No more head count sports in NCAA Power 4

Why can’t Scotus just find title IX unconstitutional? It’d fix every issue we have with ncaa sports

I used to coach at a few different DI’s and it takes about 1 million to endow a scholarship at a state school (1 million at 4.5% return covers the 45k cost of the scholarship)

So schools that can provide all of these scholarships will. Most of DI is barely surviving anyway and if you are at a small player in the power 4 GOOD LUCK!!!

Think of an Oklahoma. Big successful athletic department. They care about softball, baseball, and football. They need to find 50 million to cover that?

Football...football...football.

Because it is not? What part of the constitution does your advanced legal mind think it violates?

I don’t care about judicial activism in this case. When barely sub 5 females get good $ to mid majors or small $ to good power 5 but 4:10 males get no walk on opportunities, something needs to be done.

As noted, this could mean as many as 60 more scholarship spots available across all sports.

To me with the hundreds of millions being made the fact that scholarship limits that had been around before a lot of you were born seemed stupid and certainly contradicted a key message of college athletics: making more opportunities.

All sports should have been given increases, and I would go one step further and up the requirements for whatever the top tier is going to be to fund more grants. That could probably be used in basketball where the NCAA has power. (The NCAA has little to say when it comes to FBS football.)

The march to a new division continues

NCAA Power Four

___________________________

Insert a BIG Gap Here (Between NCAA-Semi Pro down to college sports as we recognize them)

___________________________

NCAA Division I FBS (non-Power Four)

NCAA DIvision I FCS

NCAA Division II

NCAA Division III

EDIT TO ADD:

I think the remaining questions that determine whether the Power Four are even tied to everyone else are

1) whether, or how, there will still be a Division I basketball tournament,

2) how many of the tier two teams will qualify for the College Football Playoff (I'd guess it will be one, as a gift), and

3) to what extent do the Power Four even play the other schools in non-conference games in football, basketball and so on.

I keep waiting for the full BIG BREAK to happen, but I guess it will just be piecemeal until everyone just looks up and realizes what has happened.

Personally I am looking forward to the big time football and basketball school moving on. Reason one is that too often rules are made that directly address a problem or issue with those two sports, but are asinine when applied to Olympic sports.

Reason number two is that it will (hopefully) get schools out of the pro sports market and allow them to get back to the more traditional student athlete model.

Any word on what roster cap is included for XC and track?

For the most part, those will be cut, and... cut.

(Kind of a joke, but I do think we are steaming toward the Vanderbilt* model at the Power Four level and that only women will be doing those sports at a lot of schools.)

*Men, 6 teams: Baseball, Cross Country, Golf, Football, Basketball, Trennis

Women, 10 teams: Basketball, Cross Country, Lacrosse, Swimming, Track and Field, Bowling, Golf, Soccer, Tennis, Volleyball

The one thing that could save Cross Country for men is if there is a shared coaching staff to keep the costs down. Otherwise you could fill that spot with soccer, lacrosse, swimming, etc.

No, it would not fix every issue.

The tragi-comic takeaway from this article for me is that football gets a fully funded 105 player roster. Athletic departments will cut entire sports to essentially pay for 30-40 players that will never play a single down in their collegiate career.

I had a former co-worker that was a back-up punter at an SEC school. Outside of practices and the Spring game, he kicked TWO times in actual games. Both kicks came during 4th quarter garbage time in 50+ point blowouts with the third string offense in. Full ride, two kicks in meaningless games. Told me that there were literally dozens of guys on 90 man rosters that never played a game beyond high school that received a free education for attending practices and riding the pines.

Tell me again how giving a 3:41/13:40/29:XX XC and conference scorer dude a half ride is breaking the financial back of a Power 4 athletic department?

Looking forward to having a future discussion with many you in 2032 about how awful our men's distance team is (Our two 800 guys hit the Oly standard and our marathoner got an inclusion entry), but the USA ladies have several legitimate medal threats in Brisbane.

For XC and Track and Field, especially for programs with no football?

Hi. We ran a data set of all 306 NCAA rosters and out of the 1,086 distance runners over 88% ran slower than 4:10 in high school at P5. 2022 data set.

Not to distract, but while caps could/would be awful for cross country and track (especially the men), they could be even worse for sports with lower injury rates, like golf.

Five compete in a golf tournament (the best four score each round), so you could easily see the cap being about seven.

With seven racing in cross country, higher injury rates and most athletes needing a few years to develop (waiting in the wings, so to speak), I would have to think you need 10-12 or you will have teams not scoring in meets.

But then, silly me, why do I think that Power Four ADs would give a crap about that?

Nobody cares about the weak power 5 like Miami distance, Rutgers, etc

I know one person who didn't even get a reply from the coach with a 4:10 after being accepted at a school that finishes 10-15 in NCAA yearly and is academically strong but not truly elite

Similarly, I know a low 9:0x runner who didn't receive responses after acceptances

Roster cuts are already here. Look at Nebraska’s cross country roster, both are limited to 12 athletes per gender, which the women not being allowed to add any transfers or freshmen.

What will be the impact on lower division 1 programs like American University, who has no football team?

It seems like for running, division 3 may be the answer?

I think that we could see a real rise in the quality and depth of Division II teams in the next few years. Then a trickle down to Division III.

Sadly, I think we will also see fewer American athletes on the top Division I teams.