Then why are they in D1?

There's got to be some benefit for them.

@SpeedDemon posted:

Ha, yeah. It's crazy to think about all the ways these changes could affect things on the field. Feels like a Willy Wonka riverboat ride.

The institutional benefits of D1 are .... money.

In addition to media revenue, schools automatically get some money from the NCAA for being in D1, with the amount varying by conference (small for low-level D1, millions for being in the P4). They get more money for winning their conference and then more for wins in NCAA championship play. (NCAA playoff wins in mens basketball and football pay the most )

D1 status also helps them recruit higher-level athletes than what say the NESCAC (similiar HA but D3 conference) is able to attract, which helps the money flow.

The schools also indirectly benefit from being in high-profile D1 - winning sports teams are the #1 driver of donations.

Agree that the Ivies are making way less as D1s than say Alabama (ha) but are they making less than say Canisius, which is also D1 and offers scholarships?

The Ivy League's achilles heel is the fact that none of the 8 schools offer scholarships in any sport. It's clear collusion.

Thanks for engaging with me, I love discussing this stuff.

I'd have to see some balance sheets. I don't believe sports at Ivy institutions are operating for profit.

There are plenty of other D1's with little or no athletic scholarships. There's a reason for this--they operate at a loss!

Count the number of sports fielded by an Ivy school and compare it to an SEC or ACC school.

In the end I don't see how educational institutions with sports can be compared to standard business. Tax implications?

I know there is a lot of money made but where does that money go? Lot of construction on college campuses these days! But it IS education and that is treated very differently than standard business. How many of these institutions are "for profit"? I think none.

There are for-profit schools out there but do they field collegiate sports?

I'm no expert but I would like to know more!

@anotherparent posted:

I feel sure that this is not true of Ivies.  They get money from very successful alumni who want to give back.

^^^ FACT! What's Harvard's endowment? It certainly doesn't get used to pay for collegiate sports! It does get used to provide funding for need-based academic aid for ALL students.

@SpeedDemon posted:

Then why are they in D1?

There's got to be some benefit for them.

I've been wondering this ever since I became aware of sports recruiting, especially HA sports recruiting.

@anotherparent posted:

I've been wondering this ever since I became aware of sports recruiting, especially HA sports recruiting.

It's the money. And prestige. And donations, i.e. the money.

@ABSORBER posted:

I'd have to see some balance sheets. I don't believe sports at Ivy institutions are operating for profit.

There are plenty of other D1's with little or no athletic scholarships. There's a reason for this--they operate at a loss!

Count the number of sports fielded by an Ivy school and compare it to an SEC or ACC school.

In the end I don't see how educational institutions with sports can be compared to standard business. Tax implications?

I know there is a lot of money made but where does that money go? Lot of construction on college campuses these days! But it IS education and that is treated very differently than standard business. How many of these institutions are "for profit"? I think none.

There are for-profit schools out there but do they field collegiate sports?

I'm no expert but I would like to know more!

Hey thanks for joining the conversation.

Not sure who compared higher ed to a business - are you talking about the Kavanaugh quote? If you look it up you will see he elaborated on those comments, comparing student athletes with cooks and nurses. His point was that labor is labor and just because someone is student that doesn't mean that their labor, which brings in revenue for an institution, should be free.

(A similar argument was upheld in the O'Bannon case - the NCAA argued that the market value of college athletes on their own was zero, while they required student-athletes to assign their NIL rights to the schools. The NCAA lost the case.)

I'm not sure the lack of profit motive is the right way to think about this. While no one expects the Physics Dept or Geology or the sailing team to turn a profit, money is still very important in higher education: any professor will tell you that grants/donations = employment/status.

Probably a better question to ask is: if Harvard can offer every undergrad who ever walks through their doors again free tuition, room, board and books and still have money left in its existing endowment why don't they?

Endowments:  Harvard ($50Bn), Yale ($41Bn), Penn ($21Bn), Brown ($7Bn), Dartmouth ($8Bn), Columbia ($14Bn), Princeton ($34Bn), Cornell ($10Bn)

If anything, the amount of money in the coffers of these schools argues even more strongly for them to offer merit-based aid.

@SpeedDemon posted:

I'm not sure the lack of profit motive is the right way to think about this. While no one expects the Physics Dept or Geology or the sailing team to turn a profit, money is still very important in higher education: any professor will tell you that grants/donations = employment/status.

