|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 17:32:25 GMT -5
From reports, the current timeline does allow implementation in July 2025 if the settlement is approved. At the moment, there already at least three parties bringing appeals. So, I won't be holding my breath that it will happen that fast. That's reasonable. I'm just saying that "if" it is approved on the current timeline, that allows implementation next July. I recognize that could be a big "if". Another thought is that it may be possible for the NCAA to implement the new roster limits without an approved settlement, though I have no idea if they would want to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by ramo2653 on Oct 22, 2024 17:39:08 GMT -5
Definitely somewhere in Texas…not UT tho…JE likes tall pin hitters Amy Neal sheds a tear somewhere or feels extra special. She had to be the only shorter pin they're had in forever right? |
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Oct 22, 2024 17:44:49 GMT -5
At the moment, there already at least three parties bringing appeals. So, I won't be holding my breath that it will happen that fast. That's reasonable. I'm just saying that "if" it is approved on the current timeline, that allows implementation next July. I recognize that could be a big "if". Another thought is that it may be possible for the NCAA to implement the new roster limits without an approved settlement, though I have no idea if they would want to do this. My guess is, if left to their own devices, the NCAA would prefer to grandfather in those roster limits as to not have a bunch of athletes booted from their rosters/athletic experiences and/or deal with broken commitments by programs to get under the cap in a hurry. It was going to be ugly as is with a debatably short timeline to implement, that timeline got super short with the court dates pushed back for the agreement to April. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 17:55:19 GMT -5
Definitely somewhere in Texas…not UT tho…JE likes tall pin hitters Amy Neal sheds a tear somewhere or feels extra special. She had to be the only shorter pin they're had in forever right? I'm positive Amy is the only OH starter in at least the last ten years that was listed as being under 6', though in the same time period I don't think there has been an OH starter taller than 6-2. So it appears he likes the OH starter to be tall, but not "really tall". I think he likes them tall and really athletic, with more emphasis on the athletic part. |
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Oct 22, 2024 17:59:57 GMT -5
From reports, the current timeline does allow implementation in July 2025 if the settlement is approved. At the moment, there already at least three parties bringing appeals. So, I won't be holding my breath that it will happen that fast. All true: lots of obstacles to the final rules: but the rumor that they pulled 3 offers because of new rules is completely without merit |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Oct 22, 2024 18:00:08 GMT -5
That's reasonable. I'm just saying that "if" it is approved on the current timeline, that allows implementation next July. I recognize that could be a big "if". Another thought is that it may be possible for the NCAA to implement the new roster limits without an approved settlement, though I have no idea if they would want to do this. My guess is, if left to their own devices, the NCAA would prefer to grandfather in those roster limits as to not have a bunch of athletes booted from their rosters/athletic experiences and/or deal with broken commitments by programs to get under the cap in a hurry. It was going to be ugly as is with a debatably short timeline to implement, that timeline got super short with the court dates pushed back for the agreement to April. Wisconsin just sent out an email to boosters from the AD talking about the settlement and roster caps as if it were all a done deal. My bet is there will be a move by schools to start shrinking their rosters down now so they do not have to boot anyone when it does go into effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 22, 2024 18:02:52 GMT -5
Definitely somewhere in Texas…not UT tho…JE likes tall pin hitters Amy Neal sheds a tear somewhere or feels extra special. She had to be the only shorter pin they're had in forever right? pilar victoria was at texas right around amy's time ... sarah palmer was a lib/ds ... but she may have had a brief stint as an OH ... |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 18:09:12 GMT -5
That's reasonable. I'm just saying that "if" it is approved on the current timeline, that allows implementation next July. I recognize that could be a big "if". Another thought is that it may be possible for the NCAA to implement the new roster limits without an approved settlement, though I have no idea if they would want to do this. My guess is, if left to their own devices, the NCAA would prefer to grandfather in those roster limits as to not have a bunch of athletes booted from their rosters/athletic experiences and/or deal with broken commitments by programs to get under the cap in a hurry. It was going to be ugly as is with a debatably short timeline to implement, that timeline got super short with the court dates pushed back for the agreement to April. I've seen no talk of grandfathering in the roster limit. I don't think it will be as difficult as what you are describing. In almost every sport, the roster limit was set to a number very close to the average D1 roster including walk-ons. Realistically, I'm not buying that the player in this thread had her offer pulled due to the 18 limit. TCU has a current roster of 17 and it appears that 4 of those 17 are in their last year of eligibility. If they believed they could get their 2025 within the 12 limit, I can't believe it's a problem with a 18 limit. Now what I can buy is if the player was offered as a walk-on, they may not want to bring in new walk-ons since all of the 18 roster limit can receive a scholarship and they are going to look for better players to put on a ship. |
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Oct 22, 2024 18:16:04 GMT -5
