House / NCAA

[CajunNation]

Not exactly unlimited; the number of scholarships will be governed by the roster limit, which is expected to be reduced [in football] from the current 120 to 100. A more serious problem for UL is the proposal to make baseball [and presumably softball] into head count sports, i.e. one scholarship per player. One would think there would also be reductions in roster limits for the affected sports.

As proposed, football would increase from 85 to 100. Men's basketball increases from 13 to 15. Those increases in scholarships are likely to lead to schools dropping men's sports like golf and tennis to stay in compliance with Title 9. Track/Field/Cross country will be devastated by this if it also becomes head count.

Look for the required number of sponsored sports to remain FBS to drop from 16 to 14 or less, with similar reductions in lower divisions as well.

Sucks for those people in those sports, but dropping men's golf and men's tennis would be a very small price to pay to deal with these new rules.

[VObserver]

So no walkons? Some would say The actual student athlete, lol

It is not clear whether walk-ons will be allowed. I would assume that a school could elect not to fund all 100 scholarships [football] and have walk-ons fill the unfunded roster spots. Head count sports cannot have players on partial scholarships.

[VObserver]

I won't be surprised to see some schools drop diamond sports altogether. Ark State or MAC schools make sense in that regard.

Easy to drop baseball; not so easy to drop any Title 9 protected sport [e.g. softball]

[Dad04]

Not exactly unlimited; the number of scholarships will be governed by the roster limit, which is expected to be reduced [in football] from the current 120 to 100. A more serious problem for UL is the proposal to make baseball [and presumably softball] into head count sports, i.e. one scholarship per player. One would think there would also be reductions in roster limits for the affected sports.

As proposed, football would increase from 85 to 100. Men's basketball increases from 13 to 15. Those increases in scholarships are likely to lead to schools dropping men's sports like golf and tennis to stay in compliance with Title 9. Track/Field/Cross country will be devastated by this if it also becomes head count.

Look for the required number of sponsored sports to remain FBS to drop from 16 to 14 or less, with similar reductions in lower divisions as well.

Rosters are limited, yes. Everybody gets full ride every sport though

[Dad04]

Sucks for those people in those sports, but dropping men's golf and men's tennis would be a very small price to pay to deal with these new rules.

Golf and tennis are more or less club sports. No live audience and little publicity, if any.

[R1Letterman]

It is not clear whether walk-ons will be allowed. I would assume that a school could elect not to fund all 100 scholarships [football] and have walk-ons fill the unfunded roster spots. Head count sports cannot have players on partial scholarships.

Baseball and softball whether higher limit or not should ve head count and do away with partial.... i doubt seriously all those partials are ever audited.

[R1Letterman]

Golf and tennis are more or less club sports. No live audience and little publicity, if any.

True, not sure what we gain with it. Especially if there are pros in those sports younger than college participants. But if a set number of teams is needed to stay up in division1 it is likely cheaper than lacrosse or soccer or the like

[Duckster]

NCAA should lower number of sports members are required to carry to help offset this new expense/revenue reduction. Maybe down to 10 or 12 since all this payback money is the consequence. Our ticket prices shouldn't increase to pay for this turd sandwich of a deal.

As for the mostly non-spectator sports administration will need to evaluate which are most costly to operate for possible elimination. For example do you have to cut two men's sports to cut one women's sport? So if men's tennis and cross country were offed, can you then cut off women's soccer? Imagine its complicated no matter what is decided upon.

[CajunVic]

as long as we keep volleyball, I’m ok with the moves.

[VObserver]

NCAA should lower number of sports members are required to carry to help offset this new expense/revenue reduction. Maybe down to 10 or 12 since all this payback money is the consequence. Our ticket prices shouldn't increase to pay for this turd sandwich of a deal.

As for the mostly non-spectator sports administration will need to evaluate which are most costly to operate for possible elimination. For example do you have to cut two men's sports to cut one women's sport? So if men's tennis and cross country were offed, can you then cut off women's soccer? Imagine its complicated no matter what is decided upon.

Eliminating cross country wouldn't lower your scholarship costs; you would still need those distance runners for Track.

[R1Letterman]

Easy to drop baseball; not so easy to drop any Title 9 protected sport [e.g. softball]

Thats the conventional wisdom and the book answer. But the same media that hyped up SEC title 9 strides fails to ask whybdid they wait 50 years, and the stats dont show that it is being followed anyhow.

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/col...rt-1234778480/

[R1Letterman]

NCAA should lower number of sports members are required to carry to help offset this new expense/revenue reduction. Maybe down to 10 or 12 since all this payback money is the consequence. Our ticket prices shouldn't increase to pay for this turd sandwich of a deal.

As for the mostly non-spectator sports administration will need to evaluate which are most costly to operate for possible elimination. For example do you have to cut two men's sports to cut one women's sport? So if men's tennis and cross country were offed, can you then cut off women's soccer? Imagine its complicated no matter what is decided upon.

You assume your goals are the same as the ncaa's... raising it would be best way to break away

[Duckster]

Eliminating cross country wouldn't lower your scholarship costs; you would still need those distance runners for Track.

Very good point sir. Certainly not against either. But if the operations money is getting slimmer in order to pay the players is it better to reduce costs across the board of all sports or trim a few off if allowed? And I think I interpret R1Letterman's point that all of this is intentional by the P4 and I'll throw in the corporate media with them cheerleading this set up for a breakaway. It all stinks to high heaven.

[Cajun_in_NM]

Ultimately, UL can either adapt and figure out how to mimic this ruling - getting better athletes for sports. Or, UL can keep the status quo and fall behind, like an ever growing snowball down a mountain.

[CajunVic]

Ultimately, UL can either adapt and figure out how to mimic this ruling - getting better athletes for sports. Or, UL can keep the status quo and fall behind, like an ever growing snowball down a mountain.

what or whose money tree will support the “getting better athletes for sports”