Sconnies Speak

Tag: ncaa

  • From Terre Haute to Team USA: Jason Swarens’s Big Throws and Bigger Goals

    By: Haley Cohen

    Jason Swarens was just a normal sixth-grade kid from Terre Haute, Indiana. He was like any other middle schooler trying out different sports to see which he felt was the best for him and what he could excel at.

    As he tried these various games, Jason found one sport where he felt like he could see himself being the best: shot put. Little did anyone know that Jason Swarens, that sixth-grade kid going through trials at track and field practice, would go on to be the 2020 Indiana Garage Track and Field Athlete of the Year.

    Now, he has carried over that success to the collegiate level, where Swarens was able to represent his home country on the world’s biggest stage. 

    College athletics is something that is not uncommon in the Swarens family.

    Both of his grandparents were students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His grandmother was a part of Wisconsin’s dance program and his grandfather participated in both football and track and field. His mother and her three siblings went on to also compete at the collegiate level, with each of them making their own path and working hard to reach their goals. This hardworking, goal-oriented mentality is what Swarens grew up around, which can be seen through the way he holds himself and his dedication to succeed.

    Swarens is now in his fifth year at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is not only an incredible athlete, but also a smart, hardworking student majoring in mechanical engineering, with that goal-oriented mentality fueling his multi-faceted dedication.

    Swarens was able to represent Team USA at the Under-23 meet in Costa Rica and earned a spot as a Big Ten champion and a national runner-up. He most recently broke the University of Wisconsin-Madison school record with his 21.37-meter throw. All of these awards and titles are because of his drive and determination to be successful in whatever he does. 

    However, achievement is not the only reason Swarens loves shot put. Throughout his throwing career, he has traveled all over the United States and the world, making a significant number of connections with teammates and coaches from a variety of backgrounds. Every meet and practice has become more than just an event because it has shown him different cultures, giving him the opportunity to develop not only as an athlete, but also as a person. 

    Unfortunately, with the accomplishments, there have also been obstacles in Swarens’s path, namely injuries. Every athlete knows injuries come with playing sports. They are extremely frustrating and not only a strain on someone physically but mentally as well.

    In shot put, the motion itself demands explosive throws, which can cause persistent injuries. Those setbacks can mess up practice schedules and keep an athlete from even competing in events. For a dedicated athlete like Swarens, who thrives on routine and strength, those interruptions that injuries can cause are the worst part of the process.

    Swarens has been throwing for 10 years; he knows a thing or two about the sport and all the training and preparation behind it. What have been some of the main takeaways he’s discovered from the countless hours of practicing shot put?

    For the Big Ten champion, it’s all about approaching everything with discipline and precision. Swarens believes the effort that one puts into working on themselves outside of throwing is just as important as practicing the actual action of throwing.

    What exactly does that work entail outside of throwing? It’s the working out in the weight room, keeping up with recovery sessions, and focusing on academics in the classroom. All of these factors go into setting a college athlete up for success.

    For Swarens, it is not just about throwing far; it’s also about giving your all in every way you can in order to be the best athlete that you can be. Skipping class and giving half-hearted effort at practices and workouts can catch up quickly.

    Throughout Swarens’s career at Wisconsin, he has set himself apart, not just by his performance, but also by his attitude and mindset on success. His coaches have appreciated his dedication and commitment to personal success. His teammates have seen him as a trustworthy and motivated athlete. Shot put is a sport that is measured by inches. For Swarens, that success is not just because of natural talent, but also due to his ability to show up, achieve, and improve.

  • House vs. NCAA Settlement: The Death of the Walk-On and How Certain Programs Look to Keep Themselves Afloat 

    By: Trey Kenas

    Five. Thousand. Athletes. A number so staggering leaving one to even question what the total could possibly represent.

    That number stems from the settlement of the House vs. NCAA case, a landmark class-action lawsuit, which involves the NCAA agreeing to pay college athletes nearly $3 billion for the retroactive use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. This agreement also shifted how teams are structured, moving away from scholarship limits and towards roster limits, which makes those walk-on and partial-scholarship athletes pay the ultimate price: cutting them from the team.

    So what does 5,000 represent in totality? It means that 5,000 male and female collegiate athletes, who have spent their entire lives up until this point chasing a dream and an opportunity that could be considered once-in-a-lifetime, will be or already have been asked to step down from attempting to climb the ladder.

