Student-Athlete Compensation

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I just looked at the roster for UF, 120 players listed. Maybe fully funded but not everyone can be getting 1 full scholarship.

My bet is whatever the NCAA mandates for fully funded (I think around 80-84) are 100%, the rest are walk-ons

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:
"If there is a baseball player on half an athletics scholarship and his coach has already given out all the scholarships up to the 11.7 allowed -- and if the student-athlete wants to get half an academic scholarship to increase his aid, he cannot accept it,'' Morgan said. "He has to choose between athletics aid and academic aid. Right now, academic aid counts towards the 11.7. There are student-athletes out there who are being forced to turn down this aid.''
Does anyone know if the above statement is true?

It used to be true, specifically for players who were already on athletic scholarship and who had no institutional academic scholarship. They couldn't get exempt new institutional academic money. Since 2005 they can, if they've been at the school for a year, and have a 3.3 cumulative GPA.

Entering freshman players have been eligible for exempt academic money since 1999 (at least) if their HS record included one or more of these three possibilities: 1) top 10% of class, 2) 3.5GPA, or 3) SAT of 1200 (on 1600 scale) or 105 combined on the ACT. The player needs to maintain a 3.0 in college in order for the aid to remain exempt from the 11.7.

Regarding football, it works differently than baseball. It is a head count sport, meaning that if a player receives any aid, then that is one full counter. There is a limit of 85 counters, of which not more than 25 can be initial counters (usually freshman). For players competing on the varsity team, most kinds of academic money cause the player to be a counter. The exception is a player who has money unrelated to athletic ability, and who is a sophomore or higher with at least a 3.3 GPA.

I see no D1 requirement for scholarships to be 100%, but the only advantage of partially funding is to save money. Ther still can only be 85 counters. It's not like baseball where 11.7 can be spread over 27 counters.

Academic money based on GPA/SATs do not count towards the 11.7. Basically any student would get that academic money. The reason is to stop colleges from disguising BB money as academic money. So if the player qualifies for academic money is doesn't count against the 11.7

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

I see no D1 requirement for scholarships to be 100%, but the only advantage of partially funding is to save money. Ther still can only be 85 counters. It's not like baseball where 11.7 can be spread over 27 counters.

Thanks, 3FG I see nothing either that says the scholarship must be 100%.

Found this little tidbit about football scholarships.

NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)

How many schools: As of 2008, there are 120 schools competing in the FBS (formerly Division I-A), the highest level in the collegiate ranks. This includes the big programs like Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, USC and Notre Dame.

Scholarship count: FBS programs are allowed 85 scholarships on its roster at any given time, and generally can sign up to 25 players per year.

Scholarship breakdown: All 85 scholarships are full rides. There are no partial scholarships given in FBS football

Next level of football-

NCAA Football Championship Subdivision (FCS)

How Many Schools: There are 125 schools competing in the FCS (formerly Division I-AA) in 2008. This includes all of the Ivy League schools and FCS powers like Appalachian State, Georgia Southern and Northern Iowa.

Scholarship Count: FCS schools have 63 scholarships to be distributed, and up to 30 incoming players each year can be given aid.

Scholarship Breakdown: Scholarships at FCS schools can be full or partial rides. The 63 grants can be divided up in any way, but no more than 85 players can be put on scholarship

So we are using 100%. Is that 100% = COA = Full Ride?

If this is correct then all is not fair either in D1 football!

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
If this is correct then all is not fair either in D1 football!

Nope, I just made it all up!

OK.
Here's the rule that drives Bowl Division football to award 100% (or close to it).
20.9.7.4 Additional Financial Aid Requirements. [FBS] The institution shall satisfy the following additional financial aid requirements: (Adopted: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/04)
(a) Provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period; and
(b) Annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aids or expend at least four million dollars on grants-in-aid to student-athletes in athletics programs.

Part (a) requires 90%, and when you consider that some athletes withdraw, etc., this pretty much dictates that the award be 100%.

Part (b) isn't important to FBS questions, but I do think readers here may find it to be interesting.

I'm gonna try and decipher and say all (FBS) 85 scholarships are full rides as mentioned in a previous post.

One thing I never agreed with was the shortened season of a few years ago. It was advertised to help the northern schools compete. What it did was put a greater academic burden on the student athletes in the southern climates.

An Arizona school like Arizona or Arizona St. could start their season in late January and basically play weekend games most of the season with only a few mid-week games and a few more during spring break.

The NCAA has now eliminated the opportunity for these student athletes to attend class by requiring them to play more mid-week games.

They continue to profess that these rules are to assist the student athlete, but clearly this change negatively effected the ability of student athletes to perform academically.

quote:

One thing I never agreed with was the shortened season of a few years ago. It was advertised to help the northern schools compete. What it did was put a greater academic burden on the student athletes in the southern climates.

An Arizona school like Arizona or Arizona St. could start their season in late January and basically play weekend games most of the season with only a few mid-week games and a few more during spring break.

The NCAA has now eliminated the opportunity for these student athletes to attend class by requiring them to play more mid-week games.

They continue to profess that these rules are to assist the student athlete, but clearly this change negatively effected the ability of student athletes to perform academically.

It is time that they shorten the season by cutting out games. That is the best solution from a student-athlete standpoint.

Shortening the season is easy from a student athlete perspective. Fewer games, less time commitment, less travel, etc.

Where this philosophy breaks down is in the determination of the national tournament qualifiers.

If you play in the Pac-10 for example and there are now 9 other teams to play in league play, you have 27 games committed to league play. Making these two game series doesn't really help due to the travel advantages and logistics of playing a weekend series.

A 45 game season (for example) would allow only 18 games be 'out of league' or 60% (27/45) of games be in conference. In the old six pack days, when there were six teams each playing two series against each other or 30 games in conference of 56 (54% in conference games). This presented a huge RPI problem as the RPI trends to .5 when two teams simply play each other 56 times. The smaller the sample size of opposing teams, the less effective the current means of determining a tournament (RPI) becomes.

But this discusion is about student athletes and not RPI. Certainly eliminating games could be done to assist the student athlete, but it would require the revamping of the conference structure as well. It isn't practical with a shorter season to play a full conference schedule so the conference schedules would have to be adjusted (i.e. you only play 7 of 9 teams each season or something like that, like they do in football). Definitely possible.

I contend a much simpler answer is to provide more weekend opportunities to play games. Let the northern teams travel south to play games against the southern schools. That 'mix' of games helps the RPI actually work as you have greater dispersion of conferences. Sure they have to leave on a Thursday to play a weekend series, but that's better than a Tuesday - Thursday trip mid-week in April. The RPI already 'awards' teams for playing tough road games. If they need to even this out by giving more bonus points, than make that adjustment.

I do agree shortening the season is a better option than doing nothing.

Jeff

Just my opinion

mathmatical standpoint but difficult from a power ranking / RPI /

quote:

Let the northern teams travel south to play games against the southern schools.

The problem outside traveling for spring break is budget, a lot of missed Friday classes, and a lot of late Sunday returns causing fatigue in Monday classes. Plus the northern school have their own conference play to work in.