hshuler posted:FriarFred posted:And this is why i dont think that all "signees" actually sign a binding NLI as I wouldnt think you could actually over commit the number of available scholarships. I think many kids "commit/sign" to walk on with no athletic money and thus no actual NLI or financial arrangement between player and school.
I “think” over committing started when scholarships weren’t guaranteed for four years. Coaches could make the numbers work based on who they wouldn’t keep.
I also “think” some schools have certain advantages with endowments, needs-based aid, common merit money, etc. so they don’t always have to tap into the money allocated specifically for baseball.
Lastly, the recent trend, until this year, was that top ten round draft picks were signing at a very high clip so I do think that schools sometimes over commit expecting/hoping that they will lose a few kids to the draft.
Hshuler, if they aren't using athletic aid, then an NLI is not in play, right? So the fact that some schools have larger endowments, need-based aid and common merit money doesn't factor in to the number of kids that Arkansas claimed they signed to NLIs.
If they claimed to sign 20 guys to NLIs, then they are saying they are committing a minimum of 5 complete scholarships (assuming all 20 get the minimum 25%) for those players, and since it's a power 5 they are making that commitment for 4-years. Assuming full funding, that leaves 6.7 scholarships to divvy up among the remaining 7 scholarship eligible players on the roster (again, assuming minimum offers to newbies). If you have 7 returners who are getting full rides, them some happy players. I can see where this might actually be a good strategy to use the scholarships in this manner, and then use the incentive of increasing to a full ride in years 2 and beyond based on performance.
I can't imagine any school WANTS their signees to be lost to the draft, so you completely lost me there. Unless you are referring to currently rostered guys