    Instead, they’ll have to choose either to pursue their dream at another university or be done altogether. Many athletes who have spent the majority of their lives playing their respective sport will now look to redefine themselves as humans as they prematurely move into the next chapter of their lives, while coaches who have lost depth in their roster will look to redefine their programs in order to keep them afloat. This is the story of the death of the walk-on.

    Oliver Ehrhardt, a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was a member of the rowing team before being cut, was one of the many athletes impacted by the new roster ruling.

    On the flip side, Ehrhardt’s head coach at Wisconsin, Beau Hoopman, is now forced to revamp his program after the NCAA announced it will eliminate his roster by more than half, taking the original 90-man cap and trimming it down to 40.

    The implementations of the new NCAA scholarship rules and roster caps are set to be initiated at the start of the 2025-2026 academic year.

    In the case of walk-on Oliver Ehrhardt, he faced reality sooner than he would have expected. Ehrhardt got cut from the program in the fall of 2024, which he believes was due to the roster sizes shrinking.

    Prior to arriving on campus, Ehrhardt was uncommon in comparison to other rowers on Wisconsin’s men’s rowing team, having come into college with rowing experience at the prep level. Very few, if at most a couple athletes, currently on the roster had rowed at the prep level, which Ehrhardt believed to be a separator in that regard.

    The walk-on spent two years at Kent School, a private college preparatory boarding school located in Western Connecticut. However, that added edge proved to be insufficient at the end for Ehrhardt, who was subsequently cut from the roster.

    “It was kind of weird”, Ehrhardt shared. “We did one last erg (ergometer) test and then he (Coach Hoopman) brought out the roster board and I wasn’t on it. I first thought to myself: ‘what should I do?’ Rowing has been a part of my life for the last five years and I thought I could do it more competitively at the collegiate level, but unfortunately I couldn’t.”

    Ehrhardt initially pondered becoming a manager. But, there was a significant downside: he wouldn’t be able to row at Wisconsin again.

    “Being a manager means you can practice with the team and work out with them, but you can’t participate in any races”, Ehrhardt clarified. “On top of that, once you’re a manager, you can’t try out for the team again”, Ehrhardt said.

    The program also offers a practice player position, where individuals can stick around and practice with the team. This opportunity acts in unison with the team manager role, prohibiting the athlete from being able to compete in events. However, unlike a manager, a practice player does have the opportunity to try out again the following year and potentially earn themselves a spot.

    However, for Ehrhardt, it was time to be done.

    The walk-on opted to step away from the program for good, noting it was “definitely sad at first” and “bittersweet.” But, it also signaled a new beginning for Ehrhardt, allowing the walk-on time to begin focusing on other aspects of his life, such as school.

    While he doesn’t regret much from his time on the rowing team, Ehrhardt wishes UW Athletics had been more upfront with what was going on.

    “I think the biggest thing missing from this experience was transparency”, Ehrhardt said. “Long story short, we didn’t really know what was going on the entire time, and Coach Hoopman told us our fates were in the hands of the UW Athletic Department.

    “It felt like Coach Hoopman was the middle man in all of this and knew [some of] what was going on, but not all the details. Regardless it would have been nice to have a representative from the Athletic Department come and talk to us, but that wasn’t the case.”

    As Ehrhardt has now been away from the sport for close to eight months, his responsibilities with the rowing program are old news.

    That’s the opposite for Beau Hoopman, who understands this is just the beginning of a new journey that entails reshaping and keeping a program competitive that has been around for 150 years.

    With that, the two biggest hurdles Hoopman will face with the new changes will be recruiting and funding, with the latter being the more challenging.

    “With last year being our 150th as a program, we haven’t needed alumni up until this to help with funding. Since we’ve been riding the Rose Bowl hog, and as a non-profit, athletes weren’t being paid until recently, so you were able to fund your programs”, Hoopman said.

    With NIL now in the picture, this is no longer the case.

    “Revenue that’s generated by football is going back to football. Revenue that’s generated by basketball is going to basketball. The Olympic sports like us don’t generate revenue for the athletic department, so we’re going to have to figure out what we’re going to do to stay competitive”, Hoopman said.

    This is the struggle faced by many programs, such as Hoopman’s, who are digging into the phonebooks, calling up not only notable former alumni, but also general UW-Madison alumni and just general Wisconsinites who are eager and willing to help out the program by any means. Hoopman shared that the initial response from the alumni and general public has been incredibly positive.