Well, no, no-one in the Ivy expects any sport to turn a profit.  But they very much do expect the science departments to bring in a LOT of money in grants.  Call that "turning a profit" if you will.

If the sports don't bring in money for the university (which they almost certainly don't), Kavanaugh's argument about labor falls apart.  They are participants in extra-curriculars, just like the bass drum player in the band.

There was a time when D1 baseball had unlimited rosters. Then they had to whittle them down to 35. I remember hearing a lot of doom and gloom. It all worked out. One refrain was there won’t be any more David Ecksteins. He was a walk on who went from forty something on the Florida roster to a MLB starter and made two all star teams. Maybe today’s Eckstein has to go the JuCo route like other high school players who used to go D1.

Rosters are only more than 35 because of COVID, missed seasons and the recruiting jam it created. This will all work itself out too. Besides, what’s the value of being player #40 on a roster? What’s the value of being #21-35 for that matter?

@anotherparent posted:

Well, no, no-one in the Ivy expects any sport to turn a profit.  But they very much do expect the science departments to bring in a LOT of money in grants.  Call that "turning a profit" if you will.

If the sports don't bring in money for the university (which they almost certainly don't), Kavanaugh's argument about labor falls apart.  They are participants in extra-curriculars, just like the bass drum player in the band.

People on here often confuse revenue, profits and grants/donations.

Revenue is money rendered in exchange for a good or service.

A profit is what's left over from the revenue after you've paid your expenses.

Grants and donations are monies given for a specific cause, or not. They really can be for anything as long as there is no expectation of something in return.

Higher ed does not have a profit motive, but they do have a revenue and grant/donation motive.

Kavanaugh's comments were centered on the unfairness and illegality of unpaid labor.

The Ivy League was not excluded from SCOTUS' Allston decision because ... drum roll .... their sports bring in revenue.

Are you saying a unanimous Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided?

LOL

I think I'm done posting here for a while.

@SpeedDemon posted:

People on here often confuse revenue, profits and grants/donations.

Revenue is money rendered in exchange for a good or service.

A profit is what's left over from the revenue after you've paid your expenses.

Grants and donations are monies given for a specific cause, or not. They really can be for anything as long as there is no expectation of something in return.

Higher ed does not have a profit motive, but they do have a revenue and grant/donation motive.

Kavanaugh's comments were centered on the unfairness and illegality of unpaid labor.

The Ivy League was not excluded from SCOTUS' Allston decision because ... drum roll .... their sports bring in revenue.

Are you saying a unanimous Supreme Court decision was wrong?

LOL

I think I'm done posting here for a while.

Following that logic we had better start paying our high school athletes!!!

@ABSORBER posted:

Following that logic we had better start paying our high school athletes!!!

Just got an email from my kids HS talking about NIL - wish I was kidding.

@adbono posted:

Then expand the geographic area until you get competitive programs. I’m not sure where you are located but there are competitive JuCos almost everywhere. If you want to shoot me a DM with more details I will respond with anything I know that might be helpful

Let me ask you - do you consider any Northeastern juco programs to be strong? I know Rowan puts up video game numbers but historically they don't place their players very well (in stronger 4yr programs). That suggests to me they play a weak schedule.

Reason I ask is - I've seen two different northeast juco powers in the fall against D1s and it wasn't very competitive.

D3 Jucos in general - would you consider this quality baseball?

@PABaseball posted:

Let me ask you - do you consider any Northeastern juco programs to be strong? I know Rowan puts up video game numbers but historically they don't place their players very well (in stronger 4yr programs). That suggests to me they play a weak schedule.

Reason I ask is - I've seen two different northeast juco powers in the fall against D1s and it wasn't very competitive.

D3 Jucos in general - would you consider this quality baseball?

