NLI offer different than the verbal offer

Strike3Looking posted:

Nuke83 - is this the case even if the school commits to the arrangement in writing (i.e., something more than an written offer, such as an executed financial agreement on signing day, even if no NLI is executed on signing day)?  On a related note, can a school be bound by a written commitment provided on signing day of a Spring Roster spot? 

So we're only talking about P5 schools.  To that point, I'm not sure that any of them would execute a financial agreement without also executing an NLI.  The NLI process is "owned" and managed by the NCAA and partner schools "agree" to use the NLI process.  The financial agreement is separate from the NLI and if the NLI is signed a financial agreement is REQUIRED, but an NLI isn't required (and maybe not even allowed?) if a financial agreement isn't executed.

The NLI actually locks the player and school down (to a degree).  Once the NLI is signed, other schools can no longer recruit player, and the player can no longer change schools without NCAA sit out rules applying.  The NLI is only signed by players entering a school in his/her first year, so a player who walks on and makes a team as a freshman or later, never signs an NLI.  If a player doesn't sign an NLI, other schools can continue to recruit that player, so I doubt a P5 school would offer a signed financial agreement without the NLI commitment accompanying.

Rick is certainly in a far superior position to answer your question than I.

But, assume for sake of argument, a participating P5 school is allowed to provide a financial agreement to a student without executing an NLI.  In that case, I suppose it would be a binding agreement, but I don't know how enforceable it would be with the NCAA.  Certainly, you could litigate any financial arrangement if it came to that.  I suppose a school could write a financial agreement and contract whereby they make it clear the exact amounts that will be paid to a player each year, including $0 in year one, and if a coach were to offer a deal with nothing in year one but loaded in future years, it would be wise to get such an agreement, but I certainly can't speak to the legitimacy of one.

Likewise, to your second question, I suppose a coach could write a contract guaranteeing a roster spot to a player, but I've never heard of such.

As you've probably read in many other posts, even with NLI, financial agreement, P5 4 year guarantee, etc., a coach can make life miserable enough, quickly enough to get any player he wishes to leave on his own accord.

NUKE83 is pretty much on target with all of his points.  If an athlete gets a multi-year scholarship agreement from a school with $0 in year one and funds in following years, it could be binding on the school and an athlete's family may be able to get an attorney to enforce it legally, but the coach might say "you're never going to play here, if you want to play, you'll need to transfer elsewhere."  

If a coach wrote a "contract" or agreement for a guaranteed roster spot, an attorney might file an injunction against the university to try to get it enforced, but the NCAA won't have any comment on the matter and there are no rules through the NCAA to enforce such an agreement.   

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

Strike3Looking posted:

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player.  One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm. 

Midwest Mom posted:
Strike3Looking posted:

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player.  One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm. 

Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster. 

NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters).  There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.

Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money.  Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35.  You need lots of pitchers.

I have heard of scholarships structured many ways.  Same percent each year.  25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year .  25, 33, 50, 66%.  Son's scholarship was adjusted each year: awarded what was in the NLI his freshman year, upped his sophomore year because a player quit, then lowered his junior year to allow more money for incoming freshmen.  This was all explained ahead of time and we had the option to not accepted the arrangement change.

100% scholarships do happen.  The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.

    

Am I the only one here who thinks 100% aid, based on need, is not really a scholarship per se? Yes, the kid is not counting against athletic aid, but the only thing they have done to “earn” the scholarship is to have financial need. To me, that is not scholarship, it’s grant aid, and by definition a walk on.

Chicago643 posted:

Am I the only one here who thinks 100% aid, based on need, is not really a scholarship per se? Yes, the kid is not counting against athletic aid, but the only thing they have done to “earn” the scholarship is to have financial need. To me, that is not scholarship, it’s grant aid, and by definition a walk on.

Correct.....a kid getting 100 percent in need money is a walk on....and nothing more with regard to the team.  However, if a coach was recruiting the kid...he could very well have planned on giving him scholarship money, in any amount over 25 percent.  Once they found out he was getting 100 percent need based, the coach can guarantee him a roster spot, though it's not a formal agreement....and give him no baseball money....but again, the kid is a walk on.  Unless the kid is a stud pitcher throwing 94-95 he probably sounds pretty silly going around telling people he is on a 100 percent scholly....because 1) it has nothing to do with baseball...and 2) most people will just assume he's not being truthful because 100 percent athletic schollys are so infrequent.  A lot of this comes from the fact that a lot of people just don't understand scholly's.  I've had people talk to me about my son and think he has a full ride for baseball....because they hear athletic scholarship and just assume they are all full rides

If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount. 

