SEC Sponsors NCAA Legislation for scholarship increase

"More parity" might not be what would result from this change. I think baseball should be allowed to fund more, but the challenge comes from what might be the majority or at least many of DIs. While I suspect most of the SEC schools probably fund 11.7 and would be able to fund 14.7 if allowed, many schools do not and could not. So, what happens when your bigger and well funded DIs have 14.7. Will the smaller and lower level DIs be able to fund, say 11 from the 9 they have now? State tuitions in my state are up almost ten percent this year. Seems like for many schools that increasing athletic scholarships is probably on the bottom of their priority list.

Lafmom,
You are on to something.

It doesn't create parity, it creates more for those who have more to spend and that means finding talent out of state that you don't have in state.

It's probably driving them nuts that they might only have one super regional site (maybe two) while the ACC may have FOUR! That's not good for recruiting for the conference. They got NINE bids and I still can't figure out why.

quote:

They got NINE bids and I still can't figure out why.

That's because you are an ACC fan
We can speculate all day long but it basically comes down to the fact (like it or not) that the Southeastern Conference is PERCEIVED by most as the premier athletic conference in the nation.

Obvious by the list of teams selected this year (and in years past) that a lot of behind the scenes activity (that we don't know about) goes on when selecting the teams. I’m not the least bit surprised that the SEC has nine they have done this in the past. ---- What surprises me is there are colleges being selected that I have never heard of before ---- of course being recognized by me is not a prerequisite. But even when I go to these obscure team websites and look at their record, their opponents, and their strength of schedule I still shake my head. My wonderment is confirmed when I see what happens to them when they start playing..

As far as WHY they (MSU and LSU) are leading the fight for an increase in baseball scholarships is because it is the right thing to do. Has nothing to do with which conference they play in, who hosts a regional game, or WHO can or cannot fund scholarships. I see this as people and programs stepping up trying to do what they think is right. However I think the "parity selling point" will fall on deaf ears. Parity and equality cannot be mandated or manipulated by the NCAA. After all it was the NCAA’s brutal attack on college baseball in the name of gender parity (TitleIX) that started this whole mess.
Fungo

Fungo,

Fair post in reply.

I would make the same statment if members of the ACC would have been behind the proposal. JMO.

Actually, as reminded by a former ACC player I know well, the right thing to do is support and root for the teams in the conference, despite rivalries. I am ashamed to admit despite that advice, we cheered for the SEC Gators .

What will happen to those winning programs who win despite the odds against them? Interesting for those who follow Boyd Nation, check out the External Factor Index and sort anyway you wish. He disallows a very important factor (coaching staff) but interesting how many team made the field this year despite negative external factors (weather, tuition, big football programs, etc.) What will happen to those schools who don't have those advantages whereas the larger programs do? Just an observation.


The system of placing teams on the field is why we see teams in the 64 field that we don't feel actually should be there, but that is the way that it is. I completely agree with your observations, but it does give smaller programs opportunities who otherwise would never see a chance. Boyd Nation also had some interesting comments on the 64 team field.

Not sure how the SEC got 9, did they even rank highest in conference RPI? What is the criteria? How many did they place in the top 25 in RPI? ISR? I am not even sure why UGA got a top seed but how the heck did Bama (35-28) and Arkansas (34-24) get in over other programs with higher RPI or ISR? I am so glad teh CC beat out Alabama, I think the committee was hoping for a SEC/ACC super regional..NOT.

Regardless, the SEC only left with 2 while the ACC placed 4 for super regionals.

If you increase the scholarship ceiling, I don't see the problem.

It will create disparity between the big time programs and the smaller D-1's. So what? Isn't this what is already going on in football and basketball? And don't the fans like it that way?

Basketball is the real parallel. 65 teams in "March Madness". Some of them are conference tourney champs with automatic bids who couldn't beat the ACC's 8th team but they get to go to the big dance. Sometimes they pull an upset and we can all have water cooler talk about it. So why is it surprising, or even remotely troublesome, if we do the same thing in baseball?

To me, raising the ceiling just means more money available for scholarship athletes, and that's a good thing even if it means the rich get richer. Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the rich getting richer is already a fact of life in collegiate baseball anyway.

If we're really going to get on the parity bandwagon, though, then we need to make sure all scholarships are counted the same. The current advantage that public universities have over privates is an absurdity. And that's before you consider the advantages of schools in FL, TX and GA who can take advantage of Hope Scholarships and the like in addition to the manipulation of "average costs of attendance" to favor in-state recruiting.

The reality today is that public U programs in TX, FL and GA can put over 20 boys on the roster who aren't spending a dime on their college educations. Outside of those states (and there may be others like them that I'm just not aware of), public U's can get maybe 15 in-state equivalencies out of their 11.7. Private U's get 11.7, no way to milk it for more.