I have been pretty up front about not knowing very much about JuCo baseball in the Northeast. But first let’s define where the Northeast begins. I don’t know of a quality JuCo program that’s north of PA. Lackawanna (in Scranton) is a quality program that a lot of people don’t seem to know about. Harford is a quality program too but it’s a bit south. Rowan is pretty good, and there are a couple of other schools in their D3 JuCo conference that are also pretty good. But you are correct that they play a weak schedule (except for the other teams I mentioned). So to answer your question about D3 JuCo baseball, I would say that only the best teams play quality baseball. For the past 4 years I have trained a local kid (Marcus) who is RHP. This past season he was 2nd team All American at Dallas Eastfield which is the best D3 JuCo in this area. Eastfield lost to Rowan in the national championship game the past two years in a row. So those teams are comparable. Marcus is 6’-5”, 225 lbs, and throws FB 92-93, knuckle curve at 78-81, and split change at 78-80. He led the nation with 10 wins and was 5th in the nation in Ks and is moving on to a D2 in Oklahoma on a big scholarship. Marcus would have done well in NJCAA Region 5. But you could only say that about 2 or 3 of his teammates. I would bet the same is true about Rowan. They have a handful of players that are plenty good, but not enough of them to field a team that is good enough to regularly beat the better D1 JuCos. They do compete okay with the bottom third D1 Texas JuCos. At least that’s how it is in Texas. The blue blood JuCos in Texas are San Jac, McLennan, and Blinn. Those programs have all been good for over 50 years and they can play with anyone. With a couple of exceptions, only D1 mid-majors will schedule them in the fall. The big boys often want no part of them. Regional differences in JuCo are huge. I’m in a hot spot and that affects my opinions. You are in one of the weakest JuCo baseball areas so I imagine that affects your opinions too.

@adbono posted:

I have been pretty up front about not knowing very much about JuCo baseball in the Northeast. But first let’s define where the Northeast begins. I don’t know of a quality JuCo program that’s north of PA. Lackawanna (in Scranton) is a quality program that a lot of people don’t seem to know about.

Michael McCarry seems to be an excellent coach IMO. Son got to know him a bit years ago when he was coaching the PBR team he was on. Just seems like a very standup guy. Younger son's team has had JUCO transfers from his program.

@nycdad posted:

Michael McCarry seems to be an excellent coach IMO. Son got to know him a bit years ago when he was coaching the PBR team he was on. Just seems like a very standup guy. Younger son's team has had JUCO transfers from his program.

I agree. I met McCarry in Enid, OK years ago and was impressed with his team then. He has a big Twitter presence and is a good follow.

https://d1baseball.com/stories...rship-total-ends-up/

Rogers: Uncertainty remains on where ‘actual’ scholarship total ends up

Stories Kendall Rogers - August 7, 2024

In today’s college athletics climate, it’s important to always have your head on a swivel. You never know what might change daily.

College baseball, and college athletics in general, received some promising news a few weeks ago when the NCAA announced that ‘up to’ 34 full scholarships would be permissible in college baseball beginning with the 2025-26 academic year to go with a 34-man roster. In other words, very soon – so soon that we’ve already seen a plethora of high school commitments post that they were ‘parting ways’ with their college programs. In other words, college programs must cut bait with some of their commitments because of the decreased roster spots.

Behind closed doors, I would say that a vast majority of college baseball coaches are okay with the 34-man roster. It’s not the most optimal situation possible, but it’s also not the end of the world. Even though we’re at a 40-man roster right now as an extension of COVID relief, it wasn’t long ago the sport was very much accustomed to a 35-man roster. Not a big deal. I continued to believe that the 34-man roster limit will help mid-majors via a significant trickle-down effect. A fall roster cap at 34 also would greatly benefit mid-majors. The latter is to be determined, though it has a groundswell of support from many coaches and administrators.

What is a big deal right now is the uncertainty surrounding how many scholarships each conference or program might have – and how that final number will be determined.

I had this discussion with a couple of athletic directors and big-time head coaches last week. There have been discussions about conferences setting mandatory scholarship limits for every team within their specific leagues. But in the era where everything is guided by a potential lawsuit, wouldn’t it be kind of odd for the SEC, for instance, to tell everyone they can’t offer more than 24 scholarships … all while someone such as Tennessee, LSU or Texas A&M might be able to offer 34? If there are schools/programs willing to offer 34 fulls, there’s a strong argument to be made that they should be allowed to do that – conference rules be damned.

I have talked to several industry sources over the past week, and no conference has released actual scholarship guidelines for each specific sport. Those decisions take time, though there should also be a realization that these rules take effect in exactly one calendar year. That’s not a long time, so time is also of the essence. These are incredibly difficult decisions for athletic directors and conference commissioners.

Conferences like the SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Big 12 don’t expect there to be a decision on these limits within their own leagues for some time. The hope, one high-level source said last week, is that the situation will be rectified and final at some point before the early signing period, which begins on November 8.

