11.7 D1 scholarships

I think this is the reason: There used to be 13 scholarships, but they were reduced by 10%, I believe as a result of Title IX
(13 - 1.3 = 11.7).

Can't help with second question.

Exactly right jaxnbulldog!

11.7 scholarships for 25 players is pretty low.

Could someone post how many scholarships and players on the rosters that the other NCAA sports get so we could compare?

Football....
Basketball....

more like 32 players...an avg of 36.5% per player if equally distributed(which we know it's not). At a $10000/yr tuition that would be $3650...even at the old 13,it's only an increase of $350...big deal!

Football I believe is still 60, and basketball a full 12...?? corrections invited.

DI-A Football- 85 Scholarships
DI-AA Football- 63 Scholarships
DI Basketball-13 Scholarships
DI Ice Hockey- 18 Scholarships
DI Lacrosse- 12.69 Scholarships

On the subject of baseball scholarships, interesting to note that at a recent SJU camp, coach commented that he uses his scholarships exclusively on pitchers.

That's probably the reason SJU is not good.

Here's an answer to the number of scholarships by sport -- A comparison. Of course it was on the site all the time!

http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/scholarships_by_sport.htm

maize

SJU went to the NCAA regionals in 2004---thats not good!!!!1

Football and basketball having large scholarship numbers I can understand because they are revenue generating sports. But how do sports that are very much regional sports like lacrosse and ice hockey get such large scholarship numbers, while baseball is pretty much played nationwide? Are colleges able to re-allocate those scholarships $$$ to other sports when they do not host one of those particular sports that are more specific to certain regions of the country? You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a high school ice hockey or lacrosse program out here on the west coast, and while there may be a few colleges out here with those sports ... they'd be pretty few and far between. Lacrosse does seem to be expanding in our area over the past few years ... but it's still mostly rec and club teams. Ice Hockey teams exist only on the club level, and they typically play in leagues that can only get ice time very late at night or early in the morning, i.e., 1:00-3:00 AM ... there are very few ice rinks out here.

Another dumb question - do the scholly numbers mean per year (incoming class) or total per active team.

For example, the 11 (rounding down) for baseball, assuming all full rides - if a college brought in 11 full ride players as freshmen and those players continued full rides for 4 years, the college wouldn't be able to offer anything for those 4 years to new players?

Dave ...

The 11.7 scholarships are for the entire active team over a one year period. The percentages to players may change over the course of their years at the school, but the total for all players on the roster, including red-shirts and medical hardship waivers, is 11.7 in any given year.

pbonesteele

I can answer on hockey a lot and lacrosse a little:

In hockey (my son plays junior hockey), the scholarship numbers are deceiving. A large percentage of the schools in Division I don't give any scholarships (the ECAC in particular) and a lot of those who do don't fully fund their programs. While my family doesn't fit this one, a larger-than-average percentage of players don't need the scholarship (for both academic and financial reasons). Since most kids now play juniors and don't even start college until they're 21, the graduation rate for the sport is pretty high. And, most colleges that have varsity teams own their own facilities and do a good job of filling them with paying spectators, which offsets some of the cost.

Some of those same factors are in place for lacrosse. The financial and academic numbers are similar. And lacrosse teams generate surprising gate income. I seem to remember an NCAA report a few years ago that indicated lacrosse was, on a total expense vs. total revenue basis, the most profitable sport for the D-I schools that play it.

Thought so - it just doesnt seem right - still trying to get over the 85 Scholarships for football - last I looked 11 football players play at one time. Plus in my humble opinion the baseball players are better......etc, etc, etc

OldVaman

And does that help your kid in any way - or just money for the athletic department

For lacrosse and hockey, it's not as much revenue generating for the athletic dept. as it is the university in general. You have a full-pay student motivated to play the sport who is generally a good bet to graduate.

Lacrosse rosters are about the same size as many baseball rosters and hockey rosters just a little smaller. And the belief is among a lot of college administrators (even if the numbers don't necessarily back it up), lacrosse and hockey players graduate at a higher percentage (at the D-I level) than do baseball players.

So, having lacrosse and hockey teams, especially in the Northeast, is good business for schools.

And that is the GOAL - graduates!!!!

Thanks for the info.

I guess the solution is to come up with some ideas on how to get 30,000 screaming fans with their faces painted to come to college baseball games and turn the sport into a revenue generator . Then there'd be $$$ to fund more scholarships and attract the interest of college administrators.

At least for most of the colleges and universities out here in CA, attracting enough students to generate tuition revenue isn't a problem ... the problem out here is that we generally have too many students for the college infrastructure we have in place. Admissions standards are going up which makes it harder to get in, and those students that do get in are taking longer to graduate because they can't always get into the classes they need. I think it's becoming more common to take five years to graduate. I'd have to believe that the tuition revenue attributed to student-atheletes is just a drop in the bucket. If a school has 1,000 total student-atheletes out of a total student body of 25,000 ... the tuition of student-atheletes participating in non-revenue sports could easily be replaced by the thousands of qualified applicants that are turned away each year.

understand the logic of all these posts..the thing I don't get is this - 20 scholly's for ROWING??? I know the equipment costs aren't real high, practice facilty use probably isn't too high either - no grounds crew [HAH] - but how much revenue could they generate??? Seems like some sports [i.e. BASEBALL] are taking it on the chin a bit.

Yes, baseball absolutely is taking it on the chin for other sports.

Education is a business.

And our game is on the receiving end.