Any updates from today’s deadline?
Lots of talk around grandfathering athletes on rosters at rolling in limits over time, which would cause some interesting issues that were cut and have options to come back, but have not seen final verdict.
House v. NCAA settlement: Attorneys file new brief, include grandfathering provisions for roster limits
[Excerpt] Under the plan, athletes who had their positions cut will be eligible for reinstatement at schools’ discretion. It also permits athletes who leave or not retained by their current school would keep grandfather status at a new school. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler told On3 those athletes would be exempt from all roster limits for their entire careers. That includes current athletes cut for next year and high school seniors who were promised spots for next year, but had those positions withdrawn.
Content cannot be retrieved…
It’s confusing who would be “grandfathered”. On one hand the article says… That includes current athletes cut for next year and high school seniors who were promised spots for next year, but had those positions withdrawn. Also, in the article it says “The revisions to the Settlement Agreement ensure that class members who have or would have lost roster spots or promised roster spots as a result of the new roster limits will be in the same position as they would have been in if roster limits were never implemented, i.e., roster limits do not apply to them.
The first statement is pretty clear if you’ve been cut or high school seniors who lost their offers then you’re in the class. I’m curious how they define what is an “offer”
The second quote suggests “or would have lost a roster spot”. How in the world can you determine who would have lost a roster spot? Seems like a huge potential loophole to me.
This is totally unenforceable. Needs an effective date of the cut and some sort of documentation that won’t exist.
1 Like
They made it as clear as possible in legal terms. Basically once this lawsuit is settled (or adjudicated) the clock starts.
The way the courts work this is basically you’ll have to prove that you’re one of the people who belong in this ‘class’ of people.
‘Class’ is in quotes because courts will use that for a specific subset of the population not at ‘class of 2025’ like we use it.
Basically the court is building in a provision for people within that class to sue for damages. It’s decently crafted and doesn’t have many holes in them. That means that anyone who ‘lost their roster spot’ will likely have to sue to have their roster spot reinstated at the institution that they expected to play at. Nothing crazy in judicial terms.
Edit:
Expect this to happen for universities that already told people no due to roster limits.
Edit2:
They likely used this verbiage to do exactly not what Gibson says: they expect that this suit will drag out, so they can’t put a date to it. A very usual thing for courts to do.
Great, so add 10X in legal fees to every college sports programs budget?
Every year there are cuts in water polo. Some schools traditionally bring in 5-9 new kids each season. Some transfers, some freshmen. More often then most know, up to half of those new kids don’t make it to the next season. Some are cut, some are told they wont get any playing time the next year and quit, some stick it out and work hard to show the coach they have what it takes. I know of one program that cut a few kids months ago but told a few other kids that they will have a spot if the roster limits don’t take effect. If they did take effect they would need to try to find a new home. In a way saying we like you, you have potential but we may not have room for you. The kids who got cut already just got cut because the coach cut them. The other couple spots will be saved since only 2 things can happen now.
- Kids who played last season are grandfathered in as the NCAA has proposed. MAYBE a few more tweaks but only in favor of athletes.
- The judge denies the settlement outright, roster limits remain as they were for the foreseeable future, NCAA loses court cases in the next 2-3 years and goes insolvent.
I think it is up to the coaches and AD’s to decide what to do with kids they verbally offered spots to and then had to back out as they found better talent, kids did not develop as they thought, or they made stupid decisions (the athlete). Many of the top kids found new homes so they would have to decide if they flop back to a school that could not fit them but still wants them, or stay with the new team. There are so few truly signed commitments in water polo I don’t see it being much of an issue.
Also, just because your spot was saved and you can be an exception to the roster limits does not make it so you cant be cut. If you are not performing and working hard you will be cut eventually, roster limits or not. D1 is no joke, if you cant work your ass off juggling school and 26+ hours a week of water polo, don’t do it. Coach could care less about how well you are doing in school.
