menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: The new NCAA is here
Page: 1 of 2
mail
person
giacomo
4/6/2025 8:26 AM
https://pge.post-gazette.com/.pf/showstory/202504040042/3

Likely more to come for anyone not in the top half of P5.
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 7:16 AM
This is already having an impact on non-revenue sports.

The NCAA has placed roster limits on all sports.
Whether you're a walk-on or not.

In wrestling its 30 people.

When I wrestled we had over 30 people in the room.

If you're not on scholarship, who cares how many people are in the room ?

Walk-ons were the practice partners for the starters.

No one seemed to mind.

Schools may need to form an independent club for people who want to
participate.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 7:43 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
This is already having an impact on non-revenue sports.

The NCAA has placed roster limits on all sports.
Whether you're a walk-on or not.

In wrestling its 30 people.

When I wrestled we had over 30 people in the room.

If you're not on scholarship, who cares how many people are in the room ?

Walk-ons were the practice partners for the starters.

No one seemed to mind.

Schools may need to form an independent club for people who want to
participate.
On the surface though, if they have the resources, all 30 wrestlers could receive scholarships now. Same for baseball, could be a potential boon! Now, in practice, I do not see it having that effect.
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 8:36 AM
Problem is that, scholarship or not, top programs have more then 30 people on their rosters.
mail
person
giacomo
4/7/2025 10:42 AM
https://pge.post-gazette.com/.pf/showstory/202504060080/3

Great editorial on the subject.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 12:29 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Problem is that, scholarship or not, top programs have more then 30 people on their rosters.
Not anymore 😎
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 12:56 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Problem is that, scholarship or not, top programs have more then 30 people on their rosters.
Not anymore 😎
So, now in its infinite wisdom, the NCAA, gets to decide how many students are
allowed to participate in a D1 sport.

Would love to know how they arbitrarily came up with the roster limits.
Kind of like how they previously decided wrestling should only have 9.9
scholarships.

I'm sure at some point someone is going to challenge the NCAA's right to
limit participants in a particular sport.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/7/2025 12:58 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the NCAA always have roster limits?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 12:59 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Problem is that, scholarship or not, top programs have more then 30 people on their rosters.
Not anymore 😎
So, now in its infinite wisdom, the NCAA, gets to decide how many students are
allowed to participate in a D1 sport.

Would love to know how they arbitrarily came up with the roster limits.
Kind of like how they previously decided wrestling should only have 9.9
scholarships.

I'm sure at some point someone is going to challenge the NCAA's right to
limit participants in a particular sport.
Why does no one ever at to give the courts their fair share of the credit. If it was up to the NCAA iwrestling would be just as you remember it.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 12:59 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the NCAA always have roster limits?
Yes they have always had roster and scholarship limits.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/7/2025 1:02 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Why does no one ever at to give the courts their fair share of the credit. If it was up to the NCAA iwrestling would be just as you remember it.
Because it is the NCAA's job to run intercollegiate athletics in a way that isn't blatantly illegal. It's not the courts' job.

The NCAA had decades to adjust and they didn't. The Supreme Court went completely out of their way to give the NCAA advance notice about where this was all headed.

As the dude at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette points out, the Marx Brothers were making jokes about how athletics were outstripping academics in at colleges. Blue Chips was written in the 80s. Everybody saw this coming and the people in charge did nothing and completely lost control.
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 1:06:25 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 1:13 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Why does no one ever at to give the courts their fair share of the credit. If it was up to the NCAA iwrestling would be just as you remember it.
Because it is the NCAA's job to run intercollegiate athletics in a way that isn't blatantly illegal. It's not the courts' job.

The NCAA had decades to adjust and they didn't. The Supreme Court went completely out of their way to give the NCAA advance notice about where this was all headed.

As the dude at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette points out, the Marx Brothers were making jokes about how athletics were outstripping academics in at colleges. Blue Chips was written in the 80s. Everybody saw this coming and the people in charge did nothing and completely lost control.
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did. I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 1:18:18 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 1:18 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the NCAA always have roster limits?
Yes they have always had roster and scholarship limits.
That's the first time I heard of roster limits for walk ons.

