A Scholarship player vs. a recruited walk on

The coach will play the best player. The difference is that the scholarship player gets more opportunities to fail.

The AD doesn't pressure the coach to play anyone specifically, the coaches job is to win, and by doing so he must use his best players, or he loses his job.

TPM posted:

The coach will play the best player. The difference is that the scholarship player gets more opportunities to fail.

The AD doesn't pressure the coach to play anyone specifically, the coaches job is to win, and by doing so he must use his best players, or he loses his job.

 

Agreed - very well-said, my friend!

No coach wants to lose his job and uproot his family and have to search for a new job. Right or wrong, he will make decisions that he thinks gives his team the best chance to win. 

TPM posted:

The coach will play the best player. The difference is that the scholarship player gets more opportunities to fail.

The AD doesn't pressure the coach to play anyone specifically, the coaches job is to win, and by doing so he must use his best players, or he loses his job.

 

I agree with this but it may be even more difficult for the walk on in full scholarship sports like football and basketball. 

I have a friend who was a scholarship football player for an SEC football team in the early 90s. He told me that the walk ons (at least for his team) had to be so much better than the scholarship players because every time they outperformed another player on scholarship, it meant the staff missed on an evaluation (wasted scholarship money).

In the end, winning trumps all but  they (coaches) don't want to appear to be missing on too many players with their offers either. That's one reason why scholarship players get more opportunities to fail. 

If a coach misses on a player, he replaces him with another player, times have changed.

A D1 baseball team has only 27 scholarship players if fully funded,  in some states a walk on could be getting state and academic money, maybe more than the baseball scholarship $$.

But it really doesn't matter, the best player will play. 

JMO

You can't really compare football and basketball scholarships with other sports because on the surface you're comparing apples to apples but the reality of the situation is you're comparing apples to moon rocks.  TPM nailed it but to go deeper (this is in my opinion) these coaches are good at their job and can accurately evaluate talent.  It's rare for a walk on to beat out a scholarship player (in football and basketball) because the resources they have to see more athletes is greater.  With other sports not having the resources like football and basketball you're not going to give baseball money to a kid who is getting a lot of academic money or grants.  So it can look like a walk on beat out a scholarship guy but the reality is the "walk on" is a stud, is a great student and was recruited just like any other scholarship player.

 you're not going to give baseball money to a kid who is getting a lot of academic money or grants.

When you sign the NLI it has the sports scholarship amount on it.  This is even before being accepted to the school so the coach has no idea how much academic or grant money you will receive. 

My son got baseball money....but may have gotten more if he wasn't such a good student in HS.   When the coach called, he told him how much he would get from baseball....and also what his grades were getting him.  To be honest, I don't care how he got to the number.....it was great for my son and us...so we took it. 

Don't kid yourself, the coaches DO know about the academic money being offered.  My son was asked to apply for an academic scholarship by the coaching staff.  He also was valedictorian of his class.  The coaches knew this and in Texas that means your tuition is paid for two semesters at any public college.  His tuition and the academic scholarship was about 80% of a full ride.  The other freshmen position players were getting 25%.  Be careful, the academic money is a good thing but no athletic money = no guaranteed roster position.  Keeping your word didn't seem to matter to the staff my son was first involved with.  Second school, son received academic and athletic money and the athletic money has gone up the last two years.  Check the history of the coaching staff before accepting academic money and not athletic money.  

Overthehill posted:

Don't kid yourself, the coaches DO know about the academic money being offered.  My son was asked to apply for an academic scholarship by the coaching staff.  He also was valedictorian of his class.  The coaches knew this and in Texas that means your tuition is paid for two semesters at any public college.  His tuition and the academic scholarship was about 80% of a full ride.  The other freshmen position players were getting 25%.  Be careful, the academic money is a good thing but no athletic money = no guaranteed roster position.  Keeping your word didn't seem to matter to the staff my son was first involved with.  Second school, son received academic and athletic money and the athletic money has gone up the last two years.  Check the history of the coaching staff before accepting academic money and not athletic money.  

Great advice here and yeah college coaches know exactly how much academic money the school can give a player.  Honestly, the best piece of advice is to have your son be so good the coaches move heaven and earth to get them.  But the more you fall on the talent ladder the more complicated it becomes in getting athletic money.

In the past many thought if the baseball coach didn't have any skin (athletic money) in he game he had nothing to lose with convincing a player to walk on or get other money. As programs are offering verbals earlier and earlier now do people believe a non athletic scholarship player (#28-35) has a better shot now? He could be the late blooming stud who didn't get an offer freshman or soph year.

Wouldn't the athletic program get the benefit from any combination of athletic and academic monies that exceeded 100%?  I guess I'm thinking about certain states that provide significant in-state "academic" monies without the kid being valedictorian (Georgia?) - say Georgia recruits early, offers 50% and then the kids shows up with effectively 75% academic money.  Does the baseball program get to downgrade the athletic money to 25%?  What if academic is 80% - how does a program offer less than the 25% minimum?

If the athlete has less than a 3.5 gpa he can't get both scholarships. Plus his academic money counts against the team scholarships. 

Assuming he exceeds the 3.5 gpa, how do combinations exceeding 100% get dealt with?  I would assume the athletic program would want to keep the "savings".  My understanding is that a player can get both, but has to have the 3.5 gpa (or other qualifications listed) for the academic money to not count as athletic money.  Scenario - assume 3.6 gpa, State of Georgia provides their in-state monies and kid previously verbaled based on a 50% athletic scholly.  Total now exceeds 100% - who gets to lower their scholly dollars?

