New NCAA Division 1 rule changes you parents need to know!!!

A few corrections:

1) There is no reduction in scholarships - it is still 11.7. The change is a limit in roster size - 27 on scholarship, 35 total.

2) The minimum (for now) is 33%, not 30%.

3) These changes are being appealed on August 9 and will not likely be decided until January.

See link to these changes on NCAA website:

NCAA baseball rules changes

And Natural, if I recall properly, don't the changes take effect (unless the appeal is successful) Aug. 2008?

One other thing you missed if it is not appealed.

The MINIMUN baseball scholarship is 33% with no more than 27 to be awarded and a regular season cap of 35 players. Coaches DO NOT have to give out all 11.7, and if they can't afford 33% that means they won't give anything which might mean if you do not qualify for academic scholarship, you get nothing.

I think you need to take better notes. And read carefully. Limits counters (those who qualify) to 27, but no where does it say they MUST give you anything.

JMO.

quote:

These changes are being appealed on August 9 and will not likely be decided until January

So if things won't be settled until January, what is this going to do to offers and NLI's this fall?

That is a question for the coach making an offer to your son. Be careful who you are dealing with... some have already proven they will pull scholarship offers at will - heard of this happening at two different institutions to '07's who were on their way to school this fall.

My guess is some coaches will be calling in the spring to reduce offers if the appeal is upheld. Not all, but some.

Texan... I believe some changes took hold this week - like no more text messaging. The scholarship changes are in effect for the '08 class that is being recruited now.

Infield,
my thoughts have been about what your viocing for a few month's, I think what you will see (my opinion)is a lot of movement from new and existing players and a lot of disappointed parents/players, especially if you end up getting red-shirted,

quote:

Be careful who you are dealing with... some have already proven they will pull scholarship offers at will - heard of this happening at two different institutions to '07's who were on their way to school this fall.

I'm surprised this happened to '07 players, as the new rules affect only '08 players and beyond.

I know for a fact it has happened to both 07's and 08's receving baseball money only. One who would have received over and above the 33% and those that have been originally awarded less. They had to be told in advance of possible scenerios, either stick with us while this thing plays out or you are welcome to go elsewhere. A 15% scholarship player would now become eligible for 33% or nothing, a player awarded almost a full, now the coach can't afford him so it could fall to 33%, adjustments have to be made by 08. My impression is if things stick is that the highly recruited kids will get what they always got, and less will become walk on status only if they do not qualify for baseball $$. Those that have very good grades will become more valuable, as academic money is always the viable option.

What concerns me is the statement above, how this will be good for students and parents. You cannot go in to a situation thinking that they HAVE to give you 33%.

I know of a player receiving books only and state money (no connection with baseball scholarship)was informed he had to go THIS year. Being he had two years left to play, he was told that there was no money to award him in 08, so take a transfer now if he wanted or give up baseball. Sounds pretty cruel, but this player did have off the field issues anyway, so for the coach it was a good opportunity to let him fly now.

Where I am struggling to understand is how the 33% rule was quantified and what does it really solve.

It seems to me the crux of the whole baseball scholarship issue is the 11.7 number itself. Figure that an idea roster is about 25 (similar to MLB active roster) active players, add to that the ability to red shirt 5 and still be able to hold some baseball money back to reward a walk-on or two the ability to prove themselves. How can you mandate 33% and not give the programs the flexibility to flex and bring them better aligned with the reality of the what is impacting programs out there.

It amazes me the transformation that collegiate baseball has gone through the pass two decades. We are seeing these multi-million dollar stadiums with attendance that rivals many minor league games, the increased media awareness in Regional, Super Regional and CWS. Then there are the advertising / endorsement deals from the bat and uniform companies that goes back to the schools.

I realize that Football pays the way for many athletic departments, but I really think it is time for them to re-evaluate baseball scholarship limits at the best interest of the student-athlete in today’s financial terms.

Just my thoughts on the whole situation.

BP

There you go, BPP, trying to use common sense...

BPP- In some states (AZ and LA) scholarships are rewarded very generously if a kid does well enough in HS. It's very much like our 10% rule in Texas. What this allows state schools to do in these states is barely offer scholarship to kids and yet "lock them up" still by offerring to only pay for books (when in reality the kid is getting a ton more of a percentage scholarship to go there). This allows the team to recruit more kids, bring it lots of "walk-ons" and such. I hope this helps.

Dtiger –

Thank you for your response.

So am I correct in understanding these are merit scholarship that the state schools give out? Is an out of state recruit eligible for the same scholarship? Finally, does this also come into play for football? I presume that is how they feed their walk-on program.

I just get frustrated every time this topic comes, because there is no consistent approach between programs.

Thanks
BP

In not knowing a lot... I'd say yes. Schools such as LSU can recruit HEAVILY in football due to this rule. Yes it is merit base, but (as it has been described to me and therefore does not make it fact) it seems easier to get than the Texas top 10% rule. A school can easily find out if this will be the case for a player and then offer the player a scholarship (lets say 2%) just so when he signs on the line, they are gauranteed him going there. I think that's what they are trying to get rid of.

Please do not use football to make any point on this subject. D1 football has 85 FULL 100% scholarships to hand out. They do not need any help from state programs.