That means college baseball coaches are navigating the recruiting waters right now and delivering scholarship offers without knowing how many actual scholarships they’ll have. They might have an ‘idea’ of what it could be, but there’s no official word just yet — and that word might not be coming for a few more weeks.

Fun times for recruiting coordinators. More on that soon.

The biggest question people in our sport have right now is where the scholarship limits will end up when the negotiation process comes to a close.

Remember, the 34 full scholarships are ‘permissible’, but they are very far from a guarantee, and likely won’t be the number in year one. Any scholarship total less than 34 can still be spread amongst the 34 players on the roster.

To give you an idea of what some conferences are likely doing from a scholarship standpoint in year one of the new scholarship rules, here is what some coaches and athletic directors in various leagues have said they are hearing will be the case for their specific programs.

* Multiple SEC coaches believe they will sit anywhere from 23-25 scholarships when the dust settles. The SEC has not decided on if the scholarship total will be a league-wide mandate.

* There seems to be a mixed bag of opinions in the Big Ten Conference. At least one coach told me a while back he didn’t see the league moving off 11.7 right off the bat. Another coach said his administration had no clarity, and yet another said he was told they’d have access to 20-23 scholarships. Quite an array of differences in that league … for now.

* A premier mid-major program in the northern half of the country felt like they could get a bump to 15, though staying at 11.7 for the foreseeable future is also still on the table. Thirteen scholarships, this coach said, would be the most likely landing spot.

* The Big 12 Conference is still considering what to cap baseball at. At least two programs thought the number would be relatively low, while two other coaches were cautiously optimistic. Time will tell.

* One historically successful California mid-major thought they had a pathway to 18-20 scholarships spread out over 34 players. He said getting anywhere near that number would be ‘incredible … massive … for our program’.

* One Sun Belt athletic director said they thought their league would place a very high priority on the ‘diamond’ sports such as baseball and softball. The idea is to increase scholarships on a ladder over the next three years to somewhere in the 15-25 range.

For now, those are the only examples we have of where various programs might end up on the scholarship spectrum when the dust settles.

The good news is that we should have clarity from all conferences in the next couple of months.

My main takeaway is not to expect 34 full scholarships on day one. We may get there at some point in the near future, but day one? Unlikely. The caveat is that we’ve been pleasantly surprised over the past year. Maybe there’s another one coming down the pike.

Stay tuned.

The NCAA (and others) left some thinking that each player would receive a full or almost a full scholarship.

Much is dependent upon budgets, NIL $$ and in academic $$ allowed. Some states have $$ available from state lottery.

Imagine a coach trying to recruit a player and is unsure of how much to tell them what they might be awarded when asked, though I do not think this a good topic starter on day 1.

The focus on the additional number of scholarships allowed (positive) is understandable. But the reduction in roster spots from 40 plus redshirts to 34 w/ no redshirts is going to negatively impact many more players and families than will benefit from the additional scholarships

No chance the conferences will be able to cap the number of scholarships without a costly lawsuit following. Seems like wishful thinking.

So this is what I got tonight.

D1 baseball roster set at 34 fully funded athletic scholarships. Includes redshirt players. Money can be awarded at coaches discretion. And at first some programs may not be able to fund all 34.

Any additional earned academic money would go thru the university.

Includes same for title 9.

NIL can be used for additional awards.

@TPM posted:

NIL can be used for additional awards.

what does this mean?

Would be interesting to know the impact of Title IX as scholarships ramp up -

With a roster cap of 25 for softball, do most schools stop at 25 full schollys for baseball?

Do the schools incrementally add softball and baseball scholarships say one or two each year for each sport to keep things even as they ramp?

Or does softball get fully funded to make up for football while baseball scholarship totals barely budge?

@Dadof3 posted:

what does this mean?

It means that NIL can be used as a supplement to scholarship money - as  is being done currently. But with more scholarships there will be more different combinations of financial support available to players. Every roster at every D1 school will be different. For example, say a SEC school decides to fund all 34 scholarships out of university money. That means every player would be on a full scholarship. But say they also had a 2mil $ annual NIL collective budget. They could then spread out the NIL money across the roster however they saw fit. More players would gain financially. That’s a top end example. On the other end of the spectrum say there is a mid major that can only fund 12 scholarships - and that has to be spread out over a 34 man roster. In that case almost every player would be on a partial scholarship. If this school had 500k in NIL money it could be used at their discretion to cover more of the costs not covered by scholarships - but some players would still be out of pocket for some amount. And this is likely going to be the most common scenario. All it really means is that NIL $ can be stacked on top of scholarship $. But, as I continue to say, the windfall is only going to accrue to the very best players at the very best schools. The average college baseball player will not benefit from these changes. All of this is designed to make things better at the top of college baseball - to entice players to stay in college longer and develop there. So MLB doesn’t have to incur the cost of player development.

