increased scholarship allotments

I am speaking from "educated ignorance" here, but INCREASING the max could result in the rich getting richer. In I-A football, and in Mens hoops, when the scholly totals were REDUCED, it helped bring about more parity to the respective sports. The problem will remain that you will continue to have many schools that give baseball the shaft in scholly amounts and they will have even more problems in recruiting athletes, when compared to the "rich."

JT,

Are you really suggesting, in the interest of parity, that schollys should be actually be reduced for baseball? That's not bound to be a popular argument here considering every parent of a college bound baseball player could reap substantial benefits if the schollys were increased.

One problem with your argument is that the so-called poor schools that you're trying to protect will likely continue to do nothing more that what they do now to increase their program's viability. Where's the incentive to change? If nothing is done, won't things likely stay the same? The rich always get richer, until they get complacent. The best programs will continue to attract the best players. That hasn't changed in the other two sports mentioned either.

Also, you’re comparing an equivalency sport to major sports that offer full rides to most recruits. How does that comparison hold up when you've got a big majority of expenses born by the baseball athlete? If the athletes were faced with even greater expense, how many would stick it out? Probably the richest would, or those looking at a big payday when they sign, and also the most dedicated. How does that help the poorer schools stay competitive?

I can see how MLB would likely not support the increase, as it would probably drive up the cost of signing a high school draftee if he had a better scholarship in his back pocket. That’s MLB's problem to deal with.

Perhaps the biggest problem facing the NCAA currently is that schools cannot afford to recruit the poorest baseball players based on what limited equivalencies are available, much less keep the players in program for 4 years.

With all due respects, and in light of the recent CWS with 2 first time schools in the championship, I think parity is the least of NCAA baseball's problems right now.

Maybe someone can educate me on the how schools, mainly in the South, where the State sponsors a tuition program to those students who qualify use the scholarship numbers. I seem to remember reading that there were issues, and if it is a benefit will an increased scholly # help them even more?

If those state scholarships are academically based, then they're not counted towards a school's 11.7.

quote:

Maybe someone can educate me on the how schools, mainly in the South, where the State sponsors a tuition program to those students who qualify use the scholarship numbers. I seem to remember reading that there were issues, and if it is a benefit will an increased scholly # help them even more?

You're probably referring to Georgia's Hope scholarship program. Some one from the Peach state can chime in here...but I believe any GA resident with a 3.0 GPA qualifies for tuition and fee waiver at any publicly funded state school and up to $3000 per year at provate colleges.

quote:

If those state scholarships are academically based, then they're not counted towards a school's 11.7

This is only true if the athlete gets athletic money as well and meets one of the 4 NCAA criteria for "blending":
3.5 core GPA
Top 10% of class
105 ACT Sum (4 part)
1200 SAT (verbal/ math)

Where the Hope schorship and others like it tip the balance is for the athlete that doesn't meet the NCAA criteria but qualifies for the state money. In this case any student, athlete or not, is only on the hook for room and board, and need based money may cover part or all of this.
Meanwhile the coach uses zero equivalency money.

I was told that this is how it works in Tennessee:

Any resident of Tennessee and a graduate of a Tennessee High School (public or private) that has a 3.0 gpa will receive $3800.00 to attend a Tennessee four year public or private college/university. The only problem is that the student must maintain the 3.0 in college to continue to receive the money and most students loose the state financial support after their 1st or 2nd year in college.

Spizzle. In no way am I advocating a reduction, and would love to see an increase, however, I am just pointing out that those schools who fund, say 5-6 in D-I (including at least one who made the show with a 5.4 this year), might NOT increase their current amount to keep pace. Thus, the increased competitive distortion.

I agree with JT. Increasing scholarships has generally reduced parity in college sports. His example of I-A football is a good one. Basketball is yet another...there is much more parity than ever before in college basketball with reduced scholarship numbers compared to the 1970s.

But lets consider baseball. Given more scholarships, some of the 'factory' schools will suck more kids into their program for their 'fall tryouts.' This also reduces the number of kids available for the mid-level schools because we all know that if you're kid has a chance for a scholarship at State U. (national power) versus one at Little U. (regional D1 school), he will take the national power scholarship...which may not be best for him and is certainly not best for parity.

