Putting aside all the non-baseball considerations and just focusing on the baseball - would appreciate help with the pros and cons of the baseball experience at an Ivy from folks who have been through it. Thanks.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
DST: To answer your inquiry, it's really hard to not focus somewhat on the "non-baseball considerations" of playing in the Ivy League. The job network, the brand name of the league/degree are second to none. Son had chance to play for "Big State U" (top 25 program), but opted for Ivy League. His thought was that he worked so hard to achieve what he did in high school (academically), that he didn't want to sell himself short in selecting where to attend college. The decision is definitely a "40 year" not 4 year choice.
Baseball-wise:
Pros:
1) Small rosters allow for great opportunities for freshman to play and contribute early on.
2) Possibility for a student-athlete to earn a STEM degree while playing baseball (Son graduated with a degree in chemical engineering). In IVY league, Monday is often an off-day/players can workout. Monday marked a day son took a number of his labs.
3) Great rivalries where teams have been played against each other for over 100 years +
4) Awesome spring trips against ranked opponents. Players excited to play in warm weather and in front of big crowds. Upset wins are great!
5) Playing in IVY League still allows the chance to make NCAA tourney. Ivy league has an automatic bid.
6) Playing IVY league baseball doesn't diminish chance of being drafted MLB. The league has players drafted most years.
Cons:
1) Weather in Northeast/New England can be cool for early games.
2) Some early non-league area games may get cancelled if snow still on field!
3) Disappointed how pandemic was handled (Nearly 2 seasons cancelled). Son graduated before so wasn't affected (fortunately).
4) Fairly small crowds in league, often friends, family of players, and a couple of "locals"
These are thought off top of my head.
What Ripken said....
Ripken has seen it all. Follow his yellow brick road.... If Ivy doesn't work typically the likes of Georgetown, Bucknell, Holy Cross, Nescacs, JHopkins, Swat...will be the other coaches at all the Ivy Camps. This provides great plan B options.
Also: if your son is a position player, get him to the Ivy weekend camps his incoming Jr summer/fall. They need to see reps with all coaching eyes on him. If your son is a Pitcher being seen at Showball/HFirst or big tournaments will suffice. Further: having your son ask which tourney's or showcases they'll be at is a key question. As well as relaying his schedule to them if they indicate some level of interest. I recall all the Ivy coaches being at the PG WWBA around 4th July timeframe...it's been a while...but they were all there
@Gov posted:Ripken has seen it all. Follow his yellow brick road.... If Ivy doesn't work typically the likes of Georgetown, Bucknell, Holy Cross, Nescacs, JHopkins, Swat...will be the other coaches at all the Ivy Camps. This provides great plan B options.
Also: if your son is a position player, get him to the Ivy weekend camps his incoming Jr summer/fall. They need to see reps with all coaching eyes on him. If your son is a Pitcher being seen at Showball/HFirst or big tournaments will suffice. Further: having your son ask which tourney's or showcases they'll be at is a key question. As well as relaying his schedule to them if they indicate some level of interest. I recall all the Ivy coaches being at the PG WWBA around 4th July timeframe...it's been a while...but they were all there
Almost all of them were in Arizona for the 17U Fall Classic in late Sept.
Thanks, particularly Ripken Fan. Really appreciate it.
To add to Ripkenfan's post, Ivy position player recruiting for 2024 is happening right now. Several have already committed. By the time the summer before senior year rolls around most Ivies will have a full class or just looking for another arm or two.
Ripken provided a pretty good synopsis.
I'll add:
Cons
• An Ivy player will not play beyond the first playoff round
• Ivy players get no special treatment (no priority class registration, no special tutors, no special dorms, food)
• limited amount of SWAG (extra gloves, cleats)
• fewer number of coaches
• because of the single slot going to an Ivy for the playoffs, outside pressures on a coach are less and that pressure (e.g., to be ranked) doesn't filter down to players (I would say the atmosphere is much more relaxed than at a true contender for a national title)
• players with pro-aspirations will need to find more internal motivation as most of their teammates aspire (after a few years) for Investment banking or consulting careers and aren't singularly focused on a baseball career.
Pros
• absolutely no penalty applied by proball for playing in the Ivy
• if a player wants (and most do for at least a few years), all summer leagues are within reach (my son played in Northwoods and the Cape [his rising senior year, he interned at MLB in New York doing economic analysis])
• a strong network of player alumni (e.g., see who is the GM of Texas) which come in handy from time to time
• the league rules about recruiting means that no matter how difficult the prior year, the player will start with a clean slate the next year (i.e., no portal, no roster size issues pushing him off the roster)
• a player has longer to develop (I have stories).
But if you're looking for anyone to tell you the stands rock like at Clemson, LSU or the like, that's not going to happen.
