Coach Ron Polk:
Unfortunately, the NCAA is not a great fan of our game.
11.7 scholarships is not enough for a roster of 35... Hurts kids, hurts coaches...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
So is the fact that a majority of D1 programs do not fully fund the 11.7 scholarships they have the ability to fund also rest on the NCAA? it's a slippery slope so we need to be honest with ourselves. If every school fully funded all it's scholarships, maybe he would have a sound argument, but right now all I can say is lets focus on getting all institutions to fully fund the 11.7, then we can work on increasing the amount of scholarships available. Agree that being an equivalency sport is a bad deal for the athletes.
I have heard him talk and he has some good points. The 11.7 limit does place restrictions on most of the top third (say 100) and the various state-based scholarships (Georgia and Louisiana come to mind) outside of that limit tends to favor some and put others at a major disadvantage. Not sure anyone is really in a position to promote each D1 program to fully fund as there are a myriad of reasons why this is so and no central argument as to why they should. However, there is an focused argument as to why the NCAA should readdress the limit as well as the other 6 rules that he references.
I am not a fan of Ron Polk. Before restrictions he used to have 45-50 show up and give out uniforms with no intentions of offering them a dime. Then pull the plug end of first semester. He also did that so the players he wanted had a team to practice with.
Want a college scholarship? Hit the books; the NCAA doesn't control those scholarships!
The NCAA is not the autonomous body that everyone seems to think. It is controlled by College Presidents. THEY do not want to increase baseball scholarships because 1/2 to 2/3's of colleges can't afford to fund 11.7, let alone more than that. And if they increased baseball scholarships they would have to increase funding for women's sports by an equal amount. This is a dead issue. Time to stop beating this horse.
MTH posted:The NCAA is not the autonomous body that everyone seems to think. It is controlled by College Presidents. THEY do not want to increase baseball scholarships because 1/2 to 2/3's of colleges can't afford to fund 11.7, let alone more than that. And if they increased baseball scholarships they would have to increase funding for women's sports by an equal amount. This is a dead issue. Time to stop beating this horse.
but football found a way to deal with this disparity- creating FBS and FCS- with separate rules on scholarship limits- I think it's 85 for FBS, and 65 for FCS. I'm guessing that for the most part, FBS schools fully fund baseball today. Would this be an option? Creating a 1A and 1AA in baseball?
I agree that the problem is scholarship funding. However, I've never quite understood this argument. It isn't really like a school has to come up with the cash for extra scholarships. It may cost them a little in terms of instructor-to-student ratios, but basically, they just have to squeeze in a few extra kids into classes. Am I wrong about this? So, the real $$ involved is actually only in terms of book money and R&B. So, how much in real money does it cost for, say 15 extra scholarships across a few sports?
I also would argue that there are too many D1 baseball schools. I would argue for a system that raises the scholarship #'s and makes it a requirement that if you stay D1, you fully fund. Then form a second class - like FCS or the old 1-AA - for schools that don't wish to fully fund.
Under the current system, if you simply raise the scholarship limits, the top 30-40 schools would simply stockpile all of the talent.
roothog66 posted:I agree that the problem is scholarship funding. However, I've never quite understood this argument. It isn't really like a school has to come up with the cash for extra scholarships. It may cost them a little in terms of instructor-to-student ratios, but basically, they just have to squeeze in a few extra kids into classes. Am I wrong about this? So, the real $$ involved is actually only in terms of book money and R&B. So, how much in real money does it cost for, say 15 extra scholarships across a few sports?
I also would argue that there are too many D1 baseball schools. I would argue for a system that raises the scholarship #'s and makes it a requirement that if you stay D1, you fully fund. Then form a second class - like FCS or the old 1-AA - for schools that don't wish to fully fund.
Under the current system, if you simply raise the scholarship limits, the top 30-40 schools would simply stockpile all of the talent.
That's it. The incremental cost is small and no the full value of tuition.
I cant take the NCAA side nor the side of a guy that has the rep like Ron Polk ....but this problem has many sides. If you raise the number of scholarships alone , then the top programs would hoard talent. There must be away to let kids transfer without sitting out to avoid coaches hoarding talent.
One of the best qualities of the system is it allows many smaller programs to compete with the larger ones. I am all in favor of that. Football has a much smaller D1 class but only a fraction of those schools can compete legitimately for a national championship.
