11.7 Scholarships Per Team

Title IX

This is a "kinda know" answer.  With Title IX, for every 1 scholarship provided to a male athlete, 1 full scholarship is awarded to a female athlete.  For the schools that play D1 football, 85 full football scholarships are provided annually(99.9% male athletes) so there are at least 85 full scholarships made available to female athletes in softball, soccer, swimming and golf to name a few... Where it gets muddy for me is regardless of whether a D1 school has football or not, those D1 baseball programs are still limited to 11.7 baseball scholarships.  Seems without football, those programs scholly limits would increase by 85 across all sports, including baseball.  I assume the NCAA would consider it a competitive advantage for non-football playing D1's to have more scholarships in baseball. 

I think the actual 11.7 number originally came from 1/3 of a 35 man roster. Headcount from male rosters will always be greater than female rosters when you have an 85 man football team. They instituted the fractions of rosters (counters) partly in an attempt to equalize the male/female numbers.

 

Bolts, Title IX is an education law. (The list of colleges that would not admit women to their undergraduate programs in the early 1960s and 70s might shock you.)  I'm sure it's a big part of the NCAA's attempt to equalize men's and women's scholarship money, but it doesn't explain the 11.7.  If it were just equality, why not allow Vandy to move 20 scholarships from their struggling football program over to baseball? I suspect the NCAA members use this system to prevent schools with deep football and basketball pockets from outspending their less affluent competitors.

The number of scholarships used to be 13, then the NCAA cut the number by 10% in the early 90s, resulting in 11.7 scholarships for baseball.  Some other sports have weird scholarship amounts for the same reason (e.g., track & field, lacrosse were reduced from 14 to 12.6).

If you're asking for a well thought out reasoned explanation about anything the NCAA does, good luck. 

MYTH: Title IX has resulted in the loss of athletic opportunities for men's sports. 

FACT: Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased. Title IX has been wrongly blamed by its critics for cuts to some men's sports teams at some educational institutions. 

• Schools choose to support, eliminate or reduce particular sports opportunities on both men's and women's specific teams for a variety of reasons, including varying interests in specific sports and choices about how to allocate budget resources among the sports teams the school decides to sponsor or emphasize. The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as the number and quality of academic programs are institutional prerogatives. The government cannot dictate that particular varsity sports be added, retained or discontinued for men or women.  
• Opponents of Title IX have tried to mislead the public into believing that the loss of men's wrestling and a few other sports at some schools is a sign of massive loss of men's participation opportunities overall when exactly the opposite is true – men's sports participation continues to grow. Athletic programs add and drop teams all the time. Men are not losing.  
• This misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be significantly underrepresented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men's and women's sports participation and support is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men's minor sports, typically because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men's basketball arms race.

MYTH: It is not fair that Title IX requires equal spending on men's and women's programs because the men's programs bring in all of the school's money. 

 

FACT: Title IX does NOT require equal spending on men's and women's programs, and less than 12% of college athletic programs actually make a profit.

       One thing to keep in mind is that while this 11.7 number is used to define the full scholarship limits placed on men's NCAA D-1 Baseball, The assumption by most parents and players is that ALL of the Approx 300 NCAA D-1 programs would use every bit of that 11.7 Right?

          WRONG. Most schools ARE NOT fully funded . Only a small percentage are at 11.7 the bulk of them are somewhere between 7 to 9.5 and some below that.

 

really men like, commit and want to play sports more then women as a general rule across broad demographic lines? this is hard for me to believe...next you are going to tell me that women like to dance more then men...or that a greater % of ladies prefer to do other things outside of sports. Oh wait that would be correct, sorry to let the facts get in the way.

 

LOL Title X1 had its place at one time but now like most government imposed programs it has gone beyond opportunity and into punishing others. Athletic welfare!

A related question some friends and I have is:

why are football and basketball players (with full or big scholarships) allowed to transfer D1-D1;

while baseball (with fraction scholarships) must sit a year or go JUCO.

 

Seems more logical (perhaps logic has no place in college sports

that the sport with less of a scholarship would be able to switch. 

 

I think the transfer rules for DI to DI are pretty much the same for football, basketball and baseball, except for football allowing the "One-Time Transfer Exception" to be used for someone transferring from a FBS school to a FCS school. I assume they allow that exception since those two DI football divisions don't compete for the same championship.

How about the $ amount per 11.7 Is it a fixed amount per school or is actual tuition considered?? If actual, is it "out of state" actual??

The dollar amount isn't set across the board, it is related to the cost at that particular school.  When dealing with state schools, it depends on the school.  I don't believe there is an NCAA rule dictating one way or the other relative to applying it to in state vs out of state.  I believe that is set at the school level.  Others may have better info but I'm pretty sure it works that way.  Another good question to ask if you are dealing with a state school.

Its based on the actual COA for that school in state.  So if the cost would be for example 40k per year that times 11.7 would be the budget the coach has. So multiply that and figure out by 27, if fully funded. That's what? 17,333.33 per player? 

Sorry didn't finish as the site shut down on me.

That formula is what I was told years ago.  The coach can divide the amounts up as he wants, and keep in mind it has to be 25% of 1 athletic scholarship, I am sure, not the tuition. This is why many programs cannot fully fund, they just don't have enough money unless the athletic dept or giving programs help fund. 

That's why now, academics is more important than ever.

If my info isd wrong or outdated I apologize in advance.

As I have seen it explained, the NCAA restriction is based on the particular student's COA such that a 50% scholarship to an out of state kid ends up being more dollars than an in state kid.  From the NCAA restriction, there is benefit/cost based on residency status.  The program may have an actual dollar cap that it must fit all scholarship monies under.  In those cases, the in state scholarship (using the example above) is a cheaper option than an out of state kid.

 

When moving over to private universities, the residency status is a non issue as all are identical in cost.  Please correct me if I misunderstood prior discussions.

I think for each sport to exist at a collegiate level it should have to fully fund itself.  Otherwise if you really want to play a sport then form an intramural league. 

       
       
Hahaha that would leave a dozen or so football teams and a hand full of basketball teams. All other college sports would be intramural.

There wouldn't be intramural either.  No way those teams pay for construction and maintenance of basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming pools, soccer fields, etc.