Son just received his NLI from a Power-5 school. To our surprise, the scholarship is lower from sophomore through senior year. Only the freshman year the % is the same as the verbal offer. Son asked his college coach, he said it's just the placeholder and we will get the same amount the next few years. Son also asked the other recruit in his class, it's the same deal. Tomorrow is the NLI signing date, should we sign it? Is it normal?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If it's just a placeholder, then why wouldn't it hold the same amount?
It will be what you sign. If it is xx% less in year 2 and another xx% less in year 3, that's what your son will get.
I wouldn't believe for a moment what he's saying. My son's specified the same amount each year, so I know that his "placeholder" is the same.
Up to you whether you sign, but know that whatever you sign is the only amount you'll have any leverage to receive. While the coach MAY give more than is specified, he certainly can't be held to anything other than what you agree to on the LOI.
So you are saying that the 2nd and 3rd year the % is lower or the amount ?
TAO, my response may be too late if your son has already signed his NLI, but I don't agree with the coach telling you that it's "just a placeholder." It is possible that they could bump the scholarship up in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year to equal the first year, but if your son is signing a four-year scholarship agreement, that's unlikely to happen.
#Sketchy
Happened to a friend of ours. They were told one thing as a sophomore in HS (one of first recruits for that P5 team). Takes his name out of recruiting.
When time to sign comes, the NLI's 1st year is at the agreed %, the remaining years were SIGNIFICANTLY lower and they were told the same thing, that "it will be adjusted, this is how we have to do it for the NCAA".
They signed............didn't play much the 1st year, bill in mail for sophomore year came with the NLI %. Parents not happy, kid not happy. Paid money for fall semester. Fall meeting..........."you're not going to play much, so it might be better".
Needless to say mominfortworth has deleted this coach from rising 2022's list of schools.
Interesting topic - not something we had to deal with as scholarships were just year-to-year when our sons went through. Still, we had the conversation with the coach about subsequent years and in the end had to just trust them...or not? (We did and it worked out).
It seems to me, without the benefit of this experience with written vs. "promised" word, it will just boil down to trusting (or not) the coach's word. At this late date, it puts the player/parent in a difficult situation. I would've expected this to be explained to him at the time of his commitment, not now.
Whether or not a kid has a four year scholarship if he hears “we don’t see you in our plans next year” he’s most likely going to leave. If the family can’t afford the school with what’s offered on paper it’s probably wise to pass. Doing well in class and on the field is challenging enough without constantly worrying about next year and following years.
On the flip side, making another choice at this late date probably means a JuCo. He can take the offer and leave for a JuCo after freashman year if the coach isn’t true to his word.
As others seem to be suggesting this situation is a red flag.
So, we've got a lot of intellectual horsepower on this thread....myself not included....my son did not have to sign an NLI so I have not experienced it. I agree with JustBaseball that this should have been explained at the time of commitment.
Given the situation, what are TAO's sons options? Based on what has discussed so far, it doesn't seem like there are many.
Sounds like you are signing the equivalent of an adjustable rate mortgage (but opposite). If it doesn’t commit the school to what was promised, why should you commit? Probably hard to make a decision in the opposite direction now, emotions are involved by player and families. Poor form on the part of the school, and the fact they dropped that on you at the last second should tell you they aren’t operating in good faith.
Wow, tough situation....especially when you only found out yesterday. We didn't have that issue, so not sure how we'd have handled it.....as others have said, it's a little strange that it wasn't conveyed to you earlier and the coach's explanation seems a little bit off if you ask me
As I mentioned before, scholarships are renewable year to year. The NLI doesn't extended itself past the first year. There should be no verbage in the NLI regarding sophmore-senior year as far as I know. I am not familiar with 4 year guaranteed scholarships, which are handed out pretty sparingly.
All the NLI does is guarantee a "place" for you on the roster next year. The rest is up to your son to give the reason for the coach not to let you go.
TPM posted:As I mentioned before, scholarships are renewable year to year. The NLI doesn't extended itself past the first year. There should be no verbage in the NLI regarding sophmore-senior year as far as I know. I am not familiar with 4 year guaranteed scholarships, which are handed out pretty sparingly.