My guess is, if left to their own devices, the NCAA would prefer to grandfather in those roster limits as to not have a bunch of athletes booted from their rosters/athletic experiences and/or deal with broken commitments by programs to get under the cap in a hurry. It was going to be ugly as is with a debatably short timeline to implement, that timeline got super short with the court dates pushed back for the agreement to April. I've seen no talk of grandfathering in the roster limit. I don't think it will be as difficult as what you are describing. In almost every sport, the roster limit was set to a number very close to the average D1 roster including walk-ons. Realistically, I'm not buying that the player in this thread had her offer pulled due to the 18 limit. TCU has a current roster of 17 and it appears that 4 of those 17 are in their last year of eligibility. If they believed they could get their 2025 within the 12 limit, I can't believe it's a problem with a 18 limit. Now what I can buy is if the player was offered as a walk-on, they may not want to bring in new walk-ons since all of the 18 roster limit can receive a scholarship and they are going to look for better players to put on a ship. I agree in this specific situation. I don't think she had her offer pulled due to the roster cap considerations. However, when it comes to the roster caps, it's not a super massive impact on volleyball. The big hit is going to come to P4 football programs, many of whom are above their proposed limit. And we still don't know 100% which programs/schools will even sign on to the new rules. We assume all of the P4 schools will, but beyond that, I'll be interested to see how it goes. Lots of schools at lesser funding levels use sports as enrollment drivers. There are still too many unknowns at this point for me to think this is going to happen by July 1. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 18:21:57 GMT -5
My guess is, if left to their own devices, the NCAA would prefer to grandfather in those roster limits as to not have a bunch of athletes booted from their rosters/athletic experiences and/or deal with broken commitments by programs to get under the cap in a hurry. It was going to be ugly as is with a debatably short timeline to implement, that timeline got super short with the court dates pushed back for the agreement to April. Wisconsin just sent out an email to boosters from the AD talking about the settlement and roster caps as if it were all a done deal. My bet is there will be a move by schools to start shrinking their rosters down now so they do not have to boot anyone when it does go into effect. Texas also sent one out right after the meeting SEC/Big 10 meeting with all of the ADs in those two conferences. The proposed settlement was a big part of the discussion. The tone in the Texas e-mail also seemed to imply that it was a "done" deal. The judge has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. According to reports, the judge has not questioned the roster limits or the amount of revenue sharing. Her only questioning when the proposed settlement was initially presented was about the proposed NIL clearinghouse. As I wrote above, I don't think teams are going to have great difficulty meeting the roster limit. If a team is over 18 with a current ship limit of 12, that means they have a large number of walk-ons. It's unfortunate for those players, but teams will likely just tell some of the walk-ons that they don't have a spot. Question about the Wisconsin e-mail. Did it call the $22-$23 million payout revenue sharing or NIL? In all reports til now, this new payout to players has been called revenue sharing. In the Texas e-mail, they referred to it as NIL remuneration paid by the school. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Oct 22, 2024 18:29:38 GMT -5
Amy Neal sheds a tear somewhere or feels extra special. She had to be the only shorter pin they're had in forever right? pilar victoria was at texas right around amy's time ... sarah palmer was a lib/ds ... but she may have had a brief stint as an OH ... 5'10 Dariam Acevedo transferred from Oregon to Texas and played under Elliott in the mid 2000's |
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Oct 22, 2024 18:31:01 GMT -5
Amy Neal sheds a tear somewhere or feels extra special. She had to be the only shorter pin they're had in forever right? pilar victoria was at texas right around amy's time ... sarah palmer was a lib/ds ... but she may have had a brief stint as an OH ... Palmer was also libero. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Oct 22, 2024 18:32:39 GMT -5
Wisconsin just sent out an email to boosters from the AD talking about the settlement and roster caps as if it were all a done deal. My bet is there will be a move by schools to start shrinking their rosters down now so they do not have to boot anyone when it does go into effect. Texas also sent one out right after the meeting SEC/Big 10 meeting with all of the ADs in those two conferences. The proposed settlement was a big part of the discussion. The tone in the Texas e-mail also seemed to imply that it was a "done" deal. The judge has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. According to reports, the judge has not questioned the roster limits or the amount of revenue sharing. Her only questioning when the proposed settlement was initially presented was about the proposed NIL clearinghouse. As I wrote above, I don't think teams are going to have great difficulty meeting the roster limit. If a team is over 18 with a current ship limit of 12, that means they have a large number of walk-ons. It's unfortunate for those players, but teams will likely just tell some of the walk-ons that they don't have a spot. Question about the Wisconsin e-mail. Did it call the $22-$23 million payout revenue sharing or NIL? In all reports til now, this new payout to players has been called revenue sharing. In the Texas e-mail, they referred to it as NIL remuneration paid by the school. Here are the relevant parts. You may have read that on Oct. 7, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken issued preliminary approval of the House vs. NCAA settlement, paving the way for final approval of the $2.8 billion settlement in April 2025. This settlement is the result of multiple lawsuits and its impact will transform college athletics across the
country and right here at Wisconsin. We are still determining the full extent of all the changes that we will face, but here's what we can share today:
• Pending final approval of the settlement, college athletic departments will be allowed to share revenue directly with student-athletes. The total maximum amount of revenue that each school will be able to share with student-athletes will initially be approximately $22 million per year and will likely increase over time.
