[BostonCard]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

House refers to Grant House, a former ASU swimmer, not “The House” (of Representatives), who is one of the lead plaintiffs (along with Sedona Prince) in the class action lawsuit.  The issue is that the settlement has had preliminary approval, but would need final approval from the class members (former NCAA athletes).  Here’s the last update I could find.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5826004...ia-wilken/

If finalized, the agreement would establish $2.78 billion in retroactive damage payments for former college athletes dating back to 2016 who did not have the opportunity to earn compensation for their NIL. It would also allow college athletic departments to opt into revenue sharing directly with current and future college athletes, starting at north of $20 million annually per school.

“We are pleased that we are one step closer to a revolutionary change in college athletics that will allow billions in revenue sharing,” Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in the House case, said via statement.

Another critical aspect of the settlement from the NCAA’s perspective is renewed enforcement of NIL rules intended to eliminate pay-for-play payments that have become commonplace among booster-led NIL collectives. The proposed terms allow the NCAA and power conferences to form a “designated enforcement agency,” which the revised agreement specifies would focus on NIL deals stemming from individuals affiliated with an NIL collective, involved in a player’s recruitment, or from families that have contributed more than $50,000 to a university’s athletic department over the course of their lifetime.

As for the roster limits, the roster limits are larger than the old scholarship limits, but for certain sports (eg, those with many walk-ons), may be smaller than average rosters: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ter-limits

The new maximum roster size for 19 of 43 NCAA sports would be smaller than the current average roster in those sports. A handful of sports, including football, baseball and women's soccer, would be disproportionately affected. Those reductions already have forced many coaches to renege on verbal promises they made despite the pending uncertainty about roster sizes.

My son has a friend on the baseball team at UCLA who is likely affected. He was a late bloomer and walk-on, but good enough to earn playing time. Unfortunately for him, because the school wants to keep its commitment to the recruited players on scholarship, his coach recommended he go to community college for a year, and then be recruited to transfer back to UCLA as a roster player a year later.

I fail to understand how this arrangement is good for the educational future of the “student”-athlete.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes the reason is the House has not approved the roster being to 18. Or the roster increases for other sports
These are all scholarship athletes
Hard to publically commit if the scholarship increases hasn't been approved
The good news Stanford is on board with the proposed increase

House refers to Grant House, a former ASU swimmer, not “The House” (of Representatives), who is one of the lead plaintiffs (along with Sedona Prince) in the class action lawsuit.  The issue is that the settlement has had preliminary approval, but would need final approval from the class members (former NCAA athletes).  Here’s the last update I could find.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5826004...ia-wilken/

If finalized, the agreement would establish $2.78 billion in retroactive damage payments for former college athletes dating back to 2016 who did not have the opportunity to earn compensation for their NIL. It would also allow college athletic departments to opt into revenue sharing directly with current and future college athletes, starting at north of $20 million annually per school.

“We are pleased that we are one step closer to a revolutionary change in college athletics that will allow billions in revenue sharing,” Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in the House case, said via statement.

Another critical aspect of the settlement from the NCAA’s perspective is renewed enforcement of NIL rules intended to eliminate pay-for-play payments that have become commonplace among booster-led NIL collectives. The proposed terms allow the NCAA and power conferences to form a “designated enforcement agency,” which the revised agreement specifies would focus on NIL deals stemming from individuals affiliated with an NIL collective, involved in a player’s recruitment, or from families that have contributed more than $50,000 to a university’s athletic department over the course of their lifetime.

As for the roster limits, the roster limits are larger than the old scholarship limits, but for certain sports (eg, those with many walk-ons), may be smaller than average rosters: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ter-limits

The new maximum roster size for 19 of 43 NCAA sports would be smaller than the current average roster in those sports. A handful of sports, including football, baseball and women's soccer, would be disproportionately affected. Those reductions already have forced many coaches to renege on verbal promises they made despite the pending uncertainty about roster sizes.

My son has a friend on the baseball team at UCLA who is likely affected. He was a late bloomer and walk-on, but good enough to earn playing time. Unfortunately for him, because the school wants to keep its commitment to the recruited players on scholarship, his coach recommended he go to community college for a year, and then be recruited to transfer back to UCLA as a roster player a year later.

I fail to understand how this arrangement is good for the educational future of the “student”-athlete.

BC