    “We have a legacy fund that helps to endow the program. We have a goal of $50 million and are currently at $9 million just from last fall. We have a group that’s trying to raise money for NIL and recruiting, and are sitting at a good spot at the moment.”

    While the foundation for the financial support has been drawn out and executed thus far, the strategy behind upholding a consistent competitive roster is still a work in progress for Hoopman.

    As noted, the head coach lost over 50 roster spots in the House vs. NCAA settlement. Historically, Hoopman and his staff would send out approximately 1,000 letters to kids in Wisconsin and Minnesota to get them to come down to a camp and check out the sport. With the roster size reduction, the coaching staff feels the need to go in a different direction.

    “When you have a bigger pool, you have more guys to select from. That is now gone,” Hoopman said. “For the amount of time and resources it takes to cultivate those camps and lists of kids that are novices, the effort you put in for .01% return is not worth the time, especially if the kid ends up joining the team and they suck or they quit.”

    Athletes quitting during the season was not always a great worry of Hoopman with the 90-man roster size and his next man up mentality. But, with the roster officially sitting at 40 now, the head coach must find the right athletes and not miss on talent. This presents a tricky situation from multiple facets.

    To begin with, the Wisconsin men’s rowing team rarely gets commits from athletes who had rowing experience before coming into college. This is largely attributed to the fact that the rowing team doesn’t offer scholarships, turning away higher prospects to Ivy League and West Coast schools who are able to fit that niche.

    “It’s like buying a diamond ring,” Hoopman said about the recruiting process. “These guys (coaches who are able to offer scholarships) just go to the jewelry store. We go to the mine and find a bunch of slag and sift through it and try to find a raw piece of material. And then we compress it into a diamond. That’s what we do.”

    Given how Wisconsin had recruited preceding the new roster ruling, this puts Hoopman in a difficult situation. Opportunities to develop rowers over time have, in many ways, fallen out of reach. With the smaller roster size, there is now less margin for error.

    “We’re not recruiting guys like Cal does. We get guys that want to be here, but sometimes the guys that want to be here aren’t good enough”, Hoopman acknowledged. “20% of the kids we recruit are worthy varsity athletes. When you limit how many guys you can have in the squad, you have to hit on every guy. That’s the hard part about going down to 40. You can’t miss, because if you miss on a class now, you’re going to be slow for 3 years.”

    While the head coach continues to look for ways to sharpen his recruitment, he has also realized that there is practically no margin for error in regard to maintaining your roster. Hoopman can’t afford to lose rowers, as the consequences of not having enough rowers is that you won’t get a shot at the national championship. This, in itself, is Hoopman’s greatest fear.

    “If we have four guys quit next year, everybody goes to our national championship, everybody on the roster,” Hoopman shared. “If eight guys quit, we will have a hard time boating three eight’s, and three eight’s is what scores points. If you don’t have three eight’s, the likelihood of you getting invited to the national championship is not good, because they’ll take a team that has three eight’s. That’s what I worry about, being a victim of our own attrition.”

    While Hoopman doesn’t necessarily have all the answers at the moment, he knows that if there’s a will, there’s a way. He was a former Wisconsin rower himself who ultimately earned himself a spot on the Olympic team, capturing a gold medal at the 2004 games in Athens.

    But, Hoopman wasn’t an elite rower to begin with during his rowing days. He was initially towards the bottom of the roster when he arrived on campus and had to work his way to the top. Creating a habit of resiliency along his way to the top as a rower, Hoopman will now have to lean into it as a coach as the dawn of a new era begins: one filled with great uncertainty, but even greater hope.

  • Don’t Mess with March: The NCAA Tournament Is Just Fine at 68

    By: Joseph Herrmann

    Every year, March Madness is a huge success. It’s the most beautiful type of chaos – the buzzer beaters, the Cinderella stories, the brackets busted by noon on Thursday. And somehow, right when it feels like we’ve collectively nailed the formula for a perfect tournament, someone in charge wants to mess with it.

    Lately, there’s been noise – too much noise – about expanding the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament beyond the current 68 teams. The NCAA Transformation Committee opened the door last year, and now we’ve got administrators and conference commissioners hinting that more teams might be “good for the game.” But let’s face it, it’s not a good idea to expand the competition.

