Colleges' Objections to New NCAA Rules

Well what we have here, is Dorothy, the Lion, Tin man and Scarecrow making their plea to the great and powerful Wizard.

Only the Wizard is, as they later find, a rather weak pathetic figure - who has nevertheless power over the land. The way the NCAA is, as we know!

What does happen to that wizard?

Schools that underfund their baseball programs think they are now at a competitive disadvantage to fully funded schools. SHOCKER!!!

Tulane- Their tuition is expensive, so helping students get in with a book money scholarship is going a long way to lessening the financial burden?

IUPU - Let's do the math...at only one scholarship available if they have to fund a minimum 25%...let's assume they are talking annually, that means the fund a total of 1 baseball scholarship...gee, why should they have a hard time recruiting?

IUPU ... guessing he meant that to comply with the 25% on his existing roster would leave only (1) 25% ride to use on the next freshman class

Tulane (& high tuition type private schools) ... he's saying that some of their players have "means" and could get by (be happy historicly) with less than a 25% ride, allowing coach to allocate $$ to other (high profile) guys who could not/would not make TU work with only a 25% ride

Was that all that objected?

If so seems to me no one really objected.

Good post CPLZ, with only having one scholarship to give away in the first place, I can't see why this would hurt them.

Hey a thought, could the NCAA have pulled off that rule to force the programs that don't fund into funding? Schools that have athletic programs and want some competitive edge need support from their presidents, athletic departments and alumni. Just food for thought.

TPM

Did you read the full report?

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
Tulane (& high tuition type private schools) ... he's saying that some of their players have "means" and could get by (be happy historicly) with less than a 25% ride, allowing coach to allocate $$ to other (high profile) guys who could not/would not make TU work with only a 25% ride

Exactly.

While still showing commitment to the players with "means" by giving them a 'ship, even if token in terms of dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
TPM

Did you read the full report?

yes, it says 38 requests for override. Every school had an opportunity to request an override.

How many D1 schools are there? If the objected why no override?

TPM

I totally forgot--you called you the NCAA and got the answer---I am sorry for my oversight

Write this down---the situation has not been finalized as yet regardless of what the NCAA tells you

TR,
I just posted that I did speak with them which I had done before (posted the same).

What I want to know, and not directed to you, if schools are not happy with the new rules, why are there only 38 overrides and only on the scholarship amounts, that seems to be the issue as that is what was objected to in the last override.

Hey if they change the scholarship percentage, that's ok, but I do not think you will see a change in transfer rules or roster limitations. JMO.

I will defer to you since you have that direct line

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
IUPU ... guessing he meant that to comply with the 25% on his existing roster would leave only (1) 25% ride to use on the next freshman class

Tulane (& high tuition type private schools) ... he's saying that some of their players have "means" and could get by (be happy historicly) with less than a 25% ride, allowing coach to allocate $$ to other (high profile) guys who could not/would not make TU work with only a 25% ride

I don't see where an obligitory gesture to a family of sufficient means should override the central reason for the minimum scholarship rule; that being minute scholarships for overrecruiting schools.

Of all the aspects of the rule changes, I would think roster caps and minimum scholarships would be the ones that actually have a positive result in college baseball. Whereas the transfer rule makes about zero sense for a sport so woefully underfunded.

Although I share many of Polks sentiments regarding the NCAA, this one I'm on the other side of. (and hopefully, sometime soon, my opinion will matter to someone besides me , as I tell my story walkin...)

quote:

by cplz: I don't see where an obligitory gesture to a family of sufficient means should override the central reason for the minimum scholarship rule; that being minute scholarships for overrecruiting schools.

I do see their point ... if historicly a coach knows he can land some guys for say 15%, there's more money he can allocate to other guys that need more to make the commitment happen.

"one size fits all" seldom works well

The best reason why schools didn't complain is that it was obviously a waste of time. Nobody was listening and nobody was going to listen.

Also, some of these rules work against the players but actually work in favor of the programs. There is nobody to speak for the players in that situation.

quote:

some of these rules work against the players but actually work in favor of the programs

True...

On the other hand, programs are now not able to "lock in" players above the 27-counter limit. In the past, they could offer just about all of their recruits at least minimal athletic scholarships (5-15% or books only) and require them to sign a binding NLI. Now, any recruited walk-on receiving no athletic money is free to decommit and sign with another program, should a better offer come along. Even if a non-counter receives a full academic scholarship, he is not legally bound to attend that school since he is getting no athletic money and is not signing an NLI.

Bee,
That defines two different and diametrically opposed uses of the same rule. Those that use it to show some love/commitment, even in a minimal way, and those that use it to tie up a slew of prospects in hopes to conduct fall tryouts.

If there were to be err in this situation, I think they err'd to the greater good. Although far be it from me to claim the NCAA did it by design

Leaning to the side of the argument that says the NCAA didn't wait long enough to allow the APR to ferret out the bad guys, if there were be change, I see this one as having more of the athletes best interest at heart, vs. the institution.

The answer is to make Tulane a valued destination to play ball...then token scholarships won't matter, players will want to be there.

Correct me if I am missing something, but why can't Tulane pony up some non-athletic aid to their needy baseball players? Seems to me the Tulane BB coach should be complaining to his school, not the NCAA.

quote:

Originally posted by batavia:
Correct me if I am missing something, but why can't Tulane pony up some non-athletic aid to their needy baseball players? Seems to me the Tulane BB coach should be complaining to his school, not the NCAA.