Some states have Hope or Bright Future monies available and I am pretty sure it's not counted against the team.  

Athletes can't receive scholarship funds that exceed the schools "cost of attendance."  If an athlete is receiving more than 100% of the cost of attendance through a combination of athletic and academic aid, the athletic scholarship will likely be the one that is reduced. 

Also, the 25% minimum can be met through the combination of athletic aid and academic money:  Division I Bylaw 15.5.4.1 "An institution shall provide each counter athletically related and
other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency."

Rick at Informed Athlete posted:

Athletes can't receive scholarship funds that exceed the schools "cost of attendance."  If an athlete is receiving more than 100% of the cost of attendance through a combination of athletic and academic aid, the athletic scholarship will likely be the one that is reduced. 

Also, the 25% minimum can be met through the combination of athletic aid and academic money:  Division I Bylaw 15.5.4.1 "An institution shall provide each counter athletically related and
other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency."

How is Hope type scholarships considered?

2catchersons posted:

Wondering if a coach recruits a player 2 years in advance, offers them a scholarship and then brings on another player for the same position, does the coach feel an obligation to play the scholarship player? Does the AD put pressure on the coach if the walk on is better or equal to the scholarship kid? Does the coach need to prove the scholarship kid is better and play him more even though the walk on has better stats? Our experience is that the coach is playing the scholarship kid 3 times as much as the walk on, even though he doesn't seem to be any better than the walk on.  Curious if the coaches job is evaluated based on performance of scholarship kids.

Think about it for a minute.  Player A was recruited and offered a scholarship.  He has a established that he is good enough to receive a scholarship.  Day 1 of the season Player A already has a high standard set in the eyes of the coaches.  The walk on player  B starts at ground zero.  

Lets put that on a talent scale.

Player A = 100

Player B = 0   

End of Week 1

Player A plays to his expectation grade stays even 100

Player B shows talent earns some cred +20  grade 20

End of Week 2

Player A  has a bad week loses a little cred -10 current grade 90

Player B shows more talent earns some more cred + 20 current grade 40

Ect......  

I think of it as a talent savings account.  It takes time for player B's savings account to surpass player A and earn the starting spot....  

This scenario plays out in every team sport available.  Even if the coach has ZERO knowledge of any of the players day 1.  The coach may not realize it, but he is adding or subtracting from the account the second he looks at a player.  Size, build, attitude, the way he moves, etc.....  From the very first throw he his setting a bar and comparing it others.  The higher a player sets that the bar from the beginning the easier it is to maintain it.  

RJM posted:

If the athlete has less than a 3.5 gpa he can't get both scholarships. Plus his academic money counts against the team scholarships. 

Right. However, I believe the exception against counting academic money against the team's total scholarship limit is based on hitting one of three markers:

3.5 gpa; or

top 10% of graduating class; or

sum 105 on ACT.

I also believe the NCAA is about to consider removing that rule so that NO academic scholarship will be counted against the team's limit. Rick can probably confirm this.

TPM, since Hope and Bright Futures-type scholarships are awarded by the state and not by the institution (as I understand them), they aren't countable toward the baseball team's limit even if an athlete has an athletic scholarship and is below the threshold to exempt academic aid.  However, an athlete still can't receive more than an institution's "cost of attendance" if their combination of athletic, academic, and/or state aid (such as Hope or Bright Futures) exceeds that figure.

Roothog, there is also a 4th criterion to exempt academic aid, and that is for an athlete to have at least a 1200 SAT score (not counting the writing portion of the test).  And, you are correct on your point that the NCAA is considering exempting ALL academic aid from counting against the limit of athletic scholarships that can be awarded in a particular sport.  No decision has been made on that yet, so when it would take effect, if approved, is yet to be determined.

RJM posted:

In the past many thought if the baseball coach didn't have any skin (athletic money) in he game he had nothing to lose with convincing a player to walk on or get other money. As programs are offering verbals earlier and earlier now do people believe a non athletic scholarship player (#28-35) has a better shot now? He could be the late blooming stud who didn't get an offer freshman or soph year.

I also think there are several programs whose strategy to be able to compete at the D1 level is very dependent on institutional dollars and academic aid.  For those schools if they can get a solid player in with no baseball money they aren't really viewed as a walk on even though we would likely define as such. 

Rick at Informed Athlete posted:

TPM, since Hope and Bright Futures-type scholarships are awarded by the state and not by the institution (as I understand them), they aren't countable toward the baseball team's limit even if an athlete has an athletic scholarship and is below the threshold to exempt academic aid.  However, an athlete still can't receive more than an institution's "cost of attendance" if their combination of athletic, academic, and/or state aid (such as Hope or Bright Futures) exceeds that figure.

Thanks for the follow up.

BackstopDad32 posted:

RJM posted:

In the past many thought if the baseball coach didn't have any skin (athletic money) in he game he had nothing to lose with convincing a player to walk on or get other money. As programs are offering verbals earlier and earlier now do people believe a non athletic scholarship player (#28-35) has a better shot now? He could be the late blooming stud who didn't get an offer freshman or soph year.

I also think there are several programs whose strategy to be able to compete at the D1 level is very dependent on institutional dollars and academic aid.  For those schools if they can get a solid player in with no baseball money they aren't really viewed as a walk on even though we would likely define as such. 

Similar to my case...I'm headed to a D2 school. High academics (32 ACT, 4.2 GPA). Went down to camp, he liked, was going to offer but then decided I should try to the school's scholarship competition to see if I could get a large academic package. I'll be going on a full ride..academically, thus taking no money from the baseball program while being more than a "walk-on".