If you are one of the 56ish players who get an offer each year, you have earned a winning lottery ticket. A winning lottery ticket should be cashed.
There are no real downsides to playing for an Ivy.
@DroppedStrikeThree posted:Putting aside all the non-baseball considerations and just focusing on the baseball - would appreciate help with the pros and cons of the baseball experience at an Ivy from folks who have been through it. Thanks.
As others have subtlety noted, the point is you can't separate the Ivy education from the Ivy athletics. They go together like no other D1 experience in my opinion. It is what makes the Ivy experience different, and it is about balance...the ying and the yang if you will. The conference makes specific allowances in their charter for limiting travel, travel time, number of games, practice times, etc... There are reasons for all of it.
Great posts by others and I'm in total agreement with Ripken, Goosegg, and others about their Ivy pros and cons lists. Additionally, I'd like to call attention to your son's relationship with his (potential) Ivy position coach. That relationship is so important because of the academic demands and the need to get the baseball work done. This was my son's experience, and I'm not going out on a limb here to say probably others as well. His position coach bent over backwards to help my son get his baseball work done while my son juggled his academic schedule which always included engineering labs and working part time at an on campus particle accelerator. His position coach was a major part of his success on the field and in the classroom. Again, you can't separate the two.
As always, JMO.
My son's HC (and the rest of the coaches) were totally in harmony in that student-athlete balance.
Specific example: practice during mid-terms IN-SEASON was "voluntary." In this context, "voluntary" meant "no team or scheduled practice." Players would hop down to the field/indoor facility to get in their reps, pens, BP at all hours. Several of the pitchers were "chronic throwers" - multiple full pens weekly. It was not unusual for the HC to be catching pens past midnight during mid-terms. (Did the team look sharp in the weeks following mid-terms? Heck no; fly balls were adventures, bunting was awful, etc.! But, for the pitchers [my primary interest], all got quality time with the HC during those solo sessions. The chronic throwers all went pro - two made it all the way!)
This is great. Thanks all.
I'll add another positive. No ridiculously long TRAVEL for midweek games. Most Ivies have nearby neighborhood rivals or fellow D1s that are a bus ride away. That was not the case for a bigger (and ranked) program son was offered and somewhat considered. Their conference was really spread out geographically requiring several plane trips (and more missed classes).
I'll add another few items - but can only speak to Princeton (others chime in about other schools):
Until league play begins, every game, every year, is an audition/chance to earn more playing time. This is particularly true about the spring trip, where every player got multiple chances. Players who performed moved up the depth chart, others moved down. Every year the slate is wiped clean.
Because no athletic scholarships are available, EVERY player is essentially a recruited walk-on. The coach has no more sunk/invested in one player or another so PT decisions are truly based on what the coach sees in the present - not what he saw in the past and hopes to recapture.
Because no athletic or academic scholarships are available, a kid can leave the team ANYTIME AND remain in school. The players remain on the team because - for whatever reason - each wants to be on the team (regardless of playing time). The lack of attrition - much less transferring out - is a credit to the program (a player could be admitted, then simply decide not to play) and a coach who needs to be very, very sure of the player's desire to be on the team - regardless of that player's future college baseball success.
I personally think the pure baseball pressures are less on each player when compared to a P5 program; this allows a player to more fully experience a true college experience - but thru the lense of a D1 athlete. Academics, partying, drinking, girl friends, dining clubs (a version of social clubs), summer internships and more, can all be experienced to their fullest.
Players are assigned a first year roommate randomly from all incoming freshman (like in prison, as my son once put it). After that, players choose roommates; my son never roomed with another athlete.
(And, for the players not going to proball, the students will have their post-graduation jobs by the end of first semester senior year [apart from those going to grad school]. They spend the rest of their senior year writing a full year, bound, original research paper under the supervision of a full professor.)
Despite the best efforts to take fluff courses, the players do some serious learning. (I'm NOT saying all the profs are good instructors; I'm saying that the system is structured so that every student learns how to learn [not necessarily a pretty looking process initially]. So, my son took Astronomy (aka Rocks for Jocks) and coin collecting; surprise (!) they were legit courses. He did better in Econometrics (a math heavy course), than Astronomy.)
Ivy League may soon be able to award scholarships. (Not sure they want to change tradition. Here's 2 links:
I read those articles - without any legal knowledge in that area - as saying the LEAGUE cannot agree amongst themselves to not offer atheltic scholarships. It's clear that no single school can be forced to fund athletic scholarships (because there are lots which don't fund baseball or only a few).
What's the actual effect on an Ivy if a few teams had athletic scholarships? FA cannot be combined with athletic scholarships; every family at 200k gets a free ride. If the AS offered is 25% that family would need be in the 300k+ bracket to benefit (and if multiple kids are in college, even higher).