I sort of hate to admit this...but I think things are pretty good as they are right now. College baseball has more parity than 10 years ago. The kids that want to go direct to pro baseball do...most of the other 'best' players find a place in college ball somewhere. I think we can sometimes get caught up in "if there were just 2-3 more scholarships per program, my son could get there." Your son can get there as it is now...just may not be to the top-25 powerhouse you had dreamed about.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
But lets consider baseball. Given more scholarships, some of the 'factory' schools will suck more kids into their program for their 'fall tryouts.' This also reduces the number of kids available for the mid-level schools because we all know that if you're kid has a chance for a scholarship at State U. (national power) versus one at Little U. (regional D1 school), he will take the national power scholarship....

I see your point, and it certainly makes sense. But I'm not sure I'm buying into the football and basketball scholly analogy. Even though those sports reduced their scholarship #'s, the ratio is higher than it is in baseball. For example, in football, they are allowed to give out 85 scholarships, yet only about 23 - 25 or so play on a given Saturday. In basketball, there are 13 scholarships but only 8 - 10 (guess) play in a given game. But in baseball, the scholarship allocation (11.7) is pretty close to the number of players used in a game.

But on the flip side, how many D1 basbeall programs aren't fully funded compared to football or basketball?

Beezer - Good point...you're making me think (hard to do early in the morning ).

I would say in football and basketball the following would apply. Lets take basketball (easier to argue because of the smaller numbers). I think in the 1970s you could award 15 schollys for men's basketball (what are they at now...12? 13?). So if I'm the UNC or UK or UCLA coach, I get my 10 guys that I really want...but take my chance on the next 5. Two pan out, 3 don't for that level (top-20). But those 3 could have played at Little U. and perhaps been stars.. and thus raised the bar overall for college basketball.

More importantly, I think today the number 8-15 guys from past recruiting years are headed to Medium U. (e.g. George Mason) and with some development and a few surprises are making them near-national powers.

And lastly...I am told (but have no proof) that if given enough scholarships, some schools will recruit players just to keep them away from their rivals...even though they don't have any place for them. Example might be the 4th string QB at a USC, Texas, etc... who could've been the starter at Arizona or Washington State or Fresno State. Smaller scholarship numbers help prevent that if its indeed true.

This is a very interesting discussion. I can see the logic that says with fewer scholarships that college baseball as a whole may benefit since the talent may be more evenly distributed. That argument may possibly be based on a faulty premise however.

The premise is that a player who gets a scholarship at at powerhouse versus a simlar scholarship from another school will choose the powerhouse. It seems to me that we tell people on this site all the time to do your homework. Part of that homeowrk involves playing time.

If there were all-american's playing in your position, it seems to me like that could be a pretty big disincentive not to attend that school. Granted, the coach could tell you that you would be given a chance to start and they love your talent, but how realistic would that be if they already had very productive players at your position. Sure there are going to be kids with stars in their eyes who will jump at the big school offering, but a counter argument is that more scholarships also enable more opportunties at the lower-ranked schools thus benefitting more people. I have no idea if this makes any sense

JT.
Sorry if I misread your intent. I'll be the first to admit to having a big time bias towards an increase, primarily because it could benefit me. It just doesn't seem right to me that baseball athletes (and their parents) have to shoulder such a large economic burden when compared to athletes in those other sports mentioned.
It also seems a bit counter-intuitive to ponder smaller schools dictating how much overall is allocated on scholarships. I'm no econmics expert, but if DI baseball revenues are up overall as I would assume, then all schools and their baseball programs should be putting at least some of those monies towards more schollys. If they're not, then that's their bad. An increase seems in order, and parity should not suffer.
But the other issue remains...if you don't extend more schollys, the poorest kids, many of them ethnic minorities, will continue to be left out of college baseball.

JB - I agree with you...and think we're pretty much on the same page. But in the basketball and football examples, the number of scholly exceed what they actually need but in baseball, it's even, if that. So you can decrease the number of football and basketball schollys and still have enough to field a team. If you decrease the number of baseball schollys, you don't.

Not to veer off course (slightly) but what about a scholarship reduction for schools who don't use their allotment? Granted, you can't force an institution to fully fund a program but I don't think it's "fair" for them to whine about the bigger baseball factories when they're not even funding what they've got.

Just thinking out loud here.

Here is a novel approach--increase the scholly amounts but make baseball a "head count" sport, such as volleyball or hoops. This means that you can only have "x" number of players on scholly at a given time--and a 25% scholly counts the same as a full-ride. If you increase the limit, to say, 14, but only allow 30 to be on money, then you would get your parity. Or even the 27 T&F as a MAX, and use 27 as the "head count."

A few more thoughts...

1. Title IX plays into this whole equation...not sure of the exact mechanics of it, but I believe if they increase baseball, they must either increase a women's sport or decrease some other men's sport...or in worst case, some schools will drop baseball (e.g. U. Oregon). So be careful what you ask for.

