Rock vs. NCAA: More Changes Ahead?

[DFW HOYA]

Darren Rovell reported today that "The NCAA has lost its motion to dismiss in case vs John Rock contesting the NCAA's 1-year scholarship & limit in football."

John Rock was a former QB at Gardner-Webb whose scholarship was dropped by G-W during a coaching change. He is suing the NCAA on the grounds that scholarship limits violate antitrust law.

Scholarship limits were enacted as a means of cost containment and competitive balance--if Nebraska or Alabama didn't sign 50 kids a year, more teams were in the mix. But from another view, no college would put a fixed limit on the the scholarships it would offer to English majors or business students, so why athletes? (Rock is also challenging the renewable one year scholarship, which is another subject.)

Theoretically, if the NCAA loses this case, the scholarship limits by sport enacted in the early 1970's would be out the window. For those wondering, football had unlimited scholarships until a 105 scholarship limit was set, when dropped to 95 and which is now 85 grants in aid in I-A and up to 63 equivalencies among 85 athletes in I-AA.

So what happens to the major schools if they can recruit unlimited numbers? More important to this board, what happens to your school or your conference if there are no limits enforced?

[lionsrking2]

Darren Rovell reported today that "The NCAA has lost its motion to dismiss in case vs John Rock contesting the NCAA's 1-year scholarship & limit in football."

John Rock was a former QB at Gardner-Webb whose scholarship was dropped by G-W during a coaching change. He is suing the NCAA on the grounds that scholarship limits violate antitrust law.

Scholarship limits were enacted as a means of cost containment and competitive balance--if Nebraska or Alabama didn't sign 50 kids a year, more teams were in the mix. But from another view, no college would put a fixed limit on the the scholarships it would offer to English majors or business students, so why athletes? (Rock is also challenging the renewable one year scholarship, which is another subject.)

Theoretically, if the NCAA loses this case, the scholarship limits by sport enacted in the early 1970's would be out the window. For those wondering, football had unlimited scholarships until a 105 scholarship limit was set, when dropped to 95 and which is now 85 grants in aid in I-A and up to 63 equivalencies among 85 athletes in I-AA.

So what happens to the major schools if they can recruit unlimited numbers? More important to this board, what happens to your school or your conference if there are no limits enforced?

Even if the NCAA loses the suit (which isn't going to happen), it still would not affect roster size limits. You would likely see a huge increase in the numbers of FBS to FCS transfers ... talent will still find its way to FCS and D-II schools, just like it always has.

[walliver]

1) If he can't make it at Gardner-Webb, he isn't a D-1 athlete.
2) The primary effect for Wofford (and the rest of FCS), would be a slight decrease in on-field talent, but no change in competitiveness against other FCS schools or fan enjoyment of the games.

One major effect of this would be a tremendous increase in FBS transfers. The "new" scholarship athletes at most big-time schools would see little or no action on the field.

I suspect most conference would set their own scholarship limits. Since no FCS conference has a real monopoly, the conferences would have great latitude in this area.

Does GWU provide all 63 equivalencies? If not, there isn't much basis to this suit.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Even if the NCAA loses the suit (which isn't going to happen), it still would not affect roster size limits. You would likely see a huge increase in the numbers of FBS to FCS transfers ... talent will still find its way to FCS and D-II schools, just like it always has.

18024.....'ZAKLY.....MO' SKOLLIES = MO' UNHAPPY PLAYERS.....xnodx...BRAWK!

[IBleedYellow]

Pretty sure we'd be able to offer more scholarships for more players, seems like it would help NDSU more than it would hurt. Also would be a situation where schools could "pay" for better teams with more scholarships coming in from booster clubs.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Title IX would make de facto scholarship limits unless the big schools could afford to sponsor six more women's sports. Its notable that the unlimited scholly days were before Title IX.

