|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jul 26, 2024 14:20:59 GMT -5
shoot, why not go to 24 and have the P4 start sponsoring varsity and JV squads. seriously, 18 is ridiculous. 4-5 of those will hardly play much, and frankly hardly more than practice dummies
|
|
|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jul 26, 2024 15:22:54 GMT -5
"More scholarships = more transfer for playing time": There are already walk-ons who could get scholarships and start on lower tier teams that choose to ride the bench as walk-ons at top tier teams. How does them now able to get a scholarship change that?
"18 player roster limit is too many": The average roster size is 18 currently.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 26, 2024 15:41:29 GMT -5
shoot, why not go to 24 and have the P4 start sponsoring varsity and JV squads. seriously, 18 is ridiculous. 4-5 of those will hardly play much, and frankly hardly more than practice dummies A) The NCAA tournament travel roster is 16. The NCAA was paying for 16 players to go to the tournament. To have a roster of 18 with redshirts isn't that far off. B) The numbers are based around revenue sports - football and basketball mostly. How many players need to be on a team to complete seasons and avoid abuse lawsuits? How many teams/sports are we fielding to meet the expectations of the NCAA, and in some cases our community/alumni base? And how do those rosters stack up with football to meet Title IX? I don't imagine the topic of"what is GOOD for non-revenue sports" ever came up for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 26, 2024 15:59:57 GMT -5
Transfer portal will grow even more when those extra scholaship players never see the court for two years at most and leave. You eventually land at the level you are with some exceptions (desire for a specific school vs playing all the time, family, major etc). I am all about kids getting paid something, but this isn't sustainable. I hope we are ready for 40 schools being the HAVES and the rest HAVE NOT's and or comeplte division system in D1 even which may sound good for some (the 40) but not for others I believe the 67 P4 schools as well as Notre Dame and South Florida are expected to be fully or close to fully "in" for revenue sharing. While the AAC and Sun Belt are working on setting a revenue sharing floor - a minimum amount of money they need to share to be a part of the conference - how much and how many teams? And there are some schools that may participate in off brand sports - UConn Women's basketball, Gonzaga men's basketball, Coastal Carolina Baseball...maybe Hawaii volleyball? We'll see how this goes but I think it will be a bigger pool than just 40 schools.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 17:13:20 GMT -5
Revenue included in the formula includes media rights, as well as ticket sales and sponsorships but not donations...and I'm not sure about logo licensing or book store jersey sales. Donations are not included, and private capital deals, and between those two, that's where most of money that goes to athletes is actually coming from. Which formula are you referring to? Apologies if I missed it in a Tweet or a link. Thanks Playing even men's bball at a school like Siena or St Peter's (the one that had that nice run in March Madness a couple years ago) isn't much different an experience than playing at a good DIII school. You get a for sure athletic scholarship, you might schedule up a couple games a year and go to to some big time environments, and then you have your chance at March Madness each year. That's it. I don't think any of those players should be expecting "revenue sharing". It's not required, in order to be in DI. Most of those one-bid conferences are one-and-done in March Madness. That's not going to change. So I don't see it as a big deal if they don't participate in that. But they should not be allowed to jack students for the money. That I believe strongly in.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 26, 2024 22:52:37 GMT -5
Transfer portal will grow even more when those extra scholaship players never see the court for two years at most and leave. You eventually land at the level you are with some exceptions (desire for a specific school vs playing all the time, family, major etc). I am all about kids getting paid something, but this isnt sustainable. I hope we are ready for 40 schools being the HAVES and the rest HAVE NOT's and or comeplte division system in D1 even which may sound good for some (the 40) but not for others When have we not be in a system where there were 40 haves and the rest were the have nots?
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Jul 26, 2024 22:57:23 GMT -5
These teams with big rosters need to cut players #19-22 in order to get down to 18? Or will this be a grandfathered in kind of process?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 27, 2024 0:05:14 GMT -5
These teams with big rosters need to cut players #19-22 in order to get down to 18? Or will this be a grandfathered in kind of process? They’ll need to cut players before the ‘25 season.