So, first these scholarships would ONLY go to the very wealthy. Second, no kid would take a sum less than FA gives. (The thought that FA is awarded every year based upon updated financials is true; news flash: that's what athletic scholarships are.)
I don't understand where it gets a player? Only the really well off would get more than FA already gives.
A decision (as a result of a lawsuit or voluntary) to offer AS' gets a player where? I could even imagine players winding up in a worse position.
@Ripken Fan posted:Ivy League may soon be able to award scholarships. (Not sure they want to change tradition. Here's 2 links:
Interesting theories but I'm not buying it. Not by a long shot. One big reason...money. These are private schools that run a franchise business in education and dabble in athletics because it can enrich the educational experience of their students and their bottom lines. Their collective endowments are staggering.
These schools have enormous participation in men's and women's athletics compared to other schools at any NCAA division level....sponsoring 34 sports average per school, the highest number of any NCAA conference, with more than 8,000 student-athletes competing annually (straight off their website). Many athletic teams are funded jointly by the schools and privately. Participation is off the charts.
Currently, the NCAA has been rendered spineless and toothless which has left each conference to make its own business decisions going forward. If the going gets tough they'll just jettison themselves from the NCAA, and play by their own rules or create some new model that fits their purposes. I'm no legal scholar (or scholar of any type!), but the minute you take federal govt money you open yourself up to issues. They have enough pennies saved up over the years (gaining interest as we write & read) that they don't have to involve themselves in federal funding.
Athletics is a secondary consideration (at best) among these schools and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
As always, JMO.
Very interesting discussion. Complex but extremely insightful into how the Ivies and HA colleges operate.
From a different source -
"The Supreme Court has barred the NCAA from imposing limits on financial education benefits for athletes...it took the NCAA only about two weeks after that decision to reverse a long-standing policy against college athletes receiving money outside of their athletic scholarships".
"...the Ivy League schools have been able since 1994 ... to agree to decline to offer merit awards of any type—for academic excellence, musical talent, debate skills, athletic performance, or any other ability—and give scholarships based solely on the student’s financial situation. In other words, to do precisely what the Supreme Court has just told the NCAA it now cannot do for athletes."
*****
The legal carveout that allowed the Ivies and other HA colleges to offer only need-based aid expired on 9/30/2022 after 28 years. It is unlikely to be renewed.
Which means the Ivies are now open to legal liability related to collusion over NOT offering athletic scholarships.
In other words, @Goosegg the Ivies and other HA colleges no longer have the legal cover to say FA can't be combined with athletic or merit scholarships.
@fenwaysouth posted:Interesting theories but I'm not buying it. Not by a long shot. One big reason...money. These are private schools that run a franchise business in education and dabble in athletics because it can enrich the educational experience of their students and their bottom lines. Their collective endowments are staggering.
These schools have enormous participation in men's and women's athletics compared to other schools at any NCAA division level....sponsoring 34 sports average per school, the highest number of any NCAA conference, with more than 8,000 student-athletes competing annually (straight off their website). Many athletic teams are funded jointly by the schools and privately. Participation is off the charts.
Currently, the NCAA has been rendered spineless and toothless which has left each conference to make its own business decisions going forward. If the going gets tough they'll just jettison themselves from the NCAA, and play by their own rules or create some new model that fits their purposes. I'm no legal scholar (or scholar of any type!), but the minute you take federal govt money you open yourself up to issues. They have enough pennies saved up over the years (gaining interest as we write & read) that they don't have to involve themselves in federal funding.
Athletics is a secondary consideration (at best) among these schools and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
As always, JMO.
From someone who spends way too much timing researching this stuff -
This time is different.
The SCOTUS ruling that lead to NIL has opened up Pandora's box.
- Agree that the NCAA is on its way to becoming a paper tiger.
- It does seem likely that each conference will be left to set their own rules for each sport, including how (headcount/equivalency) and how much much to fund each sport, the number of allowable coaches, etc. I've even heard that some conferences may head towards unlimited scholarships, specifically for baseball.
- But unfortunately for the Ivies, the Section 568 carveout was based on the premise that each college has a finite pot of money for financial aid; with $7Bn-$35Bn in endowments, this is clearly not true. So the huge balance sheets accumulated by many HA universities over decades now work against them - this is one key reason why Section 568 won't be renewed.
- Impossible for the Ivies not to take Federal money. There's not only Pell grants and the like, but there's also a load of federally-funded research that goes on at these schools.
An easier path would be for the Ivies to all become D3s (although that's no guarantee either, as there is building legal pressure on D3s as well), or just wait until they get sued and try to come up with another reason to restrict aid.
Or maybe - Just. Offer. Merit. And. Athletic. Scholarships. To. Deserving. Students.
