Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billybud, post: 5062861, member: 3850"] With the House settlement - which only really considered revenue-generating sports football and basketball - there will be a huge reshuffling of college athletics and it might be a mess. It should have just split into 2 separate worlds - Revenue vs Non Revenue....and not at the conference level but the sport level. Revenue sports pay players, and non-revenue dont. Revenue sports get a large share of the funding..... non-revenue self-fund or play at a club level. etc. This mess may benefit non power conference... How the power conferences will interact with non-power conferences will be interesting. For example, take baseball - in the non-power conferences, you don't have to abide by the roster limit but CAN give a higher about of scholarships. So, say a Virginia, has to limit its baseball roster to 34 but UConn doesn't have to... the Huskies can give 34 scholarships but can have 50 players. There may also be a redistribution of players and more parity in non-revenue sports. 64 teams in D1 lacrosse have no limit on roster size, 11 that have D1 football teams have to limit the roster to 48. Average roster size is between 48 to 60 - UVA 53, ND 60, Maryland 52, etc. Just off of those three teams alone that 21 players that will be "cut" to accommodate the roster limit, where will they go? To the other 64 teams with no limits. The average lacrosse player get $5K athletic money and the rest is academics and tuition. Some non power league schools with keep operating lacrosse with no impact while the P2 lacrosse scools may be hampered by this ruling. It will be interesting how this plays out..and if changes are again made. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach