|
|
Post by robtearle on May 24, 2024 13:51:11 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. I've seen stories about women's rowing teams (for one example) padding their rosters - and so keeping their schools "in compliance" - by carrying students om the team roster if the student did nothing more than show up at one 'organizing' meeting. That is, they show and sign in at a meeting because they're thinking of trying rowing. Then even if they bever show up again, they still "count". |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 14:08:05 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. I've seen stories about women's rowing teams (for one example) padding their rosters - and so keeping their schools "in compliance" - by carrying students om the team roster if the student did nothing more than show up at one 'organizing' meeting. That is, they show and sign in at a meeting because they're thinking of trying rowing. Then even if they bever show up again, they still "count". There are certainly schools who are currently in violation of Title IX. And some who are even fraudulently hiding that fact. It takes a lawsuit to get that corrected. I'm not saying everybody is in compliance, just that this new structure doesn't really change things a whole lot. |
|
|
|
Post by beachgrad on May 24, 2024 14:33:29 GMT -5
So in the long run when everything settles down and becomes established, will there be more or less opportunities for our high school kids to get fully funded rides? I expect a lot less as non P4 schools shrink their athletic department or move to non scholarship type divisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 24, 2024 14:41:38 GMT -5
So in the long run when everything settles down and becomes established, will there be more or less opportunities for our high school kids to get fully funded rides? I expect a lot less as non P4 schools shrink their athletic department or move to non scholarship type divisions. Who knows. This is one of the first steps in creating the new system, not the last. I suspect more radical change is coming in the next few years. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 14:42:24 GMT -5
So in the long run when everything settles down and becomes established, will there be more or less opportunities for our high school kids to get fully funded rides? I expect a lot less as non P4 schools shrink their athletic department or move to non scholarship type divisions. My best guess? Scholarship, more. Walk-on, less. I think low level D1 athletic departments will basically just want to operate as they have been. And while the revenue sharing will be allowed, it won't be required. There might be a small number of volleyball programs that get dropped, but I think that will be rare. And if the top 100 programs are all adding 3-4 full scholarships then the net number of D1 volleyball scholarships available will almost certainly go up. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 24, 2024 15:11:42 GMT -5
And I don't think any of this will happen for the 2024-25 season. These changes are going to happen starting in 2025 - including revenue sharing with current athletes. At the earliest. To me, it would make sense for the roster size limitation to be like 4 or 5 years out so schools can get to the new standards through attrition and not by kicking players off the team. When you are trying not to get sued by people with 4 years to play, you probably don't have 4 years to put it in place. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 15:23:20 GMT -5
At the earliest. To me, it would make sense for the roster size limitation to be like 4 or 5 years out so schools can get to the new standards through attrition and not by kicking players off the team. When you are trying not to get sued by people with 4 years to play, you probably don't have 4 years to put it in place. I don’t know what you mean. I’m not saying they’ll wait to start paying athletes. I’m saying they’ll give schools time to reduce their roster sizes. For example, if they settle on a max roster size of football for 90, but Alabama football currently has 130. I don’t know how anybody would be upset with allowing more than 90 athletes for the next three seasons so nobody on the current roster has to get kicked off. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 24, 2024 15:26:02 GMT -5
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. The NCAA tournament travel party limit is 16 players in uniform, so if they feel they need that many for tournament play, I'd expect that they would be allowed to scholarship that many. Maybe 1 more or 1 less? Just a hunch. How does the effect the 2025 and 2026 class? Well, theoretically, that's like 1200 more D1 scholarships, but not everybody funds all 12 now. And who decides that instead of half-funding 10-12 women's sports, they'll try to fully fund the minimum 7-8, and how many of them decide to cut volleyball? 3 schools going to 16 scholarships would at least offset 1 school cutting their team or dropping to D3. I would expect the full 68 schools in the power 4 and probably a handful of others to go to the max I would say it was conservative for 75 schools to fully fund volleyball, and I would think 25 schools cutting volleyball or dropping to D3 in 14 months time is overly ambitious. So I think there are going to be MORE scholarships in 2025 and 2026. But as I said a few days ago, I don't expect the top teams to go get HS kids. If they have $20-30k to waive around, I would expect them to go to the portal, or - since student visa holders can usually work on campus, and is amateurism still a requirement to get through the clearinghouse? - they might spend it internationally. |
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on May 24, 2024 15:29:48 GMT -5
Apologies if already asked - what does this do for non power 5 conferences? Seems like it just widens the gap
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 24, 2024 15:30:20 GMT -5
When you are trying not to get sued by people with 4 years to play, you probably don't have 4 years to put it in place. I don’t know what you mean. I’m not saying they’ll wait to start paying athletes. I’m saying they’ll give schools time to reduce their roster sizes. For example, if they settle on a max roster size of football for 90, but Alabama football currently has 130. I don’t know how anybody would be upset with allowing more than 90 athletes for the next three seasons so nobody on the current roster has to get kicked off. I was looking at it from the side of teams increasing their scholarship counts. I don't think they are going to wait 4 years to spend the money. You are right that they probably aren't going to kick a walk-on off the the team who has a year to graduation. But if they are trying to clear things up as to who is in, and who is out, I'm not sure they want people in the grey area for 4 years... interesting to see what they do. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 24, 2024 15:30:54 GMT -5
Apologies if already asked - what does this do for non power 5 conferences? Seems like it just widens the gap We can only guess at this point. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 24, 2024 15:32:09 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. This is news to me (but it is also not something I have direct knowledge of). I thought Title IX compliance was based on equity of scholarships not participation? I mean, what good would it be if an equal number of women were allowed to play sports, but only men were getting scholarships? I thought this was why sports like men's baseball has fewer scholarships available than softball, etc... |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 24, 2024 15:39:43 GMT -5
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. The NCAA tournament travel party limit is 16 players in uniform, so if they feel they need that many for tournament play, I'd expect that they would be allowed to scholarship that many. Maybe 1 more or 1 less? Just a hunch. That would be my guess. My guess - this is going to have the biggest impact on liberos. The quality of DS's for the top programs are going to improve as they are going to be able to give them full scholarships to be a 2nd DS - instead of being a walk-on. This will hurt programs down the line from current situation. The marginal help to the top programs for all other positions will be much smaller than L/DS. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 16:16:50 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. This is news to me (but it is also not something I have direct knowledge of). I thought Title IX compliance was based on equity of scholarships not participation? I mean, what good would it be if an equal number of women were allowed to play sports, but only men were getting scholarships? I thought this was why sports like men's baseball has fewer scholarships available than softball, etc... It's both. Maybe I was unclear, but the end of my post was that if every athlete is put on full scholarship, they are by definition in compliance with (2) above. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 24, 2024 16:48:34 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. This is news to me (but it is also not something I have direct knowledge of). I thought Title IX compliance was based on equity of scholarships not participation? I mean, what good would it be if an equal number of women were allowed to play sports, but only men were getting scholarships? I thought this was why sports like men's baseball has fewer scholarships available than softball, etc... Title IX says, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The questions are what does that mean, how is it tested, and what are the remedies available to correct out-of-compliance situations. If athletic participation and scholarships are included as "participation in and benefits of" (and they are), then it is not an "either/or" situation. Both participation equality and benefit equality are required by law. |
|
