33% Question

It really should have no effect on either. A .33 qualifier (33% scholarship) is the same, whether it is .33 of in-state or .33 of out-of state. The only difference is the cost to the institiution. Both kids effect the 11.7 the exact same way (33%. You can get 3 in-state kids or 3 out of state kids for the cost of 1 (99%) scholarships.

If the school in question has no resrtictions from thier athletic department as to how many kids they take out of state it won't matter. Just remember that it does cost the school more money (actual dollars) to bring in the out of state kids.

27 players multiplied by the 33% allowable scholarships, equals 8.7. That leave 3 to be devided up to increase certain players percentage.

I have been told that this will effect the 08' class and will be fazed in.

I hadn't heard about this. So does this mean that the old "books and fees only" scholarship is a thing of the past? Not sure I understand this rule.

If implemented the way I read it above, won't it really put privates at a big disadvantage? That is, fewer people will be able to afford it? Same for out-of-state recruits?

NCAA continues to be, and remains having
No Clue At All.


Bottom Line: NCAA D1 Men's minor revenue producing sports continues to not to be fully funded. How about, or at a miniumum, baseball scholarships be brought back into a realistic 20 scholarships.

OBTW: NCAA D1 Womens's minor revenue producing sports continue to be fully funded. Heck, the Cheerleaders are on scholarships!

How about something revolutionary and provide some
capability for a NCAA student-athlete on partial scholarship to NOT limit his ability to 'work' and here is a novel of a great idea....get paid for it.

cheers
Bear

I thought the 33% meant that IF a player was receiving $$ it had to be at least 33%of a full scholly (instate? out of state?), and that would lead me to believe that there would be no more 'books only' offers.

If it means that the 11.7 scholarships have to be spread out over the team with a minimum of 33%, using Coach Merc's figures, it seems ludicrous to me.

I don't think I am alone in believing that the NCAA has really overstepped its boundaries this time in dictating to a baseball program HOW they will use their scholarship money. To me, this ties a program's hands and may actually defeat the NCAA's proported purpose regarding education and academics. If a college/university cannot offer several (more than 3) high profile players full rides, I think a lot of these high profile players will just pass on college altogether and opt to sign out of high school.

Maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I still think this is flat out wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there some alert attorney could convince some school to sue the NCAA for restricting their ability to be competitive because of the limitations on scholarships.

Or is the NCAA just trying to get rid of baseball at the college level?

quote:

Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
If a college/university cannot offer several (more than 3) high profile players full rides, I think a lot of these high profile players will just pass on college altogether and opt to sign out of high school.

I agree. I think it will push more players directly into the pros. And unfortunately that would reduce my interest level in college baseball.

Personally, I think the players who want to go to college for baseball and the education will still do it---things may not change that much

FBM,
Good post.

I am wondering with the NCAA telling schools how to spend their $$, would this mean the smaller schools with smaller budgets will struggle more than they do, and the parity we see now in baseball will shift back to the larger programs recruiting the best of the best. Larger programs have additional funding with huge athletic budgets that can give more additional dollars.

Or will it in the end actually give more players more opportunities (with the minimum of 33%) to actually be able to afford to attend school?

Coaches who usually don't like to give out all of their alloted budget $$ will just find better ways to be creative. More academic money most likely, so teh importance of doing well in HS becomes all that more important.

While the scholarship limitations could have some impact, I think that the bigger impact is going to be the roster limit of 35 guys. That is going to mean that players (and their parents) are going to have to pay even more attention to the number of signees and graduating seniors or juniors who are likely to leave after the draft.

JohnLex,
Most definetly a very important point. The roster at my son's school is 32, with 2 redhirted players (medical). The same number in fall and in spring. That also means there is more money avalaible for scholarships.

However, at some schools you most likely might not know the exact number that enter in the fall.

Advice, take an unofficial visit to schools son is interested in, in the fall, during a practice. If you see 35-40 on the field you might want to take this into consideration.

quote:

Just remember that it does cost the school more money (actual dollars) to bring in the out of state kids.

Coach Merc,

I know it cost an out of state student more, but does it really cost the school more actual dollars?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

quote:

Just remember that it does cost the school more money (actual dollars) to bring in the out of state kids.