Kids should also know that there are two-three seasons of water polo. Summer (most D1 schools). Fall, yes the season everyone knows about. Spring (20 hours a week, scrimmages, National league). You cant sleep on any of those, you cant catch up on school, you are always being evaluated. It is a 4 year grind.
4 Likes
I think “COMMITMENT” is key word here along with LOYALTY.
In my view, they should be fundamental principles in collegiate athletics as they were in the past for both athletes and institutions. Unfortunately, with the NCAA’s evolving landscape—including the transfer portal, continuous policy changes, and new house rules—these core values are steadily diminishing in importance. This erosion of commitment and loyalty represents the true casualty in collegiate sports that too often goes unaddressed!!!
1 Like
Totally agree! Unfortunately players are treated like a commodity not a student athlete. It is as if coaches are playing a card game. The top recruiting schools fill their hands with Kings (top of the US class) but then when an Ace (international stand out) comes along they discard the King and keep the Ace. Then the mid tier coaches scramble to pick up the Kings and ditch their Jacks. Hard to blame them when their jobs are always on the line, remember there could be more money for international scholarships once this thing is settled dropping the Kings and Jacks further down or out of the sport.
1 Like
Harvard just announced its class of 2029.
Harvard has historically recruited almost exclusively from the States.
1 Like
Harvard: this is where a Coach cares about how you are doing in school. This is where Student comes first, Athlete comes second. This is where they ask you to give progress reports on your HS Senior Year academics; there is no coasting or relaxing academically. Coaches have influence on recruitment, but Admissions has the real power. A much different environment and culture.
Not arguing with that point at all and 100% agree. I’m fact, for almost all water polo recruits, I would recommend ranking potential landing spots by the strength of the schools academic program and not how competitive the water polo program is. For the most part, the coaches at those schools are much more invested in their athletes education (plus the opportunity to play meaningful minutes and travel are far greater).
But, my point was, that even Harvard, who has always recruited American kids, is now looking at foreign talent as well. The opportunity to be recruited is shrinking rapidly.
4 Likes
Maybe the bigger story here is that it looks like Harvard only had 3 recruited slots. Going to be harder and harder to have competitive scrimmages in practice. I believe that all the Ivies are looking to trim the number of recruited athletes across all sports. College athletics was already undergoing major changes but now that the current administration is looking to tax endowments, cut federal funding for research, reduce indirect cost rate, and in some cases change the tax-exempt status, universities are going to look to cut costs wherever they can. Very though times ahead.
1 Like
But wouldn’t accepting more recruits, if qualified or course, bring in more, tuition paying students, thus more income for the school?
Not sure if you’re referring to Harvard specifically or water polo in general. Harvard has plenty of kids lining up to play full tuition – that’s not a problem for them. Other schools? It’s certainly possible that water polo might attract a kid willing to pay full tuition, but if you’re running that sport at a loss, the math gets harder. Absent TV contracts and ticket sales, I think it’s next to impossible to use a non revenue producing D1 sport to make money via students pay full tuition (coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, travel – the math doesn’t work). I would like to think university presidents and administrators would see sports as an extracurricular that supplements the university’s educational mission. But that idea seems quaint in this day and age.
1 Like
This is the first year that tests are mandatory, which raises the academic bar. I believe Harvard had more recruits—at least one—who didn’t pass admissions. While Harvard would welcome more walk-ons given their roster size, the overlap between high-level players and elite academics—i.e., those who can get accepted without coach support—is only one or two per year, if any.
The Australian kid, Felix Pal, who represented Australia at the Youth World Championships in Argentina was born in the USA and has a Californian father from the Bay Area who was a former player on NCAA Championship teams at CAL so it’s a little different.
2 Likes
While admitting I may not have all the facts and could be completely misguided, I’m not elated the so-called Varsity Blues scandal was uncovered. That is the scandal where celebrities and wealthy parents were buying their kid’s way into elite schools through sizable donations to non-revenue sport programs.