The NCAA knows all this and does nothing. What are we to conclude from this?

.

I would disagree to a point...

Like most instances...I think it comes down to the fact the people who have the power to make the decisions perceive the SEC as the premier athletic conference in the country. But what the heck, we threw the north a bone with the schedule changes...why not the SEC?

Unlike the higher profile $ sports not enough of the country is engaged and those in power can more easily get away with these things. Part of the reason the NCAA does not want to see Baseball as high profile as the $ sports.


44
.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Midlo Dad:


If we're really going to get on the parity bandwagon, though, then we need to make sure all scholarships are counted the same. The current advantage that public universities have over privates is an absurdity. And that's before you consider the advantages of schools in FL, TX and GA who can take advantage of Hope Scholarships and the like in addition to the manipulation of "average costs of attendance" to favor in-state recruiting.

The reality today is that public U programs in TX, FL and GA can put over 20 boys on the roster who aren't spending a dime on their college educations. Outside of those states (and there may be others like them that I'm just not aware of), public U's can get maybe 15 in-state equivalencies out of their 11.7. Private U's get 11.7, no way to milk it for more.
[QUOTE]
Excellent points dad!

.

I can actually see a scnerio where the NCAA lowers the number of scholarships.

It would seem to me that the current trend is to try to make up for the excesses of the big $ sports by overreacting the opposite direction with the smaller sports. Less $, less emphasis, even an advertsing campaign "...going professional in something other than sports"...all so that they can keep the big money flowing without having to deal with the REAL issues of the current disasters (see OJ Mayo) of running non-academics non-paying farm teams for professional basketball and football...and still give the illusion of being primarily an academic enterprise.

It's the "Mikey Principal"...Remember the old Life commercial...

NCAA Football: "You try it!

NCAA Basketball: "No, I'm not going to try it, YOU try it"

Together: "Hey let's make Mikey (Baseball) try it, He'll try anything!"

Baseball is the perfect foil...high profile enough that it commands some limited attention...but low profile enough that they can jerk it around without thinking and wtihout outcry....and then use it as an example of reform. It's simply a negotiable pawn at this point in a bigger game, with a bigger purpose...public relations and $

44
.

quote:

And that's before you consider the advantages of schools in FL, TX and GA who can take advantage of Hope Scholarships and the like in addition to the manipulation of "average costs of attendance" to favor in-state recruiting.

Did not know that Texas had the Hope scholarship program.

To end urban myth, state programs DO not pay for everything, only tuition which is tiered on SAT scores and grades. Tuition is just a small part of the equation and for those state programs that had 40-45 on roster it gave more bang for their buck. can't do that anymore. Many in state students get better out of state offers here than in state students (mine as an example). And if this is all true, why does UM draw the most talent from the state (local area Miami players with less pocket change to spend 40K+ a year). Almost full scholarships raised on endowments given to Jim Morris and his winning program.

Here's another one, SC has state funding, why is USC (Carolina) and Clemson sitting home when CC who pulls from out of state going to a super regionals this year?


Why do private programs like Tulane, Vandy, Rice, UM, Standford have good programs year after year with huge attendance costs? They are not pulling from state kids with state paid tuition.

I strongly beleive that the SEC motives is to better their conferences schools (most) not just the entire NCAA population. More schollies mean more money to pull from all over the country. Despite their success, it is VERY difficult to get many talented out of state players to commit to deep southern schools with huge in state populations without the lure of $$$. The SEC schools recruiting son offered FAR less to son (except UF) than any other ACC or conference school. ECU offered more as did ASU. What was the point of attending Ole Miss, or MSU, Auburn or LSU when he got more $$ offers from Clemson, Tech, UM? Where would you go? He would have attended Vandy over Clemson, but the coach wouldn't recruit him heavily with one of his BFs recruiting him and Auburn told him they needed to give a position player more money than a pitcher (bad move).

JMO.

The NCAA and the conferences are what they are---you and I cannot change it

I would be more concerned with the price of fuel--if it keeps rising we won't be able to even travel to Little League games in your town

The NCAA probably cares about as much as our government cares about the people it represents, big business always never cares about anyone but themselves.

Makes for a good discussion though.

quote:

the Southeastern Conference is PERCEIVED by most as the premier athletic conference in the nation.

I just had to laugh at this comment... and thought I'd add a little trivia for you all...

How many National Championships has the SEC had in softball?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
The NCAA and the conferences are what they are---you and I cannot change it

I would be more concerned with the price of fuel--if it keeps rising we won't be able to even travel to Little League games in your town

I'm concerned with the cost of an education more than fuel. It's rising just as fast and unlike fuel, it can be controlled.

Texas does not have Hope scholarships-unfortunately!