Possible big change in NCAA scholarship rules

I'd be curious what is driving any change.  Are bigger schools taking advantage of a potential loophole to expand scholarships upward to 18, 22 or more with this technique. 

Is it costing them too much money? So there is a move to change the rules so they can control themselves and make bigger profits. This could be a significant driver I would expect.

Does anyone making these decisions care at all about the players?  I would expect no is the answer here with the caveat that coaches might.  Their motive would be keeping more players in the program and potentially getting kids to campus from the minor leagues by putting together sweeter deals for high end players.

I'm sure the rule was created so that a school couldn't offer a player a 25% scholarship from the 11.7 and then 75% based on supposed academics, thus a 100% scholarship is offered to the 2.5GPA kid who can pitch 90 mph.  I mean that does sound like the kind of thing the NCAA was supposedly created to stop from happening.

My problem is that I have seen 3.0 GPA non-athletic kids get academic money so it seems unfair that a 3.4 GPA baseball player would be put in this position.  I don't think it is necessarily a bad rule, but I do think the criteria bar is set WAY too high.

Nice work by the NCAA....especially when you've got 2.0 GPA HS football or basketball guys who get a full ride.  If a kid qualifies under the school's standards for Academic money (whatever it may be) they should get it...no reason to take it out on the baseball team.  Baseball getting kicked right in the baseballs again....as usual

My understanding is that every student gets academic money the same as every other student, that is you get the same as every other student with the same performance academically as you.  You can't just decide to give it to an athlete just because, but if that athlete qualifies he gets it.  At one school my son would have gotten almost 100% academic money.  Where he ended up he got 10% but had to maintain a certain GPA to keep that money each year.   This seems fair to me.  To single out a certain group seems unfair.

can-o-corn posted:

My understanding is that every student gets academic money the same as every other student, that is you get the same as every other student with the same performance academically as you.  You can't just decide to give it to an athlete just because, but if that athlete qualifies he gets it.  At one school my son would have gotten almost 100% academic money.  Where he ended up he got 10% but had to maintain a certain GPA to keep that money each year.   This seems fair to me.  To single out a certain group seems unfair.

 

This is where private universities (and some public ones) have a huge advantage. They can give need-based aid to students who wouldn't even come close to qualifying otherwise. For example, I think Stanford's income number now is $125,000. Kids from households earning less than $125k/yr have 100% need based scholarships. Schools like Vandy and UNC have huge endowments they can work with.