If I were advising, I'd take that - it's the cheapest alternative since most of the kids playing are getting full rides anyway. As for merit aid, good luck distinguishing one student more deserving then another.
It's simply easier to give everyone free tuition - it's now a rounding error in their endowments. I think that's where each Ivy will go - free tuition to all admitted students. Then 100k, 200k, 300k, applications for 1800 slots.
Actually a good thing, I think, for education as it may put pressure on others with endowments to do something about tuition as they see their apps spiking and can get even more and crazier more selective.
@SpeedDemon posted:From someone who spends way too much timing researching this stuff -
This time is different.
The SCOTUS ruling that lead to NIL has opened up Pandora's box.
- Agree that the NCAA is on its way to becoming a paper tiger.
- It does seem likely that each conference will be left to set their own rules for each sport, including how (headcount/equivalency) and how much much to fund each sport, the number of allowable coaches, etc. I've even heard that some conferences may head towards unlimited scholarships, specifically for baseball.
- But unfortunately for the Ivies, the Section 568 carveout was based on the premise that each college has a finite pot of money for financial aid; with $7Bn-$35Bn in endowments, this is clearly not true. So the huge balance sheets accumulated by many HA universities over decades now work against them - this is one key reasons why Section 568 won't be renewed.
- Impossible for the Ivies not to take Federal money. There's not only Pell grants and the like, but there's also a load of federally-funded research that goes on at these schools.
An easier path would be for the Ivies to all become D3s (although that's no guarantee either, as there is building legal pressure on D3s as well), or just wait until they get sued and try to come up with another reason to restrict aid.
Or maybe - Just. Offer. Merit. And. Athletic. Scholarships. To. Deserving. Students.
There's also the moral hazard of sitting on $billions and requiring talented students, artists, athletes, etc. from middle- and even higher-socio-economic backgrounds to have to pay a huge percentage of their incomes and net worth to attend HA schools.
And using the lack of acknowledgement of those skills as a reason to restrict aid.
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Athletic scholarships would only work in the Ivy League if all sports were head count sports - i.e. football, etc..
My son's piece of the baseball 11.7 would have to be ~ 60% this year to equal what he gets in FA.
My son's first baseball offer was 60% at a mid-major. That mid-major doesn't charge 87K per year like my son's current school.
They only way my son ended up at an Ivy is because I had two kids in college at the same time and my expected family contribution (EFC) was split in two. That made for a much larger FA (scholarship) from the school. Unfortunately that's not the case this case this year and I am expected to pay the full EFC.
I'm sure football families at my son's school would like athletic scholarships! Well, at least 63 (FCS) of those football families...
@ABSORBER posted:Athletic scholarships would only work in the Ivy League if all sports were head count sports - i.e. football, etc..
My son's piece of the baseball 11.7 would have to be ~ 60% this year to equal what he gets in FA.
My son's first baseball offer was 60% at a mid-major. That mid-major doesn't charge 87K per year like my son's current school.
They only way my son ended up at an Ivy is because I had two kids in college at the same time and my expected family contribution (EFC) was split in two. That made for a much larger FA (scholarship) from the school. Unfortunately that's not the case this case this year and I am expected to pay the full EFC.
I'm sure football families at my son's school would like athletic scholarships! Well, at least 63 (FCS) of those football families...
What I learned today is that SCOTUS didn't just give college athletes domain over their name, image, and likeness. They ruled that colleges couldn't restrict any financial benefits related to student education.
This is WAY more broad than allowing NIL.
It's also the reason the Ivies are in trouble.
Because D1 allows scholarships, but the D1 Ivy League does not, but now SCOTUS says schools can't restrict financial benefits, and the anti-trust protection related to determining financial aid has been removed, there is a very strong pathway to suing the Ivies for their lack of athletic and other merit scholarships. Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt prove that big universities can combine top-notch athletics and D1 scholarships with top-notch education.
In short, the drilled-into-our-heads framing that "financial aid can't be combined with an athletic scholarship" is a fiction created by schools who didn't want to give out merit scholarships and got a court and a couple senators 30 years ago to codify this for them.
But now the gig is up.
Student-athletes are now free to be compensated for all of their talents and have all schools compete for them.
The P5/FBS schools can't restrict students to athletic scholarships, and the Ivies can't restrict students to need-based aid.
In that case, they should drop down to D3, which, frankly, is where they belong, given the way they operate.
@anotherparent posted:In that case, they should drop down to D3, which, frankly, is where they belong, given the way they operate.
Every year the Directors Cup is awarded to the university which garners the most athletic points. Each division has a Cup. All sports are treated equally. Football is treated equally to squash; baseball is treated equally with women's field hockey.