When I played soccer at O.U., we had 1 scholarship.

No one ever mentioned limits on walk ons.

We were always looking for bodies

We used to carry around 25 players.

Same when I wrestled at FDU .
We had limits (9.9) on scholarships.
But no one ever mentioned a limit on walk ons.

We used to have around 30 guys in the room.

That number would drop during the season as guys got hurt.
Maybe they were there limits, but it was never mentioned.

I remember when I wrestled ,the academies had 50-60 guys on their squads, not couniting plebes.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 1:24 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the NCAA always have roster limits?
Yes they have always had roster and scholarship limits.
That's the first time I heard of roster limits for walk ons.

When I played soccer at O.U., we had 1 scholarship.

No one ever mentioned limits on walk ons.

We were always looking for bodies

We used to carry around 25 players.

Same when I wrestled at FDU .
We had limits (9.9) on scholarships.
But no one ever mentioned a limit on walk ons.

We used to have around 30 guys in the room.

That number would drop during the season as guys got hurt.
Maybe they were there limits, but it was never mentioned.

I remember when I wrestled ,the academies had 50-60 guys on their squads, not couniting plebes.
Since the 1980’s OHIO University and the NCAA has had roster limits. Sometimes the institutions limits were lower than the NCAA’s. In this proposed settlement like 14-15 sports will not be reduced. Football , baseball, softballl, wrestling, XC and track are ones off the top of my head. Both basketballs stay at 15.
mail
person
giacomo
4/7/2025 1:37 PM
Maybe what will happen is the players will become employees, or at least sign agreements that they will stay for 1-4 years with penalties for leaving early, just like the contracts coaches sign.
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 1:38:11 PM by giacomo
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/7/2025 1:38 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did. [/QUOTE]The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

[QUOTE=BillyTheCat]
I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 1:42 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the NCAA always have roster limits?
Yes they have always had roster and scholarship limits.
That's the first time I heard of roster limits for walk ons.

When I played soccer at O.U., we had 1 scholarship.

No one ever mentioned limits on walk ons.

We were always looking for bodies

We used to carry around 25 players.

Same when I wrestled at FDU .
We had limits (9.9) on scholarships.
But no one ever mentioned a limit on walk ons.

We used to have around 30 guys in the room.

That number would drop during the season as guys got hurt.
Maybe they were there limits, but it was never mentioned.

I remember when I wrestled ,the academies had 50-60 guys on their squads, not couniting plebes.
Since the 1980’s OHIO University and the NCAA has had roster limits. Sometimes the institutions limits were lower than the NCAA’s. In this proposed settlement like 14-15 sports will not be reduced. Football , baseball, softballl, wrestling, XC and track are ones off the top of my head. Both basketballs stay at 15.
Seems a bit unfair that you can artificially restrict people from participating just by picking a number of participants.
That would seem to be anti the whole concept of encouraging participation in intercollegiate sports.

But this is what sports has become. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
To quote Joe Pesci in Casino "Always the dollars, always the fuckin dollars".
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 1:43:34 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 1:58 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 2:00:24 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 2:11 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
If the courts gave us NIL, and if the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution, why would anyone listen to them ?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 2:28 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
If the courts gave us NIL, and if the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution, why would anyone listen to them ?
Literally every Athletics Association in the US is voluntary. OHSAA, WVSSAC, NAIA, NCAA are all voluntary associations, schools choose to join. Programs that compete in AAU, USA Softball, Little League, are all voluntary. And not sure how you think they can just ignore courts. The association I am apart of has won many cases based on the courts decisions that the schools agreed to the rules when they join the association each year.
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 2:40 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
If the courts gave us NIL, and if the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution, why would anyone listen to them ?
Literally every Athletics Association in the US is voluntary. OHSAA, WVSSAC, NAIA, NCAA are all voluntary associations, schools choose to join. Programs that compete in AAU, USA Softball, Little League, are all voluntary. And not sure how you think they can just ignore courts. The association I am apart of has won many cases based on the courts decisions that the schools agreed to the rules when they join the association each year.
The issue comes down to enforcement.
An organization is only voluntary if there is no alternative or if there is a penalty for non-compliance.