My thoughts exactly!

Correct me if I am wrong, but financial aid counts as "team money" unless the student meets strict NCAA requirments.

http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4686003481/...081076801#6081076801

A player might find financial aid but be unable to use due to the 11.7 team limit, unless of course he quits the team! Most coaches are pretty savy to these rules and attempt to use academic money whenever possible.

Texas A & M has the most reasoned, well thought out response, covering all issues, particularly related to "micro managing"...

Texas A&M University, College Station - The establishment of 25% as the minimum award and the limitation of 27 on the
number of counters on athletic aid do not appear to be based on any formal data and is merely an opinion or shot in the dark at
an attempt to improve graduation rates and academic performance rates that are already on the rise without any such
restrictions. Appropriate research would need to include an analysis of all transfer students and the amount of aid each transfer
student-athlete received along with a determination of whether the small amount of scholarship was the reason for departing
the previous institution before adopting any legislation based on this theory. Obviously, not all transfer situations resulted from
insufficient scholarships.
From an APR standpoint it stands to reason that statistically, you would want a larger pool of student-athletes so that the
departure of one student-athlete has less of an impact than the departure of a student-athlete from a smaller pool. In a smaller
cohort, the mistakes or transfers are magnified which could have the opposite effect on the APR than what is desired by the
Association.
The Association's attempt at micro managing the scholarship allocations for baseball and squad size limitations for baseball is
inappropriate. No other NCAA championship sports have such financial aid micro managed by the Association and should not
have such restrictions enacted. Decisions such as the minimum amount of aid to be received and the roster size should be
institutional-level decisions subject to all other considerations such as Title IX requirements.
Additionally, some of the other legislation enacted recently or over the course of the last couple of years (e.g., no term-by-term
financial aid, each term of aid having to be equal amounts, CAP penalty structure, elimination of one-time transfer exception,
requirement that a student-athlete must be eligible at previous institution to receive aid at next institution) should serve as a
catalyst to curb some of the actions that impacted previous APR rates and the Association should allow an appropriate period
of time to impact those institutions who are not meeting the desired thresholds for APR and GSR review. This rush to
implement additional measures only serves to penalize all institutions and take what should be institutional decisions out of the
hands of those that have made appropriate decisions in the past for no reason other than other schools have not acted
appropriately and performed poorly so all must pay the price.
Finally, the arbitrary nature of the 35 squad limit for baseball does not appear to be based on any APR reasons (i.e., walk-ons are
not part of APR cohort) and is only establishing limits on opportunities that once again should be an institutional decision and
not a limit established simply to have a limit. To limit based on a national average is inappropriate because of the discrepancy
that exist in the budget sizes, scholarship allocations and coaching staffs from one institution to another. Those institutions
with smaller budgets and less scholarship numbers will most likely have smaller roster sizes not by choice but by necessity.
Why would squad size limit be established for baseball only and not for other sports if managing the number of walk-ons is of
such importance to the Association. The Association has not established such limits because methods of compliance with
federal laws and how to manage their rosters is an institutional decision.

quote:

Originally posted by CollegeParent:
Correct me if I am wrong, but financial aid counts as "team money" unless the student meets strict NCAA requirments.

http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4686003481/...081076801#6081076801

A player might find financial aid but be unable to use due to the 11.7 team limit, unless of course he quits the team! Most coaches are pretty savy to these rules and attempt to use academic money whenever possible.

Also read and think about this bylaw below. Under the new "proposed" rule changes, up to 27 players can receive baseball grants, and are classified as "counters".

With proper structuring, "quasi-recruiting", the rest can be categorized under this set of rules:

15.5.1.1 No Athletics Aid—Certification Required. A student-athlete (except for a recruited football or
basketball student-athlete) who receives institutional financial aid (as set forth in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) shall not be a counter if there is on file in the office of the athletics director certification by the faculty athletics representative and the director of financial aid that the student-athlete’s financial aid was granted without regard in any degree
to athletics ability.

15.02.3 Counter. A “counter” is an individual who is receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport.
15.02.3.1 Initial Counter. [FBS/FCS] An “initial counter” is a counter who is receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time.

15.02.4 Financial Aid. “Financial aid” is funds provided to student-athletes from various sources to pay or assist in paying their cost of education at the institution. As used in NCAA legislation, “financial aid” includes all
institutional financial aid and other permissible financial aid as set forth below.

15.02.4.1 Institutional Financial Aid. The following sources of financial aid are considered to be institutional financial aid:

(a) All funds administered by the institution, which include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Scholarships;
(2) Grants;
(3) Tuition waivers;
(4) Employee dependent tuition benefits, unless the parent(s) or the legal guardian(s) of a studentathlete has been employed as a full-time faculty/staff member for a minimum of five years

....I know a player that was "recruited", never signed an NLI(non-counter), parent was faculty at the university, full COA paid for under waiver rules, a non-counter, and on the team, does not count against team 11.7 fund.

If the NCAA is now granting teams 7 non-counter designees, don't you think coaches will utilize this "non-recruited" classification, and 7 players will magically show up in the Fall, have documents filed with the AD, receive monies other than baseball, and not be in the equivalency computation as non-counters by RULE ??