Another scholarship question

an nli is only necessary for new players ... the new rules say min 25% as long as u r on the team ... it could always go up, but never down ...

hope that helps

Bee,

Thanks for the feedback, but a sophmore to be might have signed for less than 25% his freshman year (2007) and under the new rules he is not grandfathered. So technically he could have money taken away, or could be given more money based on performance. I guess that would be the case for junior and seniors to be as well correct?

nutin less than 25% durin school yrs

Bee,

I felt the same way you do and believe me, I'm not trying to argue with you. But after reading this article which touches on that exact subject, and having discussions with 3FingeredGlove, I've come to the conclusion that if you were in school playing baseball at a D1 from 2007 and earlier, you are not entitled to the at least 25% rule.

Here is the article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/04/13/sports/colle...882573f0001a1605.txt

And here is the rule:
15.5.4.1 Minimum Equivalency Value. Effective Date: Aug 01, 2008
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. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08 for student-athletes who initially enroll full time at any four-year collegiate institution on or after August 1, 2008, Revised: 8/9/07)

quote:

A player signs a NLI and receives some form of scholarship money his freshman year in most cases.
Knowing that scholarships are year to year, is a new NLI signed after his freshman year or the beginning of his sophmore year, and is he offered the exact amount of money he received the first year or could he get more or less.

Also, would a player going into his soph, junior or senior year be justified in being upset if his coach did not offer him at least 25% since that's what all incoming freshman will be receiving if their not walk-ons.

that's-a-balk, Bee is correct in saying that the NLI is signed only by new players.

In future years, for 2007 graduates or earlier, schools can reduce or increase scholarship amounts with no penalty. There are many documented cases where schools have cut upperclassmen's scholarships to free up monies for incoming freshmen. Not saying that it's right, but it has been done.

You asked if an upperclassmen would be justified in feeling upset if he did not get at least 25%, now that the rules have changed for incoming freshman. I think in reality, coaches are going to be very prudent in doling out additional monies to existing players. Since they are now required to give minimum 25% schollies to new recruits and they are limited to 11.7 total schollies, they do not have much wiggle room anymore. A 10% player whose scholarship is not increased should not necessarily feel insulted or slighted; the coach may legitimately not have any extra money to hand out.

If the 10% player made a huge contribution to his team during the current season, he might want to talk with the coach to see if additional monies are available. You would hope that a program would find a way to increase a small scholarship for a big contributor.

If the 10% player sees his scholarship reduced to zero, there may be cause for concern.

Good post infield 08.

Although the new 25%+ scholarship limits are for this new class arriving, some coaches adjusted scholarship amounts last year for incoming frosh last fall. That meant giving more or taking away, whichever fit best into their budget. In some cases, some players were told to look elsewhere.

A player who is current should not be upset, my opinion is that if he was a 25%+ player to begin with that is what he would have gotten when he first came.

Now here's one for ya, you might see a lot of redshirt year players not recieve their 5th year money(if they have graduated in 4), if they have not contributed much to the squad.

TPM

Do you have a source for this info about coaches changing money ?---you have been away from the college game for a year now

quote:

Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
The interpretation I heard is that there is no grandfathering...........ALL counters get minimum 25% baseball monies

OS,
In a congratulations email to a friend of mine this morning for making the conference tourney, I posed the question, the 25% minimum rules apply to incoming, due to TAB's confusion is why I asked before I posted as I knew I would get questioned afterwards.

A coach may or may not raise or lower a current player. That I would assume is any coach's discretion based on budget and current players contributions.

If anyone else has better source, I have no problem with sharing, would like others to share theirs as well, but you did state based on your interpretation, which has become quite confusing.

Regardless of anyone being away from the college scene or not, doesn't mean that anyone doesn't keep up with the rules of recruiting.

TPM

Rules are one thing---facts about what is happening are another thing

I do not think you have reliable sources, no disrespect to those who you speak to, and if so how can you pass along information without a basis that is solid and factual

Heck, most college coaches are trying to figure it out but you seem to have all the answers, or so you want to have everyone believe

Does the rule and article I posted earlier clear up the confusion. It did for me. If your 2007 or earlier, you are not required to receive 25%.

quote:

Originally posted by thats-a-balk!:
Does the rule and article I posted earlier clear up the confusion. It did for me. If your 2007 or earlier, you are not required to receive 25%.

