House v NCAA

[wgdsr]

The roster limit for men's lacrosse is 48, not "32-36" as was rumored.

Many teams are already near that mark. But for the ones in the 60+ range, this could get messy.

You should be thrilled, my man.

Can't see any program offering more scholarships than Hopkins will offer. This should be a huge advantage for you, congrats.

have to say, the limits look pretty generous. might stave off any challenge for a while. hockey seems low, but is about what a number of top teams carry. i wonder if players will be allowed practice and not be rostered. probably not, but maybe once as a redshirt year.

[nyjay]

So I guess the HS class of 2026 gets screwed by this? Right as the Covid restrictions finally roll off, the roster restrictions (and corresponding scholly increases) come around? The 2025 have already been recruited (and may get squeezed too by offers being pulled), but I assume a disproportionate amount of the roster cutting will come from incoming recruits (25s and 26s)? And upperclassman who don't play much. Given with the current transfer rules and it would seem that players 30+ on mid major rosters may be out of luck as well?

[nyjay]

A roster size of 38 for the women feels really low.

[coda]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

[wgdsr]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

it's pretty obvious you haven't read kavanaugh's concurrence for alston. it isn't babbling nonsense and it's part of the discussion. you don't have to agree with the point.

[wgdsr]

A roster size of 38 for the women feels really low.

does it, tho? hopkins had 41. the national champs had 35. don't know if either excluded redshirts that wouldn't apply now, but i'd imagine you'd see a similar range for most schools. outside of blowouts, believe fewer women play in games vs men.

[nyjay]

A roster size of 38 for the women feels really low.

does it, tho? hopkins had 41. the national champs had 35. don't know if either excluded redshirts that wouldn't apply now, but i'd imagine you'd see a similar range for most schools. outside of blowouts, believe fewer women play in games vs men.

There's 12 a side on the field for each team. Maybe I'm wrong, Just felt it would be higher than the mens game.

[a fan]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

[NovaLax17]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

[thegman]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

[Farfromgeneva]

So I guess the HS class of 2026 gets screwed by this? Right as the Covid restrictions finally roll off, the roster restrictions (and corresponding scholly increases) come around? The 2025 have already been recruited (and may get squeezed too by offers being pulled), but I assume a disproportionate amount of the roster cutting will come from incoming recruits (25s and 26s)? And upperclassman who don't play much. Given with the current transfer rules and it would seem that players 30+ on mid major rosters may be out of luck as well?

It’s not screwed when a system returns to normal conditions. A guy who syndicated and bought an apartment complex in late 2021 in Jacksonville isn’t screwed because the market he bought into was temporarily out of equilibrium and he overpaid.

There were a lot to kids who maybe shouldn’t have been in d1 rosters in then with the inflated rosters. This is just a return to normalcy.

[Farfromgeneva]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

[NovaLax17]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

Thanks. That is the article I read as well.

It remains to be seem whether or not a substantial number of lacrosse schools will be willing and able to utilize the full allotment of scholarships. However, in light of the financial earning capacity of major FBS conferences, they will likely reap the rewards of this litigation and the commensurate, significant competitive advantage.

[a fan]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

[a fan]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

Thanks. That is the article I read as well.

It remains to be seem whether or not a substantial number of lacrosse schools will be willing and able to utilize the full allotment of scholarships. However, in light of the financial earning capacity of major FBS conferences, they will likely reap the rewards of this litigation and the commensurate, significant competitive advantage.

I'm assuming the big football schools will be LESS likely to offer more lacrosse and non-revenue sport scholarships, not more. Football and basketball will need that money, imo.

We'll find out soon enough. From where I sit Hopkins is the most likely school to increase scholarship offerings over where they are now.

[thegman]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

Thanks. That is the article I read as well.

It remains to be seem whether or not a substantial number of lacrosse schools will be willing and able to utilize the full allotment of scholarships. However, in light of the financial earning capacity of major FBS conferences, they will likely reap the rewards of this litigation and the commensurate, significant competitive advantage.

I'm assuming the big football schools will be LESS likely to offer more lacrosse and non-revenue sport scholarships, not more. Football and basketball will need that money, imo.

We'll find out soon enough. From where I sit Hopkins is the most likely school to increase scholarship offerings over where they are now.

Roger that, with alums like M. Bloomberg (who gave Hop $1B/making most of their med students full scholly), he could damn sure propel their lax prog too with the change in the cushions of his furniture

[Farfromgeneva]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

The ncaa has always just been an sro shield for the behaviors of 50 or
So college heads. It’s the college presidents and ads. My point is there’s workarounds if they want to. All sorts of collusion happens in soft forms all the time in business. Doesn’t have to be the ncaa can be a group of heads.

[HopFan16]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

Thanks. That is the article I read as well.