My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.

In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.

Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!

Picked Off posted:

If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount. 

My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.

In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.

Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!

Agree the idea is to get through the college experience without debt, but grant aid is not a scholarship. It’s need based, not merit based and certainly not athletic aid. They would receive it if they were a non-athlete.

Chicago643 posted:
Picked Off posted:

If I'm his parent, I'll take the 100% academic/need scholarship all day long. Who cares if he is a walk on or if he got athletic money. They do have to meet certain factors before it doesn't count against the 11.7. Coaches generally play their best player, regardless of scholarship amount. 

My experience over the years is that most families that brag about scholarships are usually not truthful. It's nobody's business and should be kept to themselves. Coaches hate it. I remember when our financial was agreement was presented and the coach made it known he did not like it shared. I've seen parents on this site blab the school and the amount and haven't even stepped foot on campus. Only bad things can come from this.

In the end, scholarship players get cut and walkon's get drafted. Signing the NLI & Financial agreement is only the beginning.

Our family has been blessed with both academic and athletic money for all 5 years(RS Senior). He will graduate with his MBA and zero debut. That should be the goal!

Agree the idea is to get through the college experience without debt, but grant aid is not a scholarship. It’s need based, not merit based and certainly not athletic aid. They would receive it if they were a non-athlete.

There are all type of grants and all type of scholarships. One is need based and one is merit based.  Both,  are considered student financial aid that (usually) doesnt have to be paid back. 

The questions on the application help the coach to determine how he will spend his money.  I know of quite a few situations where the athlete received 100% needs based aid (walk ons) and played every game in baseball as well as other sports. That allows the coach to use his money for athletic scholarships which are technically called grants as well. 

I concur with picked off, who cares really who gets what and what its called, the whole idea is to walk away with little or no debt. This will especially become important down the road due to tax reform.

Personally, if someone offered 25% to my player and nothing else to subsidize costs he would be looking elsewhere than a D1 opportunity. 

JMO

I guess that is why we all have opinions, then. As someone who has already “run the race” you can say you would walk away from a 25% D1 offer, but I am sure there are many parents with players who would gladly accept that to realize their dream. 

People do care what it is called so they can say “my kid got a baseball scholarship,” and because being a “counter” matters

Chicago643 posted:

I guess that is why we all have opinions, then. As someone who has already “run the race” you can say you would walk away from a 25% D1 offer, but I am sure there are many parents with players who would gladly accept that to realize their dream. 

People do care what it is called so they can say “my kid got a baseball scholarship.”

25% at a DI is great and nothing to walk away from if there are no better offers on the the table. Academic money is a bonus and the player should grab as much as they can. If kids focucused on academics as much as they do athletics, they would be much better off. I don't know that much about grants or need base money. We live in CA where most consider us wealthy, but in reality we are just getting by after the state & Feds get done digging into our pockets. Another story for a different day!

Our son was not one of those full rides that we hear about all the time. He had a nice mix of academic & athletic his first two years(DI) and athletic money at his current(DII). Luckily we started a college fund many years ago that has helped along the way but we still pay out of our monthly budget. We are looking forward to the extra money we will have when this is all done. Maybe we will follow in the footsteps of "justbaseball" and leave the Republic of California to greener pastures.

keewart posted:
Midwest Mom posted:
Strike3Looking posted:

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player.  One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm. 

Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster. 

NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters).  There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.

Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money.  Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35.  You need lots of pitchers.

I have heard of scholarships structured many ways.  Same percent each year.  25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year .  25, 33, 50, 66%.  Son's scholarship was adjusted each year: awarded what was in the NLI his freshman year, upped his sophomore year because a player quit, then lowered his junior year to allow more money for incoming freshmen.  This was all explained ahead of time and we had the option to not accepted the arrangement change.

100% scholarships do happen.  The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.