Dtiger –

Thanks, it makes more sense looking at it from that perspective.

Basically, the 30% rule is trying to close this loophole these state schools have in using merit money to subsidize their program, therefore converse their baseball money for right player / situation. I assume this gives the state schools an advantage over private and smaller schools.

BP

quote:

D1 football has 85 FULL 100% scholarships to hand out.

And, it just burns my A$$ up.

That is my point, would it not make more sense for college baseball to be 100% and set the limit to 25 scholarships and roster to 35 players. I would be curious to understand the true finanical impacts to schools by expanding their programs.

Can anyone say "Title IX"?

I apologize for mentioning the evil sport. Normally when I explain the rule (to my parent who happens to be of the opposite gender), using the evil sport is a better example for her to understand.


With all due respect to f***ball. I said with all due respect! (movie lines... sorta)

BP,

Money ain't got nothing to do with it.

Don't try to figure it out.

The one's that MAKE the rules don't understand it.

FO -

Yeah, you are right, the lack of vision by those making the rules is what frustrates me.

Years from now, we will be posting on a s****r message board.

Made my peace, I am done on this topic.

BP

State earned merit scholarships does not fit into the equation of the 11.7.

For example, my son earned 100% of his earned merit scholarhip, that was 100% of tuition only, the largest cost of attending college. Baseball was paying room and board, books. The way it was presented made it look like they were paying for a full scholarship, but it wasn't.

That's why states with merit based scholarship give out so little and can work with the 11.7. In the past if a student earned his merit award all the coach had to do was give a small percentage to make it more affordable, or just books. Coaches spent their money on out of state students or don't spend it at all. And that is why these state schools have large rosters.

Now, merit earned state tuition will be ever so much more important, if the rules stay the same. The coach is NOT going to add in another 33% minimum for that player. You have earned a roster spot by good grades and good baseball ability, but probably not much more from the coach. All this and the right NOT being able to transfer without sitting out a year.

Merit scholarships can only be used in the state they are awarded and the student must attain a certain GPA to keep it year from year. For some, in baseball, that is very difficult. Also, those who receive academic awards from the coaches must do them same, maintain their GPA. That's why I never liked academic scholarship awards for baseball, if you fail to maintain, you don't remain. If all remains the same, academics will be a huge consideration for many coaches for recruiting.

85 (I thought it was 80 but doesn't matter really) NCAA D1 scholarships can be awarded for football, if there is a student earns merit $$, that's less he has to give out also.

I agree with FO, it can make one angry. Unfortunetly football drives athletic departments and always will.

The worst part of all this mess is the restrictions on transfers. In college baseball, the player is only guarenteed his baseball money on a year-to-year basis. Why can't the player decide on a year-to-year basis if he wants to play with his program?

College baseball is not a good deal for the player - ridicuously small scholarships and super restrictive rules on transferring really make it tough on the players.

My D1 college football playing son has a full scholarship that is guaranteed to him for all 5 years of his eligibility as long as he chooses to stay on the team.

And guess what - we had ZERO dollars invested in his football career through high school. No "select" summer football and his high school took care of all the expenses of the football team. Wait...I think we had to pay $25 each summer for his 7 on 7 jersey.

I share the frustrations expressed in this thread, but....maybe I should start a poll....how many of us are into this baseball "thing" for the money or the college scholarships? Don't get me wrong, I want one for my kid just like you do! But....I try not to spend a lot of time weighing the cost of baseball (past and present) against future income or college savings opportunities -- it will just make me crazier.

Baseball is either IN you or it's not. If it's IN you, you understand the comment. I think a more pertinent question is...."is it IN your son"? If so, then all of this is like the MasterCard commercial. If not, costs should be considered more closely.

catcher, funneldrill, kirk, coach c, swac, MANY others -- baseball is IN you!

Here is the latest...

The baseball legislation originally required individual financial aid packages for baseball student-athletes to include at least 33 percent athletics aid. The Board decided to lower the percentage of required aid to individual players to 25 percent and to allow all countable aid to be included in the calculation toward the minimum, not just athletics aid.



The Board kept the provisions in the original proposal which retained the financial aid model of 11.7 equivalencies in the sport and limits counters to 30 in 2008-09 and 27 in 2009-10 and thereafter and caps the regular-season squad size at 35.



The Board also directed the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group to continue studying and working on other issues within the sport, including the possibility of using a dollar figure minimum for financial aid packages as an option, especially for private institutions which often have a higher cost of attendance than public institutions.



The modified legislation enters another 60-day override period, during which institutions may submit requests to overturn the legislation to the national office. The legislation is not effective until August 1, 2008.

quote:

limits counters to 30 in 2008-09 and 27 in 2009-10 and thereafter and caps the regular-season squad size at 35

Just to clarify, the roster cap of 35 allows for only 27 scholarship players, with up to 8 additional walk-ons.

Walk-ons are not limited to eight. Just the total roster is limited to a grand total of 35, with counter limited to 27. Theoretically (not practically, of course), all 35 could be non-scholarship players.

I'm sure I should know this by now but...

Does 33% of an in-state scholarship count the same (against 11.7) as 33% of an out-of-state scholly?

Yes.