|
Post by uofaGRAD on Jul 24, 2024 17:20:35 GMT -5
if you’re able to put scholarship designated money into payments on top of tuition, that seems like a huge miss by the NCAA and a total slap in the face to the whole STUDENT athlete part of the NCAA I think you are misreading the article. As part of the settlement, there will be revenue sharing in addition to scholarships. perfect, as long as money for that 18th athlete’s tuition (who they wouldn’t have) can’t be put towards 1st athlete’s NIL/revenue sharing, im cool with all of that
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Jul 24, 2024 17:24:30 GMT -5
if you’re able to put scholarship designated money into payments on top of tuition, that seems like a huge miss by the NCAA and a total slap in the face to the whole STUDENT athlete part of the NCAA I disagree. Which is worse? Texas deciding to only have a 14-athlete roster so they can maximize aid to those 14 athletes OR doing that but allowing 4 total walkons onto the team? Do you think football player #105 is going to get the same amount of revenue sharing as the starting QB? no and I think that’s my point. I don’t want player #105’s scholarship money going towards #1’s revenue sharing instead if the school chooses not to give #105 a scholarship or doesn’t have 105 players. revenue sharing, do whatever the hell you please imo but I don’t want money that should be going towards a scholarship to something else if that makes sense
|
|
|
Post by straightnochaser on Jul 24, 2024 17:28:10 GMT -5
Still only six players on the court at a time. This is just going to make the transfer portal crazier. 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. This is true but I tend to think the expectation of playing time for a full scholarship player is different than the expectation of playing time for a non scholarship walk-on. Could be totally wrong but with 18 scholarship players, there may likely be more of an expectation to play and when it doesn’t happen, there likely may be more unhappy players entering the portal.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 24, 2024 17:32:29 GMT -5
I disagree. Which is worse? Texas deciding to only have a 14-athlete roster so they can maximize aid to those 14 athletes OR doing that but allowing 4 total walkons onto the team? Do you think football player #105 is going to get the same amount of revenue sharing as the starting QB? no and I think that’s my point. I don’t want player #105’s scholarship money going towards #1’s revenue sharing instead if the school chooses not to give #105 a scholarship or doesn’t have 105 players. revenue sharing, do whatever the hell you please imo but I don’t want money that should be going towards a scholarship to something else if that makes sense Why “should” it be going towards a scholarship? Athletes turn down D2 scholarship offers to be walkons at mediocre D1 programs because of the money they invest into the program in other ways. Just like many non-athlete students would turn down a full ride to San Jose State to pay full tuition at Stanford. I don’t think a D1 program deciding there are better ways to invest their money than a scholarship for a player that will never play is some sort of terrible thing.
|
|
|
Post by usavolleyball on Jul 24, 2024 17:48:15 GMT -5
I'm just reading what is in the Yahoo article, as relayed by Ross Dellenger. So, Yeah. Pretty sure. Of course, the article has it's sources, and the official NCAA statement won't be released until Friday. So I'm as sure as the Yahoo Sports author (also Ross Dellenger). Here's a link to the full article: FULL ARTICLE LINK
If OTOH, you are referring to my suggestion that it would be more important in non-revenue sports and smaller programs... I added the caveat "I would think"... which suggests a certain level of "just throwing out an opinion". No, I'm certainly not sure of that wildly speculative opinion. I’m an idiot. I didn’t read the full article before commenting.