In 2018 (randomly selected but pre-covid), the Ivy league was the top league OUTSIDE of P5. https://ivyleague.com/news/201...ge.aspx?path=general
In a more recent period: "The Ivy League boasted 11 individual national champions, two team national champions, six teams advanced to national semifinals and three made appearances in the national title game during the 2021-22 season. A total of 71 Ivy programs earned rankings throughout the year."
I think the athletes on a D1 National Championship team would love to hear your thoughts on the way their college operates.
Please explain to me simply.
SCOTUS rules that college students can get paid from outside sources - NIL. (Athletes finally being treated like other skilled students [e.g., Grand Chessmaster, Opera singer, painter]; the free market at work.)
How do I take that and say that colleges MUST offer either/both merit or athletic scholarships? (I do think I understand that laws can force schools to not hoard their endowments. But the law can't specifically direct where that money's spent [e.g., buildings, FA, scholarships], no?] What happens to schools without endowments? And did SCOTUS limit its holding to D1; why aren't D3s subject to the same laws?
I assume the Ivys are doing the NIL thing (maybe not millions, but perhaps free sandwiches at the local subshop).
I assume the league couldn't get together and agree to certain actions - that would perhaps invoke anti-trust. But, no school can be forced to give scholarships - no? I can see an arms race developing as richer schools desirious of athletic triumphs reach into its coffers - but that's the free market, not an imposition of scholarships.
(Take all this to its logical extreme - unlimited scholarships. How wouldn't a super wealthy college have a huge advantage in recruiting? Let's say Harvard decides to be a basketball power; hires a high profile coach and offers $3 million annually to players (the endowments wouldn't even notice).
(I remember a story associated with the legendary football coach Bear Bryant. Allegedly he wanted unlimited football scholarships - not because the players would be better off, but because if he gave every potential recuit a scholarship, his rivals would have no players.)
Because of the expiration of the agreement setting athletic academic standards (violation of anti-trust), this is now possible. In the end, the richest schools - Texas, Stanford, HYP - could turn sports in its head.
What is going to be interesting is what college sports will look like when this settles put (in a decade or so).
Per the Ivy League on the link you provided, in 2018 the 5 Ivy team championships were in lacrosse, heavyweight men's rowing, lightweight men's rowing, archery, and women's squash. Most of these are not NCAA-sanctioned sports. There were individual titles: "four of the six NCAA Fencing National Championships, one NCAA Indoor Track & Field Championship, one NCAA Wrestling Championship, the men’s and women’s individual squash titles, and four NCAA skiing individual titles."
Archery doesn't have divisions, because only 21 schools in the whole country, at any level, field teams. Only 84 schools in the country have rowing teams, only 39 of them are D1 schools. Only 34 fencing teams at all levels in the country. And so on. I can't see that the competition levels would change much, if at all, in the sports in which the Ivies are competitive, if they became D3 schools.
I respect what these athletes do to play sports at a high level and get Ivy degrees. But the same is true at many D3 schools. Or, they could do what Johns Hopkins does, play lacrosse at the D1 level and D3 for everything else.
I get it.
Only certain sports should count. The sports you decide. Not what the Directors Cup - touted and recognized by all schools (and awarded by Division) - awards.
No points for Rodeo (sorry Texas schools) - because the number of schools competing falls below a magic number (and, btw, what is that number); same for sailing, rowing, fencing, squash, bowling, lacrosse, rugby, golf. Swimming, gymnastics, wrestling, and similar sports are out because they're mostly individual champions. Of course, some team sports should count, but probably not the national champion field hockey team.
I guess the standard for the Directors Cup should be only sports considered major.
How about if the sport is an Olympic sport? Does that clear the bar?
Yet, every year the Directors Cup is awarded and every year schools tout the results - as it represents a school's composite score in its respective division.
It's not what I say about size of a sport, it's how they compete. Many of those smaller sports don't compete in the usual NCAA divisions. Take skiing; wikipedia lists 29 NCAA programs TOTAL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...NCAA_skiing_programs). They compete regionally, not by Division 1-2-3. Same for fencing: standings are a mix of D1 and D3 (https://usfca.org/index.php/standings-men). Squash and archery are not NCAA-recognized sports at all, and schools from all levels compete together. Switching to D3 would not affect competition in these sports at all.
Ivy parents and players on this board always praise the schools for allowing students to take hard majors, etc. In baseball, Ivies play a 40-game season, like D3s. No-one goes to an Ivy to win the CWS, but they do go to win the Ivy League, and for the education. Yes, it's fun when Columbia knocks some team out of the NCAA tournament, but would it not also be fun if Columbia won the D3 CWS? (but would they?)