You have a pm.

T-A-B ...

Makes sense to me, and I get a headache just imagining how difficult it will be for coaces to get it all straight. Perhaps the NCAA will send accountants to each of the colleges, or at least the conferences, to help them calculate this all.

I just don't understand the intention behind the new mandate ... all players are NOT equal, and I don't believe the distribution of scholarships should be mandated by any organization. I wish sometimes schools would pull out of the NCAA to make a statement, tho I know that is a very radical idea.

quote:

Rules are one thing---facts about what is happening are another thing

I do not think you have reliable sources, no disrespect to those who you speak to, and if so how can you pass along information without a basis that is solid and factual

I don't understand this, TPM said that a coach was consulted before the statement was posted...why would anyone lie about this?
What I've found is that one coach will take it one way another well...differently, it would seem every scrap of information we can get is valuable and to discount one on what you think...let me just ask, do you know TPM's source or is this something else?
I have a kid standing on the brink and every bit of info I can get is helpful...I'll find out if it's baloney along the trail.

jdfromfla,

I can't speak with any knowledge on this topic, but I can tell you that there is someone here who just wants to stir up trouble by insinuating other posters don't have their facts straight. He is looking for a confrontation when he thinks he is correct and feels that he has to win through intimidation. That's hardly convincing in my book.

This sort of behavior devalues any worthwhile information that is presented. I recommend ignoring him and his "advice".

*** Late addition ***
See what I mean?

quote:

I recommend ignoring him and his "advice".

I didn't see anything as far as advise just negative insinuation...I think in this art that all input can potentially prove benificial, so I tend to listen (I can ultimately use common sense to see if it is useful)....I thought being constantly negative on others was the domain of certain guru's and the rest of us were trying to help each other, oh well thanks for the info.

IDK about the banning thing....I think it should be used very juditiously, but if someone goes around just (Without contributing to the discussion at hand) carping because of what a poster said, they should be called on it and lets find out what the problem is and move on (Is there evidence to substantiate that the offended poster has, that the object of their criticism is nefarious, mean spirited or out to get someone...if not, take a big shut the hell up pill and keep your dislikes to yourself)....It may be why this forum doesn't have a ton of kids posting regularly...it is a HS web site after all. Kids can always...ALWAYS tell when things are in the right spirit, they shy away when it isn't.

I don't mean this personally to any one particular person, but things are fairly evident that some folks have some pretty hard feelings towards other folks and little vicious snide remarks tend to show up for no apparent reason...perhaps some motives for posting and participating should be examined...
This is supposed to be about assisting not one upsmanship or dominating for personal reasons.

And I'm nobody in particular...I've got no dog in anyones hunt...I try to share what I know and learn from others I thought that is what this site was intentioned for and hope that my hopes are realized.
I've been a part of some really good discussions with some very seasoned and smart folks and I really am not better than anyone, just am making an observation.

quote:

Kids can always...ALWAYS tell when things are in the right spirit, they shy away when it isn't.

.....true.

quote:

And I'm nobody in particular

Me too.

jdfromfla,

Good post. I agree with what your saying. If someone does perhaps post something that is not correct, correct them if you have correct info. but dont make personal remarks. Sometimes lately Im reading posts and its just ridiculous and has nothing to do with the original post. stick to the subjet at hand. disagree but stop belittiling other posters. I am a nobody too but like the site for info.

I will be more direct.

= = Edited = =

I understand the concerns and frustration with good threads being messed up with insulting posts, but I will ask here that we avoid going any further down that road in this thread.

Several moderators of the site have taken a look at options for keeping things more consistent with the Board Manners (related to the suggestions, comments and concerns that were offered publicly and privately around a recent Moderating Suggestions thread). We do hear you, we have taken some actions, and I think you will see some positive effects in the coming days.

Thank you,

Julie