A new day, paying college athletes and what it means for college soccer

Whoa, maybe you should change your handle to SpikesUp.

 

Hoping not Studs..... one redemptive haven for us soccer folk is smaller schools (at least physical wise) need warm bodies in beds to drive tuition dollars, so one hopes they keep sports, particularly male sports to keep a diminishing male college population in schools. This helps.
The other is the power of the judicial system, which when you look back over all of these changes has been the driver of change in the first place (Alston, cost-of attendance etc). Quite possible this is a turn-to for the soccer body that college admins don't want to deal with.
TBF, cutting sports was also not the outcome that drove these changes. Seems unfair collateral damage.
If AD's and college presidents had any vision and the will, seems like a great time to hit the rest button for all sports and departments to come up with a 2.0 type reboot...Alas!!

 

It's possible I'm being pessimistic when it comes to one-bid league finances (I attended UDub and currently am doing grad school at a non-football mid-major) but I don't see how schools can stretch finances to cover scholarship increases in multiple sports without the TV networks throwing money at them. The A-10 gets something like 500k a year per school right now in TV deals, and it's a pretty high level midmajor in basketball. Is a school in the MAAC going to keep funding a bunch of students across sports and get crushed during buy games or try to go invest in a few smaller sports and try to stage upsets?

 

I share your pessimism. My alma mater is in the AAC, a low major that's clawed it's way up to something approaching true mid-major status and has had some real hoops success (football is the priority, but where on-field success is concerned it's a fool's errand). But I struggle to see a reasonable way forward. Just no idea where the money comes from, and we're not exactly a "whip out the checkbook and fix it" alumni base. On a related note, SMU can take a flying leap. Not that I'm bitter.

 

Good article that summarizes the settlement and path forward for schools and conferences:

https://businessofcollegesports.com...-settlement-for-back-pay-and-revenue-sharing/

 

Nothing groundbreaking here, but interesting that Ohio State is on one hand saying it doesn't want to cut any of its 36(!) sports, but on the other it's saying the way forward for a lot of them may be more like a club/DIII sport.

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/ohio-states-potential-budget-cuts-canary-coal-mine

 

What the House settlement means - in practice - is that the Cooper Flaggs and Alabama QBs will be millionaires as freshmen and the kid that wants to get an education while continuing to compete at a high level in lacrosse, track & field, swimming, soccer, etc., especially if a male athlete, will be a huge loser. Its not college athletes that are coming out on top, it's only a small handful of elite college football and basketball players. This is the opposite of amateurism and everything the NCAA claims to stand for. It's the end of college sports as such. You will be able to continue to enjoy college football as a junior pro league with college themed helmets.

 

I tend to think the court won't approve the House settlement and, even if it does, it will fall apart because it doesn't shield the NCAA from other antitrust lawsuits for things like employee status and it doesn't bind future athletes.

The part of the settlement that will stick because NCAA can do it unilaterally and it is generally better for it and the schools anyway (on a money and antitrust basis) is the part providing for roster limits and making all sports equivalency, not head count, for scholarship purposes.

Players and their parents might not like that, but that's basically the reality in DI men's soccer anyway, where it's rare for more than 28 players to play and very few players get much scholarship money.

There may come a time when there is a divide between paid and non-paid college sports and/or schools (whether from a settlement, legislation, or negotiating a CBA with a players union), but I suspect a three tier competition level system would still emerge for the sports or schools opting out, with DIII-style spending/rules at all three levels.

 

I think the roster issue is like re-arranging the seats on the titanic as it is sinking. College athletics will be 100% a junior pro league. They might as well just pay the university a licensing fee to use the themed helmets and rent on the stadium and just run a pro team with college logos. The "non-revenue" sports on the men's side are toast. Consider conferences like the Big East or the Big West. Most have zero college football. So its not like they've been benefitting greatly from unpaid labor - the root of the class action. But based on a deal that they had no say on - it was negotiated by P4 and NCAA only - athletic departments in these conferences will be forced to pay their share of the settlement. It may come out of NCAA tournament money but bottom line will be reduced revenues to these athletic departments. So where, exactly, will the money come for the additional approved scholarships? You understand those additional scholarships are a total fantasy for non-revenue programs at schools that do not have football programs? Ultimately schools may just cut "non-revenue" programs altogether. So congrats to the Crimson tide football players, hope you spend your money wisely. Everyone else suddenly has much less access to college athletics.

 

I’ve definitely heard second hand reports that Ohio State mens soccer (no clue about the women) is not getting any sort of scholarship increase out of this, and that they barely get enough funding as-is. There is concern that their funding will get cuts.

 

Guaranteed most men’s soccer teams aren’t benefiting from this.

Ohio State has free admission for games. They rarely get any crowds worthwhile. If they charged, they’d get even less. Of course they won’t see an increase. Soccer at Ohio State (like 95+ percent of other DI schools) is a blip on the radar.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/docs-ncaa-...rule-to-athletes-in-all-sports-154903963.html

 

Mixed feelings on this one. Mine might benefit if this happens, but seeing several players on his team opt for COVID years this year and the effect that has -- at least very early on -- on guys who would otherwise either be starting or getting serious minutes off the bench is a little frustrating (the most extreme cases being backup goalkeepers, which isn't my son).

 

Now that we are about a third of the way through the regular season, I would be curious to get the opinions of coaches and fans regarding the new substitution rules. For those who are unaware, NCAA Division 1 soccer now allows for 6 substitution windows (not including HT) outside of head injuries and injuries when a caution is given (provided the player returns for the same player that came in the game due to the injury). Once a player leaves a half, they cannot return in that half.

Secondly, with the roster limits moving to 28, will they revisit these rules? Perhaps allow players to return but still keep a limited number of windows (perhaps increasing to 8 windows).

Most travel rosters are limited by the conferences to 22-25 players ... will this also increase to 28 since the roster limits are 28?

Many schools are having in the 29-35 roster spots with 5 keepers. I think it will be hard for schools to carry that many keepers going forward. I would think it would be more like 3 keepers ... possibly 4 keepers ... but that extra field player could be extremely valuable.

It will also be interesting to see how the military academies meet these roster limits since they are unable to accept transfers, yet they can lose players to transfers, among other reasons. It would also make sense to allow for a limited number of redshirts for these schools that don't count against roster spots.

Spring soccer leagues could be tough to field teams once the seniors and grad students are gone after the fall. Couple smaller rosters with injuries and some schools may have trouble fielding teams in the spring. Perhaps this roster limit change will help provoke a move to a fall and spring competitive schedule with the NCAA tourney in the spring. This would allow for games to be spread out more to help prevent injuries and keep players healthy (and in school during the week since most games could be played on weekends).

 

Most schools have been on roster limits through the years. The teams this will impact are those that use roster size for admission building and some elite programs (Indiana/Notre Dame) who have been able to use the redshirt process because of larger numbers. Ryan Wittenbrink comes to mind at IU. Redshirt who became All-Big Ten. They won't have room for a player like that in the future.