I'd note that the "country-club" sports are coming under increasing fire at schools like Ivies. Currently all an Ivy can offer is admission, and I wonder how long that will last? If squash, fencing, archery, rowing, and skiing were gone at those schools, the Ivy Director's Cup standing would collapse.
you guys come on here tout the Ivy's as great education and requiring student first and athlete 2nd...everyone agrees the level of play is nice for what it is and it is about 40 not 4....and somehow we jump forward to the Ivy are champions because they have a great archery team? they have fencing team...who even was aware fence building was a sport!! I am kidding it is ok we can call fake sword play a sport, I watched GOT it was great. Rodeo...LOL yep you are correct not of national interest, merit or consideration. Squash is a vegetable my friend...when do you think we should start considering the merits of Egaming as recognition worthy? MIT gonna have a bad ass online baseball team!!
I have no issues with Ivy but to consider them a top league outside of P5 is just laughable, disingenuous and for some reason I wasted 1 minute of my life typing a response to it.
@Goosegg posted:Please explain to me simply.
SCOTUS rules that college students can get paid from outside sources - NIL. (Athletes finally being treated like other skilled students [e.g., Grand Chessmaster, Opera singer, painter]; the free market at work.)
How do I take that and say that colleges MUST offer either/both merit or athletic scholarships? (I do think I understand that laws can force schools to not hoard their endowments. But the law can't specifically direct where that money's spent [e.g., buildings, FA, scholarships], no?] What happens to schools without endowments? And did SCOTUS limit its holding to D1; why aren't D3s subject to the same laws?
I assume the Ivys are doing the NIL thing (maybe not millions, but perhaps free sandwiches at the local subshop).
I assume the league couldn't get together and agree to certain actions - that would perhaps invoke anti-trust. But, no school can be forced to give scholarships - no? I can see an arms race developing as richer schools desirious of athletic triumphs reach into its coffers - but that's the free market, not an imposition of scholarships.
(Take all this to its logical extreme - unlimited scholarships. How wouldn't a super wealthy college have a huge advantage in recruiting? Let's say Harvard decides to be a basketball power; hires a high profile coach and offers $3 million annually to players (the endowments wouldn't even notice).
(I remember a story associated with the legendary football coach Bear Bryant. Allegedly he wanted unlimited football scholarships - not because the players would be better off, but because if he gave every potential recuit a scholarship, his rivals would have no players.)
Because of the expiration of the agreement setting athletic academic standards (violation of anti-trust), this is now possible. In the end, the richest schools - Texas, Stanford, HYP - could turn sports in its head.
What is going to be interesting is what college sports will look like when this settles put (in a decade or so).
Yep, you got it.
SCOTUS said universities can't restrict students educational monetary benefit - can't restrict them only to athletic awards and can't restrict them only to demonstrated financial need.
The HA schools ability to collude to determine the amount of need-based aid, which kept their FA costs down, is also gone.
Which means that if Ivy admissions continue to deny the merits of its students (academic, athletic, artistic) they are exposed, and if they continue to collude to keep need-based FA down (by, say, not updating their FA algorithms) they are exposed.
Most endowment money is for the general fund which can be spent on anything. Donor-directed money is usually kept separate, as restricted cash, and spent quickly, typically pointed at a new building, a new academic program, a new stadium or locker room, an endowed chair, etc.
The SCOTUS ruling and Section 568 expiration effectively impact all US-based colleges and universities. There is nothing stopping someone from trying to force, say, D3 schools to provide scholarships since D3 is part of the NCAA (see Justice Kavanaugh's comments below). But the Ivy League stands out because it is D1, it is very well-endowed, and it is an entire league that denies merit scholarships.
We're closer to a free market now in high academia admissions than we've ever been. Nothing stopping schools from engaging in bidding wars for top talent, with combo merit-based/need-based aid.
************
Here's some more detail, because I really like writing about this!
In June 2021 SCOTUS said that universities are engaged in monopoly practices by limiting college athletes compensation to tuition, room, board, books.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a very strongly worded opinion, ripping the NCAA for its business practices:
“The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.” “Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.”
Same side of the same coin are the Ivies and other HA universities who take only financial need into account, ignoring the athletic, artistic, and academic talent of their students, which runs contrary to *all other colleges in America* most glaringly their HA D1 peers - Vandy, Stanford, Duke.
On Sept 30, 2022 a legal decree that allowed ~30 HA, well-endowed colleges to collude when determining financial aid expired. These HA universities no longer have legal cover to restrict their FA to need-based/need-blind and share common formulas for determining FA to applicants. The legal carveout had been in place since 1992 and was renewed many times but is very unlikely to be renewed ever again.
The carveout was based on MIT winning a decision in 1990 that it *had to* collude with other HA universities in determining financial aid because it had a "finite pot of money" and getting into a bidding war with rival schools would make that pot less equitable. For example, MIT argued that it would be less equitable for it to use up its FA pot by providing 10 candidates with FA @ 100% vs providing 20 candidates with FA @ 50% each.
