|
|
Post by oldnewbie on May 24, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Has Dabo Swinney quit yet?
“We try to teach our guys, use football to create the opportunities, take advantage of the platform and the brand and the marketing you have available to you. But as far as paying players, professionalizing college athletics, that’s where you lose me. I’ll go do something else, because there’s enough entitlement in this world as it is.”
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 10:23:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on May 24, 2024 10:24:33 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but...
Specifically in Volleyball, what do you think the roster limits will be? 12 scholarships was a poor number, and probably should have been more like 14 or 15 IMHO. So this might be a good thing in this specific sport.
OTOH, many mid-majors have benefited in the past from how scholarship limits affect P-5(4) schools. I wonder if Elizabeth Juhnke or Lauren Medeck would still have chosen my team (South Dakota) had there been more scholarships available at the big schools? Maybe. Overall having more scholarships for VB is a good thing in this growing sport, I think. But competitive parity might suffer.
OTOH, non-revenue sports in general are at risk in this new model, where strapped athletic departments have to find ways of cutting any fat. VB is only a technical "revenue sport" at a handful of schools, but the attendance is growing... but there are plenty of schools that will likely cut their programs, thus eliminating scholarships overall...
hard to predict the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzydean on May 24, 2024 10:43:20 GMT -5
Lol. Show me any football or basketball program that's going to tie academic performance to contracts, and I'll show you the program with the most transfers. |
|
crossover2
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 183
|
Post by crossover2 on May 24, 2024 10:54:55 GMT -5
How does the effect the 2025 and 2026 class?
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 24, 2024 12:26:12 GMT -5
How does the effect the 2025 and 2026 class? This isn't confirmed, but a possibility is that schools in big(ger) money conferences will offer scholarships to every roster spot, for whatever the max roster size is set to (14? 15? 17?).
Football schools will probably push for slightly larger rosters because they still need to make sure they balance out male/female scholarships for Title IX, especially if they're going to start piling scholarships into baseball.
I'm guessing the concept of headcount vs equivalency sports will go away completely, and essentially everything will just be a headcount. But I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for schools (particularly in lower confs) to still offer partial scholarships, if they think that's what they can afford.
Not sure how the idea of 1year vs 4year guaranteed scholarships is affected by this, if at all. My understanding is the rule is: if you're offered a scholarship as a freshman, it is then automatically guaranteed for four years, but otherwise it is just renewed each year at the coach's discretion. Thus "two year" or "three year" scholarships are really just informal handshake agreements between coach and player.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 24, 2024 12:36:15 GMT -5
Of course, that won't stop 3rd party collectives from paying more on top of that for NIL rights ... unless the school contracts are only offered as exclusive deals. I think the schools would have that right, because an athlete could always turn that down if they think they do better on their own. But, maybe antitrust law wouldn't allow it.
Unless we get to collective bargaining, which is where I hope it eventually goes (without being employees! -- yes that would require new law).
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 24, 2024 12:37:25 GMT -5
The SEC also really prides themselves on Track & Field, which have huge rosters. Hey, if they have the money to give 100 scholarships out for each gender, knock yourself out.
Baseball, what are the rosters? 20,30,40? They can up softball to match, perhaps.
Better start pumping up rowing (40??), beach volleyball, and who knows what else.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 13:04:21 GMT -5
The SEC also really prides themselves on Track & Field, which have huge rosters. Hey, if they have the money to give 100 scholarships out for each gender, knock yourself out. Baseball, what are the rosters? 20,30,40? They can up softball to match, perhaps. Better start pumping up rowing (40??), beach volleyball, and who knows what else.
In theory, schools are already abiding by the Title IX participation rules. So if they just take the current athletes and put everybody on a full scholarship, they wouldn't need to add any additional female athletes. Of course, schools might not actually be in Title IX compliance currently, they just haven't had anybody sue. |
|
crossover2
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 183
|
Post by crossover2 on May 24, 2024 13:21:11 GMT -5
When does this go into effect?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbruh on May 24, 2024 13:23:41 GMT -5
The SEC also really prides themselves on Track & Field, which have huge rosters. Hey, if they have the money to give 100 scholarships out for each gender, knock yourself out. Baseball, what are the rosters? 20,30,40? They can up softball to match, perhaps. Better start pumping up rowing (40??), beach volleyball, and who knows what else.
In theory, schools are already abiding by the Title IX participation rules. So if they just take the current athletes and put everybody on a full scholarship, they wouldn't need to add any additional female athletes. Of course, schools might not actually be in Title IX compliance currently, they just haven't had anybody sue. A lot of men's sports offer less than full scholarships in comparable sports (e.g., soccer is 14 for women, 9.9 for men) despite roster size. I suppose each school could set roster limits that are equal for all men's sports and women's sports, and each player is on scholarship. Basically, if you are in the program you're on a full ride. This would certainly simplify the current situation where most men's sports have fractional deals. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 24, 2024 13:28:15 GMT -5
In theory, schools are already abiding by the Title IX participation rules. So if they just take the current athletes and put everybody on a full scholarship, they wouldn't need to add any additional female athletes. Of course, schools might not actually be in Title IX compliance currently, they just haven't had anybody sue. A lot of men's sports offer less than full scholarships in comparable sports (e.g., soccer is 14 for women, 9.9 for men) despite roster size. I suppose each school could set roster limits that are equal for all men's sports and women's sports, and each player is on scholarship. Basically, if you are in the program you're on a full ride. This would certainly simplify the current situation where most men's sports have fractional deals. And then what, cut even more men's sports to make up for the roster monster that is football? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 24, 2024 13:41:13 GMT -5
Does this mean equivalency vs. headcount is just not going to be a thing anymore? That's going to be a seismic shock to soccer, baseball, lacrosse, etc. I suppose schools won't *have* to full scholarship everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 13:47:20 GMT -5
The scholarship/roster size piece will by and large not have Title IX issues.
The participation piece doesn't really change other than having fewer football players. And the Title IX scholarship application is that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation. If everybody is on full scholarship, that will be true by definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 13:50:14 GMT -5
Does this mean equivalency vs. headcount is just not going to be a thing anymore? That's going to be a seismic shock to soccer, baseball, lacrosse, etc. I suppose schools won't *have* to full scholarship everyone. Yes. This was even discussed a couple years ago when the NCAA did their whole transformation committee thing. It didn't pass then, but the people I talked said it was a matter of when and not if for this very reason. I guess limiting roster sizes doesn't have antitrust issues that limiting "payments"/scholarships does. |
|
