It's starting, schools retaliate

[MHettel]

First of all, schools dropping non-revenue sport is a no -story. Because this was inevitable and foreseeable. Maybe some of the big schools can afford to give scholarships and pay the “wages” that the non revenue athletes will be entitled to, but there are costs to just having a program that can be avoided by shutting it down.

My guess is many schools will contemplate football as a sport (aside from the big 4/5) and most will keep Bball. Womens Bball will be fine. Baseball and softball? Volleyball? Golf? Tennis? Bottom line is if there is a “mandatory” salary that all players need to be paid, then we will see the fewest number of players possible until it cuts into revenue.

In terms of the “value” of a degree? I get it. The “rich kids” will still be able to take a 4 year detour until one of daddy’s friends hooks them up with a job. But those kids are far and few between. I think college will become way more specialized. Engineering and technical fields will still require a degree. Lawyers and doctors. Accountants and Finance. Needs to ensure the practitioners have learned from “the book”. Marketing? No. English degrees? Huh? Why? So many of these degrees are barely able to set someone apart from just a sharp person with good experience.

I’d rather the school just hone in on those programs where degrees are essential and frankly dump the rest. Kinda like sports. The landscape has changed. Less students with a more focused curriculum may be the answer.

[bjf123]

Maybe the P5 football teams will stop having 95 players on their roster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Some of them are more likely to have 105 now. All on scholarship.

[94GRAD]

Maybe the P5 football teams will stop having 95 players on their roster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of them are more likely to have 105 now. All on scholarship.

Part of the House settlement is that schools will only be allowed *85 football scholarships moving forward.

*They won't be able to kick players off scholarship who are currently on the team, so that number will be higher until those players cycle out(think covid year)

[GoMuskies]

Is that a change to the settlement? The original settlement increased the cap to 105.

[94GRAD]

Is that a change to the settlement? The original settlement increased the cap to 105.

I'll look it up. It's always been 105, they moved it down to 85

Edit- You're right. I had it backward. It's going from 85 up to 105.

[GoMuskies]

I'll look it up. It's always been 105, they moved it down to 85

I think you've got that backwards

[bjf123]

I'll look it up. It's always been 105, they moved it down to 85

Edit- You're right. I had it backward. It's going from 85 up to 105.

How many of those 105 never sniff the playing field?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bleedXblue]

How many of those 105 never sniff the playing field?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Insanity is what it is. What is the rational behind the increase?

[XUGRAD80]

In the past football was limited to 85 scholarships, but there was no limit on roster size. They could have unlimited “walk-ons” that weren’t on football scholarships. Doesn’t mean they weren’t getting some kind of grant, or even a different athletic scholarship. Most major college squads actually anywhere from 110-120 players on it. The walk-ons didn’t usually dress for home games and didn’t travel for away games. Think Rudy. The 105 limit is actually a sticking point, along with roster limits in other sports, because the judge feels that it will limit the opportunity for many kids to play intercollegiate sports. Many of the “minor” sports don’t get enough scholarships to fill out a starting lineup and thus most team members are only on partial athletic scholarships. It’s especially harsh for baseball and track as neither get anywhere near what is needed to really fill out all the positions and events. There will probably be some kind of grandfathering in and the limits will be implemented over 5 years or so.