After a Massachusetts court agreed with MIT and gave them protection to restrict the amount of financial aid to each applicant, 30 other colleges got two senators to codify this for them as well. Called Section 568 it said that the covered schools could collude on setting FA for candidates and restrict FA to only need-based aid, as long as each school agreed to be need-blind.
This collusion exception stood until 2 weeks ago. With endowments of between $7-35Bn each, it is highly dubious now for any of the previously covered universities to argue that their FA pot would be harmed by a bidding war for talent. Also, if they're not spending their endowment on education, what are they spending it on?
The Ivy League operates under Division 1 rules for all sports. D1 is defined by the largest leeway given to athletes - the most athletic scholarships, the most allowable amount of practice time, the most games, the most paid coaches, etc. Yet the Ivies *as an entire league* restrict FA to need-based aid, while ignoring student merit of any type - academic, athletic, artistic, linguistic, etc.
So with an entire D1 league denying its candidates merit aid after SCOTUS said universities can't limit student's financial benefit related to their education, and HA schools no longer legally allowed to collude to keep FA packages down, it seems very likely someone will soon sue the Ivy League to demand they start mixing merit scholarships, including athletic scholarships, into their aid packages.
Or the Ivies could make themselves free to everyone.
Or one of them could decide to start providing athletic scholarships voluntarily and the others would probably follow for competitive reasons.
Or they could all drop down to D3, with the caveat that the SCOTUS ruling applies to all of the NCAA, so there's no guarantee that D3 schools won't be sued soon also. (Several HA D3 schools were covered by the Section 568 collusion protection. )
Or They. Could. Offer. Merit. And. Athletic. Scholarships. To. Deserving. Students.
It's a whole new world.
Students win when colleges compete.
@anotherparent posted:...........................
Ivy parents and players on this board always praise the schools for allowing students to take hard majors, etc. In baseball, Ivies play a 40-game season, like D3s. No-one goes to an Ivy to win the CWS, but they do go to win the Ivy League, and for the education. Yes, it's fun when Columbia knocks some team out of the NCAA tournament, but would it not also be fun if Columbia won the D3 CWS? (but would they?)
....................
AP - I think you are making some assumptions here. In my son's case (I'm not speaking for others), it was not the school that allowed my son to take a hard major. That was totally on him and he worked his f*cking ass off to get his degree...no shortcuts whatsoever. He read his recruiting situation (he earned the options that were presented to him) and found the best fit for his major and career. The same advice I'd give anyone on this board seeking an academic first college experience.
I agree with the rest of your statements, but you are also insulting people who've selected an Ivy for their own reasons and participate in sports or activities that they have a lot of passion for. BTW...No Ivy has gone (yet) to a super regional in baseball. A couple have come close. Also, who cares if a sport or activity is viewed as "country club" or from the country. People love them just the same. Chive on!
Not following how the court decisions can force a school that doesn't offer any merit money to suddenly offer any student with any type of merit money. I can follow that the schools can't restrict how they get money, just don't see how they can be forced to pay. Big State U isn't being forced to pay NIL money. They are just being told they can't restrict NIL money.
Same side of the same coin are the Ivies and other HA universities who take only financial need into account, ignoring the athletic, artistic, and academic talent of their students, which runs contrary to *all other colleges in America* most glaringly their HA D1 peers - Vandy, Stanford, Duke....Or the Ivies could make themselves free to everyone.
Or one of them could decide to start providing athletic scholarships voluntarily and the others would probably follow for competitive reasons.
Or they could all drop down to D3, with the caveat that the SCOTUS ruling applies to all of the NCAA, so there's no guarantee that D3 schools won't be sued soon also. (Several HA D3 schools were covered by the Section 568 collusion protection. )
Or They. Could. Offer. Merit. And. Athletic. Scholarships. To. Deserving. Students.
It's a whole new world.
Students win when colleges compete.
1. Wait, so Vandy, Stanford and Duke combine need-based financial aid with athletic scholarships?
2. So if Ivy "A" charges 80K and student "B" get 50K in need-based financial aid (based upon the Federal Government's standards e.g. FAFSA), they could additionally offer athletic money (merit). Now that "need" has been reduced by the amount of the athletic scholarship and the amount of FA will also be reduced by the amount of the athletic scholarship. It's still going to be 50K as established by the FAFSA. This is pretty typical of Ivy FA in it's current state--minus athletic scholarships of course.
My understanding is the answer to question #1 above is NO. You get one or the other.However if the need-based FA is 50K then that counts towards the athletic scholarship number. Am I wrong?