|
|
|
Post by volleyl0ver on Jul 24, 2024 17:53:57 GMT -5
JFO (Ohio state) needed this last season lmao
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Jul 24, 2024 17:57:08 GMT -5
Feel certain the 18 is the limit of women's volleyball (indoor). Okay but what about mens and beach don’t tell me they are stuck at 4.5 and 6 while womens indoor gets 18!💀 stop thinking about this as scholarship extensions for 12 to 18 or 4.5 to 18... that may be an outcome but as I read the press releases; they removed scholarship limits... if an athlete is rostered in the NCAA, they can get 1% or 100% scholarship and can also get revenue sharing. The universities probably still need to balance funding to meet title IX but the NCAA is not regulating it. They added roster limits, and I think 18 is for men's and women's. For beach I don't think it was specified but it might be more than 18 but unlikely to be less IMO
|
|
|
Post by TimTheEnchanter on Jul 24, 2024 17:57:58 GMT -5
I think you are misreading the article. As part of the settlement, there will be revenue sharing in addition to scholarships. perfect, as long as money for that 18th athlete’s tuition (who they wouldn’t have) can’t be put towards 1st athlete’s NIL/revenue sharing, im cool with all of that This is something I don’t fully understand. From the school’s perspective, the marginal cost of having an extra student sitting in a class has to be negligible. The classroom, professor, curriculum, etc - most of the academic part of the scholarship is already there - a fixed cost. There would be extra cost for housing, meals, incidentals, etc, and I’m sure it has to be accounted for somehow, but it doesn’t seem like the true cost in hard dollars would be the full sticker price
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 18:31:17 GMT -5
I think you are misreading the article. As part of the settlement, there will be revenue sharing in addition to scholarships. perfect, as long as money for that 18th athlete’s tuition (who they wouldn’t have) can’t be put towards 1st athlete’s NIL/revenue sharing, im cool with all of that I don't think some of the scholarship money from #18 can directly be given to #1, but I would say that indirectly it could end up with #1. I'm going off what I've read so far and since there hasn't been a settlement, there are a lot of details that likely haven't been publicized or could be eventually changed in the actual settlement. My understanding is that the primary goal of the lawsuit is revenue sharing by the school with its athletes. The increased number of scholarship opportunities appears to be a secondary goal. From what I've read so far, revenue sharing and scholarship funding are not tied together except in one way. I've read that up to $2.5 million of increased scholarship funding can be used to offset the amount of revenue sharing. For financially limited schools, I could see them not funding the max number of scholarships or offering less than a full ship to the back end of the roster so they have more money available for their revenue sharing. For a school like Texas, I suspect they will try to maximize the amount of money (scholarship plus revenue sharing) they have available to spend on athletes so they can compete with other schools doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Jul 24, 2024 19:03:16 GMT -5
no and I think that’s my point. I don’t want player #105’s scholarship money going towards #1’s revenue sharing instead if the school chooses not to give #105 a scholarship or doesn’t have 105 players. revenue sharing, do whatever the hell you please imo but I don’t want money that should be going towards a scholarship to something else if that makes sense Why “should” it be going towards a scholarship? Athletes turn down D2 scholarship offers to be walkons at mediocre D1 programs because of the money they invest into the program in other ways. Just like many non-athlete students would turn down a full ride to San Jose State to pay full tuition at Stanford. I don’t think a D1 program deciding there are better ways to invest their money than a scholarship for a player that will never play is some sort of terrible thing. I do. if Stanford thinks you’re good enough to be part of their 18, you should get a scholarship under this model. a majority of players from Stanford aren’t going to go pro, and that’s STANFORD. the NCAA has always been about putting STUDENT before athlete. until now apparently…
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 24, 2024 19:09:58 GMT -5