All the NLI does is guarantee a "place" for you on the roster next year. The rest is up to your son to give the reason for the coach not to let you go.
I think all Power 5 schools have to offer four-year NLIs. Here's Rick's post on the topic from a couple of years ago: http://informedathlete.com/the...caa-di-scholarships/
2019Dad posted:TPM posted:As I mentioned before, scholarships are renewable year to year. The NLI doesn't extended itself past the first year. There should be no verbage in the NLI regarding sophmore-senior year as far as I know. I am not familiar with 4 year guaranteed scholarships, which are handed out pretty sparingly.
All the NLI does is guarantee a "place" for you on the roster next year. The rest is up to your son to give the reason for the coach not to let you go.
I think all Power 5 schools have to offer four-year NLIs. Here's Rick's post on the topic from a couple of years ago: http://informedathlete.com/the...caa-di-scholarships/
Wasn't sure on that as a guarantee for power 5, but if that is the case, someone either misunderstood or was misled and figured out how to get around the requirement.
I think he has no choice but to go ahead and sign and let the chips fall. Good post for folks to understand how important it is to ask questions after committing.
FWIW. We were part of the first year of 4 year guaranteed scholarships. Sounds really good until it's not. Coaches are still going to bring in your replacement if they can. Some coaches I'm sure don't like the fact that they have to offer 4 year deals. This is their way around it. Even if it is spelled out as was at commitment, if they want you out, they will find a way. Kids want to play baseball, not sit on the bench. Once the shine wears off, reality sits in and what's on the NLI & the financial agreement don't mean much if you're not playing.
Sign it with eyes open. Work hard & be ready to compete. Nothing is guaranteed.
TPM posted:As I mentioned before, scholarships are renewable year to year. The NLI doesn't extended itself past the first year. There should be no verbage in the NLI regarding sophmore-senior year as far as I know. I am not familiar with 4 year guaranteed scholarships, which are handed out pretty sparingly.
All the NLI does is guarantee a "place" for you on the roster next year. The rest is up to your son to give the reason for the coach not to let you go.
In our case, there were two parts of agreement. The NLI was accompanied by a financial agreement. The FA lays out the %/$ amount that states each for year 1,2,3 & 4.
Picked Off posted:TPM posted:As I mentioned before, scholarships are renewable year to year. The NLI doesn't extended itself past the first year. There should be no verbage in the NLI regarding sophmore-senior year as far as I know. I am not familiar with 4 year guaranteed scholarships, which are handed out pretty sparingly.
All the NLI does is guarantee a "place" for you on the roster next year. The rest is up to your son to give the reason for the coach not to let you go.
In our case, there were two parts of agreement. The NLI was accompanied by a financial agreement. The FA lays out the %/$ amount that states each for year 1,2,3 & 4.
That would make sense because the NLI is an NCAA requirement for all conferences, divisions, the financials aren't, only within conference.
Looks like I need to make a couple of comments about that article from our website that 2019DAD included the link for, (and will need to update the article).
First of all, I hope folks understand that the article was intended as an overview of the new scholarship rules as they were understood at that time, but was not meant to address the many different situations of how scholarship offers are written when it comes to equivalency sports like baseball, softball, track, wrestling, etc.
If a recruit to a Power 5 school signs just a one-year scholarship as a freshman for 50% (for example), that Power 5 school CANNOT reduce that scholarship in future years for any athletic reason (such as non-performance, didn't improve as the coaches expected) or for a medical reason. They would have to use one of the other reasons that were noted in the article, because they did not indicate at the outset in a multi-year agreement that following years would be at a lower amount.
However, if a recruit signs a multi-year scholarship and the years are for different amounts, then things become more complicated. Here's two examples:
If a multi-year scholarship is written as 50% PER YEAR for five years, then the scholarship can't be lowered in future years unless the athlete goes ineligible, violates team rules, or has a misconduct issue that must be handled by the school's student conduct board. The scholarship could be increased however, but we know that doesn't happen very often.
If a multi-year scholarship is written to indicate that it will provide an AVERAGE of 50% over five years, then adjusting the scholarship from year to year would be permissible. However, as was mentioned earlier, if the scholarship is reduced and the athlete receives little to no playing time, they are likely to end up transferring (which is probably what the coach is counting on).