Coach Merc,

I know it cost an out of state student more, but does it really cost the school more actual dollars?

Not necessarily. Depends on how creative the scholardship is set up. It's sometimes taken on the front end, so the parent pays their portion, but sometimes taken off the back end so it doesn't go into the budget.
For example, OS tuition is 20K with 50% scholarship, player is responsible for 10K up front, most likely you will never know exactly what is paid at the back end.

I'm a firm believer that with numbers and accounting. You can make the numbers say anything you want.

While a scholly has to be at least 33%, you don't have to spread your 11.7 across 27. 27 is a maximum, not a required quota.

Where I think this leads is towards a few players getting higher %'s. That's because the coaches will no longer be saving "book money" here and 10% there.

But these higher awards will be coming at the expense of a kid who, e.g., walks on and then gets some recognition for his contribution. Or others to whom 10% is more than just a pat on the back.

In short, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.

And the only thing more stupid is to adopt the one-year ineligibility rule for transfers. As long as coaches can cut your % at the end of one season, the player should have the right to move on.

I guess they think they are promoting the "scholar athlete" ideal by giving kids an incentive to stick with a school (and thus not disrupt their education so much). But I didn't hear the players asking for that paternalistic intervention on their behalves. In reality it's going to give coaches a lot of leverage, to cut a kid's % from one year to the next and yet still keep the kid on the roster. I know that point was made to the NCAA but apparently they are just not listening.

Midlo,



The old "Minimum Wage" issue...higher mimimum wage = fewer paying jobs.

I also think it is stupid that a kid who is getting no dollars has a transfer restriction. If the school is giving him zero why should he be tied to the school?

The whole thing is very poorly thought out - but then again, this is the NCAA.

quote:

Originally posted by 08Dad:
The whole thing is very poorly thought out - but then again, this is the NCAA.

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

quote:

Just remember that it does cost the school more money (actual dollars) to bring in the out of state kids.

Coach Merc,

I know it cost an out of state student more, but does it really cost the school more actual dollars?

Probably true. The cost to the university is the same for an in-state or out-of-state student (given identical courses, housing, etc.).

I have been away for a few days and am finally catching up on all these responses.
First, I agree with many of the posts that this new proposal was not fully thought out.

Second, I want to follow up on Coach Merc's comment about calculations.

In "attempting" to read the D1 manuals current rules, I think there is a difference in recruiting in-state vs. out of staters.

I am hanging my hat on the section on equivalencies and counters.

One of the key calculations is looking at how much money is given to a counter (scholarship player) ie. the numerator. And then looking at what the denominator is for a particular school. What is very clear is that the denominator is the AVERAGE COA for that school.

So, let's say a public school has 10K in state and 20K out of state. All other costs for both students are 10K. So in state pays 20K per year and out of state pays 30K/year. Ratio is 70% in state. That means the average COA is $23K/year. A school under this scenario COULD give out $269,100 in athletic $$$'s. If I am a fully funded program, I can not give out more than that amount. It TODAY's environment, I (as a coach) can NOT give 11.7 OUT of state players FULL RIDES, but I certainly give 11.7 in staters FULL RIDES and still be in compliance.

Let's say today, I am able to recruit 10 instaters for books ($400 as defined by NCAA), that would leave me with $265,100 to "spend". IF I wanted to, I could give "full rides" to 7 out of staters and spread the other 55.1K as I see fit. Under the new rules, if I still decide to give athletic $$'s to those same 10 in staters, I now have to "spend" 67K on those same 10 players. Now I can give full rides to only 6 outstaters, and have only $20K to spread around.

Again, I see D1 coaches might have to change their previous recruiting strategies. The coaches that are flexible to change will probably get an adavantage going forward.
As people have mentioned in the past, many programs have given books and fees to players, and I would guess at state schools that would probably be to in staters allowing more $$$$ 's available to out of state studs.

Here is where I am trying to understand the rule. If I make an offer to an in stater in my scenario derived above, do I have to give an instater $6,666 (33% of instate COA) OR $7,667 (AVG COA)?

