|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 26, 2024 20:01:51 GMT -5
So the options seem to be: (a) 12 scholarship limit, no roster max (and no revenue sharing) (b) 18 athlete roster max, no scholarship limit (revenue sharing ok) Where are you getting 12 scholarship limit in option a? I think it should be 18. After all, scholarships are of far less importance in the context of this settlement. What he is saying that you either opt into revenue sharing (18 roster/scholarship limit) or you don't (assumption is that the existing rules apply to your school in that case). |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 26, 2024 20:02:00 GMT -5
You are wrong. And very likely just trying to project ideology or other things that have nothing to do with the settlement at hand. Yep and yep, on the projections Who do you think knows more about this stuff? Me, someone with 20 years in college coaching and sports business or you, someone who is ignorant of pretty much everything? |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:04:38 GMT -5
Where are you getting 12 scholarship limit in option a? I think it should be 18. After all, scholarships are of far less importance in the context of this settlement. By exceeding 12 scholarships (or the previous cap in any sport), a school would be choosing to provide benefits as permitted by the settlement. So they'd be restricted by the roster cap in the settlement. If the school doesn't opt into revenue sharing, they don't have to abide by roster limits. But they WOULD have to follow all existing NCAA legislation. At least that's my read of it... Appreciate your read of it, and I think I follow you.
I'm just not seeing where it says that scholarships 13-18 are "incremental scholarships". But they probably are, otherwise why call out such a "benefit"? I've never heard the term used before in NCAA context.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:06:05 GMT -5
20 years in college coaching and sports business Sports business has nothing to do with college athletics. And college athletics had nothing to do with NIL until very recently. You have no more experience than most anyone regarding NIL collectives and what they will or will not be bound by. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:07:33 GMT -5
Where are you getting 12 scholarship limit in option a? I think it should be 18. After all, scholarships are of far less importance in the context of this settlement. What he is saying that you either opt into revenue sharing (18 roster/scholarship limit) or you don't (assumption is that the existing rules apply to your school in that case). I follow that bit.
I'm saying, the existing rules are changing. I think the rule for everyone now in DI is that in volleyball you have 18 scholarships max.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 26, 2024 20:11:31 GMT -5
What he is saying that you either opt into revenue sharing (18 roster/scholarship limit) or you don't (assumption is that the existing rules apply to your school in that case). I follow that bit.
I'm saying, the existing rules are changing. I think the rule for everyone now in DI is that in volleyball you have 18 scholarships max.
You should remember that the defendants in these cases are the P5 conferences/schools. The rest of the NCAA schools are not involved. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:13:59 GMT -5
I follow that bit.
I'm saying, the existing rules are changing. I think the rule for everyone now in DI is that in volleyball you have 18 scholarships max.
You should remember that the defendants in these cases are the P5 conferences/schools. The rest of the NCAA schools are not involved. But you can't have separate scholarship limits within a single sub-division.
It would be much neater and cleaner to have a single scholarship number, not a two-tiered system.
Either: 18 scholarships + payments = 18 roster max OR 18 scholarships (- no payments) = unlimited roster
And that's just a maximum. No school is forced to give all 18 scholarships.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 26, 2024 20:18:39 GMT -5
You should remember that the defendants in these cases are the P5 conferences/schools. The rest of the NCAA schools are not involved. But you can't have separate scholarship limits within a single sub-division. It would be much neater and cleaner to have a single scholarship number, not a two-tiered system. Either: 18 scholarships + payments = 18 roster max OR 18 scholarships (- no payments) = unlimited roster And that's just a maximum. No school is forced to give all 18 scholarships.
But there is only one scholarship number. It’s 12. Nowhere in that settlement is a new scholarship maximum for every sport. It’s a roster cap with no scholarship limit. Obviously you can put those things together and deduce the maximum number of scholarships that could be awarded. But schools can choose to be restrained by either the scholarship cap OR the roster cap. The other piece is unconstrained. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 26, 2024 20:18:56 GMT -5
20 years in college coaching and sports business Sports business has nothing to do with college athletics. And college athletics had nothing to do with NIL until very recently. You have no more experience than most anyone regarding NIL collectives and what they will or will not be bound by. L O L |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:19:44 GMT -5
QED.
You know you got em when they don't even acknowledge the point that was actually made.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:21:34 GMT -5
But you can't have separate scholarship limits within a single sub-division. It would be much neater and cleaner to have a single scholarship number, not a two-tiered system. Either: 18 scholarships + payments = 18 roster max OR 18 scholarships (- no payments) = unlimited roster And that's just a maximum. No school is forced to give all 18 scholarships.
But there is only one scholarship number. It’s 12. Nowhere in that settlement is a new scholarship maximum for every sport. It’s a roster cap with no scholarship limit. Obviously you can put those things together and deduce the maximum number of scholarships that could be awarded. But schools can choose to be restrained by either the scholarship cap OR the roster cap. The other piece is unconstrained. 18 is the new scholarship cap, no matter how they try to waive their hands.
I guess you're probably right.
I think it's stupid to have two different scholarship caps. And that very much is what it is.
What is the possible harm in saying 18 max for all schools in DI? Schools don't have to give all 18. Those that want to, can. Those that want to then pay players on top of that, can only have 18 roster. Otherwise, you can have a bigger roster if you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 26, 2024 20:23:35 GMT -5
What he is saying that you either opt into revenue sharing (18 roster/scholarship limit) or you don't (assumption is that the existing rules apply to your school in that case). I follow that bit.
I'm saying, the existing rules are changing. I think the rule for everyone now in DI is that in volleyball you have 18 scholarships max.
NO: it would appear that non-football and FCS schools/conferences can opt IN or OUT: IN =‘s 18 roster spots and all may be scholarshiped. OUT =‘s the old rules - no limit on roster size but only 12 scholarships. But what does that mean for NCAA Chapionships: does that mean like the IVy League that is div 1 but mo scholarshipa will keep all there conference rules? A league like; MVC will opt out to avoid financial limits to revenue share and therefore stay woth old rules? Does that mean FCS scholls who opt out do not participate in NIL special master arbitrator and still have NCAA policing? No worries worrying about what we dont know. It will be spelled out over next months. But it is apparent document attempts to get conteol of NIL and collectives: while also keeping student/athletes from becoming “employee’s”. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 26, 2024 20:23:50 GMT -5
QED. You know you got em when they don't even acknowledge the point that was actually made. you, someone who is ignorant of pretty much everything |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:26:24 GMT -5
IN =‘s 18 roster spots and all may be scholarshiped. OUT =‘s the old rules - no limit on roster size but only 12 scholarships. I understand this hypothesis. What I so far have not seen is this actually spelled out anywhere official.
The closest I've seen is in one of the blurbs that n00b posted that referred to "incremental scholarships". I don't know what that could possibly refer to, if not going from 12 to 18. So it probably means the hypothesis is correct. But it sure would be nice to see it stated, in plain English.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 26, 2024 20:29:14 GMT -5
IN =‘s 18 roster spots and all may be scholarshiped. OUT =‘s the old rules - no limit on roster size but only 12 scholarships. I understand this hypothesis. What I so far have not seen is this actually spelled out anywhere official. There is a yahoo sports article where the have parts of document quotes with the writer discussing what they believe it means |
|