    

11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school. 

this is all interesting conversation, but every situation is different-  family financials are different for everyone, goals are different for everyone.  Heck just within my family with my first two sons we had completely different situations.

first son was a high academic kid, who used football to gain acceptance to a high academic school.  There was zero aid, but we were happy that he was accepted.    football served it's purpose in this situation.  He's now a senior, graduating in may, and has already accepted a job in his chosen field, and for us, it worked like it was supposed to. 

Second son is at a high level baseball factory, on a partial baseball scholarship (the other part is family scholarship!) he's chasing his dream to play pro ball one day.    we support him wholeheartedly. 

who cares what everyone else is doing, figure out what your son's  goals are, what he wants  out of the sport and out of college and shoot for the best situation you can negotiate for your son's situation.

Midwest Mom posted:
keewart posted:
Midwest Mom posted:
Strike3Looking posted:

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player.  One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm. 

Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster. 

NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters).  There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.

Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money.  Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35.  You need lots of pitchers.

I have heard of scholarships structured many ways.  Same percent each year.  25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year .  25, 33, 50, 66%.  Son's scholarship was adjusted each year: awarded what was in the NLI his freshman year, upped his sophomore year because a player quit, then lowered his junior year to allow more money for incoming freshmen.  This was all explained ahead of time and we had the option to not accepted the arrangement change.

100% scholarships do happen.  The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.

    

11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school. 

Your math is wrong. They don’t get a fresh “11.7” each year, if they even fund that many. They are limited to (if fully funded) 11.7 total scholarships for the entire program. 

My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year.  Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference. 

Midwest Mom posted:

My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year.  Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference. 

Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year

Chicago643 posted:
Midwest Mom posted:
keewart posted:
Midwest Mom posted:
Strike3Looking posted:

Following up on this thread with a new twist.  Assume the following:

* Non-Power 5 D1 school offers player a multi-year scholarship

* Freshman year offer is 50% baseball money, Sophomore year is 0%, Junior year is 25% and Senior year is 25%

If this arrangement is set forth in the financial agreement executed in conjunction with the NLI, is it enforceable because there is Freshman year money of at least 25%?  Does the 0% in Sophomore year render the Junior and Senior year scholarships unenforceable, or is the only risk associated with a 0% scholarship year associated with Freshman year (which I understand equates to a walk-on status with no enforceability as to subsequent year scholarship promises). 

Essentially, is there risk with respect to the enforceability  of a non-Power 5 D1 multi-year scholarship having a year less than 25% if that year is NOT the Freshman year?  Anyone ever see offers structured this way (ostensibly, to give the program more recruiting flexibility in future years)?  Understand that coach can always "encourage" player to leave the program.

A Big Ten coach told us at a camp that they had a minimum of 25% scholarship for each player (this was across the Big Ten). That 25% could happen in any fashion and he had some players that were 25% each other and others that had other arrangements. One player had 100% senior year and nothing other years. Important to confirm but if Big Ten based on what we heard that appears to be something they would honor given minimum of 25% for each player.  One caveat: we heard this about 18 months ago so again, important to confirm. 

Each player on a baseball team does not get baseball money, unless there are 27 or less on roster. 

NCAA rules for D1 are that there are 11.7 scholarships, minimum 25%, split among a maximum of 27 players (counters).  There can be a maximum of 35 players rostered, so some players are not receiving baseball/athletic dollars.

Son's college team used to carry only 27 players so theoretically, each could have gotten athletic money.  Thank goodness that changed and they now carry 35.  You need lots of pitchers.

I have heard of scholarships structured many ways.  Same percent each year.  25, 50, 75, 100% (the coach assuming that the player gets drafted his senior year .  25, 33, 50, 66%.  Son's scholarship was adjusted each year: awarded what was in the NLI his freshman year, upped his sophomore year because a player quit, then lowered his junior year to allow more money for incoming freshmen.  This was all explained ahead of time and we had the option to not accepted the arrangement change.

100% scholarships do happen.  The two I know about were 1) based on full need, no athletic money, which is a dream for a college coach; and 2) to entice a player to not go in to the draft out of high school.

    

11.7x4= 46.8 so you can absolutely give every player 25% and some players more. That’s Big Ten approach. Iowa Mom May have additional perspective as her son just committed to a Big Ten school. 

Your math is wrong. They don’t get a fresh “11.7” each year, if they even fund that many. They are limited to (if fully funded) 11.7 total scholarships for the entire program. 

