Make sense if other teams don’t carry > 16 for fairness, thanks.
The Olympic 13 player rule sucks IMHO. But that is another thread on another day :).
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more polofan!
UCLA cut spots on the mens’ team prior to the 2024 season and AW plans on cutting six women from the roster before the 2025 season. The women are aware of the cuts but the players have not been identified. UCLA is adhering to the 24 player roster.
They still ran with 28 last season down from 31 in 2023.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken is not scheduled to give final approval to the proposed settlement in the House class-action lawsuit until April 2025. She could decide not to approve the proposed settlement. If Judge Wilken approves it, the new roster limits in water polo and other sports will go into effect in July in time for the 2025-26 academic year. UCLA and other schools that would be bound by the terms of the House settlement may implement roster limits before July 2025 but they aren’t required to do so. My guess is most schools won’t.
I can’t speak for any other schools (nor did I) besides UCLA and my source is part of the program.
A few updates from NCAA questions and answers on the settlement in progress:
I’m still curious if all the D1 teams will use the 24 roster limit, or just the ones in power 5 conferences since those are the ones specified. The big 4 will but any other D1 water polo?
Many, if not most, of the D1 schools will not be required to comply with the 24-person water polo rosters. However, I think most of the schools will choose to comply.
As the authors of the attached article suggest, some people are not happy with the proposed settlement.
1 Like
Again, the source is part of the UCLA program. This isn’t a guess it’s data from an inside source regarding their state of affairs.
Additionally, athletes were asked to submit their claims for the class action lawsuit and have already received their settlement amounts. Not the funds but the amount they will receive.Facts not a guess.
My source for the settlement is my kid. They submitted their claim and were notified last week of their settlement amount, $2,400. I literally said they haven’t received the funds. Didn’t your kid play? Did he not submit a claim?
To view your estimated payment amounts, click [HERE] (https://veritaconnect.com/NCCO_AEL/Claimant/LogInSelect)
I’m an attorney and civil procedure and constitutionality are what causes a judge to agree with or overrule the work done in trial court. If the judge finds that civil procedure was followed and constitutional rights weren’t violated, they have no reason to not approve. The fact that “some people aren’t happy with the decision” does not affect a judge’s decision. This isn’t an appeal, although the same reasons would cause appellate court judges to reverse or confirm a decision. This is a settlement and both parties agreed. Another reason the judge may not approve of the settlement is if not enough money was set aside to pay all the athlete claims. Therefore, this is why the claims are submitted before the settlement is approved.
BTW, submitting claims for Class Action lawsuits is standard procedure. Not sure which book you’re reading out of but if you want a piece of the pie, you submit a claim. You are also making up the formula on how athletes are paid. There is a formula and the revenue generating athletes will get more than the non-revenue generating ones. However, they will all get paid if they submitted a claim. Sounds like $2,400 is the minimum payout.
In the article posted by Jeff, milestone dates are clearly outlined:
Preliminary Approval - October 7, 2024
Notice Campaign and Claim Period Begins - October 18, 2024
Allocation Estimate - December 17, 2024 To view your estimated payment amounts, click [HERE] (https://veritaconnect.com/NCCO_AEL/Claimant/LogInSelect)
And to prove my point about the 24 person roster, from the NCAA FAQ " * Once a school pays one student-athlete, they are subject to the settlement terms." If an athlete receives a pay out, the school they attended must adhere to the rules e.g. 24 PERSON ROSTER.
1 Like
It doesn’t seem like ucla adhering to the roster limits could really be driven by budget considerations. Aside from gear (which is pretty minor in polo), the cost of those spots is close to nothing, right? I think they are choosing to adhere to the limits for polo as other ucla sports are subject to the roster limits (as the other ucla sports are in a power 4 conference). I would expect cal, usc and stanford to eventually do the same.
1 Like
Archiving this thread due to moderation issues, please feel free to start a new thread when we have new information on this and reach out to me if there is anything that needs review.