It remains to be seem whether or not a substantial number of lacrosse schools will be willing and able to utilize the full allotment of scholarships. However, in light of the financial earning capacity of major FBS conferences, they will likely reap the rewards of this litigation and the commensurate, significant competitive advantage.

I'm assuming the big football schools will be LESS likely to offer more lacrosse and non-revenue sport scholarships, not more. Football and basketball will need that money, imo.

We'll find out soon enough. From where I sit Hopkins is the most likely school to increase scholarship offerings over where they are now.

I don't think anyone knows exactly how this is going to play out but there are roughly four buckets of lacrosse schools:

1 - big football schools that also prioritize lacrosse (UVA, Maryland, etc.)
2 - big football schools that don't prioritize lacrosse (one or two B1G/ACC schools fit here and certainly some Big East teams if you count them)
3 - Small schools that prioritize lacrosse (Hopkins, etc.)
4 - Small schools that don't care about lacrosse (a lot of teams)

Bucket 1 or 3 is where I'd want to be obviously. Any combination of lots of money and/or a school where the admin is invested in the lacrosse program should be set up well. Remains to be seen how the big schools will allocate scholarship funds across nonrevenue sports/what share lacrosse earns. Not rocket science to assume that a school like Syracuse will give a bigger percentage to its lacrosse team than a school like Ohio State will — but Ohio State will have a larger pool of cash to draw from. Better to be a big fish in a pond, or a small fish in an ocean?

[a fan]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

The ncaa has always just been an sro shield for the behaviors of 50 or
So college heads. It’s the college presidents and ads. My point is there’s workarounds if they want to. All sorts of collusion happens in soft forms all the time in business. Doesn’t have to be the ncaa can be a group of heads.

Oh, I agree. I guess all I'm saying is: how far do they want to push it, and chance that they'll get sued.

If I'm a kid at a school on even a partial scholarship, and get kicked off the team because of roster limits? I'm suing. No question.

Because unless they're stupid, the NCAA lawyers will do anything to keep from standing in front of Kavanaugh again....... where he'll say "what part of my ruling was unclear to you? This is America, and an outside entity can't cap the number of employees a business has. "

I'm just not all that sure that students or their parents either read, or understand the SCOTUS ruling.

[a fan]

A news report today states the NCAA increased scholarships for all or most division one sports. Schools are now permitted to grant 48 scholarships for men’s lacrosse and 38 for women’s lacrosse.

The Yahoo sports article linked below is an easy read for a non-atty like me. The chart within it suggests MLax is cleaning up with a 35.4 increase in scholarships per team? Incredible if true but seems to bolster the argument that the rich (P5 conf schools) get richer. Several big time athletic programs with eye-popping revenue (Mich, tOSU, UNC, ND, etc.) can outspend most any other school with scholly offers, unless I'm reading this incorrectly?


https://sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sp ... 42040.html

Thanks. That is the article I read as well.

It remains to be seem whether or not a substantial number of lacrosse schools will be willing and able to utilize the full allotment of scholarships. However, in light of the financial earning capacity of major FBS conferences, they will likely reap the rewards of this litigation and the commensurate, significant competitive advantage.

I'm assuming the big football schools will be LESS likely to offer more lacrosse and non-revenue sport scholarships, not more. Football and basketball will need that money, imo.

We'll find out soon enough. From where I sit Hopkins is the most likely school to increase scholarship offerings over where they are now.

I don't think anyone knows exactly how this is going to play out but there are roughly four buckets of lacrosse schools:

1 - big football schools that also prioritize lacrosse (UVA, Maryland, etc.)
2 - big football schools that don't prioritize lacrosse (one or two B1G/ACC schools fit here and certainly some Big East teams if you count them)
3 - Small schools that prioritize lacrosse (Hopkins, etc.)
4 - Small schools that don't care about lacrosse (a lot of teams)

Bucket 1 or 3 is where I'd want to be obviously. Any combination of lots of money and/or a school where the admin is invested in the lacrosse program should be set up well. Remains to be seen how the big schools will allocate scholarship funds across nonrevenue sports/what share lacrosse earns. Not rocket science to assume that a school like Syracuse will give a bigger percentage to its lacrosse team than a school like Ohio State will — but Ohio State will have a larger pool of cash to draw from. Better to be a big fish in a pond, or a small fish in an ocean?

Then you have to add in that most of these schools are government schools....owned by the State. Which leads to different budgeting concerns than the Private schools face.

You're right, who knows what will happen. But if I were a betting man, the one school I'd wager will increase scholarships is your alma mater.

And we need to remember that this is all temporary until a Union is formed, and a collective bargain is struck. I have a hard time seeing that happen inside of even 5 years, let alone 10. Too many moving parts and differing interests....all being forced by the SCOTUS.