While it may not be realistic, because it would damage the relationship the recruit will have with the coach before he ever arrives on campus, the recruit could choose to sign only the school's athletic scholarship agreement, but not sign the NLI.
He would then have the option to sign another scholarship agreement with another school if a better offer came along in the spring. Risky, no doubt, but a possibility to consider.
Some of the highly publicized basketball recruits have been using that strategy so that they are not committed through the NLI to the school if that coach is fired or leaves for another school before the recruit arrives on campus.
Thanks all for the replies. I'll ask my son to call the head coach and admission office for more clarification. Not sure if they can alter the NLI to the same amount as originally offered. It's really a surprise as we were under the impression that the Power-5 schools can't reduce the scholarship.
tao posted:Thanks all for the replies. I'll ask my son to call the head coach and admission office for more clarification. Not sure if they can alter the NLI to the same amount as originally offered. It's really a surprise as we were under the impression that the Power-5 schools can't reduce the scholarship.
Couple of points.
First, as Picked Off mentioned, there are two components, the NLI and the Financial Agreement. Most have just been using NLI synonymous for both.
Second, you are correct, once you've signed the financial agreement, the P5 schools can't lower the amount for performance (they can withdraw for non-performance issues such as rules violation, grades, etc).
So for example, if the agreement you sign states:
Year 1 = 80%
Year 2 = 50%
Year 3 = 50%
Year 4 = 30%
Then that's what's you'll receive for each year, no less, maybe more if the coach is willing and it's justified, but at a minimum, that's what the school is obligated to give you. In this example, the school isn't reducing the scholarship. What is written is the scholarship and yes, while it is a reduction over years, this isn't considered a reduction because it isn't lower than what is being promised (signed) as the agreement today. What they can't do is have you sign the example above, and then only provide 30% in year 2. That would be a reduction in the scholarship.
Some financial agreements do vary by year such as the example above, or increase year over year.
Some don't vary and have a fixed $ amount or % that doesn't change year over year. You were under the impression that your son's verbal offer was the same every year and now you're presented something different from that. The fact that your agreement varies isn't an oversight or placeholder, it is the offer in writing, plain and simple. Any verbal "promise" that you son will receive anything different than what he signs will likely never materialize.
I agree with everything that NUKE83 said and will add one clarifying point. His example would also hold true for a Division I school that is not a Power 5 school if they offered the same official multi-year scholarship.
The key difference is the period of time for which the scholarship offer is written. Using NCAA terminology, the "period of the award" is just one year for a one-year scholarship offer, but is 4 or 5 years for a multi-year scholarship offer that's written for that period of time.
Power 5 schools are not allowed to reduce a scholarship for athletic performance reasons "AFTER the period of the award." Schools that are not in the Power 5 CAN reduce or not renew a scholarship for athletic reasons "after the period of the award." However, if they do, they are required to offer the athlete an opportunity to appeal the scholarship reduction or non-renewal.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:I agree with everything that NUKE83 said and will add one clarifying point. His example would also hold true for a Division I school that is not a Power 5 school if they offered the same official multi-year scholarship.
The key difference is the period of time for which the scholarship offer is written. Using NCAA terminology, the "period of the award" is just one year for a one-year scholarship offer, but is 4 or 5 years for a multi-year scholarship offer that's written for that period of time.
Power 5 schools are not allowed to reduce a scholarship for athletic performance reasons "AFTER the period of the award." Schools that are not in the Power 5 CAN reduce or not renew a scholarship for athletic reasons "after the period of the award." However, if they do, they are required to offer the athlete an opportunity to appeal the scholarship reduction or non-renewal.
I was under the impression that the scholarship award on the NLI (other than power 5 conferences) could not include more than a year in verbage as would not be recognized by the NCAA, but understand your explanation.
The rules changed a few years back. NLI's at Power Fives guarantee 4 years now.
3and2Fastball posted:The rules changed a few years back. NLI's at Power Fives guarantee 4 years now.
I was inquiring about other conferences.
TPM posted:3and2Fastball posted:The rules changed a few years back. NLI's at Power Fives guarantee 4 years now.