It's 11.7 for the whole team with a minimum of 25% to each player on scholarship. Heard that not just from Iowa, but from every D1 coach we talked to, and there were several. Coaches at Iowa talked through in great detail the funding and the constraints on it — largely because this was one of my son's smaller offers financially and they wanted him to understand the reasons behind the money.

Some of it I've forgotten, because honestly, it didn't matter that much to us.

This is what my son wants. It's the level where he wants to compete and it's a program he believes will make him better.

In the end, if those factors are there, and you can afford it, I'm not sure the money matters that much. No matter where you go, or how much you get, you'll still have to earn your way on the field.

 

Chicago643 posted:
Midwest Mom posted:

My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year.  Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference. 

Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year

I could be wrong but I don't think she meant 11.7 X 4 years but 11.7 times 4 quarters of a scholarship. So 46.8 25% scholarships. So all 27 players have a 25% scolly then 19.8 25% scollys left. Essentially if fully funded and equally distributed then all 27 players could be on a 43.333% scholarship. 

At least that's how I took what was being said. 

Scotty83 posted:
Chicago643 posted:
Midwest Mom posted:

My math isn’t wrong if you’re willing to believe that the 11.7 is divided up amongst players in various ways so they end up getting at least 25% of their entire education paid for by the end of senior year.  Hard to believe a HC of a Big Ten School would lie about the entire conference. 

Maybe you misunderstood...but the way you are thinking is DEFINITELY not how baseball scholarships work. Sure, a fully funded (11.7) program can give the maximum number of players (27) a minimum scholarship. But they don’t get 11.7 new scholarships to hand out every year on top of the ones they hs last year, which it seems you are implying. The D1 scholarship requires a minimum 25% to be granted. To get “at least 25% of their entire education paid for by their senior year” means you would be on scholarship exactly one year

I could be wrong but I don't think she meant 11.7 X 4 years but 11.7 times 4 quarters of a scholarship. So 46.8 25% scholarships. So all 27 players have a 25% scolly then 19.8 25% scollys left. Essentially if fully funded and equally distributed then all 27 players could be on a 43.333% scholarship. 

At least that's how I took what was being said. 

Yes Scotty, you said it better than me.  The x4 meant divided by 25%, which was what each player is guaranteed. 

I can't seem to follow what is being argued.  Is it basic math that is being argued or specifically how Power 5 conferences can structure their 4 year scholarships for baseball?  I can help with the basic math stuff.

If you ignore the Power 5 4 year scholarship component, there are numerous old threads that provide a detailed, yet clear, outline of what constraints a particular school's program may be working under, both external (NCAA) and internal.

I am hoping that Rick could come in and explain because there are many factors which determine what 25% actually might be, especially among programs in lottery states.

I think that it also depends on the programs budget, how much that the coach can afford, and whether the program is fully funded.

Keep in mind that a coach may say he is awarding 25 %, but 25% of what, tuition, COA?  

Also, a coach can throw out a dollar amount, which may be more than 25% but doesnt allow for rising costs of COA.

As I recall in our case the %/$ figure on the Financial agreement listed what it was covering. It was my understanding that it is always for COA(tuition, Books, R&B). It was spelled out clearly along with the number of years. Once enrolled, the dollar amount for both academic and athletic was applied to tuition. Excess dollars, if applicable was returned to in the form of a check. In our case it was used ongoing expenses, food, housing and books. I remember in one case, a teammate used that money to lease a new F150. His parents covered his food, housing and books.

FYI. 25% can be used anyway the player wishes, but usually goes toward tuition unless the NLI states otherwise. Once it gets to a higher percentage, it can read COA. However, usually tuition is on the top of the list on your statement, amount deducted from your balance. 

To arrive at each figure that counts as a percentage, it comes from the coaches budget. The budget if fully funded is COA (minus incidentials), times 11.7 which is divided (not always evenly) into 27 players. Interesting that there is a program out that coaches use, deducting  funded amount as the offers are made. 

Once again, states that have lotteries give players $$ towards tuition. This usually is more beneficial when attending a state school rather than private institution. Good grades are important.

FWIW, sons OOS scholarship was pretty high so that he would not use that benefit. However, times have changed, which is why state programs recruit state players.

Hope this helps new folks to understand how it generally works.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×