NCAA settlement to increase baseball scholarships to 30-35 per team

You don’t think this is a good thing?  Help me understand why?  (I’m new to this)

@Dadof3 posted:

You don’t think this is a good thing?  Help me understand why?  (I’m new to this)

There are many  schools that just can't afford that many scholarships.  The money has to come from somewhere.   Shoot....many colleges have to get outside (other) funding just to get the 11.7.  Keewartson went to one of those schools.   Thankfully he was a scholly guy, and he worked hard for it.

Basketball and football revenue help fund the other sports.  But at some schools, that revenue is not enough.

@Dadof3 posted:

You don’t think this is a good thing?  Help me understand why?  (I’m new to this)

I think it is a good thing for the conferences and schools that will be able to do it. But as mentioned above, not all schools will be able to do it unless some creative accounting and fundraising happens.

Can’t alumni fund it?  Like use the nil money to fund scholarships?

@Dadof3 posted:

Can’t alumni fund it?  Like use the nil money to fund scholarships?

Alumni can fund it thru NIL. But only a certain number of schools have the necessary alumni base AND the necessary commitment to baseball. Almost no mid-majors have this combination. No Big10 schools do. And not all of the P4 schools do either. So, as mentioned by others, the gap just gets bigger. A RC at a very competitive mid-major recently told me they don’t have the money to sustain what is happening right now. They are having to pay their entire roster in order to retain their players. And in order to attract a big name transfer they have to pay over market prices. On top of that they need to improve their facilities. They are having to hit up the same group of donors for all of this. It just can’t/won’t continue very long and as it drops off so will the quality of their program. Smart mid-major HCs can forecast what’s coming and that’s why you see them leaving to take Asst Coach jobs at the biggest, most well funded, programs

Interesting, there could be a lot of schools dropping the baseball program.  Or as someone mentioned, there could be new classifications

If hs players are relying on this as a “ more room for me,” don’t. JUCO at the top programs is the answer to better outcomes for schools. It costs less to have mature players

@Dadof3 posted:

You don’t think this is a good thing?  Help me understand why?  (I’m new to this)

Good for the athlete who was going to take out loans - bad for parity within college baseball. NIL was already huge blow - this would be the final nail in the coffin.

I actually think this would be worse than an FBS/FCS situation. Both those divisions are playing by the same rules (85/63). Here you would have the top dogs with 35, some with 20, some with 15 and some with 11.7. A smaller school that was proud to fund 11.7 to remain competitive now has no shot.

The next logical conversation would be - why continue to fund 11.7 if there is zero chance of being competitive?

@PABaseball posted:

Good for the athlete who was going to take out loans - bad for parity within college baseball. NIL was already huge blow - this would be the final nail in the coffin.

I actually think this would be worse than an FBS/FCS situation. Both those divisions are playing by the same rules (85/63). Here you would have the top dogs with 35, some with 20, some with 15 and some with 11.7. A smaller school that was proud to fund 11.7 to remain competitive now has no shot.

The next logical conversation would be - why continue to fund 11.7 if there is zero chance of being competitive?

Agree with this wholeheartedly.

I don't think I'm getting the drift...the number of roster spots hasn't changed, and the number of players on a team who actually contribute won't change.  So is the thinking that a kid who is starting at a mid major with a half scholarship going to jump to be a bench player at a P4 for a full scholarship?  I wouldn't have thought so, but I could be wrong.  Most of the programs I'm familiar with know that they'll never be nationally competitive so I think that this would be a non-issue for them.

In my opinion a rational middle ground would have been 15 full scholarships (15 total on scholarship).

While happy that more players can now get a scholarship, this does make me wonder if we will see non-P4 schools start to drop some of their non-revenue generating sports, including baseball. Suspect some schools will try to focus on a few of those sports where they think that they can be competitive (and concentrate their resources there) and drop others.

@Long Time Listener... posted:

While happy that more players can now get a scholarship, this does make me wonder if we will see non-P4 schools start to drop some of their non-revenue generating sports, including baseball. Suspect some schools will try to focus on a few of those sports where they think that they can be competitive (and concentrate their resources there) and drop others.

I don't think they will drop them, it will just widen the gap from the coming P3 leagues and everyone else.

