The new ruling allowing for up to 24 scholarships is a pipe dream, it is unlikely to benefit men’s college water polo programs. No program will see an increase from the current 8 scholarships they receive, and in reality, many may see reductions to 4 to 6 scholarships (if any) by the time this change impacts water polo. The only way to sustain or expand scholarship opportunities will be through direct alumni contributions or other dedicated funding sources, which will be essential for keeping many programs competitive and financially viable.
Men’s limit is currently 4.5, I believe Women’s is 8, I think you were referring to Women’s but your previous sentence referenced men. Just clarifying for other readers.
1 Like
Yes you are correct sorry but my point will be the same as there might be reduction in the scholarship numbers rather than an increase.
It is likely that Women’s scholarships at Michigan, Indiana, UCLA and USC will see some sort of increase from the current 8. It’s also possible that ASU, Stanford and Cal could see the same although it’s less likely all three of those schools will go to 105 football scholarships given their smaller TV revenue compared to the BIG 10.
I’m fairly certain they will all go to 105 scholarships. Even Stanford with the most restrictions - they’re way smaller and have the rigorous academic filter - is going to 105.
“With the ability to give more scholarships than the previous 85 limit, the athletic department has been discussing a potential increase in the number of scholarships allocated to football, Taylor said. The former Sacramento State coach said that he expects all the players on Stanford’s roster to be on scholarship going forward.”
I agree this House ruling could help WWP and hurt MWP at the schools that have D1 Football as they allocate the 20 add’l scholarships to help football.
Has FB & MWP & WWP - Cal, SJSU, UCLA, Stan, USC, Davis (although their football team is FCS, moving to Mtn West - unclear how many resources Davis will put towards football)
Has FB & just WWP - Haw, Mich, FS, SDSU, ASU, Ind.
Has FB & just MWP - AFA
Everyone’s already on “scholarship” at AFA so there’s no men’s programs “out-on-a-limb”
- Is USC going to cut scholarships from MWP? Stanford? UCLA? - doubtful - they have massive war chests.
Cal and SJSU - those are the ones to watch as their athletic dept’s may not be able to keep up with the new realities of FB
1 Like
Seeing several colleges opting in and announcing this today with the initial deadline. Not seeing UCs in here or other non-power 5 water polo (minus Ivies) yet.
Starting March 1, non-defendant schools (non-Power 4) were given staggered opt-in dates. The NCAA is making a list, which will not be shared publicly. It looks like June 15 is the date those schools will have to fully opt-in.
There will be plenty of non-football schools that will opt in. They want to take advantage of the extra scholarships for their individual major sports (baseball, gymnastics, etc.)
NCAA argument: The motion filed Monday addresses these arguments by maintaining they are off base. For instance, with respect to roster limits, the motion suggests that relatively few athletes will lose positions versus alleged “enormous benefits of the settlement” for the class as a whole. “The move to roster limits,” the motion asserts, “was part of the overall settlement compromise, and any negative effects are dwarfed by the extraordinary benefits provided by the settlement to the Settlement Classes as a whole.”
That argument definitely undercuts another argument that has been made that we can’t blame the settlement for roster limits, only the NCAA. If roster cuts were part of the negotiation, they are part of the settlement.
Content cannot be retrieved…
The Biden Administration was opposed to the proposed House vs. NCAA settlement agreement. I don’t know whether the Trump Administration has stated its position. If Judge Wilken doesn’t approve the proposed settlement agreement, I’m curious to see whether any of the affected schools will adopt roster limits anyway. My guess is they won’t.
1 Like
House v. NCAA Settlement Objections Rebuked by Class Counsel
[Full article:]
The section that pertains to roster limits:
One line of objections concerns roster limits, with the settlement eliminating scholarship limits and capping rosters. Schools will decide whether to offer partial or full scholarships so long as roster limits are followed. The expected net effect of this change is more total scholarship money for athletes. But objectors highlight that roster limits will lead to some athletes, especially walk-ons, losing D-I opportunities. FBS rosters for football, for example, will be capped at 105 players, whereas many schools have used rosters of about 120 players including walk-ons.
Kessler and Berman assert that roster limits have led to “vastly overstated” fears.
“For many sports,” the attorneys write, roster limits will allow for larger rosters than average squad sizes.” The brief also points out that, outside of the Power Four conferences, roster limits “will only apply to member institutions that opt in to the revenue-sharing model.”
The section that pertains to approval:
Kessler and Berman also stress that approval of the settlement hinges on whether it is fair, reasonable and adequate. Stated differently, the settlement does not have to be ideal or great for all class members; the bar for approval is much lower. Wilken will consider whether the settlement shows overall fairness in the context of the antitrust claims the players raised in the lawsuits.
To that point, Kessler and Berman maintain that a “holistic assessment” shows the settlement represents “an extraordinary transformation of college sports and opens the markets for athletic services to substantially more competition.” The brief maintains that even if the settlement leads to adverse effects on some class members, those effects are “far outweighed by the many other benefits.” Kessler and Berman also warn that the “efficacy of class-wide antitrust lawsuits” would be imperiled if “different market effects on class members” was treated as an “irreconcilable class conflict.” They also note that the settlement contains mitigation features, including that if an athlete loses a roster spot, their scholarship is protected.
In addition, Kessler and Berman reject suggestions by objectors that Wilken should amend the settlement, such as by striking roster limits. The attorneys emphasize that Wilken “simply does not have the power to remove one portion of a class action settlement and approve the rest.” To that point, a settlement is a compromise and a give-and-take; if it didn’t include roster limits, the NCAA would presumably not have agreed to the settlement and the cases would remain on the docket.
I would love to see the list of sports that make this statement true.
Also, the argument appears to be if the settlement gives 100 people $1M but kills 7 people, it’s best for most of the class and should be approved.
2 Likes
Why does the NCAA want roster limits in the first place? I can’t see any reason to restrict colleges from setting rosters to whatever size they choose.
3 Likes
Cost management. It’s about money. The NCAA may say roster limits will help to create a competitive balance in sports and increase participation within/across divisions. It’ll vary by college, but my guess is we’ll see schools not increase scholarship dollars and offer smaller scholarships in most sports.
Competitive balance I get but - does the NCAA really care about competitive balance in Olympic sports whose audience is largely parents of athletes?
And participation? By limiting spots? Seems upside down to me. Limit rosters and you limit participation.
CWPA is a great example of what the free market provides. Harvard small roster, Princeton and Michigan medium roster, Brown large roster. To each their own.
3 Likes
If you showed up to an 18u club team and they had 20 athletes in the water, your 1st thought would be “they must have a B-team”
But in college, there is no B-team - I think we can all agree there is a magic number of kids on a team where decline starts, you just can’t get impactful minutes for everyone:
- Playing time - 10? 12? if you’re not top 12 are you playing meaningful minutes?
- Practice Reps - 18-20-22? Can 22 people get meaningful reps in practice?
You may not agree with my numbers or the judge’s 24, but I’m sure you have your own “you can’t play/practice that many people” number.
Finally - I think coaches want roster limits - they don’t want to manage 30 kids. The MPSF has a long-standing travel limit to help reduce expenses
These are all arguments why coaches should limit their own rosters. Great.
None of them are arguments why the NCAA should mandate roster limits.
2 Likes