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Jul 27, 2024 1:20:35 GMT -5
These teams with big rosters need to cut players #19-22 in order to get down to 18? Or will this be a grandfathered in kind of process? They’ll need to cut players before the ‘25 season. But Ivy League is exempt from this because they don't give scholarships right?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 27, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Revenue included in the formula includes media rights, as well as ticket sales and sponsorships but not donations...and I'm not sure about logo licensing or book store jersey sales. Donations are not included, and private capital deals, and between those two, that's where most of money that goes to athletes is actually coming from. Which formula are you referring to? Apologies if I missed it in a Tweet or a link. Thanks The $22 million isn't a set amount or randomly pulled out of the air. It is calculated using the average revenue of media, sponsors, tickets, etc from the set of schools. The formula they used to arrive at this number did not include donations.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 27, 2024 13:09:25 GMT -5
shoot, why not go to 24 and have the P4 start sponsoring varsity and JV squads. seriously, 18 is ridiculous. 4-5 of those will hardly play much, and frankly hardly more than practice dummies It was posted that the average women's volleyball roster size is slightly over 18 (18.1?). How is having a max roster size of 18 for P4 schools (and anyone else opting into revenue sharing) any different?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 27, 2024 22:52:26 GMT -5
They’ll need to cut players before the ‘25 season. But Ivy League is exempt from this because they don't give scholarships right? One of the surprises in the document yesterday is that teams not named in the lawsuit (Power 5 conferences) can opt in to the new arrangement and share revenue with their athletes. Schools that don't do that presumably would still have 12 scholarships (I'm unclear on that path, if anybody has a better understanding of it) and I would imagine the IVY League would leave D1 before they get into scholarships and revenue sharing.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 27, 2024 22:56:50 GMT -5
But Ivy League is exempt from this because they don't give scholarships right? One of the surprises in the document yesterday is that teams not named in the lawsuit (Power 5 conferences) can opt in to the new arrangement and share revenue with their athletes. Schools that don't do that presumably would still have 12 scholarships (I'm unclear on that path, if anybody has a better understanding of it) and I would imagine the IVY League would leave D1 before they get into scholarships and revenue sharing. From reading opt in and you are into new roster limits and you “can give 18 acholarships” not required Opt out and stay with old system: 12 scholarships no roster limit no profit sharing: Appears ivy league system intact either way: you do not have to give scholarships either way: either way its tour “coice”!
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 28, 2024 0:26:26 GMT -5
One of the surprises in the document yesterday is that teams not named in the lawsuit (Power 5 conferences) can opt in to the new arrangement and share revenue with their athletes. Schools that don't do that presumably would still have 12 scholarships (I'm unclear on that path, if anybody has a better understanding of it) and I would imagine the IVY League would leave D1 before they get into scholarships and revenue sharing. From reading opt in and you are into new roster limits and you “can give 18 acholarships” not required Opt out and stay with old system: 12 scholarships no roster limit no profit sharing: Appears ivy league system intact either way: you do not have to give scholarships either way: either way its tour “coice”! But the IVY League currently can compete in non-revenue sports. The conference has been 6th in the Leerfield Cup standings for a few years running, only behind the power 5. Will they maintain that position under this system? Having the ability to offer full-financial need gave them more than the minimum number of scholarships, but that is now blunted. In 2022 Cornell played Maryland for the Mens Lacrosse national title, beating Rutgers and Ohio State along the way... all 3 of those teams may be adding 35.4 additional scholarships and Cornell's rules won't have changed. This year Harvard ended Notre Dame's run in Fencing with Princeton and and Columbia all in the top 4, but Notre Dame, Penn St and Ohio St were 2, 5 and 6 respectively, and they may add 19.5 scholarships each! Princeton, Brown, Yale and Penn were top 10 this year in women's rowing, along with Texas, Stanford, Tennessee, Washington, Michigan, and Cal, with Syracuse, Virginia, and 7 more P4 schools in the top 20... and they all have a chance to add 48 ADDITIONAL SCHOLARSHIPS! Now, not everyone is going to commit to everything, but it only takes a couple schools and the Ivy League becomes much less successful across it's sport offerings. Then what do they do?
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 28, 2024 8:20:49 GMT -5
From reading opt in and you are into new roster limits and you “can give 18 acholarships” not required Opt out and stay with old system: 12 scholarships no roster limit no profit sharing: Appears ivy league system intact either way: you do not have to give scholarships either way: either way its tour “coice”! But the IVY League currently can compete in non-revenue sports. The conference has been 6th in the Leerfield Cup standings for a few years running, only behind the power 5. Will they maintain that position under this system? Having the ability to offer full-financial need gave them more than the minimum number of scholarships, but that is now blunted. In 2022 Cornell played Maryland for the Mens Lacrosse national title, beating Rutgers and Ohio State along the way... all 3 of those teams may be adding 35.4 additional scholarships and Cornell's rules won't have changed. This year Harvard ended Notre Dame's run in Fencing with Princeton and and Columbia all in the top 4, but Notre Dame, Penn St and Ohio St were 2, 5 and 6 respectively, and they may add 19.5 scholarships each! Princeton, Brown, Yale and Penn were top 10 this year in women's rowing, along with Texas, Stanford, Tennessee, Washington, Michigan, and Cal, with Syracuse, Virginia, and 7 more P4 schools in the top 20... and they all have a chance to add 48 ADDITIONAL SCHOLARSHIPS! Now, not everyone is going to commit to everything, but it only takes a couple schools and the Ivy League becomes much less successful across it's sport offerings. Then what do they do? Why the whining over the Ivy League? The proposed lawsuit settlement is not intended to preserve some success for the Ivy League in a handful of niche sports.
|
|