D3 schools (mostly) haven't dropped them.  I understand why D3 schools keep sports - alumni sentiment, and also, in many cases, to attract paying students.  Perhaps more schools will decide to be D3.

D2 schools always offered fewer scholarships, and yet there are 300+ D2 schools.  So perhaps more schools will decide to be competitive D2s.

There have always been some - many? - D1 schools that didn't fund the full 11.7.  I never really understood why such schools wanted to be in D1 at all.  So perhaps they will keep on keeping on.

The potential increase in scholarships appears to be one element of an evolving settlement in House vs NCAA. (There are a number of other lawsuits pending against the NCAA which are not part of the House negotiations.)

While the number of scholarships may increase in pure numbers, many assessing the House evolving settlement point to the financial impact on the NCAA and its D1 members. Not only do they need to fund a $2.8 billion settlement over a period of time, schools will need to fund $20-22,000,000 to student athletes going forward. The NCAA will fund 60% of the $2.8B but will recover that by reducing payments to its D1 members.

As the House impact evolves (assuming it gets finalized and approved), most athletic departments are/will be scrambling to fund their portions of the $2.8B coupled with the $22M annual student /athlete payments moving forward in a situation of declining revenue from traditional sources within the NCAA.
Some reports suggest private equity may become a sports partner to athletic departments. Some suggest conferences will soon sell naming rights so we might see something like the “Frito Lay Big 12.”

Until House is finished and departments fully absorb and adjust to its  impact moving forward, funding of 30 or more baseball scholarships seems financially unrealistic except for a few. Even within the few (but especially in the majority) , departments may well be faced with doing far more to meet their increased financial obligations and doing so with considerably less resources (money and personnel.)

@K9 posted:

I don't think I'm getting the drift...the number of roster spots hasn't changed, and the number of players on a team who actually contribute won't change.  So is the thinking that a kid who is starting at a mid major with a half scholarship going to jump to be a bench player at a P4 for a full scholarship?  I wouldn't have thought so, but I could be wrong.  Most of the programs I'm familiar with know that they'll never be nationally competitive so I think that this would be a non-issue for them.

  The number of roster spots in D1 IS changing. It is being reduced from 40 to somewhere between 32-35. And the 32-35 number includes redshirts. It’s a total number in the program.
  MLB is driving this train and the NCAA is complicit in these changes. MLB wants to purge the upper level of D1 college baseball of the lesser players. MLB wants to see the best against the best all the time. MLB doesn’t want to develop players. They want college programs to do that for them. MLB has gotten rid of a lot of scouts and replaced them with data analysts who can only evaluate numbers. So they miss on a lot of players. Putting only the best players on only the best 30 teams in college baseball will make it like shooting fish in a barrel and fewer mistakes will be made.
  This is what is happening. The highest level of college baseball is now pro ball. This will force D1 baseball to divide into a professional division and an amateur division. It’s hard to imagine that interest in the amateur side will even come close to that of the pro side. I agree with those that believe this will lead to some (maybe many) schools dropping baseball. If that happens it will greatly reduce the odds of a good (but not great) HS player ever playing baseball in college. At any level.
  You can have your own opinion on whether or not this is good for baseball. It’s certainly not good for the average to slightly above average college baseball player. That’s who is being flushed out of upper D1. You can like or not like it but IMO this is a reaction to what the travel ball industry has done to amateur baseball. It has created too many teams, with too many unskilled players who only play because they pay. And then a lot of those players believe they are entitled to play D1 baseball when the time comes - whether they are good enough or not. The times, they are a changing.

@adbono posted:

  This is what is happening. The highest level of college baseball is now pro ball.

This is exactly what I told my son when I dropped him off June 1st.  He's a professional now, can get cut at any time and he needs to eat/workout/play/study like a professional.

