Tom, are you certain that BOTH teams compete in DI?
some schools have certain sports compete in a lower division
NCAA --- Where To Count Student-Athletes Who Participate in More Than One Intercollegiate Sport 2006-07 Academic Year
DIRECTIONS:
Start at 1, football, and keep
going until you reach a sport in
which the student-athlete participates.
Count the student-athlete
in that sport.
.
1. Football*
2. Basketball
3. Men’s Ice Hockey
4. Women’s Volleyball
5. Men’s Swimming
5. Men’s Water Polo
All other sports
Count SA in any one sport
Ncaa Guide
MTH
I see your point, but if a player is good enough to
get 33% and academic money , even with the new rule he would still be good enough to get 33% and academic money. The new rule is not going to remove the competition for players among coaches is it?
I could see it effecting players already on the roster. Lets say a coach has a kid at 20% scholly +15% academic and the coach thought he was good enough to keep and bump up to the mandatory 33%. So 33% + 15% = 48%. Now with the new rule the coach doesn't have to do that. He can keep him at his current deal.
Now if the coach decided the kid wasn't good enough
to bump to 33% the new rule saves his scholly.
I see your point, but if a player is good enough to
get 33% and academic money , even with the new rule he would still be good enough to get 33% and academic money. The new rule is not going to remove the competition for players among coaches is it?
I could see it effecting players already on the roster. Lets say a coach has a kid at 20% scholly +15% academic and the coach thought he was good enough to keep and bump up to the mandatory 33%. So 33% + 15% = 48%. Now with the new rule the coach doesn't have to do that. He can keep him at his current deal.
Now if the coach decided the kid wasn't good enough
to bump to 33% the new rule saves his scholly.
One of the confusing aspects of this (to me) new rules vs amended new rules is what is the impact to the coach vs the student athlete. With the 33% rule the coach had the problem of allocating 33% to 27 players. For instance, If forced to give min. 33% to 27 players that leaves the coach 2.789 schollys to allocate to the studs.
With the new rule the coach has 6.53 schollys to allocate to players over the 25% , if he has 6 kids that are getting at least 25% academic $$ that could free up 1.5 more.
Given that academic money can free up schollys, I wonder how the coaches will weigh player ability vs.
grades.
It seems to me this new amended rule has the biggest effect on the kids that would be recruited below 25% scholly. It's either qualify for academic money or walk on. The only other option is to play
somewhere else.
Am I thinking straight??
With the new rule the coach has 6.53 schollys to allocate to players over the 25% , if he has 6 kids that are getting at least 25% academic $$ that could free up 1.5 more.
Given that academic money can free up schollys, I wonder how the coaches will weigh player ability vs.
grades.
It seems to me this new amended rule has the biggest effect on the kids that would be recruited below 25% scholly. It's either qualify for academic money or walk on. The only other option is to play
somewhere else.
Am I thinking straight??
It appears academic monies that have never counted toward countable aid for the team still applies. It appears the new rule allows the coach to use the academic monies against the students 25%.
If this is correct, then the coach has the option to either give more athletic grant from his 11.7 to the player in a blending, or opt to not give anymore and use it to attract the "studs", as they are called. The coach will have to determine who officially become counters and non-counters.
Someone mentioned an average D1 roster has players who never receive athletic monies and just play on their non-countable academic monies, which is a theory of the 28-35th rostered kid as a non-counter??
The rule seems to protect the other 27 with the minimum 25% rule to dissuade transfers, and is a reason I think the recruiting activity level has been quiet, to a point for several kids.
What if a coach was able to recruit 10 kids with non-countable academic money that equated to 25% each and designated them counters? He can then use the entire 11.7 on the remaining 17 counters, and opt to carry 8 additional players who choose to play for no monies whatsoever??
What about schools in Georgia with the Hope scholarship??
If this is correct, then the coach has the option to either give more athletic grant from his 11.7 to the player in a blending, or opt to not give anymore and use it to attract the "studs", as they are called. The coach will have to determine who officially become counters and non-counters.
Someone mentioned an average D1 roster has players who never receive athletic monies and just play on their non-countable academic monies, which is a theory of the 28-35th rostered kid as a non-counter??
The rule seems to protect the other 27 with the minimum 25% rule to dissuade transfers, and is a reason I think the recruiting activity level has been quiet, to a point for several kids.
What if a coach was able to recruit 10 kids with non-countable academic money that equated to 25% each and designated them counters? He can then use the entire 11.7 on the remaining 17 counters, and opt to carry 8 additional players who choose to play for no monies whatsoever??
What about schools in Georgia with the Hope scholarship??
Yup, I suppose with 10 25% academic kids designated as counters, the coach could then give 17 kids .688 each 
I hope we will hear some info on how caoches plan to play this rule.
I hope we will hear some info on how caoches plan to play this rule.
