End of Walk-ons Coming Soon?

Red Five

Red Five

New member
As part of a proposed new athlete compensation model, power conference leaders are considering significantly reducing football rosters, potentially moving from a roster of more than 115 to as few as 85-95 players. That figure (85) aligns with the maximum scholarship number permitted under NCAA rules.

The concept, circulated across administrative meetings over the last week, is part of what could be a sweeping and historic transformation of the industry in the coming few months — all of it rooted in a settlement agreement of various antitrust lawsuits. Any settlement of these cases — House, Hubbard and Carter — is expected to feature as much as $2.9 billion in back damages for former players, a future revenue sharing model with current athletes and an overhaul of the NCAA scholarship and roster structure.

Negotiations over a settlement are deep enough that NCAA and college executives are socializing plans of a new compensation model, including a permissive revenue-sharing concept that could see schools distribute to athletes more than $20 million annually starting as soon as 2025.

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-a-new-college-compensation-model-be-the-end-for-football-walk-ons-170937165.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Wow...only a roster of 85????  TOTAL????

Talk about something that would send shock waves through every level of college football.  

I don't necessarily agree with the tweet that says this will hurt Nebraska.  Yes, everyone's walkon programs would be done away with.  Basically, it would make them against the rules.  But, it also would possibly diminish the ability for schools like OSU and Alabama to stockpile more talent.  That over run of talent would then filter into programs like Nebraska.  This would also have a huge affect on depth on many teams....even good teams.

Where this would be absolutely huge though is at FCS and on down.  There would be a huge flow of talent down the levels of football.  All these walkons would move down, pushing other players further down.  Ultimately, there would be way fewer kids with the opportunity to play college football.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So once and if implemented, what would happen to the rest funding for the non-money making sports.  Typically football pays the lion's share of the AD budget. If more of the football money goes to players' salaries, it seems there would be less money for other sports.   

 
TGHusker said:
So once and if implemented, what would happen to the rest funding for the non-money making sports.  Typically football pays the lion's share of the AD budget. If more of the football money goes to players' salaries, it seems there would be less money for other sports.   
Click to expand...


It's a hugely under reported problem in these articles. Year on year there's roughly 20 or so athletic departments in Div 1 that actually make money. We could argue that maybe that shouldn't be the case for various reasons, but as you say there's a lot of people that would be affected.

The NCAA has tried to make these arguments to the courts, but they haven't been very receptive. When one considers the economics, Title IX and everything it's a massively complex problem.

 
Schools would figure out a way around this just like they do everything else.  I could see something like an intramural program that has a training table and a strength program.

The real issue I’d see is practice.  I guess they do it in the NFL, but with all the time restrictions it sure seems like it’d be a challenge.

 
NFL teams have practice squads of players that rarely, if ever touch an NFL field. And they are compensated very well for that. Teams need bodies. And competition. And players. 
 

Nebraska, with a very rich tradition of walk-ons being on the team and ultimately earning some playing time as a Jr or Sr, and some having pro careers…

the washing away of amateur sports, wherein a kid who has limited talent but much desire is being eroded away, not given a chance to reach their potential.  The dreams will be dashed, the desire to achieve greatness thru work will be passed over for the “85”. 
The stories that will be lost that they were on the team and maybe did some kickoffs or 4th qtr clean up time or made a tackle or block in that “one game” will be sadly lost and forever forgotten. 
 

Amateur sports and the college experience of young men competing and trying are dying right before our eyes. It’s sad. 

 
What's next, eliminating fullbacks too ??!? 

BtMlRPOCUAA0w3b.jpg


 
Decked said:
Who does this benefit? The NCAA should be making as little rules legislatively as possible. But instead they seem to be fixated on the dumbest things. I can’t wait until they no longer exist. 
Click to expand...
It regulates the number players that are on NIL only.   It just happens to hurt our walk on program.  

 
It hurts our walk-on program and it also takes away an advantage we have over quite a few other B1G schools in football in that we're a pretty high revenue earner from our program and can afford to basically offer lots of "walk-on NIL scholarships" to guys.

Logic says that we'll just spread that pool of money to the players we will have and they'll get paid more per year and maybe we still have roughly the same advantage, in theory. But it still sucks.

 
Back
Top