Another thing to be aware of if your son is a P4 recruit but not at the top of the totem pole is this recruiting gimmick. Some schools (one in the Big 12 in particular) like to sway HS recruits with an NIL deal that covers 100% of the cost of freshman year. Which sounds enticing, especially if you are a single parent. But it’s dangerous. Because NIL is a year by year contract. There is no promise of its existence the next year. And it’s not baseball money - so the program has no financial skin in the game. The goal of the school is to get the player on campus for a year to see if he pans out. If he does they will try to keep him but the player is likely to hear that they just can’t find any scholarship money for him. Or that NIL deal isn’t available anymore. It’s a bunch of gamesmanship and it’s brutal. So be aware that all money isn’t equal. Baseball money is more valuable than NIL money. Baseball money is more valuable than academic money too.

adbono did a great job at answering Dadof3s question.

To add full scholarships are based upon the cost of in state tuition and include room and board.

Out of state  athletes cost more $$$. There are several ways the coach can fund a player. For example, in Florida tuition for Florida residents can be supplemented by Bright Futures which is academic $$, thus using less of a full in state scholarship. That may leave money for a coach to bring in a player from another state and give a full scholarship or use NIL money to supplement.  NIL money is usually used to entice transfers to come to your program.

NIL agreements are different in every state and my understanding is that it can be awarded to the student for him/her to pay bills which could cover the cost of anything. Or, a player could be awarded a full scholarship but given NIL as a bonus to pay for their personal needs. I am not aware of funding full scholarships with NIL $$$.

With 34 full scholarships, with a 34 man roster cap, and the availability of $$ coming from other sources, this is very much a good thing. But keep in mind, coaches will always award the most valuable players the most.

Due to Title 9, the 34 full scholarships will be available to softball, but again, it's up to the coaches discretion how they award each player.

TPM

@adbono posted:

Another thing to be aware of if your son is a P4 recruit but not at the top of the totem pole is this recruiting gimmick. Some schools (one in the Big 12 in particular) like to sway HS recruits with an NIL deal that covers 100% of the cost of freshman year. Which sounds enticing, especially if you are a single parent. But it’s dangerous. Because NIL is a year by year contract. There is no promise of its existence the next year. And it’s not baseball money - so the program has no financial skin in the game. The goal of the school is to get the player on campus for a year to see if he pans out. If he does they will try to keep him but the player is likely to hear that they just can’t find any scholarship money for him. Or that NIL deal isn’t available anymore. It’s a bunch of gamesmanship and it’s brutal. So be aware that all money isn’t equal. Baseball money is more valuable than NIL money. Baseball money is more valuable than academic money too.

If your athletic scholarship can be pulled for poor performance or "team violations", wouldn't you consider academic money more secure as long as you maintain the required GPA?  I mean performance and "violations" are often subjective.  At least maintaining your GPA is 100% on you.

I may be putting the wrong definition on more valuable.  Why do you say baseball money (scholly) is more valuable?

PS.  but your main point is 100%, I know my boys would not be dealing with this type of thing,  they just aren't that level, but I would have been right there in the background making sure they weren't getting taken for a ride.  I think the whole thing about coaches warning parents to stay away from everything has as much to do with manipulating an 18yo as it does with anything else.  How long will it be before the kid sits down with a coach and says "nah, this isn't my parent, it's my lawyer"

@adbono posted:

Baseball money is more valuable than NIL money. Baseball money is more valuable than academic money too.

Why do you think baseball money more valuable than academic money? Genuine question.

Because I’ve always thought that

- money guaranteed for 4 years

- that doesn’t require the student to do anything other than get good grades and

- isn’t subject to the vagaries of the coaching staff and a potential position on the bench

is much more valuable.

@HSDad22 posted:

I think the whole thing about coaches warning parents to stay away from everything has as much to do with manipulating an 18yo as it does with anything else.  How long will it be before the kid sits down with a coach and says "nah, this isn't my parent, it's my lawyer"

Bingo. Yahtzee. Winner. ding ding ding

@TPM posted:

Due to Title 9, the 34 full scholarships will be available to softball, but again, it's up to the coaches discretion how they award each player.

