|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 26, 2024 20:31:07 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.
Here is a link: sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-leaders-file-landmark-agreement-in-antitrust-cases-heres-what-was-settled-and-whats-next-210539610.html |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:31:34 GMT -5
I'll state once again for posterity: it's stupid to have a two-tiered system for scholarship limits within the same Division.
Just split Division I and be done with it.
But then that kills March Madness. SO per usual, trying to have their cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 26, 2024 20:32:37 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.
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”. Seems like that answer is yes. Schools outside of the Power 4 can opt out of EVERYTHING in the settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 26, 2024 20:37:52 GMT -5
Just split Division I and be done with it. Neither the SEC nor the MAAC want that. So why? |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:43:42 GMT -5
Just split Division I and be done with it. Neither the SEC nor the MAAC want that. So why? The SEC and five or six other power basketball confs don't want to keep all of March Madness revenue for themselves?? |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:44:26 GMT -5
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”. Seems like that answer is yes. Schools outside of the Power 4 can opt out of EVERYTHING in the settlement. That is fine, and I don't think anyone disagrees.
The question is what are they then opting into.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 26, 2024 20:53:55 GMT -5
Neither the SEC nor the MAAC want that. So why? The SEC and five or six other power basketball confs don't want to keep all of March Madness revenue for themselves?? I don't think it's at all a given that a tournament that only includes Power 5 schools would be more profitable for those schools than the current tournament format. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 26, 2024 20:56:16 GMT -5
The SEC and five or six other power basketball confs don't want to keep all of March Madness revenue for themselves?? I don't think it's at all a given that a tournament that only includes Power 5 schools would be more profitable for those schools than the current tournament format. Significantly less profitable, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 20:56:47 GMT -5
The SEC and five or six other power basketball confs don't want to keep all of March Madness revenue for themselves?? I don't think it's at all a given that a tournament that only includes Power 5 schools would be more profitable for those schools than the current tournament format. We will have to agree to disagree there. By the way, I wasn't saying only Power 5. I was including Big East and possible one or two more.
The power of denominators is quite substantial.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jul 26, 2024 21:03:59 GMT -5
Every school has Athletic Department revenue; however, most in D1 are in the red or hovering around breakeven after expenses. IOW, they have no free cash flow supporting a new multi-million-dollar revenue sharing dividend. Most would have to borrow to meet any future revenue sharing commitments or make cuts in many programs to benefit a few. Some have called this 'tiering' but it's also promotion/relegation across a portfolio of programs. Some programs get promoted and receive a greater funding commitment, others get relegated to lower competitive expectations and a lower funding commitment. Title IX requirements complicate the picture, but in general compliance is still roughly possible in most cases.
To a degree, the above already happens. What the settlement does is codify that there is a Tier-1 in D1 that has the excess free cash flow to cover a revenue sharing commitment and with an increased number of scholarships. Most of the schools being in the P4 conferences. Most others are in some other tier of competition, call it D1 Tier-not-1. As the settlement cements in place, the best of players and coaching talent will aggregate into DI Tier-1 for the cash and glory and pro-futures, and the rest will waddle off elsewhere.
Those hanging around in D1 Tier-not-1 will have to lower their expectations in most of their athletic programs, with some choosing to focus on promoting one or two. Or they move to a lower division or out of the NCAA altogether. Again, not too different from the current reality. But the settlement is in some ways a red pill that forces confrontation with reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 26, 2024 21:27:54 GMT -5
I'll state once again for posterity: it's stupid to have a two-tiered system for scholarship limits within the same Division. Just split Division I and be done with it. But then that kills March Madness. SO per usual, trying to have their cake and eat it too. They already have that for football. Well they have that for all Sports with the Ivy League , although they could give scholarships if they want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 26, 2024 21:31:39 GMT -5
This one worth posting: So if a school opts-out of revenue sharing, it can have an unlimited roster size (ie. unlimited walk-ons), as it was before. I assume scholarship limits defacto are now at the new limit. ^pg 121 of that pdf So that's some legalese that I'm trying to parse as a non-lawyer. But how I read that is if a school/conference chooses to facilitate any of the new allowed benefits including incremental scholarships, then they are bound to the same roster limits. 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) And this from page 132: So for you option a, what about this option. School funds 12 scholarships. Nil collective funds additional scholarships which don’t count against the limit? |
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 26, 2024 22:32:32 GMT -5
^pg 121 of that pdf So that's some legalese that I'm trying to parse as a non-lawyer. But how I read that is if a school/conference chooses to facilitate any of the new allowed benefits including incremental scholarships, then they are bound to the same roster limits. 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) And this from page 132: So for you option a, what about this option. School funds 12 scholarships. Nil collective funds additional scholarships which don’t count against the limit? If you do A you can give 18 scholarships: you can use part of profit sharing to fund additional scholarships! There is an NIL collective control built into settlement with stiff penalties for violoations |
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Aug 6, 2024 9:54:46 GMT -5
Do we think this will cause a shakeup in recruiting? Watching the Big10 media days it made me think. For example, a team that is fully funded and who has the ability to fun 6 more scholarships to the max of 18 - would they decide to take a 3rd scholly setter for example? Starter, backup and starter in waiting. I could see a mid-major/D2 type setter getting an opportunity to take a paid backup roll at a top ranked school especially at a high academic school like in the Big10. DS/L would be another especially if they aren't getting 4 years at current school.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 6, 2024 13:23:55 GMT -5
Do we think this will cause a shakeup in recruiting? Watching the Big10 media days it made me think. For example, a team that is fully funded and who has the ability to fun 6 more scholarships to the max of 18 - would they decide to take a 3rd scholly setter for example? Starter, backup and starter in waiting. I could see a mid-major/D2 type setter getting an opportunity to take a paid backup roll at a top ranked school especially at a high academic school like in the Big10. DS/L would be another especially if they aren't getting 4 years at current school. I'm not sure I understand your question - will a team with 16 or 18 scholarships have more good players than they did when they had 12 scholarships? If they are doing it right, yes! They are not just going to scholarship the same type of player they've been having walk on - they will recruit more top players. Will those players be players that would have played for slightly lower teams? Yes, and many still will. In college football they recruit two top quarterbacks and when they figure out which isn't going to play, one transfers - Tim Tebow was the quarterback at Florida, so Cam Newton transferred out. Michigan State in 2007 signed Kirk Cousins and Nick Foles, but neither could beat out Jr Brian Hoyer so Cousins went to Iowa and Foles to Arizona and all 3 have spent 15+ years in the NFL. Just because they go to Ohio State first doesn't mean they won't still end up at Ohio as a Jr. Some coaches may recruit to roles - you are a serving specialist and backup setter - but I imagine many coaches are going to go get the most difference makers they can and figure it out in the gym. And if it's 75-90 schools adding 4-6 scholarships that is 300+ players sliding up from mid-tier conferences. And remember beach volleyball 3x their scholarship allotment so that could be dozens more players that aren't opening the e-mail from your favorite directional school. Or so it seems to me. I guess we have to wait and see how it all unfolds. |
|
