|
Post by n00b on Jul 28, 2024 8:47:05 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? Pretty sure a fencer at Harvard could've already received a full ride at Penn State. I don't think this significantly changes the Ivy League's place in the D1 sports ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 28, 2024 10:55:49 GMT -5
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? Pretty sure a fencer at Harvard could've already received a full ride at Penn State. I don't think this significantly changes the Ivy League's place in the D1 sports ecosystem. Dodger said the Ivy League system was intact, which appears to be true, but the universe is changing around them (as well as other conferences) and some sports will feel more different than others and it remains to be seen if the IVY League (or others) will have the competitive success they have come to expect. And who knows, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Penn State could decide to cut fencing altogether (as an example) and some sports get easier.
|
|
crossover2
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 151
|
Post by crossover2 on Jul 28, 2024 11:33:53 GMT -5
What does this all mean for a school like Stanford?
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 28, 2024 11:59:34 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? Roster limit does not equal scholarships offered. It does get you to revenue sharing! And an ivy league education still trumps ohio state and Notre dame in many eyes. In the sports you lost i wouldn’t worry about the ivy league: they have operated for years as Div 3 while competing in Div 1: presume they will opt out and continue as usual with the same level of success as always.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 28, 2024 12:03:00 GMT -5
What does this all mean for a school like Stanford? Ah yes Stanford: ACC school: ACC is opting in: if conference opta in do all schools in conference have to opt in? Lots of resources at Stanfords disposal. Interesting to see their approach!
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 28, 2024 12:08:54 GMT -5
What does this all mean for a school like Stanford? Stanford is a P5 school and thus they are part of the defendant group in the lawsuits. They will be subject to the eventual settlement terms and rulings of the judge, so for example they will be providing revenue sharing to their athletes and subject to the roster limits if those remain part of the eventual settlement (which is expected).
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 28, 2024 12:11:14 GMT -5
What does this all mean for a school like Stanford? Ah yes Stanford: ACC school: ACC is opting in: if conference opta in do all schools in conference have to opt in? Lots of resources at Stanfords disposal. Interesting to see their approach! I don't think the ACC and Stanford, as well as the rest of the P5 conferences/schools, have to opt in or have the option to opt-out. As defendants in the cases, I think they are "all-in".
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 28, 2024 12:45:09 GMT -5
Ah yes Stanford: ACC school: ACC is opting in: if conference opta in do all schools in conference have to opt in? Lots of resources at Stanfords disposal. Interesting to see their approach! I don't think the ACC and Stanford, as well as the rest of the P5 conferences/schools, have to opt in or have the option to opt-out. As defendants in the cases, I think they are "all-in". Yeah, I think they are bound to the roster limits no matter what. In theory, they probably don't have to give money to athletes in the form of revenue sharing. Of course, that would mean choosing to be uncompetitive football and basketball.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 28, 2024 13:46:20 GMT -5
I don't think the ACC and Stanford, as well as the rest of the P5 conferences/schools, have to opt in or have the option to opt-out. As defendants in the cases, I think they are "all-in". Yeah, I think they are bound to the roster limits no matter what. In theory, they probably don't have to give money to athletes in the form of revenue sharing. Of course, that would mean choosing to be uncompetitive football and basketball. The reports have stated the proposed "maximums" - revenue sharing cap and roster limits. Haven't seen any mention of the minimum spending required for each P5 school. I'm assuming there will be a minimum because I can't believe that the plaintiffs will agree to a settlement without a minimum level of spending and likely penalties if those minimums aren't met. So I'm thinking Stanford, or any school in the settlement, is not going to avoid paying some level of revenue sharing.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Jul 28, 2024 20:20:58 GMT -5
I don't see how this proposed change and what you're saying relate. Teams already can, and do, have rosters of 18+ players with only 6 players on the court at a time (really 7 starters plus many teams use 2 DSs for 3 rotations each), and there are already players who transfer for playing time and many players who don't. This change may lead to more transfers, but I fail to see how there will be more transfers for playing time than there are already. The tweet says 18 scholarships. Jeepers that’s not the rule. New rule is 18 rosters spots. Not one more. Also, no longer a head count so you can divide scholarships up amongst the 18 rostered athletes. TBD on how many scholarships schools will actually have. Money doesn’t grow on trees, unless your Texas /nebraska. FYI. I tried to plant that tree. Didn’t make it through the night.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Jul 28, 2024 20:28:01 GMT -5
I have a stupid question. Now that everything is shifting to simply a roster limit, with a full scholarship equivalency of 0.0 to 1.0 allowed to each and every roster spot .... is there anything stopping a school from saying "hey [Player], we have decided to remove you from the roster. You will continue to be given your athletic scholarship for the duration that it was guaranteed, but your participation on the roster has been terminated" ?? Already is a thing and they count towards your roster. Remember st the end of the day this is all a book keeping thing . Volleyball program gets max 18 scholarships to do with what they want. My guess is very few schools will fund to the full 18. So what you really get is the d2 model. Here’s a pot of money, use it how you like to who ever you like. Will each school be different, will each conference be different. Will this push more conference realignment? Who knows? Stay tuned!? Idea being, if the athletic dept is funding a scholarship to a student, but that student isn't on a roster ... it therefore must not count against the limit? If I can think of this, hopefully they thought of it and have language to prevent it. Because otherwise we know SEC schools will pull dirty tricks like this.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 29, 2024 6:55:35 GMT -5
Ah yes Stanford: ACC school: ACC is opting in: if conference opta in do all schools in conference have to opt in? Lots of resources at Stanfords disposal. Interesting to see their approach! I don't think the ACC and Stanford, as well as the rest of the P5 conferences/schools, have to opt in or have the option to opt-out. As defendants in the cases, I think they are "all-in". Agree that may be the case: but roster limits does not equal scholarships given: for stanford they could decide to up anti in some non revenue sports and really dominate the all sports cup! Which they are in running for every year
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 29, 2024 20:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jul 29, 2024 21:39:23 GMT -5
So if the max roster size is 18, does that mean schools that have more need to make cuts? What about girls in 2025 or 2026 who have accepted verbal offers? If those offers put the team over 18 players when they become freshman then what?
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Jul 29, 2024 22:14:21 GMT -5
So if the max roster size is 18, does that mean schools that have more need to make cuts? What about girls in 2025 or 2026 who have accepted verbal offers? If those offers put the team over 18 players when they become freshman then what? Yes. Nothing is guaranteed until they sign. Verbals are non binding both ways. We don’t know the rules yet. Likely, the coach either yanks the offer or someone on the team is cut.
|
|