Va Tech's Spin on Cost of Attendance $$$

Based on the numbers in the article, the baseball program probably received cost-of-attendance money worth between 1.0 and 2.0 scholarships.

 

The implication is that a Power 5 school was not funded for 11.7 scholarships at their current mix of in-state and out-of-state baseball players.

With regard to cost of attendance stipends....I was under the impression that only Power 5 schools would do it...but based on a letter from my son's AD (mid-major D1) that's not the case.  The letter was basically a "welcome to the new year" type of update.  It mentioned that the school was spending $470,000 on cost of attendance stipends this year.  My son isn't seeing any, so I'm assuming it's only football and basketball....but surprised a mid-major was doing it at all

No gate receipts at Virginia Tech!  Free baseball!

That's a total lie!

(We make his little sister come, too.)

"The implication is that a Power 5 school was not funded for 11.7 scholarships at their current mix of in-state and out-of-state baseball players."

Swampboy,

 

I don't mean to come across harshly, but I do want to correct this.  VT is definitely fully funded for the 11.7 and has been for a very long time.  The point of article is that they are now getting around the 11.7 cap by using COA money on top of the 11.7.  In other words, they would have been spending more all along if only the NCAA would have let them.  That's the opposite of what would happen if lack of funds were the issue.

 

What I did find interesting is that VT has apparently been concentrating their money into fewer than 27 hands, which means (a) more walk-ons and (b) higher amounts for those who do get money.  Kind of surprised to see that at an in-state school where the total cost has a relatively low ceiling to begin with.  I've seen that approach used more commonly at pricey private universities.

Midlo, 

No offense taken. I'm grateful for the clarification.

So schools that are already fully funded can simply add the value of cost of attendance stipends to their scholarship fund?

At Virginia Tech, the in-state cost of living stipend times 11.7 divided by tuition/fees/room&board works out to about 1.85 equivalency scholarships.  

That's a pretty significant competitive advantage.

I have a problem with it. The idea was a reaction to the problems scholarship student-athletes were having meeting everyday expenses. To use it to basically add scholarships (I'm assuming this means they give it to walk-ons in lieu of scholly money) completely defeats the purpose. Of course, the emphasis is and always will be on football and basketball and they are fully funding the COA for those guys.

The purpose of the 11.7 cap (or any sport's having an NCAA cap on the quantity of scholarships) is supposedly to level the playing field at least somewhat.  Allowing COA payments undermines that because only some schools will have the budgets to take advantage.  But, no one ever accused the NCAA of thinking things through, using common sense, or being constrained by concepts of consistency.

 

Once you give the advantage, the fact that its use can be structured in multiple ways is secondary.  No matter how the money gets doled out, it's an advantage over other programs with lesser budgets.

 

That's probably just a fact of life, you may say, but then, it comes down to whether you think the concept of caps, or the specific 11.7 cap, make any sense in the first place.

Yep.  A friend of mine is a VT alumni.  He has season tickets for the football games.  He told me long ago the baseball games are free.  They bring in a ton of $$$ from the football program.

So since VA Tech is using the $45,000 to give more kids scholly's than they were before, they're essentially adding to the 11.7 number....not giving the current scholarship kids the "stipend" toward cost of living that the rule was designed to do.  My son goes to a school that is roughly $22,000/year.  If they did this with $45K, they're essentially giving themselves 13.7 to work with (while other teams in their league may not add any).....not at all what the rule was designed to do.  Gotta think the NCAA will have something to say about this.

And I am sure it will be as brilliant and well thought out as the original intent that got them here...keep in mind this is an organization with a 500 hundred page rule book. And then if they don't like the rules they created just make new ones to fit them (reference Penn State) and then realize they are going to lose in court so they just magically wave the mighty hand and it all goes away.

 

They don't give a damn about baseball (or any other sport) until it is a money maker and they won't be upset by this is my prediction. as long as football and basketball keep making enough money to float everything else.

 

I honestly HATE the NCAA.

Do not know the details, but I assume the basically reduced several kids official scholarships and simply grossed them back up with stipend money,  If they cut 5% from 5 players, they would "save" 25% of an official scholarship, which they could then hand out to an additional team member.  It should also be noted that they could only do this because they started out will below the limit of 27 - if they had started out at 27, then I believe they could only hand this money out to the existing scholarship athletes.  Somewhat of a unique situation.