[PAllen]

The real interesting thing that I'm guessing comes out of this is the trust situation that one year scholarships and transfer restrictions create. So I get a scholarship to go play at GSU. Then after two years, there is a coaching change, and the coach decides he wants his two friends' sons on the team, so he "releases" me from my scholarship. That's all fine and dandy, except that the NCAA has now limited my ability to get a scholarship at other schools by saying that if I don't transfer down, I have to sit out a year. That my friends would be the basis for an anti-trust suit. The easiest way to handle that is to toss the transfer restrictions, which would have a significant impact on all of D-I football.

[IBleedYellow]

Title IX would make de facto scholarship limits unless the big schools could afford to sponsor six more women's sports. Its notable that the unlimited scholly days were before Title IX.

Money is no object to these schools, if you think it is, you're crazy.

Tell a Texas booster "Hey, for xxx amount of money we can add 20 more scholarships and 10 of them to football, or 30 and 15 for football..."

Think they'll bite?

[DFW HOYA]

Title IX would make de facto scholarship limits unless the big schools could afford to sponsor six more women's sports. Its notable that the unlimited scholly days were before Title IX.

Except a ruling like this would eliminate limits in all sports. If Alabama wanted an extra 30 football scholarships and were willing to increase women's soccer scholarships from 12 to 42, regardless of how many would actually play, Title IX is not affected. In fact, fewer sports would need to be added if schools wished to dump extra scholarships in sports that already exist.

Here's a legal article describing why a past lawsuit on this issue went nowhere, but why this case is a much more difficult one for the NCAA.

http://sportinlaw.com/2012/08/01/rock-and-the-class-v-ncaa-does-the-ncaa-violate-antitrust-law-by-capping-scholarships/

[clenz]

Going to a fully funded field hockey, swimming, tennis, soccer, track and field, etc... teams would make it really easy to add women's scholarships without adding sports.

[RichH2]

The real interesting thing that I'm guessing comes out of this is the trust situation that one year scholarships and transfer restrictions create. So I get a scholarship to go play at GSU. Then after two years, there is a coaching change, and the coach decides he wants his two friends' sons on the team, so he "releases" me from my scholarship. That's all fine and dandy, except that the NCAA has now limited my ability to get a scholarship at other schools by saying that if I don't transfer down, I have to sit out a year. That my friends would be the basis for an anti-trust suit. The easiest way to handle that is to toss the transfer restrictions, which would have a significant impact on all of D-I football.

This is core of anti trust issue.

[Bisonoline]

Darren Rovell reported today that "The NCAA has lost its motion to dismiss in case vs John Rock contesting the NCAA's 1-year scholarship & limit in football."

John Rock was a former QB at Gardner-Webb whose scholarship was dropped by G-W during a coaching change. He is suing the NCAA on the grounds that scholarship limits violate antitrust law.

Scholarship limits were enacted as a means of cost containment and competitive balance--if Nebraska or Alabama didn't sign 50 kids a year, more teams were in the mix. But from another view, no college would put a fixed limit on the the scholarships it would offer to English majors or business students, so why athletes? (Rock is also challenging the renewable one year scholarship, which is another subject.)

Theoretically, if the NCAA loses this case, the scholarship limits by sport enacted in the early 1970's would be out the window. For those wondering, football had unlimited scholarships until a 105 scholarship limit was set, when dropped to 95 and which is now 85 grants in aid in I-A and up to 63 equivalencies among 85 athletes in I-AA.

So what happens to the major schools if they can recruit unlimited numbers? More important to this board, what happens to your school or your conference if there are no limits enforced?

Back in the early 70s the bigs had huge rosters. Many of those kids never had a chance to play and many were recruited just so a rival wouldn't get the kid. So he would ride the pine. Back in those days you didn't see much player movement at all. So they didn't transfer like they do today.
When they recruited you they would always tell you that you got to keep your scholarship no matter what unless it was because of grades. Now you see teams running players off and dropping their scholarships when they don't pan out. But they don't give the same consideration when a coach leaves for another school etc.