I was inquiring about other conferences.
It's talking about football, but it should apply across the board.
https://www.cbssports.com/coll...ships-but-many-dont/
"In 2012, the NCAA barely passed a rule giving schools the option to provide multiyear scholarships. The arrangement was nearly scrapped when 62.12 percent of the 330 schools voting opposed the legislation -- just shy of the 62.5 percent needed to overturn the new rule. Twenty-five schools abstained and 14 changed their votes for the rule to survive."
OK, son called the coach and this is how it works. For example:
1st year: 50%
2nd year: 25%
3rd year: 25%
4th year: 25%
The 1st year son will get the full 50% as originally committed. The 2nd year, say if the coach runs out of money and wants to offer some new recruit, coach might take 10% scholarship from my son and other players to make room for the new recruit. So the 2nd year, son will get 50-10=40%. The 3rd year, coach will return previous year 10% PLUS 5%(like interest?) back to son, so the 3rd year he will get 50+15=65%.
So overall, it's still 50%. So we are good, and smart move for the coaches to have flexibility for recruiting. I know it's all based on the words, but we got to trust the coaches!
Thanks all for the good comments and PM, the explanation sounds reasonable to me. Hopefully the HC can still keep the job until son graduates
HC got 10-year contract, he is now in his 3rd year.
tao posted:OK, son called the coach and this is how it works. For example:
1st year: 50%
2nd year: 25%
3rd year: 25%
4th year: 25%
The 1st year son will get the full 50% as originally committed. The 2nd year, say if the coach runs out of money and wants to offer some new recruit, coach might take 10% scholarship from my son and other players to make room for the new recruit. So the 2nd year, son will get 50-10=40%. The 3rd year, coach will return previous year 10% PLUS 5%(like interest?) back to son, so the 3rd year he will get 50+15=65%.
So overall, it's still 50%. So we are good, and smart move for the coaches to have flexibility for recruiting. I know it's all based on the words, but we got to trust the coaches!
Thanks all for the good comments and PM, the explanation sounds reasonable to me. Hopefully the HC can still keep the job until son graduates
Hopefully he is being honest. Just know that what you sign is the only obligation, and if next year he says "Johnny hasn't really developed like we projected" and he only gives the 25%, that it isn't considered a reduction of scholarship for performance reasons because he's honoring the scholarship. If he does only give the 25% for any of the following years, he's not obligated in any way to "make it up" in future years and you have absolutely no protection. Make sure that you financially are good with covering the additional 25% for years 2-4 before your son signs his NLI and is on the hook with NCAA transfer sit out rules.
Nuke's comments were exactly my thoughts when reading your "this is how it works". Thanks for sharing, BTW. When the coach explained, was there any discussion about the assurance of receiving the full 50% over the four years?
+1 Nuke83
The coach has essentially protected the programs interests over your sons. As suggested, make sure that you and your son understands how it works.
tao posted:OK, son called the coach and this is how it works. For example:
1st year: 50%
2nd year: 25%
3rd year: 25%
4th year: 25%
The 1st year son will get the full 50% as originally committed. The 2nd year, say if the coach runs out of money and wants to offer some new recruit, coach might take 10% scholarship from my son and other players to make room for the new recruit. So the 2nd year, son will get 50-10=40%. The 3rd year, coach will return previous year 10% PLUS 5%(like interest?) back to son, so the 3rd year he will get 50+15=65%.
So overall, it's still 50%. So we are good, and smart move for the coaches to have flexibility for recruiting. I know it's all based on the words, but we got to trust the coaches!
Thanks all for the good comments and PM, the explanation sounds reasonable to me. Hopefully the HC can still keep the job until son graduates
We heard about this from a Big 10 coach as well - that they have flexibility in how they apply the scholarship. For example, he said with one recruit the recruit/family paid for three years themselves and the 25% scholarship was paid as a full year the recruit's junior year. In other cases it was the same amount each year. He said they worked with each family to figure out the best situation.