 

So, on a $20,000 cost, the 50% ($10,000) guy just got his scholarship cut to 45% ($9,000) but is getting the $1,000 he just lost back through stipend monies.   I don't recall ever hearing about a baseball player not being able to make ends meet when stipends were being discussed.  It seemed like it was either a football or basketball player who was on a 100% scholarship to start with.  Does seem weird that the vast majority of this money is getting funneled to 100% scholarship athletes - with most programs handing the money out exclusively to such athletes. 

I don't think anyone talked about baseball players at all when this was in the discussion phase. It was mostly fueled by basketball and football players. In particular was the highly publicized story of Shabazz Napier, the UCONN basketball player who, in an interview right before the championship game in 2014 told stories of going to bed hungry. That was embarrassing to the NCAA on a stage, and in a way, baseball can't compete with.

^^^Like baseball players don't need to eat.  sheesh

(son isn't getting a stipend....btw)

Because I am so uneducated in this area, can someone explain in more detail the original purpose of the stipends? I've read most threads on the topic, but I still don't understand the original problem. Why would 100% scholarship athletes (like basketball and football players) need more money than the 100% scholarship they are receiving?

A scholarship gets you to class and maybe some books, but it won't put food in your belly. You can always borrow the money to live off of. A few years back they tried to address this by allowing students to at least work, but given the schedules athletes have to keep, adding a work schedule can be ridiculous. besides, what this ends up being is a booster's way into the program by giving kids a cushy job where they aren't required to show up or work much and get paid well. I actually quite during my freshman year - this was back when you weren't allowed to have a job by NCAA rules - because I couldn't afford food and never had money in my pocket.

 

The idea of allowing schools to give their players money to help make up the COA makes a scholarship mean more. Often in-state schools have very cheap tuition, but high cost of living. To give you an example, at the U of Arkansas, in-state tuition is only about $7k/yr, but the COA is about $23k. So, for most kids, that means borrowing the additional $$ to live on or, if they aren't eligible for student loans, doing without. So, even with a 100% scholarship, a kid isn't really going to school for free - not even close. Allowing stipends helps a lot of athletes make it, even if it is only $1500 to $3k a year.

Roothog....You are mistaken.  A football or basketball scholarship is 100%...meaning it includes tuition and Room and Board....so yes, it does put food in their belly. Stipends are nothing but a way for the Power 5 schools to essentially "pay" their players some of the massive profits...without actually "paying" them....which is why in most cases it will only apply to football and basketball...the only 2 money making sports. If it was "across the board" meaning all sports...I'd be ok with it...but as it it, it's a joke.  Baseball players getting 25% of their total college costs paid for need a "cost of living" allowance a heck of a lot more than a kid who's getting everything covered...but needs to be able to pay his car payment because he's not allowed to work.  Take out a loan like the other 95% of college kids do...and pay some bills with that....

 

It's not entirely like it sounds. They do get a meal plan. The problem is that often, their schedule doesn't make it available to them. Often meal times are limited in a way that makes it impossible to get to the dining halls due to practice schedules. Similarly, at many schools, the dining rooms aren't open seven days a week. Until a couple of years ago, athletic departments weren't allowed to provide food in the clubhouse. That changed. Some of the problem was alleviated by allowing the athletic departments to put out food available to the student athletes all hours of the day. We recently toured Nebraska and I could see first hand how this made a difference. Athletes could just walk by and grab fruit and beverages, granola bars, etc. That used to not be allowed. IN addition, up through at least 2012 the NCAA only allowed athletic scholarships to provide for one meal a day. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...r-athletes.html?_r=0

Most of these problems were recently addressed by the NCAA.

Seeing some of the higher end d1 baseball schools commiting 15+  top players every year, I often wondered how they did it with only 11.7 scholarships, especially since they already have high end returning players on scholarship. My thought was always that these players "expected" a decent scholarship offer based on their skills so I doubted they committed without a pretty good scholarship commitment.  Rumor has it that these schools supplement athletic scholarships with academic and needs based scholarships to get these players to commit.  This extra money comes from alumni donations I guess. I have no idea if this is true, but it does offer a possible explanation of how these schools can afford so many high end commits. If this is the case, I'm not sure this other loophole really matters. Just another method to get players into a program.  The reality of the NCAA is that it most likely isn't a level playing field.

Baseball players are only allowed to receive the same "academic" or "need based" scholarship money as any other student.  They can't have special scholarships funded by boosters or anyone else.  If you don't qualify for academic money if you weren't playing baseball you can't get it just because you are.

 

Yep.  Our son ran into this issue.  Even though the weekend home games (doubleheaders) didn't start until noon or so they had to be at the field by 9 am to prep, take BP and warm up.  Cafeteria didn't open until 10 am on weekends.  Why?  I have no clue.

