And again people misunderstand how this works. Coaches don’t really have any control over the players’ right to market their name, image, and likeness unless they want to bench players who sign deals they disapprove. If a collective or business wants to give a huge deal to a walk on, they can.
I believe the coach has to sign off on how collective money is distributed to players (not necessarily an NCAA rule, may just be a Swarm policy). I think I read an article that outlined this earlier this week. But I don’t think Bluder would object to this kind of situation. No top 5 transfer is coming to Iowa without significant cash going their way. Corporate donors know that as well and have likely given accordingly.
It would have to be a Swarm policy as it would be ILLEGAL for the NCAA to make such a rule.
Yeah it may not even be that she has to sign off, but she is certainly filled in / offers her opinion. I was surprised to read it actually.
I agree with this sentiment.
I don't think thats the case at all. Certainly companies can sign player to an NIL deal, no argument there. BUT how that player fits into the situation on the roster, as a scholly player or walk on IS most assuredly under the control of the head coach. To assume otherwise is absurd.
Okay, sounds great. We'll see what Lisa and her work out.
And, as I posted in another thread, I looked up the Iowa men's roster. Even though there are 4 walk ons, there are only 11 scholarship players. So there are only 15 players on the roster. Iowa has that many walk ons because there aren't enough scholarship players.
Interesting…what’s the reason(s) the women’s team gets a 15 player limit vs 13 for the men’s team?
I would assume to balance out Title 9 issues.
You keep posting this but by this logic there is no chance Caitlin Clark could get a fifth season because with this weekends commitment the roster is full for the class of 2024. Does anyone really believe that if Caitlin Clark wants to return for a fifth they wouldn’t find room for her?
Are we full for 2024-2025 at this point?
They also have Callie Levin and Taylor Stremlow as 2024 commits.
Ahhh, thanks. I remember Levin committed too now that you mention it.
The same reason they've added strange sports like womens rowing, when NONE of the girls even participated in rowing before college. Title 9 requires them to balance the schollys levels for men and women, and there are 85 rides for football that need to be made up for.....
LOL I was in school from 06-11 and I knew girls on the rowing team and they definitely rowed in high school. 2 from Chicago, one from Oregon. When did that change?
They've always had the legitimate rowers who competed and then the scholarship fillers. I knew a couple girls from my high school that were decent athletes in other sports, not D1 material though, that got rowing scholarships.
WER doesn’t have a great reputation.
Chad Leistikow mentioned Ediger and Wetering on his podcast.
That is what I don’t like is when they have scholarship sports that aren’t played In high school in Iowa. An Iowa girl should have the chance to obtain a scholarship without walking on and havi to earn it
Do you have a link to this article you mention above? What you are saying goes against everything the rules state about coaches paying athletes or being involved with paying athletes. NIL collectives are a very uneven type of pay scheme right now with star players an recruits getting most of the money and most athletes getting nothing.
If true, that kinda makes this thread irrelevant.
The whole Betts to Iowa thing seems to have been started by a single article citing "sources" but not actually mentioning anything about what the "sources" said.