That doesn't seem to be the case with the NCAA anymore.

I think this whole roster issue is just one lawsuit away from being blown up by
a court.
Sounds a lot like restraint of trade to me.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/7/2025 2:45 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
This is like saying the courts are responsible for underage tobacco use because of how they ruled in a class action case that found tobacco companies guilty of advertising/marketing to minors.

Everybody knows a court ruling led us to where we are today. But it was a court ruling about NCAA policy that we all knew was nonsense for a very, very long time. The NCAA could have changed the policy. It's not the courts' job to write policy for the NCAA, it's their job to rule on the legality of existing NCAA policy.

The NCAA (and everybody else) knew this day was coming, and somehow the NCAA ended up flat-footed for three years in the interim.
Last Edited: 4/7/2025 2:50:55 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/7/2025 3:12 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The courts are mandating this. If the court approves the action, how is it illegal? And it wasn’t the state legislatures job to bring you NIL, but they did.
The courts didn't "bring the NIL" they ruled that it's illegal for the NCAA to restrict earnings based on Name, Image, Likeness. The NCAA had a policy that the courts ruled was illegal.

The NIL is what it is specifically because the NCAA failed to govern well and set policies that the courts wouldn't rule against. It wasn't a surprise, and everybody knew it was coming for a decade+.

I’ve said it in the past, I’ll say it again, the NCAA is now out of the regulation business, courts have basically stripped any eligibility requirements that are just short of berating or enrolled in school. We have 9th year grad students thanks to the courts. JUCO does t count anymore, neither does DII experiences. Meanwhile, the NCAA is a voluntary membership driven institution.
I think you have a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the courts' role here.
No, state legislators and the courtsgave you NIL. That is highly documented.

https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/#:~:text=NIL%... .
This is like saying the courts are responsible for underage tobacco use because of how they ruled in a class action case that found tobacco companies guilty of advertising/marketing to minors.

Everybody knows a court ruling led us to where we are today. But it was a court ruling about NCAA policy that we all knew was nonsense for a very, very long time. The NCAA could have changed the policy. It's not the courts' job to write policy for the NCAA, it's their job to rule on the legality of existing NCAA policy.

The NCAA (and everybody else) knew this day was coming, and somehow the NCAA ended up flat-footed for three years in the interim.
Then why is thecourt overseeing the settlement and the new rules? You two are losing me when you say thecourts have no role in this, when in fact it’s up to them to agree to the news rules. $20.5 million revenue share, 10 years back pay revenue share and new scholarship and scholarships allocations are all part of thecourts preview here.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/7/2025 3:23 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Then why is thecourt overseeing the settlement and the new rules? You two are losing me when you say the courts have no role in this, when in fact it’s up to them to agree to the news rules. $20.5 million revenue share, 10 years back pay revenue share and new scholarship and scholarships allocations are all part of thecourts preview here.
I'm really not sure what to tell you at this point, man. The courts are involved here the same way the judiciary would be involved in any class action challenging the legality of a policy. I'm kind of lost as to your point. Do you think the NCAA policy should be exempt from the US legal system?
mail
person
rpbobcat
4/7/2025 3:37 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Then why is thecourt overseeing the settlement and the new rules? You two are losing me when you say the courts have no role in this, when in fact it’s up to them to agree to the news rules. $20.5 million revenue share, 10 years back pay revenue share and new scholarship and scholarships allocations are all part of thecourts preview here.
I'm really not sure what to tell you at this point, man. The courts are involved here the same way the judiciary would be involved in any class action challenging the legality of a policy. I'm kind of lost as to your point. Do you think the NCAA policy should be exempt from the US legal system?
I don't think the NCAA should be exempt from the legal system.

At the same time I don't think the NCAA should be allowed to arbitrarily restrict athletes from participating in a D1 sport based on an arbitrary roster restriction.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 47
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)