Midwest Mom posted:tao posted:OK, son called the coach and this is how it works. For example:
1st year: 50%
2nd year: 25%
3rd year: 25%
4th year: 25%
The 1st year son will get the full 50% as originally committed. The 2nd year, say if the coach runs out of money and wants to offer some new recruit, coach might take 10% scholarship from my son and other players to make room for the new recruit. So the 2nd year, son will get 50-10=40%. The 3rd year, coach will return previous year 10% PLUS 5%(like interest?) back to son, so the 3rd year he will get 50+15=65%.
So overall, it's still 50%. So we are good, and smart move for the coaches to have flexibility for recruiting. I know it's all based on the words, but we got to trust the coaches!
Thanks all for the good comments and PM, the explanation sounds reasonable to me. Hopefully the HC can still keep the job until son graduates
We heard about this from a Big 10 coach as well - that they have flexibility in how they apply the scholarship. For example, he said with one recruit the recruit/family paid for three years themselves and the 25% scholarship was paid as a full year the recruit's junior year. In other cases it was the same amount each year. He said they worked with each family to figure out the best situation.
Am I missing something?
If the above is true, that player was a walk on, who could have been released at anytime, and then unable to transfer to another D1.
They worked with each family for what is best for them (coaches). The guys who they expected to make a difference, got the better offers.
TPM is right regarding the example from Midwest Mom. If an athlete does not receive a scholarship in their freshman year (or first year in the case of a transfer athlete), they do not receive the "protection" that the Power 5 scholarship rule offers.
Following up on this post. Can a non-Power 5 D1 guarantee a multi-year scholarship on a “back-loaded” basis (i.e., no $$ Freshman year, but $$ subsequent years)? If so:
is it enforceable by player if spelled out in the NLI/Financial Agreement?
can NLI guarantee Spring roster spots in Freshman or subsequent years to protect player in the above scenario and is this enforceable by player?
thanks
Yes, it would be possible for a non-Power 5 school to offer such a scholarship, but there would be no NLI to sign since there is no scholarship provided in the freshman year. The "guarantee" of a roster spot would be dependent upon the word of the coach.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:Yes, it would be possible for a non-Power 5 school to offer such a scholarship, but there would be no NLI to sign since there is no scholarship provided in the freshman year. The "guarantee" of a roster spot would be dependent upon the word of the coach.
Great reply. I just dont think many people understand about the national letter of intent, what it represents and what it actually means.
Rick at Informed Athlete posted:Yes, it would be possible for a non-Power 5 school to offer such a scholarship, but there would be no NLI to sign since there is no scholarship provided in the freshman year. The "guarantee" of a roster spot would be dependent upon the word of the coach.
For everyone who don't realize, this is really a HUGE deal. If you or your son receive an offer such as this, know that you are essentially nothing more than a walk-on at this point and there isn't any guarantee that you'll ever see any money. It also "kills" the multi-year guarantee that comes with a P5 scholarship (for whatever that is really worth anyway).
I've learned that there are a few coaches around that have realized this loophole and are using it to their advantage. If a coach comes forward with an offer that claims that it's in both yours and the school's benefit to backload by offering $0 in year one, but will then be able to give you more in years 2, 3 & 4 than if they give money in all 4 years, they are lying. It completely favors the school and only the school. The player is essentially a walk on and can be cut at any time with zero skin in the game by the coach.
Nuke83 - is this the case even if the school commits to the arrangement in writing (i.e., something more than an written offer, such as an executed financial agreement on signing day, even if no NLI is executed on signing day)? On a related note, can a school be bound by a written commitment provided on signing day of a Spring Roster spot?
Another reason coaches would back load a scholarship package with nothing in year one and a large scholarship promise in year four is if the kid really develops into something, he's likely to get drafted after his junior season meaning the heavy part of the scholarship offer never gets paid. If the kid struggles and doesn't develop, the coach has time to do the things coaches do to get kids to voluntarily transfer. All upside for the school in this arrangement, very little downside.
Strike3Looking posted:Nuke83 - is this the case even if the school commits to the arrangement in writing (i.e., something more than an written offer, such as an executed financial agreement on signing day, even if no NLI is executed on signing day)? On a related note, can a school be bound by a written commitment provided on signing day of a Spring Roster spot?