@adbono posted:

  The number of roster spots in D1 IS changing. It is being reduced from 40 to somewhere between 32-35. And the 32-35 number includes redshirts. It’s a total number in the program.
  MLB is driving this train and the NCAA is complicit in these changes. MLB wants to purge the upper level of D1 college baseball of the lesser players. MLB wants to see the best against the best all the time. MLB doesn’t want to develop players. They want college programs to do that for them. MLB has gotten rid of a lot of scouts and replaced them with data analysts who can only evaluate numbers. So they miss on a lot of players. Putting only the best players on only the best 30 teams in college baseball will make it like shooting fish in a barrel and fewer mistakes will be made.
  This is what is happening. The highest level of college baseball is now pro ball. This will force D1 baseball to divide into a professional division and an amateur division. It’s hard to imagine that interest in the amateur side will even come close to that of the pro side. I agree with those that believe this will lead to some (maybe many) schools dropping baseball. If that happens it will greatly reduce the odds of a good (but not great) HS player ever playing baseball in college. At any level.
  You can have your own opinion on whether or not this is good for baseball. It’s certainly not good for the average to slightly above average college baseball player. That’s who is being flushed out of upper D1. You can like or not like it but IMO this is a reaction to what the travel ball industry has done to amateur baseball. It has created too many teams, with too many unskilled players who only play because they pay. And then a lot of those players believe they are entitled to play D1 baseball when the time comes - whether they are good enough or not. The times, they are a changing.

Travel ball is the worst I have ever seen!  I was just talking with another parent about how hard it is to find a good organization that is truly driven to be the best.  We live in a mid sized city and you think we would have some good choices.  I think we finally found one, but we are paying for it (more than the average cost of a team in this area).  Time will tell.  They do have several college coaches working with the kids and coaching some of the teams as well.   We went to several d1 team camps this year.  I was amazed at the number of teams that were showcasing a 16-17 year old kid topping out in the low 70's.  I was expecting most pitchers to be 80+.  Not only myself but my son was amazed at the lack of talent from some of these kids as well.  I guess it is open to anyone, but wow......

I'm laughing as I write this, but simple solution.  No more official recruiting,  you apply to college, you get in, and in the fall there are open tryouts.  Teams entirely made from student body.  Period.  No athletic scholarships of any kind.  Zero coach contact prior to enrollment, Coaches caught scouting high schools for talent, lose their job.

Heck, this may trickle down to getting rid of money grabbing travel programs.

Adbono;

You made several interesting observations. The utilization of Colleges as "low level" Minor Leagues has existed for several years, since the re-formation of the old "Appy"  League to a College Summer League.

The "KEY" to your prediction will be the use of wood bats to the selected College programs. There are several options by the MLB.

I now ask myself the question "what would I create today to fulfill the needs of the  young HS player"?

Bob

"founder" of the Area Code games 1987-2004

@Consultant posted:

Adbono;

You made several interesting observations. The utilization of Colleges as "low level" Minor Leagues has existed for several years, since the re-formation of the old "Appy"  League to a College Summer League.

The "KEY" to your prediction will be the use of wood bats to the selected College programs. There are several options by the MLB.

I now ask myself the question "what would I create today to fulfill the needs of the  young HS player"?

Bob

"founder" of the Area Code games 1987-2004

I think we will see more training & more teaching. And less travel ball games. At least in ages under 17u. College coaches aren’t at any games under 17u (with a few exceptions) so the “exposure” myth has been debunked by the new recruiting rules. A local private HS coach approached me last week about an idea he and his staff are working on. His Catholic HS has great facilities and the potential for dorms. They are thinking about a 6 week summer baseball camp to be conducted on their campus. It would involve 2 age groups - 11-13 & 14-16. There would be classroom teaching, strength & conditioning, nutrition, skills drills, practice reps, and some games. They would bring in college coaches to help with drills, instruction, and classroom topics - like recruiting. I think it’s a great idea and would do a lot more to make kids better players than the current travel ball model.

Adbono,

Great idea. First perfect the older group. Bring in older players to increase the reflex action of your younger players. Years ago the Texas Rangers provide to GWS this opportunity to explore.

Bob

College coaches that have players drafted that will move quickly through the system is more or less a recruiting bonus for their program.

MLB teams want college programs to develop their players because, for every player that they call up within a certain time frame,  bonus $$ are given to that team from MLB.  JMO

The number of roster spots will be determined based on the house suit against the NCAA.

See infieldad's post above.

@TPM posted:

College coaches that have players drafted that will move quickly through the system is more or less a recruiting bonus for their program.