TPM

Thanks.

The new roster cap for softball is 25.

@HSDad22 posted:

If your athletic scholarship can be pulled for poor performance or "team violations", wouldn't you consider academic money more secure as long as you maintain the required GPA?  I mean performance and "violations" are often subjective.  At least maintaining your GPA is 100% on you.

I may be putting the wrong definition on more valuable.  Why do you say baseball money (scholly) is more valuable?

PS.  but your main point is 100%, I know my boys would not be dealing with this type of thing,  they just aren't that level, but I would have been right there in the background making sure they weren't getting taken for a ride.  I think the whole thing about coaches warning parents to stay away from everything has as much to do with manipulating an 18yo as it does with anything else.  How long will it be before the kid sits down with a coach and says "nah, this isn't my parent, it's my lawyer"

Probably the best way to explain this is by example. Assume that their are 2 players on a top 30 D1 roster and both are on 50% scholarships. But one is on baseball money and the other one is on academic money. The amount out of pocket is the same for each family. But the player on baseball money counts against the (current) 11.7 total. The player on academic money doesn’t. So the baseball experience for these 2 players will not be the same. Coaches will cater more to the player that counts against their scholarship total. That player will likely get more opportunities to play and also more chances to redeem himself if he stubs a toe. He us more likely to keep his roster spot and he is more likely to play. The player on the academic scholarship will probably not get the same considerations. So, from a baseball perspective, baseball money puts a player in a higher standing with the program. But if you are only looking at it from an academic point of view, you are correct that a student athlete has more control over keeping an academic scholarship than an athletic one. If you are willing to sacrifice the baseball part, then the academic money becomes more valuable. But what I wrote was from a baseball perspective. Since this is a baseball site.

@adbono posted:

Probably the best way to explain this is by example. Assume that their are 2 players on a top 30 D1 roster and both are on 50% scholarships. But one is on baseball money and the other one is on academic money. The amount out of pocket is the same for each family. But the player on baseball money counts against the (current) 11.7 total. The player on academic money doesn’t. So the baseball experience for these 2 players will not be the same. Coaches will cater more to the player that counts against their scholarship total. That player will likely get more opportunities to play and also more chances to redeem himself if he stubs a toe. He us more likely to keep his roster spot and he is more likely to play. The player on the academic scholarship will probably not get the same considerations. So, from a baseball perspective, baseball money puts a player in a higher standing with the program. But if you are only looking at it from an academic point of view, you are correct that a student athlete has more control over keeping an academic scholarship than an athletic one. If you are willing to sacrifice the baseball part, then the academic money becomes more valuable. But what I wrote was from a baseball perspective. Since this is a baseball site.

Your post brings up a very important point - who is HSBBW for?

Is it primarily a resource for coaches?  For players?  For administrators? For parents?

I think most people would agree that HSBBW is primarily intended as a resource for players and parents, not coaches or administrators. So while perspectives like this (from a Juco coach) are very valuable, the advice is flawed.

Academic money is much better for a player and his family than athletic money, for the exact reasons cited above - it is guaranteed for 4 years, is within the student's control, and is not subject to coach favoritism and demands.

A baseball perspective vs an academic perspective is the wrong way to look at it - it's about management vs labor.

Athletic scholarships favor management; academic scholarships, revenue sharing and NIL favor labor.

@SpeedDemon posted:

Your post brings up a very important point - who is HSBBW for?

Is it primarily a resource for coaches?  For players?  For administrators? For parents?

I think most people would agree that HSBBW is primarily intended as a resource for players and parents, not coaches or administrators. So while perspectives like this (from a Juco coach) are very valuable, the advice is flawed.

Academic money is much better for a player and his family than athletic money, for the exact reasons cited above - it is guaranteed for 4 years, is within the student's control, and is not subject to coach favoritism and demands.

A baseball perspective vs an academic perspective is the wrong way to look at it - it's about management vs labor.

Athletic scholarships favor management; academic scholarships, revenue sharing and NIL favor labor.

I should add that ideally, an athlete would get 10% athletic money and 90% academic money + NIL funds.

So the coaches would have incentive to work with the player, but the player would retain control of their own success.