At the end of the day, because of the 33% min offer, I see some possible scenarios for publics,
-They may have to change their in state/out state recruiting mix. I see schools who typically recruit a lot of out of staters, may have to change their strategy.
-some schools may decide to fund their baseball programs.
-is it possible some schools might eventually drop baseball rather than try to be in compliance?

I may have confused some of you, but this was cathartic for me

quote:

Originally posted by Coach Merc:
.....no effect on either.
....33 qualifier is the same,
.....difference is cost
.....If no resrtictions it won't matter.
.....it does cost more (actual dollars) out of state kids.
......27 players X 33% allowable scholarships, equals 8.7.
.....3 to be devided up
.....effect the 08' class & fazed in.

--------------------

Coach Merc,

As I understand it, 'Scholarship players at min 33% begin in this year's recruiting class'.
Where the returning players are not phased in. (i.e. if player on books now, will remain on books for the remainder of eligeability.)

As I further understand it, 'the 33%" was to 'level the financial field' for those twelve to fifteen highest of D-1 Baseball Programs (vs the other ~525 D1 schools who budget for the 11.7 or less with only athletic funding)
Thus the top schools who used to have access to academic and 'state' funding, won't.

The NCAA lifting of the 'free' year for D1 baseball players allows this year's Freshman-Sophomores-Juniors the ability to transfer w/o penalty. Should these player decide to transfer, each have three/two/one year eligeability (respectively, and not in consideration of redshirt year if for either medical or players development).

My network has been talking about the forecast and impact, if any, of the new changes.
Many have agreed, that should the new NCAA rules & changes become known by the parents and players, a few expect those players with doubts who might have remained will jump (either on own accord, or with coach's influence). Others agree that statistically. many should see the highest of transfer ratio's.

Then again, a few 'liberals' are suggesting that it's time 'to clean house' before the rush comes next year!

Another opinion suggests the level of 'recruits' will return to the local-state area. Such that, a talented HS player might not be attending one of the top fifteen baseball powerhouses for zero scholarship dollars, since the home-state private or public university would offer 33%. Thus the paradigm shift is forecasted, as the talented HS players will begin college baseball either closer to home, or at 2 year schools.

Bottom Line: A 'make sense' NCAA rule, IMHO, should be put on the AD committee table (again) and that being if the head coach or pitching coach moves on, the player should be able to move on, and without penalty and especially if not on 33% scholarship.



Regards

Bear has good points.
I am not 100% sure, but the 33% will most benefit those that would not otherwise be able to come into the school based on academnic qualifications. The whole idea of academic reform within baseball and improving graduation rate is recruiting players that are able to keep on graduation track and GPA requirements. Within transfer, many players lose credits and lose track, thus the reason for the one year sit out. As I said in another post, the NCAA should consider those that have sustained the proper GPA and credits an exeption on the new tranfer rule.
This should be a wake up call to parents and players of the importance of doing well in HS, academics will be more important than ever.

Although son was a 4.0 student in HS, he did not qualify for academic $$$ but has maintained above GPA and been on track for 4 year graduation. I don't feel a student such as this (there are many) should be penalized if they wish to transfer one time and sit out(under new guidelines he would have to ).

As far as coaches leaving, a player signs an agreement with the school, not the coach, this should be the biggest consideration, where do I want to go to school. But I agree, a player should have the right to exercise the option of staying or leaving if the coach leaves.

Can the NCAA place restrictions on coach transfers?

Bear: When you say "this year's freshmen" do you mean the entering Frosh class for this Fall '07, or the current freshmen?

Does anyone have a link to these new rules? Or did I just miss it?

Thanks.

Let's give this a shot. Posted on May 7, in the NCAA News section of the NCAA website:

D1 Baseball gets academic facelift

Thanks jbbaseball.

One sentence really caught my eye:

quote:

Most troubling were data indicating that baseball student-athletes come to college with good academic credentials that are not borne out by their academic performance once they are in the collegiate setting.

While I agree with the NCAA having this concern...once again they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. IF they are REALLY concerned about academic performance, why the heck did the EVER agree to the compressed 56-game schedule beginning next year (cannot start until March 1)?

I think that alone was one of the very worst rules I've seen passed.

Under the General Items forum, see the last page of the thread "New NCAA guidelines ?".