11.7

I get football brings in A LOT of revenue for the school.  But 2 full offenses and 2 full defenses worth of players? That's a lot.  Like Ripken Fan stated,  there are many, many football players on full scholarship who will never step foot on the field for a game.

Thats' actually 4 full offenses and 4 full defenses! I'm not sure that if the football programs were funded like the baseball programs, that you would get enough walk-ons to field a full roster.

You're right.  Not sure what I was thinking.  They could play 2 games at the same time with just full scholarship players.  Not sure I agree with the last comment though.  Let's just say they had enough full scholarships for 2 offenses and defenses - 44.  Then split the other 44 to 1/2 scholarships - another 22 for a total of 66.  You don't think they'd have enough guys to field a full team?  That would leave 22 full scholarships available for other programs with the school keeping the same budget.  I think a football team would have no trouble fielding a team.  Why wouldn't they?  Every other sport fields a full team with WAY less scholarships per person than that scenario.

I think the physical toll of football is probably greater than most of the other sports. I don't think you get as many kids willing to pay that price for a 1/2 scholarship or walk-on status. Believe me, I would love to see more funding for other sports, esp. baseball.

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, in the current structure, football and basketball are termed headcount sports.  These players are either on a full ride, or no ride.  Most other sports, including baseball, are equivalency sports in which a player can be awarded a fraction of a full ride.

Also, I'm quite certain that most athletes who have the ability and desire  to play in college would do so even if no aid was available.  Junior colleges in California have no shortage of players--some of whom are very talented--and they offer no aid at all.

It would be nice the schools would do some revenue sharing with all the athletic programs to get a few more scholarships. 11.7 is not enough. I would like see the grade point average difference from football to baseball. I know it will be higher for baseball, but you have to have great grades and test scores to be a D1 baseball player. It would be nice to bump from 11.7 to 13.5 for a start. Baseball players deserve more scholarships.

Then I have to ask, "why do they deserve more?" How about fencing, gymnastics, tennis, etc. Do they deserve more? At some point it's about what sports get the TV contracts for the conferences.

Colleges and universities use a variety of sources to finance athletic scholarships for the non-revenue producing sports. Some use football and/or basketball money. Some use student fees, state support, etc. Keep in mind that a significant percentage of schools lose money on their "revenue-producing" sports.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...s-subsidies/2142443/

Frankly, I'm surprised that so many schools fund baseball scholarships at all. Not only is baseball relatively expense (due to roster size, number of games, plus travel), it's also not particularly popular with the student body at most schools.

Except for maybe a few of the teams in larger conferences, baseball generates very little revenue to even support the 11.7.

Why are there limits on the number of scholarships? Just by way of example, as long as the number of athletic scholarships are equal for men and women (Title IX), why does the NCAA care if LSU, with 10,000 fans per game, wants to fund 20 full baseball scholarships?

As many people here have noted, many, many schools do not fund even the 11.7 scholarships . . . 

I think it's the NCAA's version of a salary cap...it's a way of keeping the playing field level and maintaining some level of competitive balance.

If they were unlimited, it would cause imbalance. It used to be pretty much that way. When it was, there were schools who would use it to an unfair advantage. For example, UCLA basketball and Alabama football used to load their teams with all the players they wanted and all the players they didn't want to compete against. Routinely, UCLA might sign the best 15 players in a class. For football, there were limits, but they weren't as tight (I believe at one time you could give 100 scholarships). Bear Bryant would go beyond the 100 by arranging for player to get golf and Tennis scholarships. Who cares if the kid had never played golf in his life. That way, he had a full roster and kept many of the top HS players in the country off the field.

Here's some of what I was thinking about when reading this thread... how about we... Build a college team on a "budget" by going as minimal as possible??? We're a D1 school... Our University is, The University of BBWEB 

I think it's worth noting the dynamic of a football programs. To field both a starting defense and offence your going to need at least 22 players and all of those guys being scholarship worthy. It's very rare to have 2 way players that are proficient at both sides of the ball so your going to need 22 guys that play different positions. Also note the amount of average snaps in a football game, somewhere between 75-90 for good D1 football programs. This makes it nearly impossible to play every snap even just on one side of the ball. Therefore your going to need subs. Figure that you now will have to have 22 more guys to allow for 1 sub per player. These players are also going to be worthy of a scholarship and competing for the starting spot during camp. So we're up to 44 scholarship worthy players. On the assumption that each one of these guys only plays 1 way and 1 position, we're up to needing at least 44 (scholarship player). This only gives you 1 alternate for each position... and since both guys at any position are going to be playing both are prone to injury. What if 1 guy goes down as injuries are so prevalent in the game of football? Now you only have 1 player that is proficient at that position. So your going to need at the minimum at least 1 more player at that position, preferably 2 or more (maybe even 3-4). On the assumption that our team we're building here is going to go with 2 more guys behind each position, we now have a roster composed of 88 guys. But why would these other 44 guys even go to our school, The University of BBWEB, if they're still going to do the same training and put in the same amount of work, maybe more, than these starters just to ride the sideline and pay full tuition just to be "practice dummies" and "number fillers"? These guys still have amazing talent that shouldn't be overlooked and not rewarded... these guys deserve some "compensation" for being with the program and school. So at the minimum we need 88 guys, all that deserve scholarships, weather that be full ride or half, 1/4.. etc.

Now let's think about baseball in the same sort of light,

You only have 9 players on the field at a time, all of these guys being scholarship worthy players. I'm going to want to have at least 1 backup at each position... but wait... I only have 2.7 scholarships left for 9 more guys... and that if I'm a very high level program trying to make it to the CWS I'm going to want 9 other guys that are "scholarship level players" too. We will also need more guys in our bullpen and rotation. How is this fair to my guys in the dugout now? Are they not paying the same amount of money to go to University of BBWEB as the football guys, that will be getting scholarships to be "backups" just like them? Granted Baseball players are very versatile so we may only need 3 more guys for our infield and 2 for our outfield as if you can play one position, you can probably play the others that are similar to yours quite well. But WAIT! We're trying to compete (just like our football program) for a championship.. We want as many as the best guys as possible at our school to do this and give us depth! So we can't go that route... I'm even stumped as to what I would do next trying to right this!

I do agree about the College's version of the Salary Cap being scholarship limits, but how many guys are there worthy to play D1 that won't because they're not getting a scholarship and can't afford to pay the full tuition to that school... even though they're D1 caliber.

I'm not arguing either way...  but I think it's important to look at the dynamic of each sport. I know I probably missed a lot... but I think it gives a good enough idea of my thought process on this.Please dispute and refute what I typed... I wish to be enlightened on this whole thing more!

LionRHP

 Not getting your thought process!