So we're only talking about P5 schools. To that point, I'm not sure that any of them would execute a financial agreement without also executing an NLI. The NLI process is "owned" and managed by the NCAA and partner schools "agree" to use the NLI process. The financial agreement is separate from the NLI and if the NLI is signed a financial agreement is REQUIRED, but an NLI isn't required (and maybe not even allowed?) if a financial agreement isn't executed.
The NLI actually locks the player and school down (to a degree). Once the NLI is signed, other schools can no longer recruit player, and the player can no longer change schools without NCAA sit out rules applying. The NLI is only signed by players entering a school in his/her first year, so a player who walks on and makes a team as a freshman or later, never signs an NLI. If a player doesn't sign an NLI, other schools can continue to recruit that player, so I doubt a P5 school would offer a signed financial agreement without the NLI commitment accompanying.
Rick is certainly in a far superior position to answer your question than I.
But, assume for sake of argument, a participating P5 school is allowed to provide a financial agreement to a student without executing an NLI. In that case, I suppose it would be a binding agreement, but I don't know how enforceable it would be with the NCAA. Certainly, you could litigate any financial arrangement if it came to that. I suppose a school could write a financial agreement and contract whereby they make it clear the exact amounts that will be paid to a player each year, including $0 in year one, and if a coach were to offer a deal with nothing in year one but loaded in future years, it would be wise to get such an agreement, but I certainly can't speak to the legitimacy of one.
Likewise, to your second question, I suppose a coach could write a contract guaranteeing a roster spot to a player, but I've never heard of such.
As you've probably read in many other posts, even with NLI, financial agreement, P5 4 year guarantee, etc., a coach can make life miserable enough, quickly enough to get any player he wishes to leave on his own accord.
NUKE83 is pretty much on target with all of his points. If an athlete gets a multi-year scholarship agreement from a school with $0 in year one and funds in following years, it could be binding on the school and an athlete's family may be able to get an attorney to enforce it legally, but the coach might say "you're never going to play here, if you want to play, you'll need to transfer elsewhere."
If a coach wrote a "contract" or agreement for a guaranteed roster spot, an attorney might file an injunction against the university to try to get it enforced, but the NCAA won't have any comment on the matter and there are no rules through the NCAA to enforce such an agreement.
Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
Strike3Looking posted:Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player. One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm.
Midwest Mom posted:Strike3Looking posted:Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player. One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm.
Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster.
NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters). There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.
Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money. Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35. You need lots of pitchers.
I have heard of scholarships structured many ways. Same percent each year. 25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year 
. 25, 33, 50, 66%. Son's scholarship was adjusted each year: awarded what was in the NLI his freshman year, upped his sophomore year because a player quit, then lowered his junior year to allow more money for incoming freshmen. This was all explained ahead of time and we had the option to not accepted the arrangement change.
100% scholarships do happen. The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.
Am I the only one here who thinks 100% aid, based on need, is not really a scholarship per se? Yes, the kid is not counting against athletic aid, but the only thing they have done to “earn” the scholarship is to have financial need. To me, that is not scholarship, it’s grant aid, and by definition a walk on.
Chicago643 posted:Am I the only one here who thinks 100% aid, based on need, is not really a scholarship per se? Yes, the kid is not counting against athletic aid, but the only thing they have done to “earn” the scholarship is to have financial need. To me, that is not scholarship, it’s grant aid, and by definition a walk on.
Correct.....a kid getting 100 percent in need money is a walk on....and nothing more with regard to the team. However, if a coach was recruiting the kid...he could very well have planned on giving him scholarship money, in any amount over 25 percent. Once they found out he was getting 100 percent need based, the coach can guarantee him a roster spot, though it's not a formal agreement....and give him no baseball money....but again, the kid is a walk on. Unless the kid is a stud pitcher throwing 94-95 he probably sounds pretty silly going around telling people he is on a 100 percent scholly....because 1) it has nothing to do with baseball...and 2) most people will just assume he's not being truthful because 100 percent athletic schollys are so infrequent. A lot of this comes from the fact that a lot of people just don't understand scholly's. I've had people talk to me about my son and think he has a full ride for baseball....because they hear athletic scholarship and just assume they are all full rides
If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount.
