Get ready for cuts in the number of players on non revenue college teams
because they need to pay players. This will happen to both Men’s and Women’s teams, but the Men’s will be cut more if they have a football team, due to Title IX. A very close colleague said a D1 non revenue head coach told him and others in the group, this was a done deal and they would cut the number of players by about 30%.
I have said for a while, I was concerned, but I hoped they would find ways to keep the team number of players up, but just drop the number of scholarships, but that doesn’t jive with what was announced today. It looks like if you are on a scholarship or not, you have to be paid.
** Edited by Stech at 6/27/2024, 11:02:13 PM
10 Replies
I
INSIDE99
2y
"That $ was generated from the efforts of college athletes (the vast majority by men’s college basketball players), and was mostly used to fight against having to share more $ with those same athletes." - Winter Sports Law
Oh, the irony.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
2y
opportunities. With the immoral monies about to be paid to players, the next move is to attack eligibility limits so teams can keep players for 6,7 maybe even 8 year. If someone took the time to count the scholies (and persons with partials) for this year and wait a few years and go back and compare it is almost a certainty that way fewer students, or athletes if you wish will have an opportunity to earn college sports money.
(In response to this post by Stech)
W
WhoDatVT
2y
When you say schools have to pay players are you saying all scholarship players, regardless of the sport, will receive some amount of compensation? Is this the reason you are predicting the number of players or rosters will be cut by 30%? What happens with walk-ons who don’t receive money now? Are you saying schools will have to pay them because they are on the team even if this is not an expectation of the walk-on? What if players can opt out of wanting to be paid? There are still college athletes who are extremely talented who simply want to play a sport they love for a school they love. Scholarships or money is not their motivation. The love of the school and the education they will receive are their drivers.
** Edited by WhoDatVT at 6/28/2024, 8:17:21 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
announced by a Head Coach yesterday. My understanding is that anybody considered a team member will get paid, but they are cutting the number allowed to be on the Men’s and Women’s team by about 30%, for these two non revenue sports.
(In response to this post by WhoDatVT)
2y
but does this do away with walk-ons in most if not all sports?
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
will get paid, but at least in some sports, less team members will be allowed.
(In response to this post by DMaroonHokie)
2y
Question
Are club sports (ie club lacrosse; hockey) who just play for fun exempt
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
2y
member numbers. Don't think in the old terms where some were on the team, but did not have a scholarship. At least that is the way it was explained to me. Thus, the cut in the number of team members you can have to fulfill paying everyone on the team.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
2y
...a rude awakening. While there have always been unhinged fans, there are plenty of people who have typically held back on criticizing collegiate athletes because many of them were seen to be playing for their love of their sport and/or university. But now that they will all essentially be professional athletes, I think the expectations of the average fan are going to change. I wouldn't be surprised to see athletes get a lot more public criticism going forward, and I have a feeling that more than a few won't handle that very well.
Just another reason for me to hate what college sports have become.
(In response to this post by Stech)