 

The team would often get meals (often from Subway) delivered for the players to eat in between games.

 

Away games were different.  The school made sure to feed them when they were on the road.  It was great when they made it to the regional tournament. Since the NCAA was covering everything (the site of the tournament was over 500 miles from the school) the coach just charged meals to his card and then submitted the invoice to the NCAA.

"Do not know the details, but I assume the basically reduced several kids official scholarships and simply grossed them back up with stipend money,  If they cut 5% from 5 players, they would "save" 25% of an official scholarship, which they could then hand out to an additional team member."

 

Nobody said this.  No part of this is correct.

The original purpose of a scholarship was to cover the expenses of college. 

 

Since you have to eat, sleep somewhere and buy toiletries etc. whether or not you go to school, you might think that covering tuition, fees and books would do it.  But that ship sailed a long time ago; the standard "full scholarship" of the type seen in football and basketball covers tuition, fees, books, room and board (full meal plan).

 

So now, we're giving them "walking around money," essentially saying it's not enough you get your education free and your housing and meals free.  Now they can do the things other 18-22 year olds do and have cash in their pockets to handle it.  Or, they have money to pay to travel home and back, etc.

 

Bear in mind, the room allowance is based on dorm costs, so most of them already pocket that money, find less expensive living arrangements, and keep the difference.  Same thing with the meal plan moneys.

 

So this whole thing was off base, IMHO.  The reality is as was said above, it's a step towards pay for play.

 

Why this is being extended to give those who offer stipends a way to circumvent the 11.7 cap is beyond me, but until the NCAA outlaws that, teams who are savvy enough to exploit the loophole will have an advantage.

Yeah, my son is at a Power 5 on a baseball scholarship and he got an email saying "you have been awarded X for a stipend as a D1 athlete due to COA" and then about 4 minutes later....after he was jumping around the apartment, another email arrived saying "ooopps", lease disregard the previous email.  

You are correct, no one said this, however, it does offer a very plausible method for skirting the 11.7 limit.  I think what LHP2017 was showing was a way to distribute the COA money to keep existing scholarships intact, get that money back as part of the school's 11.7, then legally distribute it to additional players not on scholarship as actual scholarship money.

 

Another poster suggested that schools doing this were going over their allotted 11.7.  If done in this manner described, they would not go over 11.7, but simply "buy back" scholarship money from players receiving more than the 25% minimum using the COA money.  Kind of like the mob laundering money, comes in as COA, goes out as 11.7.

 

He did mention he assumed this was happening, and it makes perfect sense to me that this is a very good and legal method for distributing COA money as additional scholarships.  The end result is that players already on scholarship receive the exact same amount (now a combination of scholarship and COA) and players previously receiving no scholarship money now get something.

Thanks for the clarification Nuke83.  As I understand it, stipend money CAN ONLY BE GIVEN TO SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETES.  So, to increase the number getting money, it seemed logical that you would need to increase the number receiving scholarships - which start at the 25% minimum.  Again, I said the only way for the math to work is to start at a number less than the 27 maximum.  Really don't have an opinion on what they did, was just proposing a mathmatical solution - a force of habit from sitting at the kitchen table working through word problems with the kids.

yes,

 

what is happening in these cases is that players receiving MORE than 25% are actually having their scholarships reduced by a factor that is eventually an equivalent of what they are offering another - previously non-scholarshiped student.  Or potentially offering an potential recruit.

 

It is a loop-hole.  It will be abused until it is rectified and it will be a significant advantage to schools that utilize this approach until it is rectified.

 

What it shows is what we all know - that regulation inspires ingenuity.  The NCAA has subjugated student athletes for decades and their attempt to rectify that in small measure will create further problems. 

 

Until all sports are fully funded for all roster limits we will see continued bastardization of the "rules".

 

Fully fund all sports to their roster limits.  Problem solved.

 

The reality is that most schools have fewer than 20% of their student body participating in intercollegiate athletics - just match the scholarship limits with roster limits and add in the "cost of attendance" to go along with it and there is not problem.  It's a drop in the bucket. 

I was recently told by a college coach that the dominance of schools like UVA and Vandy is a result of large endowment funds he referred to a "funny money" are set up and contributed to by alumni that offset the lack of scholarships able to be given. He said it took the 11.7 and made an equivalent of over 23 scholarships availible. Totally leagal he says.

 

 

How so?  Not that it doesn't happen, but sounds questionable to me.  

 

I have heard the Vandy coach has written in his contract that the school has to accept anyone he wants.