    Now, I get it. On paper, more teams sounds like more fun. More games, more players getting the spotlight, more “meaningful basketball.” But here’s the thing: the tournament isn’t broken. It doesn’t need fixing. In fact, the charm of March Madness is that it’s exclusive enough to make the stakes feel high and the upsets feel electric. Each season, teams vie for a coveted spot and a chance to bring their school a national championship. With only 68 teams making the cut, every regular season and conference tournament game carries weight. Expanding it risks turning something special into just another bloated bracket.

    One of the biggest arguments for expansion is that it would give more “deserving” teams a shot. But let’s be honest—if you’re on the bubble and didn’t make the cut, there’s probably a reason. You either didn’t win enough, didn’t play anybody, or just didn’t get it done when it mattered. That’s sports.

    And let’s not pretend like the Selection Committee has been stingy. With 68 spots already, that’s nearly 20% of Division I teams making the tournament. You want in? Win some games. Win your conference. Don’t lose to a bottom-feeder in January and then act shocked when you’re left out in March.

    Bubble teams getting snubbed actually fuels some of the best conversations in sports. It gives Selection Sunday real tension. If you let in everyone who’s close, the bubble loses all its drama, which makes up a good chunk of the fun.

    Do we really need to see the 10th-best team in a power conference sneak in with a 17–15 record? Do we want to reward .500 squads just because they play in big TV markets? That’s exactly what expansion would do.

    This season, for example, the bubble was as weak as we’ve seen in years. Yet somehow, historically strong programs like North Carolina still made the tournament, even though they stumbled to a 1–12 record in Quad 1 games, the very metric the selection committee claims to value most. Expansion wouldn’t raise the level of competition, it would just let in more underwhelming teams riding name recognition and conference clout. Instead of sharpening the field, it would water it down.

    Adding more teams dilutes the product. It rewards mediocrity. One of the best parts of March Madness is seeing a red-hot mid-major knock off a flawed major conference team. If we expand the field, we risk crowding out those mid-majors with more middle-of-the-road Power Five squads who had their chance and blew it.

    Let’s also talk about logistics. If you expand to 80 or 96 teams, how does the schedule even work? Are we adding more days? More play-in games? Cramming even more into an already-packed four-day opening weekend?

    Part of what makes the tournament so watchable is that it ends. The first weekend is a sprint, and by the time we get to the Final Four, we’re emotionally spent—in a good way. Stretch it out too long or add too many teams, and people start to tune out. That’s not good for anybody.

    At the end of the day, the push for expansion isn’t about the game. It’s about the money. More games mean more TV slots, more ad revenue, and more opportunities to squeeze dollars out of viewers and sponsors. But just because there’s more cash to grab doesn’t mean it’s better for the sport. In fact, it might hurt the product in the long term. If people start to feel like the tournament is just another cash grab, the magic wears off. And once you lose that magic, you don’t get it back.

    We’ve got a great thing going. A 68-team bracket that balances opportunity with exclusivity, madness with merit. It’s big enough to include surprises but small enough to make those surprises feel meaningful. Expanding the tournament won’t make March better. It’ll make it messier, longer, and less special. Sometimes, the best move is to leave a good thing alone.

    So, NCAA, if you’re listening, don’t mess with March. You’ve already got the best postseason event in American sports. No need to overthink it.

  • Why College Football Needs a Trade System Like the NFL

    By Bryan Sanborn

    College football has changed. Rivals and traditions still exist, but it’s becoming more and more like a business. NIL deals, conference realignment, and the explosion of the transfer portal have turned the sport into a chaotic marketplace. While player freedom is a good thing, the current transfer system is too unstructured to work long-term. That’s why it’s time for something bold: a trade system for college football. 

    Right now, the transfer portal looks a lot like NFL free agency, except with even fewer rules. Players can hop from school to school, often without sitting out, and schools lose talent without getting anything in return. Coaches are constantly re-recruiting their players, and fans must re-learn half the roster every offseason. It’s hard to build continuity when you’re never sure who’s sticking around. 

    A trading system wouldn’t stop players from transferring; it would add structure. 

    If a player at a Power Four school wants to leave, you should allow the school to try to trade to get someone in return. The player gets a new opportunity, and the school doesn’t lose out completely. 

    This isn’t about punishing players for transferring. It’s about giving schools a way to manage their rosters more effectively—and protect themselves from being gutted every December. Like in the NFL, trade deals could include added value beyond player-for-player swaps. NIL packages could be factored into negotiations, or academic perks could be part of the deal, like getting into a grad program. 