While we all have our opinions, some are better than others. Yes, I am a JuCo coach - and a former JuCo and D1 player. I also have an engineering degree, have built & sold my own business, am a consultant & advisor, an independent pitching coach, and have placed over 30 players in college programs. Including two of my sons. So there is nothing flawed about my advice. In fact, it’s some of the most well rounded and realistic advice that you will get anywhere.

@TPM posted:

To add full scholarships are based upon the cost of in state tuition and include room and board.

Out of state  athletes cost more $$$. There are several ways the coach can fund a player. For example, in Florida tuition for Florida residents can be supplemented by Bright Futures which is academic $$, thus using less of a full in state scholarship. That may leave money for a coach to bring in a player from another state and give a full scholarship or use NIL money to supplement.  NIL money is usually used to entice transfers to come to your program.

A full-scholarship == cost of attendance (COA) at that college/university. If a college/university gives COA to an out of state athlete it counts as 1 full scholarship. This definition hasn't changed.

Using your definition above (in-state COA), a college/university that fills their baseball team with 34 out of state players and provides COA starting in Fall 2025 is is giving more than 34 full scholarships.

Giving an out of state player COA does not count as 1+ scholarship.

I doubt many schools (including P4) will fund 34 scholarships. That's a huge jump, 11.7 to 34.  Plus they have other sports to fund. Quite expensive for any school.

And then there's Title IX... That's ruled by $$$.  If a schools funds only football and only a portion of their football team--let's say 40 scholarships--then the total cost (dollar amount) of those scholarships (comprised of both in state and out of state costs) have to be given out to women's sports to fund any number of scholarships or partial scholarships, however they see fit. It's the dollars given out that has to be the same, not the number of scholarships

@adbono posted:

While we all have our opinions, some are better than others. Yes, I am a JuCo coach - and a former JuCo and D1 player. I also have an engineering degree, have built & sold my own business, am a consultant & advisor, an independent pitching coach, and have placed over 30 players in college programs. Including two of my sons. So there is nothing flawed about my advice. In fact, it’s some of the most well rounded and realistic advice that you will get anywhere.

Yes, of course.

I have nothing against you weighing in as a coach - your advice is valuable.

But you responded purely from a coach's perspective.

We all know there is sometimes tension between what's good for the coach and what's good for the individual player - scholarship money is one of those areas.

Players are far better off with more academic money and less athletic money, although being on the team with no athletic money is a rough spot to be in.

You are at the same time very confident in your opinions and also often wrong. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so frequent

@adbono posted:

You are at the same time very confident in your opinions and also often wrong. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so frequent

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Sorry SpeedDemon, I'm not a man, and I think you're wrong here, too.

What kind of funding is "better" depends on what the player wants.  If he wants to have a true shot at playing baseball, then athletic money is better than academic, as adbono explained very clearly.  I've seen it.  If he "just" wants to have college paid for, then academic is better.

@SpeedDemon posted:

Yes, of course.

I have nothing against you weighing in as a coach - your advice is valuable.

But you responded purely from a coach's perspective.

We all know there is sometimes tension between what's good for the coach and what's good for the individual player - scholarship money is one of those areas.

Players are far better off with more academic money and less athletic money, although being on the team with no athletic money is a rough spot to be in.

I think you're looking at this from the 40 year vs. 4 year perspective in which case I agree. But from a pure baseball standpoint and especially if that's all a kid cares about and may not be going to college if not for baseball, having the baseball money is more valuable.

From my son's experience going into the portal after soph year, coaches asked him if he had athletic money at his previous school. It seemed to carry some weight. Maybe that's because they figured if he was on athletic scholarship there was something there.

If you transfer schools it's unlikely you're going to get as much, if any academic money. As a transfer if you get athletic money, it's guaranteed for as long as you're there even if you decide to stop playing (At least this was the rule that came out after Covid. I think it's still a rule.). When a large (majority?) percentage of players transfer at some point during college this is something to think about.

Everyone has a different situations but baseball/athletic scholarships are harder to come by which makes them more valuable IMO.

@ABSORBER posted:

A full-scholarship == cost of attendance (COA) at that college/university. If a college/university gives COA to an out of state athlete it counts as 1 full scholarship. This definition hasn't changed.

Not going to argue with you. It costs more money to bring in an out of state player. If a program is not fully funded, and they want to bring in an out of state player, they have to have options on how to fund.

Woman's softball went from 12 to 25. but remains an equivalency sport. Will see how that works out.