Basketball has a pretty good model with a large D1 list of schools but it is much easier to offset charges with revenue for the sport. Talent is spread around more than football as well
But for now we must find creative ways to work within the confines of the present system
roothog66 posted:I agree that the problem is scholarship funding. However, I've never quite understood this argument. It isn't really like a school has to come up with the cash for extra scholarships. It may cost them a little in terms of instructor-to-student ratios, but basically, they just have to squeeze in a few extra kids into classes. Am I wrong about this? So, the real $$ involved is actually only in terms of book money and R&B. So, how much in real money does it cost for, say 15 extra scholarships across a few sports?
I also would argue that there are too many D1 baseball schools. I would argue for a system that raises the scholarship #'s and makes it a requirement that if you stay D1, you fully fund. Then form a second class - like FCS or the old 1-AA - for schools that don't wish to fully fund.
Under the current system, if you simply raise the scholarship limits, the top 30-40 schools would simply stockpile all of the talent.
they kind of do stockpile the talent now don't they? The 11.7 for equity is somewhat of a farce anyway- with some states having state funded "academic" scholarships, reciprocal agreements with neighboring states, not to mention certain private schools funding much more than the 11.7. sorry, we could go way down a rabbit hole here, and as previously mentioned, we can gripe all we want about it, but there doesn't appear to be any momentum at all behind changing it.
pabaseballdad posted:roothog66 posted:I agree that the problem is scholarship funding. However, I've never quite understood this argument. It isn't really like a school has to come up with the cash for extra scholarships. It may cost them a little in terms of instructor-to-student ratios, but basically, they just have to squeeze in a few extra kids into classes. Am I wrong about this? So, the real $$ involved is actually only in terms of book money and R&B. So, how much in real money does it cost for, say 15 extra scholarships across a few sports?
I also would argue that there are too many D1 baseball schools. I would argue for a system that raises the scholarship #'s and makes it a requirement that if you stay D1, you fully fund. Then form a second class - like FCS or the old 1-AA - for schools that don't wish to fully fund.
Under the current system, if you simply raise the scholarship limits, the top 30-40 schools would simply stockpile all of the talent.
they kind of do stockpile the talent now don't they? The 11.7 for equity is somewhat of a farce anyway- with some states having state funded "academic" scholarships, reciprocal agreements with neighboring states, not to mention certain private schools funding much more than the 11.7. sorry, we could go way down a rabbit hole here, and as previously mentioned, we can gripe all we want about it, but there doesn't appear to be any momentum at all behind changing it.
I think raising the number of scholarships but keeping the counters the same would help somewhat in closing the gap you mentioned as it relates to the state funded scholarship programs. Maybe bump it up to 15, keep total counters at 27 and move the minimum up to 35%. Folks like Vandy and Stanford simply cannot put more players on their team and someone like LSU may not lose many kids for lack of scholarship money (too much state money available for decent grades), so those schools would not benefit greatly. What this would do is possibly allow more talented kids to choose baseball if they can routinely get 50%+ of costs coverered - versus going the D1 football or basketball route where you get 100%, and maybe a stipend on the side, even if you come in as a third string player.
pabaseballdad posted:roothog66 posted:I agree that the problem is scholarship funding. However, I've never quite understood this argument. It isn't really like a school has to come up with the cash for extra scholarships. It may cost them a little in terms of instructor-to-student ratios, but basically, they just have to squeeze in a few extra kids into classes. Am I wrong about this? So, the real $$ involved is actually only in terms of book money and R&B. So, how much in real money does it cost for, say 15 extra scholarships across a few sports?
I also would argue that there are too many D1 baseball schools. I would argue for a system that raises the scholarship #'s and makes it a requirement that if you stay D1, you fully fund. Then form a second class - like FCS or the old 1-AA - for schools that don't wish to fully fund.
Under the current system, if you simply raise the scholarship limits, the top 30-40 schools would simply stockpile all of the talent.
they kind of do stockpile the talent now don't they?
No they don't, IMO. They used to, that's why only 27 players on scholarship are allowed, 35 man roster max. There is so much more parity in baseball now than before these changes.
The difference is that programs don't fully fund their programs and their athletic programs don't raise their budgets for non revenue sports. Money spent is based on COA, I am not sure why many programs don't fully fund. This should be a mandatory requirement but the NCAA can't tell programs how to spend their money.
Bumping up the limit could hurt gains in parity made. Programs like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc have millions in endowments they use to supplement scholarships. It isn't money or # of scholarships limiting them but admission requirements.
JMO
TPM posted:I am not a fan of Ron Polk. Before restrictions he used to have 45-50 show up and give out uniforms with no intentions of offering them a dime. Then pull the plug end of first semester. He also did that so the players he wanted had a team to practice with.
I'm no expert on this subject but your posts are always insightful.