In the New World of College Athletics There Won't Be Parker Robertsons

the current roster is so bloated only because of COVID eligibility, so it should have expected to drop back to a reasonable number next year anyway (seems like it's always been around 120)

A better way to look at it, IMO, is that 20 more of the walk-on kids will be on scholarship.

Also, this makes portal management even more important. Seemingly, there will be more, upgrade players at the lower level schools excited about a chance to move up.

Yeah its change but its a level change so that's good. With the portal system it works because you can back fill. It might actually work out better for kids going to lower tier schools, playing, and then getting to move up. And as RA said it should increase JUCO #'s as well.

What will be crazy is the number of slots opened in some other sports. Wrestling can no put 30 on roster, Equestrian can roster 50. Track & Field will have 45 slots for men and women each. Plus slots for XCt. Baseball gets 36 & softball 42.

Lots more kids get a chance to play at the D1 level, and all the money spent on those schollys will count vs the $22M cap.

And the current deal would shut down the collectives. NIL will be either sold to the school where the school can cut deals that pay all athletes and the school can make money on these deals. So say OSU cuts a deal with QT, and it becomes the official convenience store of OSU. The players make some money and the AD can make some money. Probably best deal for the less known athletes. Or a team could do it. The school can also use marketing people to work on these deals. Top talent can retain theirs if they wish.

However, all NIL deals have to be approved by the court. So any NIL deal worth more than $600 has to be a viable deal that athletes in other sports leagues would get. So no more NIL deals to do charity appearances. Probably cuts out the free loaner cars.

It sounds like a workable situation with enforcement by the court.

You are hearing a lot of grumbling from the smaller schools that will see their NCAA payouts go down. I get it that they don't see the money going to their former athletes. However those NCAA payments were basically drawn from the NCAA basketball and other tournaments revenue and it was a subsidy that the D1 schools have been gifting to the lower division schools. So yes they can take a lower cut for these payouts to be made for the next 10 years.

I'm OK with this, especially if it gets a handle on NIL. Currently its unrestricted pay-for-play. The 105 limit comes from the old rule that you could only practice 105 players until classes began. It was only recently changed and had worked for many years. I think it is appropriate to look at it as giving scholarships to the 20 walk-ons that were on the 105 man roster.

NJAggie said:

---

And the current deal would shut down the collectives. NIL will be either sold to the school where the school can cut deals that pay all athletes and the school can make money on these deals. So say OSU cuts a deal with QT, and it becomes the official convenience store of OSU. The players make some money and the AD can make some money. Probably best deal for the less known athletes. Or a team could do it. The school can also use marketing people to work on these deals. Top talent can retain theirs if they wish.

However, all NIL deals have to be approved by the court. So any NIL deal worth more than $600 has to be a viable deal that athletes in other sports leagues would get. So no more NIL deals to do charity appearances. Probably cuts out the free loaner cars.

It sounds like a workable situation with enforcement by the court.

You are hearing a lot of grumbling from the smaller schools that will see their NCAA payouts go down. I get it that they don't see the money going to their former athletes. However those NCAA payments were basically drawn from the NCAA basketball and other tournaments revenue and it was a subsidy that the D1 schools have been gifting to the lower division schools. So yes they can take a lower cut for these payouts to be made for the next 10 years.

---

do you have a source for any of those bolded statements? That's the first I've heard anything like that.

Thanks.

RodeoPoke said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

And the current deal would shut down the collectives. NIL will be either sold to the school where the school can cut deals that pay all athletes and the school can make money on these deals. So say OSU cuts a deal with QT, and it becomes the official convenience store of OSU. The players make some money and the AD can make some money. Probably best deal for the less known athletes. Or a team could do it. The school can also use marketing people to work on these deals. Top talent can retain theirs if they wish.

However, all NIL deals have to be approved by the court. So any NIL deal worth more than $600 has to be a viable deal that athletes in other sports leagues would get. So no more NIL deals to do charity appearances. Probably cuts out the free loaner cars.

It sounds like a workable situation with enforcement by the court.

You are hearing a lot of grumbling from the smaller schools that will see their NCAA payouts go down. I get it that they don't see the money going to their former athletes. However those NCAA payments were basically drawn from the NCAA basketball and other tournaments revenue and it was a subsidy that the D1 schools have been gifting to the lower division schools. So yes they can take a lower cut for these payouts to be made for the next 10 years.

---

do you have a source for any of those bolded statements? That's the first I've heard anything like that.

Thanks.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-leaders-file-landmark-agreement-in-antitrust-cases-heres-what-was-settled-and-whats-next-210539610.html

Just from another perspective, I wonder how the group of 5 teams feel about the power four conferences now being able to award 1,300 additional football scholarships compared to the previous 85 limit per team? Can't be good for them even with the lower roster limits.

Hawkn86 said:

---

Just from another perspective, I wonder how the group of 5 teams feel about the power four conferences now being able to award 1,300 additional football scholarships compared to the previous 85 limit per team? Can't be good for them even with the lower roster limits.

---

It's hard to say as currently with 85 scholarships they still carried another 40+ walkons. So the question is how many of those walkons stay as part of the 105, and how many are cut lose.

I think its likely there is more consolidation of higher ranked recruits, but it will also open up some better kids that wound up walking on.

It might be that some of those kids in the last 20 decide to roll down play at G5 (or lower) and get playing time then take it to the portal after 1-3 years. It's going to have an effect but how much and what it is exactly we're going to be learning over the next few years.

Another factor is the salaries that will be paid. Schools that aren't going to have the full $22M to pay out will take a bigger hit than those that do. Unfortunately that will have more impact than the roster spots, and we'll see more upward shift to the top brands as the new market is realized.

I'm more concerned in basketball as 13 scholarships made the men's game competitive, so reversing that could ruin the sport.