this ruling impact D2, D3, Juco & NAIA short & long-term??
Who are the major Winners? Losers?
In a strange way, the teams who are distance only (Portland, Gonzaga, etc) could benefit as if they’re not ready to compete in cross country, they can be stashed as part of the track team. If they want to race, they can compete unattached.
The question is whether the conferences or the NCAA will step in and say that you have to have X amount of sprinters, jumpers & throwers on your roster to count as part of your 45 spots in track, remembering that the 17 you have on your cross country team ARE PART of your 45 spots for track (SEC I believe is going to 10/35 for XC/TF).
ivy leagues and other top prestige schools who opted out will gain significant ground with distance talent..
Not so sure. It remains to be seen whether more or less scholarship money will be thrown at recruits now that it isn’t so restricted. Ivies that don’t give athletic scholarships might not actually gain much at the level of athletes getting scholarships.
They will gain in the sense that schools that ran big rosters won’t continue with that advantage.
How will the NCAA vs. House ruling affect NCAA D1 Track & Field/Cross-Country (Power 4 vs. mid-major differences, too) in the short-term and long-term??
Also, how does this ruling impact D2, D3, Juco & NAIA short & long-term??
Who are the major Winners? Losers?
In a strange way, the teams who are distance only (Portland, Gonzaga, etc) could benefit as if they’re not ready to compete in cross country, they can be stashed as part of the track team. If they want to race, they can compete unattached.
The question is whether the conferences or the NCAA will step in and say that you have to have X amount of sprinters, jumpers & throwers on your roster to count as part of your 45 spots in track, remembering that the 17 you have on your cross country team ARE PART of your 45 spots for track (SEC I believe is going to 10/35 for XC/TF).
BYU has already said they will carry 23 distance runners including mid-Ds. Some of the mid-Ds and some redshirts will not be on the XC roster as they have been in the past.
wondering what this will do to lower level div 1 schools that still give some $ now.. Thinking America East, CAA, MAAC, MEAC and others??
My son got a roster spot at a MEAC. He got a full academic scholarship, so he isn’t paying anything to attend. He hasn’t heard anything in the way of changes yet but I am curious too. He just wants to improve and compete for team and individual MEAC championships during his 3-4 years. He loves the sport. I hope his opportunity for that isn’t negatively impacted.
In a strange way, the teams who are distance only (Portland, Gonzaga, etc) could benefit as if they’re not ready to compete in cross country, they can be stashed as part of the track team. If they want to race, they can compete unattached.
The question is whether the conferences or the NCAA will step in and say that you have to have X amount of sprinters, jumpers & throwers on your roster to count as part of your 45 spots in track, remembering that the 17 you have on your cross country team ARE PART of your 45 spots for track (SEC I believe is going to 10/35 for XC/TF).
BYU has already said they will carry 23 distance runners including mid-Ds. Some of the mid-Ds and some redshirts will not be on the XC roster as they have been in the past.
Redshirts still count somewhere in the 17/45 though.
Short term, if I understand it correctly the winners will be programs willing to make strategic roster limit cuts and then keep those athletes and bring in transfers to have a larger training pool for a few years.
Losers are HS kids and anyone not obviously ready to score points this next year.
HS kids who are already signed are grandfathered in. Teams can carry a large roster for at least one more year but they will apparently have to get down to the limit if they want to be able to sign anyone new going forward.
I would guess that the current class is small in anticipation of the changes and will be small next year before balancing out.
ivy leagues and other top prestige schools who opted out will gain significant ground with distance talent..
How? They always have relatively small rosters because they can't push 15 people past admissions in a year the way Tennessee can. But maybe they'd take more walk-ons, try to train them a ton, and hope at least one pans out
HS kids who are already signed are grandfathered in. Teams can carry a large roster for at least one more year but they will apparently have to get down to the limit if they want to be able to sign anyone new going forward.
The final resolution sort of hoodwinked the judge.
She wanted all roster spots grandfathered in, so that no student lost a spot due to new roster limits. ie. transition over 3 years. ie. no student/athlete should have their situation damaged by this settlement.
Since schools had already made cuts, some students had already transferred, so it was going to be tough to bring kids back.
Football oriented ADs were also eager to move ahead with cuts.
Lawyers just wanted to settle quick and get their 30% of the $2.8 billion.
End result was schools have option to grandfather in roster spots, but not requirement. Given that 'grandfathering in' has costs tied to it, most schools will not do it.
This will lead to new lawsuits. A suit that was supposed to award backpay to athletes, leads to some losing scholarship and being forced to transfer???? These kids will win their new lawsuit and get damages.
Why would they carry a larger roster than previously? I predict that Ivies will have a harder time under the new rules because NIL will make it cheaper tom attend opt in schools.
Why would they carry a larger roster than previously? I predict that Ivies will have a harder time under the new rules because NIL will make it cheaper tom attend opt in schools.
Ivies will still be attractive to bright kids who:
- qualify for financial aid
- have family money to just pay.
You can get NIL still at Ivies, just the real NIL where a legit sponsor pays you.
The new revenue sharing and NIL enforcement commission will attempt to eliminate the pure 'cash in a bag' NIL of the last 2 years. We will see how that goes.
Why would they carry a larger roster than previously? I predict that Ivies will have a harder time under the new rules because NIL will make it cheaper tom attend opt in schools.
Ivies will still be attractive to bright kids who:
- qualify for financial aid
- have family money to just pay.
You can get NIL still at Ivies, just the real NIL where a legit sponsor pays you.
The new revenue sharing and NIL enforcement commission will attempt to eliminate the pure 'cash in a bag' NIL of the last 2 years. We will see how that goes.
Cash in a bag NIL will be impossible to track now. Johnny gets $300k from the school and $200k cash in bag. Can you tell?
There will be no “hey why is he driving a Porsche?” questions asked. No reason to investigate the kid.
Cash in a bag NIL will be impossible to track now. Johnny gets $300k from the school and $200k cash in bag. Can you tell?
There will be no “hey why is he driving a Porsche?” questions asked. No reason to investigate the kid.
Agree it will be difficult, but the whole idea of the $20.5 million revenue sharing salary cap is to again 'level the playing field' by eliminating the 'cash in a bag' NIL.
To do this an Accounting firm will now review all NILs to ensure legitimate deals at market value. A new enforcement commissioner will be hired by power 4 independent of ncaa to punish offenders.
Who knows if this will work? Market value for a legit NIL is hard to determine anyway.
...and of course, the pure cash NIL can revert to the old 'cash in a bag'.
An interesting question is also how much do athletes need to make in salary before donors lose interest in paying them?
It's not like Yankee fans step up with cash to help the team keep Juan Soto. They assume Hal Steinbrenner can handle that.
10 years ago I was more than happy to slip $100 to a school athlete, but if he already makes more than me, it's stupid. If the school football team becomes a $500 million business, it doesn't really need alumni help anymore, does it?
average mens ivy roster is not small - probably 22-23 average throughout conference
They don't recruit 10+ people per year the same way other schools do.
THat being said, if someone gets in on their own and runs close times, walk-ons (especially female ones for title IX) tend to be encouraged - it's depth and they'll never get athletic $ regardless of how much they improve (e.g. Blanks)