    People will argue that this would make college football “too professional,” but let’s not pretend it isn’t already. The money is massive, the coaching salaries are crazy, and the media deals are billions. The difference is that NFL teams have rules like contracts, salary caps, and trade deadlines that bring stability. College football is trying to play a pro-level game with backyard rules. 

    In 2022, Pitt lost star receiver Jordan Addison to USC via the portal. The move was legal, but Pitt got nothing in return. That’s a top player walking out the door with zero compensation. Under a trading system, maybe Pitt gets a starting player in return and some NIL consideration in exchange. The roster stays balanced, the player receives his move, and the sport avoids more offseason chaos. 

    Would there be kinks to work out? Absolutely. Compliance, academic eligibility, and power dynamics between big and small schools would need control. 

    However, the NCAA has shown it’s willing to change. We can figure out how to allow structured trades if we already have early signing periods, NIL collectives, and a 12-team playoff. Other sports, like college baseball, already have more transfer restrictions. Football can do this, too.

    The fans of these teams also want consistency from the players. They want to buy jerseys and know the player will be around for over one season. A trading system gives more transparency and could make the offseason more exciting. Imagine ESPN trade trackers in college football—deadline day drama, last-minute swaps, and strategic roster-building. It sounds wild, but so did NIL deals a few years ago.

    At the end of the day, college football is only going to get more unpredictable. With TV deals and player empowerment growing yearly, we need systems that protect the sport’s competitive balance. A trading system wouldn’t take away player rights—it would give players and schools more clarity, structure, and fairness. 

    It’s time for college football to start being like the NFL. A trading system won’t fix everything, but it’s a step toward construction in a sport that is getting crazier and crazier every day.

  • NIL is a Can Opener

    by Rachel Van Hefty

    From the beginning of college sports, the NCAA insisted that college athletes should be deemed “amateurs.” Meaning, student-athletes should compete purely for the love of the game rather than a paycheck. All the while, schools, coaches, media networks and sponsors have cashed in on the millions, if not billions, made from said “amateur” talent. How does that work? 

    Now, a new player is in the game – Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). With NIL deals in full effect, college athletes can finally cash in and make a profit. The ideology behind NIL deals is to allow athletes to profit from their personal brand by signing deals with other brands. Athletes can earn money through things ranging from endorsement deals and autograph signings to TikTok partnerships and social media posts without violating their amateur status. They are finally getting a slice of the pie they’ve long helped bake.  For some athletes, this has been life-changing! 

    For example, Arch Manning has the highest NIL valuation, reaching a staggering 6.5 million dollars. While some star football and basketball players are reaping the benefits, athletes in less marketable sports are paying the price. This is where NIL acts as a can opener, one that changes the entire landscape of college athletics, for better and for worse. Can of worms: open. 

    As seen in the NIL era, the deals tend to favor male athletes in revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball. For athletes in non-revenue-generating sports like swimming, softball, or wrestling, the opportunities become limited, and the gap widens. Not only does this affect the individual athletes, but NIL also heavily affects athletic departments. According to USA Today, they are shifting their attention towards NIL collectives — donor-funded groups to help athletes monetize their brand —  to keep programs like football and basketball stay competitive. With the attention of the athletic departments shifted, there has been less attention and potentially less funding for other sports. It also brings Title IX considerations into play. If NIL-related fundraising efforts are disproportionate between men’s and women’s teams, could there be legal challenges? 

    Name, Image, and Likeness is meant to empower athletes and give them control over their own worth, but the lack of structure risks turning the college athletics landscape into one where only a select few can benefit. According to ESPN, “The NCAA has expressed concern that, without a federal law, enforcing its own NIL rules could violate antitrust rules — so while the organization has hoped that Congress will pass a federal standard, there’s no national set of rules.”  The concerns of the NCAA voice the concerns of many. Non-revenue generating sports could begin to shrink or even disappear without meaningful regulation. The gap between men’s and women’s sports could widen. These are only a few of the “worms” in the can that the NIL era has opened. While fair compensation is necessary, this complete free-for-all is not sustainable. If schools, the NCAA, and/or lawmakers don’t step in to create a more equitable approach, college sports may become unrecognizable. 

    NIL is here to stay, but like any can opener, when the lid pops, everything inside it spills. So, the question is, who’s cleaning up the mess?