My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.
In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.
Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!
Picked Off posted:If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount.
My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.
In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.
Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!
Agree the idea is to get through the college experience without debt, but grant aid is not a scholarship. It’s need based, not merit based and certainly not athletic aid. They would receive it if they were a non-athlete.
Chicago643 posted:Picked Off posted:If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount.
My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.
In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.
Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!
Agree the idea is to get through the college experience without debt, but grant aid is not a scholarship. It’s need based, not merit based and certainly not athletic aid. They would receive it if they were a non-athlete.
There are all type of grants and all type of scholarships. One is need based and one is merit based. Both, are considered student financial aid that (usually) doesnt have to be paid back.
The questions on the application help the coach to determine how he will spend his money. I know of quite a few situations where the athlete received 100% needs based aid (walk ons) and played every game in baseball as well as other sports. That allows the coach to use his money for athletic scholarships which are technically called grants as well.
I concur with picked off, who cares really who gets what and what its called, the whole idea is to walk away with little or no debt. This will especially become important down the road due to tax reform.
Personally, if someone offered 25% to my player and nothing else to subsidize costs he would be looking elsewhere than a D1 opportunity.
JMO
I guess that is why we all have opinions, then. As someone who has already “run the race” you can say you would walk away from a 25% D1 offer, but I am sure there are many parents with players who would gladly accept that to realize their dream.
People do care what it is called so they can say “my kid got a baseball scholarship,” and because being a “counter” matters
Chicago643 posted:I guess that is why we all have opinions, then. As someone who has already “run the race” you can say you would walk away from a 25% D1 offer, but I am sure there are many parents with players who would gladly accept that to realize their dream.
People do care what it is called so they can say “my kid got a baseball scholarship.”
25% at a DI is great and nothing to walk away from if there are no better offers on the the table. Academic money is a bonus and the player should grab as much as they can. If kids focucused on academics as much as they do athletics, they would be much better off. I don't know that much about grants or need base money. We live in CA where most consider us wealthy, but in reality we are just getting by after the state & Feds get done digging into our pockets. Another story for a different day!
Our son was not one of those full rides that we hear about all the time. He had a nice mix of academic & athletic his first two years(DI) and athletic money at his current(DII). Luckily we started a college fund many years ago that has helped along the way but we still pay out of our monthly budget. We are looking forward to the extra money we will have when this is all done. Maybe we will follow in the footsteps of "justbaseball" and leave the Republic of California to greener pastures.
This is all about getting an education. One can get a very fine education at a D2 or 3.
keewart posted:Midwest Mom posted:Strike3Looking posted:Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player. One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm.
Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster.
NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters). There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.
Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money. Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35. You need lots of pitchers.
I have heard of scholarships structured many ways. Same percent each year. 25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year
100% scholarships do happen. The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.
11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school.
this is all interesting conversation, but every situation is different- family financials are different for everyone, goals are different for everyone. Heck just within my family with my first two sons we had completely different situations.
first son was a high academic kid, who used football to gain acceptance to a high academic school. There was zero aid, but we were happy that he was accepted. football served it's purpose in this situation. He's now a senior, graduating in may, and has already accepted a job in his chosen field, and for us, it worked like it was supposed to.
Second son is at a high level baseball factory, on a partial baseball scholarship (the other part is family scholarship!) he's chasing his dream to play pro ball one day. we support him wholeheartedly.
who cares what everyone else is doing, figure out what your son's goals are, what he wants out of the sport and out of college and shoot for the best situation you can negotiate for your son's situation.
Midwest Mom posted:keewart posted:Midwest Mom posted:Strike3Looking posted:Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player. One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm.
Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster.
NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters). There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.
Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money. Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35. You need lots of pitchers.
I have heard of scholarships structured many ways. Same percent each year. 25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year
100% scholarships do happen. The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.
11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school.
Your math is wrong. They don’t get a fresh “11.7” each year, if they even fund that many. They are limited to (if fully funded) 11.7 total scholarships for the entire program.
My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year. Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference.
Midwest Mom posted:My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year. Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference.
Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year
Chicago643 posted:Midwest Mom posted:keewart posted:Midwest Mom posted:Strike3Looking posted:Following up on this thread with a new twist. Assume the following:
* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship
* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%
If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%? Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises).
Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year? Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)? Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.
A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player. One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm.
Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster.
NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters). There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.
Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money. Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35. You need lots of pitchers.
I have heard of scholarships structured many ways. Same percent each year. 25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year
100% scholarships do happen. The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.
11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school.
Your math is wrong. They don’t get a fresh “11.7” each year, if they even fund that many. They are limited to (if fully funded) 11.7 total scholarships for the entire program.
It's 11.7 for the whole team with a minimum of 25% to each player on scholarship. Heard that not just from Iowa, but from every D1 coach we talked to, and there were several. Coaches at Iowa talked through in great detail the funding and the constraints on it — largely because this was one of my son's smaller offers financially and they wanted him to understand the reasons behind the money.
Some of it I've forgotten, because honestly, it didn't matter that much to us.
This is what my son wants. It's the level where he wants to compete and it's a program he believes will make him better.
In the end, if those factors are there, and you can afford it, I'm not sure the money matters that much. No matter where you go, or how much you get, you'll still have to earn your way on the field.
Chicago643 posted:Midwest Mom posted:My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year. Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference.
Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year
I could be wrong but I don't think she meant 11.7 X 4 years but 11.7 times 4 quarters of a scholarship. So 46.8 25% scholarships. So all 27 players have a 25% scolly then 19.8 25% scollys left. Essentially if fully funded and equally distributed then all 27 players could be on a 43.333% scholarship.
At least that's how I took what was being said.
Scotty83 posted:Chicago643 posted:Midwest Mom posted:My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year. Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference.
Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year
I could be wrong but I don't think she meant 11.7 X 4 years but 11.7 times 4 quarters of a scholarship. So 46.8 25% scholarships. So all 27 players have a 25% scolly then 19.8 25% scollys left. Essentially if fully funded and equally distributed then all 27 players could be on a 43.333% scholarship.
At least that's how I took what was being said.
Yes Scotty, you said it better than me. The x4 meant divided by 25%, which was what each player is guaranteed.
I can't seem to follow what is being argued. Is it basic math that is being argued or specifically how Power 5 conferences can structure their 4 year scholarships for baseball? I can help with the basic math stuff.
If you ignore the Power 5 4 year scholarship component, there are numerous old threads that provide a detailed, yet clear, outline of what constraints a particular school's program may be working under, both external (NCAA) and internal.
I am hoping that Rick could come in and explain because there are many factors which determine what 25% actually might be, especially among programs in lottery states.
I think that it also depends on the programs budget, how much that the coach can afford, and whether the program is fully funded.
Keep in mind that a coach may say he is awarding 25 %, but 25% of what, tuition, COA?
Also, a coach can throw out a dollar amount, which may be more than 25% but doesnt allow for rising costs of COA.
All this math is giving me brain damage. I'm moving on to the thread with the guy looking for used socks. Love that guy!
As I recall in our case the %/$ figure on the Financial agreement listed what it was covering. It was my understanding that it is always for COA(tuition, Books, R&B). It was spelled out clearly along with the number of years. Once enrolled, the dollar amount for both academic and athletic was applied to tuition. Excess dollars, if applicable was returned to in the form of a check. In our case it was used ongoing expenses, food, housing and books. I remember in one case, a teammate used that money to lease a new F150. His parents covered his food, housing and books.
FYI. 25% can be used anyway the player wishes, but usually goes toward tuition unless the NLI states otherwise. Once it gets to a higher percentage, it can read COA. However, usually tuition is on the top of the list on your statement, amount deducted from your balance.
To arrive at each figure that counts as a percentage, it comes from the coaches budget. The budget if fully funded is COA (minus incidentials), times 11.7 which is divided (not always evenly) into 27 players. Interesting that there is a program out that coaches use, deducting funded amount as the offers are made.
Once again, states that have lotteries give players $$ towards tuition. This usually is more beneficial when attending a state school rather than private institution. Good grades are important.
FWIW, sons OOS scholarship was pretty high so that he would not use that benefit. However, times have changed, which is why state programs recruit state players.
Hope this helps new folks to understand how it generally works.