2. Beezer - I am absolutely not for reducing baseball scholarships...I'm just suggesting that it might be at the right level now. I do believe too much increase will tip the parity scale towards the big programs...and possibly hurt some kids who should be at a mid or smaller program.

3. ClevelandDad - No doubt some kids and parents have the wisdom to accurately assess their son's ability and get him to the right place. But many do not. I'm not even sure that I do/did? Everyone has a dream...Miami, Fullerton, Stanford, UNC, etc... If that dream arrives at your front door, most will take it. Even if the coach says, "you're my number 14 scholarship guy," a good player will assume he can prove that he belongs. And why not? He might do just that! I know a fair number of kids who did that.

4. sizzle - D1 baseball revenues are up...but I'm not sure it relates directly to this question...see my other comments.

I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting a reduction....just used that as an example.

Beezer - not a problem at all.

But one other thing:

5. Poor/disadvantaged kids - I think this should usually not be an issue. Most colleges have substantial financial aid to these kids and I'm pretty sure baseball programs utilize this to add to their recruiting classes. Stanford just recently announced a program whereby they will not charge 1 cent to kids from families below a certain income (maybe $40K?). They've (along with other schools) always had substantial financial aid programs based on need. A kid I used to coach, no father, mother very ill and nearly no income is there now at nearly no cost.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
A few more thoughts...

1. Title IX plays into this whole equation...not sure of the exact mechanics of it, but I believe if they increase baseball, they must either increase a women's sport or decrease some other men's sport...or in worst case, some schools will drop baseball (e.g. U. Oregon). So be careful what you ask for.

You're absolutely right and that works the other way too (if they add women's scholarships, they have to add men's). But I'm wondering how they came up with the numbers and if they adjust them over a certain period of time? Currently, in Div 1, there are 206.9 scholarships allowed in men's sports and 173.1 in women's sports.

Are those numbers based on the athlete population? If so when? When the population numbers change, do the allocation numbers change as well?

just-
You're talking about a very small percentage now, kids that are academically gifted and a minority. I'm referring to a greater need. You don't think that the cost of sending a kid to school for baseball is a factor?
I wanna live in your world too.

Hopefully you don't assume I meant Stanford as the only option for need-based aid. And Stanford's policy has nothing to do with minorities as far as I know.

There are many other avenues for underpriveleged kids who want to go to college...who are not 'gifted' academically...but probably good academically as you should be to attend college.

Still, even if that is a problem and you want to go to college, in our state, the JC route works very well.

You probably do live in my world (although at times it isn't a world you'd really want to live in )...you just don't know it yet. There are many opportunities out there if you want to look for them.

JT, I love your idea of a head count. That's an easy fix to the parity problem, the one that never existed IMHO. Could it really be that easy?

JustBaseball, I just can't buy the argument that a Tempe State U might use thier additional allotment to stockpile players and keep them from signing at Nogales Tech. Maybe in football, but I think most baseball players will agree with ClevelandDad. They aren't going to sign just to sit and rot at a premier baseball school.

And as far as minority athletes go, forget about need-based aid for just a minute (this thread was never meant to be about that), and lets consider black athletes. Why do you think they're not choosing baseball? I know this topic has been discussed in other threads, but it does pertain to the scholarship issue.

Just, it may not be such much the hope of just "getting there" but rather the goal of being rewarded, with merit-based athletic scholarships for the dedication required to play at that level. I'm talking about creating more opportunities. I ask you, what is wrong with that notion?

Maybe I should rephrase my point for you by asking, why is a full ride viable for basketball benchwarmers and 3rd string football players, but not for a starting pitcher?

Look, I'm a parent of an invited walk-on at a top 25 program. He was recruited by other schools too, and he chose this path because it felt right to him. But he also found out late that the program was short of scholly's due to an APR penalty. He also knows now that he'll likely spend 10 years paying off his student loans. His choice, but if he were a third string wide-out it wouldn't be a problem. All I'm saying is that there are many others out there like him that deserve more than help with books.

spizzle,

You have a PM

quote:

All I'm saying is that there are many others out there like him that deserve more than help with books.

I can't agree with this. If we all truly received what we deserve then I shudder to imagine what many of us might be dealing with in life. Baseball/football/basketball - none of these players deserve fee waivers for college tuition. Some of them earn fee waivers based on university policy.

Full disclosure - after observing the Ivy League athletic practices I find that I tend to agree with the athletic scholarship policies of Patriot, Ivy, & D3 schools. It is healthier for the schools and the students. Emphasize the education and the student, using athletics to round out the college experience.