@TerribleBPthrower posted:Not following how the court decisions can force a school that doesn't offer any merit money to suddenly offer any student with any type of merit money. I can follow that the schools can't restrict how they get money, just don't see how they can be forced to pay. Big State U isn't being forced to pay NIL money. They are just being told they can't restrict NIL money.
A lawsuit against the Ivies would not say "you must give me merit money".
It would say "you are engaging in price fixing and colluding to limit my financial benefit to what you determine my family's financial need to attend your school is". Or "You are limiting my financial benefit by not recognizing my athletic merit. Which your peers, Stanford and Duke and Vanderbilt, have recognized."
And how would the Ivies defend themselves?
They can say "we don't want to". Or "this is the way we've always done it, and we'll continue to do it this way."
But - Kavanaugh's majority opinion says that universities can't interfere with students receiving financial benefits related to their education. If all 8 Ivies continue to say no to merit-based aid they are not only appear to be undervaluing students (esp relative to their peers) they also appear to be colluding. Not a sustainable situation for them.
@ABSORBER posted:1. Wait, so Vandy, Stanford and Duke combine need-based financial aid with athletic scholarships?
2. So if Ivy "A" charges 80K and student "B" get 50K in need-based financial aid (based upon the Federal Government's standards e.g. FAFSA), they could additionally offer athletic money (merit). Now that "need" has been reduced by the amount of the athletic scholarship and the amount of FA will also be reduced by the amount of the athletic scholarship. It's still going to be 50K as established by the FAFSA. This is pretty typical of Ivy FA in it's current state--minus athletic scholarships of course.
My understanding is the answer to question #1 above is NO. You get one or the other.However if the need-based FA is 50K then that counts towards the athletic scholarship number. Am I wrong?
You're not wrong under today's rules.
But the rules are changing.
@SpeedDemon posted:You're not wrong under today's rules.
But the rules are changing.
As I thought... so first up... the NCAA.
Nothing can happen until they change. A student (who shows financial need) will receive far more $ at an Ivy than they will at Vandy, Stanford or Duke.
For baseball anyway. Head-count sport athletes, which excludes Ivy (FCS) football), may have a different view.
@SpeedDemon posted:A lawsuit against the Ivies would not say "you must give me merit money".
It would say "you are engaging in price fixing and colluding to limit my financial benefit to what you determine my family's financial need to attend your school is". Or "You are limiting my financial benefit by not recognizing my athletic merit. Which your peers, Stanford and Duke and Vanderbilt, have recognized."
And how would the Ivies defend themselves?
They can say "we don't want to". Or "this is the way we've always done it, and we'll continue to do it this way."
But - Kavanaugh's majority opinion says that universities can't interfere with students receiving financial benefits related to their education. If all 8 Ivies continue to say no to merit-based aid they are not only appear to be undervaluing students (esp relative to their peers) they also appear to be colluding. Not a sustainable situation for them.
I will add - the appearance of impropriety at storied institutions such as the Ivy League schools is as important as actual impropriety.
So when it comes out a few years from now - if it takes that long - the fact that *all* the Ivies continue to deny merit aid to students despite the fact that they are no longer legally allowed to collude nor restrict the type of aid they provide (need-based/need-blind), despite the SCOTUS ruling, as they stay in D1 and sit on billions of dollars is a bad look. A very bad look.
@SpeedDemon posted:I will add - the appearance of impropriety at storied institutions such as the Ivy League schools is as important as actual impropriety.
So when it comes out a few years from now - if it takes that long - the fact that *all* the Ivies continue to deny merit aid to students despite the fact that they are no longer legally allowed to collude nor restrict the type of aid they provide (need-based/need-blind), despite the SCOTUS ruling, as they stay in D1 and sit on billions of dollars is a bad look. A very bad look.
Ivies give far more $ today under NCAA rules than Vandy, Stanford or Duke. Or at least have the ability to do so commensurate with a student's financial neediness.
I can't see anyone having a case against Ivies when they give need-based financial aid based upon Federal Gov't standards. Collusion today appears to have them all give out the maximum. The only folks who would have a case are the very wealthy who are eligible for nothing and pay the full amount.
@ABSORBER posted:Ivies give far more $ today under NCAA rules than Vandy, Stanford or Duke. Or at least have the ability to do so commensurate with a student's financial neediness.
I can't see anyone having a case against Ivies when they give need-based financial aid based upon Federal Gov't standards. Collusion today appears to have them all give out the maximum. The only folks who would have a case are the very wealthy who are eligible for nothing and pay the full amount.
The issue is not the amount of aid being given.
The issue is that there is one league in the country that is engaging in price fixing by restricting the type of aid they provide.
In other words, the Ivies are doing precisely what SCOTUS said the NCAA can't do.
It was Justice Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion: "the NCAA means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of (antitrust law) for its restraints of trade—that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money—we cannot agree.”