MLB teams want college programs to develop their players because, for every player that they call up within a certain time frame,  bonus $$ are given to that team from MLB.  JMO

Really?  Very very interesting

@adbono posted:

I think we will see more training & more teaching. And less travel ball games. At least in ages under 17u. College coaches aren’t at any games under 17u (with a few exceptions) so the “exposure” myth has been debunked by the new recruiting rules. A local private HS coach approached me last week about an idea he and his staff are working on. His Catholic HS has great facilities and the potential for dorms. They are thinking about a 6 week summer baseball camp to be conducted on their campus. It would involve 2 age groups - 11-13 & 14-16. There would be classroom teaching, strength & conditioning, nutrition, skills drills, practice reps, and some games. They would bring in college coaches to help with drills, instruction, and classroom topics - like recruiting. I think it’s a great idea and would do a lot more to make kids better players than the current travel ball model.

I'm sure that would be good for baseball skills.  I ask myself, would I pay (probably a lot of money) for my son to go to a 6-week residential camp for baseball?  Would kids want to do it? (note:  my son probably would have). Even if it weren't residential, 6 weeks in one camp with the same guys seems excessive.  Travel ball had/has many problems, but at its best it was meeting new kids and families, and having a different baseball and travel experience every week or two.  It blended seriousness with fun - because at the end of the day, playing games is fun.  And if a kid doesn't end up playing in college, he still has those memories.

I want to add about travel ball:  there are various reasons it exists.  One is definitely recruiting exposure.  But another, which applied where I live, was simply to play a higher level of baseball than rec league, with all its completely unskilled players, could provide.  And that was about preparing for high school.  College camps did that too - he went to our local camp every year, for years, to improve his skills.  Perhaps I was particularly naive, but college recruiting didn't even cross my mind until the summer after sophomore year of HS.

@Dadof3 posted:

Really?  Very very interesting

That's my understanding of the situation.

I just don't get this about college programs becoming milb for MLB.

But I get the reasoning and yes there are huge differences in college programs. Isn't that true in just about every sport?

Your players are all lucky that things have changed and that drafted players don't have to wait forever to move forward and through collective bargaining the system has greatly improved.

FWIW, the first player drafted and brought up quickly in 2023, was not from a P5 program.

JMO

@anotherparent

I agree. I remember years ago big D1 programs having camps many sleepover programs.

Maybe they still have them but most are now 1-4 day events and the coaches are now replaced with student athletes who get paid.

I wonder if this will help reduce the number of kids in the portal?

@Master P posted:

@RossDellenger

Earlier this week, Greg Sankey confirmed previous @YahooSports reporting around a new baseball roster limit, which, he says, will settle in the “mid-30s.” This would permit schools - not require them - to offer 20+ additional scholarships for the sport as they do now (11.7).

https://x.com/RossDellenger/st.../1813949032471068800

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/18139490324710688

https://x.com/RossDellenger/st.../1813949032471068800

The funny part is the roster limit was 35 prior to the blanket waiver - which was supposed to be temporary. This coming season should be the last of the 40 man rosters.

So to settle in the mid 30s is borderline insane unless they planned on offering more scholarships than roster spots.

Nice way of saying "we will settle for 100%"

Fully anticipating the next move to be no roster limitations

There is an excellent write up in D1Baseball but is a paid site.

@TPM posted:

There is an excellent write up in D1Baseball but is a paid site.

Synopsis?

https://d1baseball.com/ncaa/co...cholarships-nearing/

This article is supposedly free today.

@Master P posted:

https://d1baseball.com/ncaa/co...cholarships-nearing/

This article is supposedly free today.

Thank you for sharing. Didn't realize....my bad.

Nothing in that article that isn’t already common knowledge

@adbono posted:

Nothing in that article that isn’t already common knowledge

No one said it was other than a bit easier for some to understand that don't have inside info.

@TPM posted:

No one said it was other than a bit easier for some to understand that don't have inside info.

My comment has to do with Kendall Rogers advertising this as a “deep dive into college baseball” that he is making available for free. That’s why I didn’t reply directly to you.

@adbono posted:

Nothing in that article that isn’t already common knowledge

Why would you say this? What is the point?

@SpeedDemon posted:

Why would you say this? What is the point?

Because IMO the article isn’t as advertised. I already said that. Maybe you missed it.