• The settlement also provides NIL back damages payments for Division I student-athletes who competed from 2016-21. The NCAA will make these payments through a combination of reserves and future revenues, reducing future NCAA distributions to Wisconsin.
• The settlement places a limit on the sizes of team rosters (previously there was no NCAA limit on roster sizes) and universities can also now provide as many scholarships as there are roster spots (previously there was a limit on scholarships schools could award per sport).
• Student-athletes will still be able to benefit from their NIL, separate from the shared revenue provided by the Athletic Department to certain athletes, but there will be new methods for assuring the legitimacy of such transactions. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 18:34:11 GMT -5
I've seen no talk of grandfathering in the roster limit. I don't think it will be as difficult as what you are describing. In almost every sport, the roster limit was set to a number very close to the average D1 roster including walk-ons. Realistically, I'm not buying that the player in this thread had her offer pulled due to the 18 limit. TCU has a current roster of 17 and it appears that 4 of those 17 are in their last year of eligibility. If they believed they could get their 2025 within the 12 limit, I can't believe it's a problem with a 18 limit. Now what I can buy is if the player was offered as a walk-on, they may not want to bring in new walk-ons since all of the 18 roster limit can receive a scholarship and they are going to look for better players to put on a ship. I agree in this specific situation. I don't think she had her offer pulled due to the roster cap considerations. However, when it comes to the roster caps, it's not a super massive impact on volleyball. The big hit is going to come to P4 football programs, many of whom are above their proposed limit. And we still don't know 100% which programs/schools will even sign on to the new rules. We assume all of the P4 schools will, but beyond that, I'll be interested to see how it goes. Lots of schools at lesser funding levels use sports as enrollment drivers. There are still too many unknowns at this point for me to think this is going to happen by July 1. I agree about football. It seems to be the only sport that has a roster limit significantly below current roster averages. All of the P4 schools, plus Washington State and Oregon State, are a part of the settlement because they are defendants in the court cases. It's been reported that other schools can opt into the settlement. If they don't opt in, the assumption has been that they will operate under the existing ship and roster limits. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 22, 2024 18:36:34 GMT -5
Texas also sent one out right after the meeting SEC/Big 10 meeting with all of the ADs in those two conferences. The proposed settlement was a big part of the discussion. The tone in the Texas e-mail also seemed to imply that it was a "done" deal. The judge has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. According to reports, the judge has not questioned the roster limits or the amount of revenue sharing. Her only questioning when the proposed settlement was initially presented was about the proposed NIL clearinghouse. As I wrote above, I don't think teams are going to have great difficulty meeting the roster limit. If a team is over 18 with a current ship limit of 12, that means they have a large number of walk-ons. It's unfortunate for those players, but teams will likely just tell some of the walk-ons that they don't have a spot. Question about the Wisconsin e-mail. Did it call the $22-$23 million payout revenue sharing or NIL? In all reports til now, this new payout to players has been called revenue sharing. In the Texas e-mail, they referred to it as NIL remuneration paid by the school. Here are the relevant parts. You may have read that on Oct. 7, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken issued preliminary approval of the House vs. NCAA settlement, paving the way for final approval of the $2.8 billion settlement in April 2025. This settlement is the result of multiple lawsuits and its impact will transform college athletics across the
country and right here at Wisconsin. We are still determining the full extent of all the changes that we will face, but here's what we can share today:
• Pending final approval of the settlement, college athletic departments will be allowed to share revenue directly with student-athletes. The total maximum amount of revenue that each school will be able to share with student-athletes will initially be approximately $22 million per year and will likely increase over time.
• The settlement also provides NIL back damages payments for Division I student-athletes who competed from 2016-21. The NCAA will make these payments through a combination of reserves and future revenues, reducing future NCAA distributions to Wisconsin.
• The settlement places a limit on the sizes of team rosters (previously there was no NCAA limit on roster sizes) and universities can also now provide as many scholarships as there are roster spots (previously there was a limit on scholarships schools could award per sport).
• Student-athletes will still be able to benefit from their NIL, separate from the shared revenue provided by the Athletic Department to certain athletes, but there will be new methods for assuring the legitimacy of such transactions. Thanks. Interesting that Wisconsin still referred to it as revenue sharing. |
|