perfect, as long as money for that 18th athlete’s tuition (who they wouldn’t have) can’t be put towards 1st athlete’s NIL/revenue sharing, im cool with all of that This is something I don’t fully understand. From the school’s perspective, the marginal cost of having an extra student sitting in a class has to be negligible. The classroom, professor, curriculum, etc - most of the academic part of the scholarship is already there - a fixed cost. There would be extra cost for housing, meals, incidentals, etc, and I’m sure it has to be accounted for somehow, but it doesn’t seem like the true cost in hard dollars would be the full sticker price This varies from school to school. At some schools, the athletic department literally makes a payment to the university and unused scholarship dollars could be spent on recruiting (or whatever else is in the budget). At other schools, the university basically waives tuition so there would be no real financial impact of an unused scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 24, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Why “should” it be going towards a scholarship? Athletes turn down D2 scholarship offers to be walkons at mediocre D1 programs because of the money they invest into the program in other ways. Just like many non-athlete students would turn down a full ride to San Jose State to pay full tuition at Stanford. I don’t think a D1 program deciding there are better ways to invest their money than a scholarship for a player that will never play is some sort of terrible thing. I do. if Stanford thinks you’re good enough to be part of their 18, you should get a scholarship under this model. a majority of players from Stanford aren’t going to go pro, and that’s STANFORD. the NCAA has always been about putting STUDENT before athlete. until now apparently… Well what we now know: volleyball = 18 roster spots max. - fact Every player may have a scholarship. Fact (at present time a scholarship is total dollars of tuition, fees, room, board and cost of attendance) how every school will handle ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Conjecture - Friday we will know a little more. Opinion: looks like getting ready to move towards employee model: no more volunteer coaches: soon no more walk ons: being on volleyball team will be your “part time job” while in college; and everyone on the roster has to get paid. There will need to be compensation for all on roster! (Guessing) Separate note: ivy league no scholarships; will they have revenue sharing? What if a school has a JV? If you use male players and they dont count to 18 does school have to pay? So many interesting questions! Can we wait for answers or let the Armageddon commence!!!💪🏽
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 19:29:01 GMT -5
I do. if Stanford thinks you’re good enough to be part of their 18, you should get a scholarship under this model. a majority of players from Stanford aren’t going to go pro, and that’s STANFORD. the NCAA has always been about putting STUDENT before athlete. until now apparently… Well what we now know: volleyball = 18 roster spots max. - fact Every player may have a scholarship. Fact (at present time a scholarship is total dollars of tuition, fees, room, board and cost of attendance) how every school will handle ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Conjecture - Friday we will know a little more. Opinion: looks like getting ready to move towards employee model: no more volunteer coaches: soon no more walk ons: being on volleyball team will be your “part time job” while in college; and everyone on the roster has to get paid. There will need to be compensation for all on roster! (Guessing) Separate note: ivy league no scholarships; will they have revenue sharing? What if a school has a JV? If you use male players and they dont count to 18 does school have to pay? So many interesting questions! Can we wait for answers or let the Armageddon commence!!!💪🏽 None of this is fact yet. They are submitting proposals to the judge who may or may not approve them.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 24, 2024 19:31:01 GMT -5
Why “should” it be going towards a scholarship? Athletes turn down D2 scholarship offers to be walkons at mediocre D1 programs because of the money they invest into the program in other ways. Just like many non-athlete students would turn down a full ride to San Jose State to pay full tuition at Stanford. I don’t think a D1 program deciding there are better ways to invest their money than a scholarship for a player that will never play is some sort of terrible thing. I do. if Stanford thinks you’re good enough to be part of their 18, you should get a scholarship under this model. a majority of players from Stanford aren’t going to go pro, and that’s STANFORD. the NCAA has always been about putting STUDENT before athlete. until now apparently… I see the NCAA has you brainwashed.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 24, 2024 19:31:13 GMT -5
Well what we now know: volleyball = 18 roster spots max. - fact Every player may have a scholarship. Fact (at present time a scholarship is total dollars of tuition, fees, room, board and cost of attendance) how every school will handle ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Conjecture - Friday we will know a little more. Opinion: looks like getting ready to move towards employee model: no more volunteer coaches: soon no more walk ons: being on volleyball team will be your “part time job” while in college; and everyone on the roster has to get paid. There will need to be compensation for all on roster! (Guessing) Separate note: ivy league no scholarships; will they have revenue sharing? What if a school has a JV? If you use male players and they dont count to 18 does school have to pay? So many interesting questions! Can we wait for answers or let the Armageddon commence!!!💪🏽 None of this is fact yet. They are submitting proposals to the judge who may or may not approve them. Fact in the case isn’t a fact it is reported as by X
|
|