You think we are confused how would you like to be a coach right now. There might not be any phone calls for weeks while they try to figure out what in the heck this all means.
Is this final now, or does the new proposal have to get approved somewhere down the line???
Is this final now, or does the new proposal have to get approved somewhere down the line???
make no mistake - - coaches are NOT confusedquote:by hh1: You think we are confused how would you like to be a coach right now
much of the coach's budget process is purposely closly held info ...
the less parents/prospects know, the better an offer can sound when presented
but the dialog & info gained here at least gives us websters a leg up ..
many other parents will be clueless
quote:but the dialog & info gained here at least gives us websters a leg up ..
many other parents will be clueless
Yes Bee
Georgia schools have been mentioned a few times.
I am not sure if the new rule makes much of a difference from 2007 to 2009. It all depends on their budget. It is concievable that Ga. schools could use the HOPE program as their 25% count on 18 in state players and have almost 12 full rides available for out of state recruits(For Ga. Tech that would require a scholly budget of 416,856). But that doesn't change anything from the 2007 year. The advantage for those schools was already there.
If I'm wrong please speak up, I'm trying to learn this!!!!
I am not sure if the new rule makes much of a difference from 2007 to 2009. It all depends on their budget. It is concievable that Ga. schools could use the HOPE program as their 25% count on 18 in state players and have almost 12 full rides available for out of state recruits(For Ga. Tech that would require a scholly budget of 416,856). But that doesn't change anything from the 2007 year. The advantage for those schools was already there.
If I'm wrong please speak up, I'm trying to learn this!!!!
quote:Originally posted by btbballfannumber1:
what about institutional grants? are they "countable" aid and can they be used in the 25 percent.
i'm not talking about pell grants.........only "institutional" grants.
********** I was under the impression need-based private institutional grants always was considered both countable aid for the student as well as the 11.7 according to an ACC coach?
#15 of the NCAA bylaws has a chart..........see the link, and I am not sure of its interpretation:
http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manua...007-08_d1_manual.pdf
see figure 15.1
It says institutional financial aid counts toward the 11.7 if the student is classified as a "counter"
The aid does count. What I was told this ammendment did was help those schools that do not have fully funded programs. This aid can be used to bring a scholarship up to the 25%. The fully funded schools will have no leg room with the aid.
This explains the part about counting academic aid a lot better. http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=274
Bottom line, I think old Bee and Coach Merc were right.
Bottom line, I think old Bee and Coach Merc were right.
MTH.....this part still has me confused:
"In order to make the change more palatable to underfunded schools that had protested the change, programs that have less than 11.7 scholarships at their disposal will be able to use countable institutional aid to get to 25 percent." I am assuming that the underfunded schools can only give "countable institutional aid" to the "counters" (30 in '08 and 27 in '09). Does that mean that the "extra" players on the roster (5 in '08 and 8 in '09) cannot receive any institutional aid (athletic, academic or need-based)?
"In order to make the change more palatable to underfunded schools that had protested the change, programs that have less than 11.7 scholarships at their disposal will be able to use countable institutional aid to get to 25 percent." I am assuming that the underfunded schools can only give "countable institutional aid" to the "counters" (30 in '08 and 27 in '09). Does that mean that the "extra" players on the roster (5 in '08 and 8 in '09) cannot receive any institutional aid (athletic, academic or need-based)?
As I understand it, the 8 non-scholarship players cannot, by definition, get any of the 11.7 money. That has to be divided amongst the 27.
I don't think it will prevent the 8 from getting academic or need based money.
As I read it, this part of the new rules will not affect the fully funded schools at all. It's just a way of allowing the under funded schools to possibly divide their limited money between 27 kids rather than 12 or 16. For example, Wofford College funds 4 scholarships. WIthout this rule they could only give money to 16 kids. Now they may be able to spread it between 27, PROVIDED they qualify for enough academic or need based money.
Take this for whatever it is worth. I'll be the first to admit that I am still confused as well.
I don't think it will prevent the 8 from getting academic or need based money.
As I read it, this part of the new rules will not affect the fully funded schools at all. It's just a way of allowing the under funded schools to possibly divide their limited money between 27 kids rather than 12 or 16. For example, Wofford College funds 4 scholarships. WIthout this rule they could only give money to 16 kids. Now they may be able to spread it between 27, PROVIDED they qualify for enough academic or need based money.
Take this for whatever it is worth. I'll be the first to admit that I am still confused as well.
quote:Originally posted by pumpin_gas:
MTH.....this part still has me confused:
"In order to make the change more palatable to underfunded schools that had protested the change, programs that have less than 11.7 scholarships at their disposal will be able to use countable institutional aid to get to 25 percent." I am assuming that the underfunded schools can only give "countable institutional aid" to the "counters" (30 in '08 and 27 in '09). Does that mean that the "extra" players on the roster (5 in '08 and 8 in '09) cannot receive any institutional aid (athletic, academic or need-based)?