DBG

Check out the real world---it is all around you

Ladies & Gents,

Have we ever tried to help the "middle class" student/atletes and their families. If the NCAA would change the rule to 25 tuition & fee scholarships it would allow more students to attend the private universities in this country. Schools such as TCU, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc... have good programs now but it's difficult for middle class families to pay 20,000.00 + (50% scholarship) each year for education if they have other kids in college. Let's not forget that this is after tax dollars that you pay tuition with. By changing the rule to tuition and fees everyone is going to be paying close to the same thing with room & board at both public and private schools being close to equal. The low income families will receive help from the government and the wealthy families don't need the help. Ask yourself how families in the 50 to 75k range can afford to pay 20k+ for college. Let's not talk the talk but but walk the walk by trying to level the playing field while helping middle class families at the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by dbg_fan:
I tend to agree with the athletic scholarship policies of Patriot, Ivy, & D3 schools. It is healthier for the schools and the students.

If you take scholarships away from major football and basketball programs, do you still think it's healthier for the schools?

quote:

If you take scholarships away from major football and basketball programs, do you still think it's healthier for the schools?

This is getting way off topic now. I didn't intend to hijack the thread. But sure, there are plenty of schools that are quite successful that do not have the enormous athletic budgets & programs. I guess it really depends on what your priorities are. In my list, academic achievement ranks higher than athletics. Athletics is fleeting. Knowledge lasts a lifetime.

quote:

If we all truly received what we deserve then I shudder to imagine what many of us might be dealing with in life.

The HORROR

quote:

Originally posted by spizzlepop:
And as far as minority athletes go, forget about need-based aid for just a minute (this thread was never meant to be about that), and lets consider black athletes. Why do you think they're not choosing baseball? I know this topic has been discussed in other threads, but it does pertain to the scholarship issue.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with this. I have some direct experience with this issue...there are many factors for this phenomenon...of which scholarship allotments is a minor one. I could write a lot about this...but I don't have the time right now.

quote:

Originally posted by dbg_fan:
In my list, academic achievement ranks higher than athletics. Athletics is fleeting. Knowledge lasts a lifetime.

I agree 110% and academics are priorities in our house as well. Case in point, our oldest (daughter) just graduated with a 4.3 (4.0) scale and the next in line (8th grade) is a straight A student as well.

But OUR priorities for our children are completely different than those of a college president and the board. He has a college to run, classrooms to fill, alumni to satisfy, etc. Adding a few baseball scholarships wont adversely affect the daily operations of a college.

Getting back on topic.....Does anybody know the answer to my questions on Pg 1? They were: Are those numbers based on the athlete population? If so when? When the population numbers change, do the allocation numbers change as well?

anytime anyone says gets great grades, take them seriously, as it gives a college coach more resources.

"I like your kid, but I have no money to give"

Give them an out. What a tough gig!! I suppose they all need a CPA(for hire ) to whittle through this.

Roster fit/money fit/needs!!

What I will say is being frank and open, and honest is the best route.

I keep telling my son (who aspires to play in college) that his grades are the most important recruiting tool.

Grades are EXTREMELY important. Without the grades JT, Jr got in HS there is no way we could afford "the college of his choice/the college that chose him." A 1/3 academic scholly a year goes a long way in a private university.

The downside with good grades is that better schools are more interested. The schools recruiting Lil Beezerette started at about $35k ( ). Luckily, they also gave her VERY nice academic schollys to make it "reasonable" (LOL). Even more luckily, she got a D1 scholly. But her academic record was part of the attraction there too.

I don't think things are going to change with increased scholarships for baseball. And if it does, it would not mean more players, as the NCAA only allows for so many on an active roster and so many for travel rosters.

As you all know non revenue sports have to continually rely on revenue sports. If you are looking where the money is, it can be found at schools that have big football programs. This money manages to trickle down to other sports. Also, schools that get huge amounts of money from their alumni have more money to spend, alumni giving helps off set costs for athletes and facilities. This in turn enhances their programs. Many programs can and will help defray some costs. For example at UF, sons meals during season would have been provided by a small piece of an annual 75M athletic budget. At some schools it helps to cover housing costs, books, meals, equipment, even down to the cup!
You may not realize it, but it does. And if a bi school with a decent footbll program wants your son and claims there is no money, I wouldn't believe it. Hope this makes sense.
CD,
What you say makes sense. And we have discussed, that the powerhouse is not always the BEST choice for an opportunity to play.

JBB,
Waiting for the book!


Beezer,
Correct, a recruits best asset are his grades.