Scholarships on a team

You can ask them, each one...but I don't believe you will find it published anywhere.

I don't believe the coaches really like the players to discuss it among themselves although I'm sure a lot of them do.

Those issues are kept very private and coaches ask the players that the information remain confidential.

I would agree that it is probably not a thing you want to discuss. A player getting 30% is not going to want to have that discussion with one who is getting 80%.

The 11.7 scholarship rule does not make sense to me. I do not understand why it cannot be increased to a number that makes more sense when teams are carrying 30 to 35 kids.

By doing this, it would enhance the coach’s ability to offer full scholarships to their kids in times where the cost of college education is extremely high. My main point is that there are many talent kids with good grades who cannot afford a college education, and by increasing the scholarships to a reasonable number it would offer the opportunity of a college education to many.

I understand that increasing the number of scholarships for baseball will cost the university money, and may make it difficult for some to do.

Obviously, we would all like college baseball teams to have as many scholarships to offer as possible. The reality is that many schools are discontinuing their baseball programs due to lack of funds. Be glad if your son's school has some aid to offer him.

The scholarship cap was originally intended to accomplish 2 goals.

First, it prevents the big time programs from hoarding players and then running the table against schools who can't keep up. It forces the talented players to get spread around, and makes it possible for the next tier of schools to set their sites on an achievable goal and thereby remain competitive.

Second, it prevents an "arms race" in which schools continue add more and more scholarship players. This aspect is important to the member schools as they try to control their overall athletic budgets.

The limit used to be 13.0, but there was an all-sport 10% cut some years back, hence the 11.7 number now.

That being said, I sure wish my son had a full ride like football and basketball players do. But until you see ticket sale revenues and TV revenues to support that, you can forget it. Given that WFU, for example, seldom has as many as 1,000 paying fans at any given home game, the reality is we're fortunate that someone out there is ponying up any money for the boys at all.

Good input.

Funding/money seems to be one of the driving issues and getting people to fill the stands.

Can a school obtain private funds from an alumni or corporation and target it to a baseball player and not count agianst the 11.7 cap?

I have seen where MLB alumni will give back to their schools as far as facility upgrades, so I am assuming those donations can not go directly to the kids cost of education?

quote:

Can a school obtain private funds from an alumni or corporation and target it to a baseball player and not count agianst the 11.7 cap?

No.

Donors fund the program generally. The program can then allot no more than 11.7 equivalencies to all players combined.

Now, some programs have other amenities to use to to compete for players. E.g., Alex Rodriguez paid to have Miami build a new stadium. At Wake, the locker room is pretty well tricked out. Those kinds of things are legal. But generally, end runs around the 11.7 are watched closely and prohibited. In fact, we have another thread going about pending clarifications/amendments to the NCAA rules that govern whether "financial aid" is manipulated to get around the 11.7 cap.

Thanks Midlo. Good luck with your season.

quote:

The scholarship cap was originally intended to accomplish 2 goals.

First, it prevents the big time programs from hoarding players and then running the table against schools who can't keep up. It forces the talented players to get spread around, and makes it possible for the next tier of schools to set their sites on an achievable goal and thereby remain competitive.

Midlo,

I understand what you are saying here but with 85 full rides in football it kind of defeats that theory. Once the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 give out their scholarships, doesn't that kind of inpact the competitive balance. A big time football program can certainly hoard players with that many scholarshops.

I always thought it was, like you noted after, revenue producing vs non revenue producing. Many D1 schools do not fully fund the 11.7 they have.

Nuke

quote:

Originally posted by Ebby Calvin Laloosh:

quote:

The scholarship cap was originally intended to accomplish 2 goals.

First, it prevents the big time programs from hoarding players and then running the table against schools who can't keep up. It forces the talented players to get spread around, and makes it possible for the next tier of schools to set their sites on an achievable goal and thereby remain competitive.

Midlo,

I understand what you are saying here but with 85 full rides in football it kind of defeats that theory. Once the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 give out their scholarships, doesn't that kind of inpact the competitive balance. A big time football program can certainly hoard players with that many scholarshops.

I always thought it was, like you noted after, revenue producing vs non revenue producing. Many D1 schools do not fully fund the 11.7 they have.

Nuke

Can't compare college football to college baseball.

BTW, you do know that that football scholarships help support other programs. You will find many from track and field, men's so cc er, some baseball supported by football scholarships. So while we don't like football having that many full (which probably aren't all used), you will find others that are grateful that there are that many. I think that we tend to find the bad in situations when it doesn't directly beenfit us.

The big problem is that many programs do not fully fund their 11.7. This is something that should be discussed during the recruiting process. This will give an idea of what lies ahead in bb offer.

Taking a look at the football scholarship landscape, I agree with Ebby. Having such a large number does allow top schools to warehouse players which detracts from overall competitive balance. Back in the day if I'm not mistaken, Coach Wooden at UCLA had nearly 20 All Americans on his roster before the scholarships were reduced for basketball. He was a great coach but it didn't hurt that he could take such talent and put it on the sideline.

If football were to reduce their scholarships (good luck with that) not only could non-revenue sports like baseball potentially benefit but you could find that the national champion for football might not automatically come from a pre-ordained conference.

It's the whole deal , where you have to have as many female scholarships as male . If it had anything to do w revenue ? Other sports , would have less than baseball . Just look how many scholarships there are for the women sports per team . Baseball was the easiest to dump on , for a lot of different reasons . Not going to discuss that topic on a open forum .