Why not more scholarship $ for baseball and true "Student-Athletes"?

Football and basketball add revenue to programs and enhance facilities. 

Baseball programs even at the power conferences don't make money.

Baseball players have issues to, but you don't hear much about it.

The problem isn't football, or basketball or men's tennis. Its Title IX and the way women's scholarships are allocated.  

I thought this article summed it up pretty well.  http://www.espn.com/espnw/titl...ent-enemy-men-sports

Goblue33 posted:

The problem isn't football, or basketball or men's tennis. Its Title IX and the way women's scholarships are allocated.  

I thought this article summed it up pretty well.  http://www.espn.com/espnw/titl...ent-enemy-men-sports

 

 

The artical pretty clearly states it's not title IX's fault and it isn't.  

Using title IX is a cop out excuse. Scholarship limits are a NCAA regulation. Individual schools are responsible for title IX compliance. I'd say as much as 90% of the time people blame title IX it's not the case. People should really read it. 

The author of the artical should have done a little more research as well. Vandy doesn't offer softball lol. 

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So Lacrosse and track and field get more scholarships than the "American pastime"? I think we need to talk to President Trump about this one!

$ goes to those bringing in $.  Alabama Football season tickets start are ~$430 for 7 home games.  Alabama Baseball season tickets are ~$190...for 37 home games.  Baseball is a non-revenue generating sport. 

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So since one program might not use all of its allotment of scholarships for ice hockey they should give unused scholarships to spent on baseball?  Now that seems fair..NOT!

Fair?  Maybe not. O??....yes.  My son is getting 25% for baseball and a little more than that for academics, meaning it's costing him/us roughly 48% of the posted room and board totals to attend a D1 close to home.  Yes, he'd have gotten the academic money without baseball, but so would anyone else that had his grades in HS.  The baseball money is "gravy"....he gets to play a sport he loves at a good school and I get to watch almost all of his games for free....yep, no admission charge at his school or most of the schools on his schedule.  25% for 4 years, he's essentially getting a year of school free for playing baseball.  Would we like it to be more...sure, but it's a lot better than nothing!   Oh, did I mention, I haven't bought a bat(s), glove(s) or any other baseball related apparel or equipment ($$$$) for 2 years....lol.   That doesn't show up on his scholarship dollar figure, but anyone who's been thru baseball knows that adds up too.

I think another thing to consider is that not every D1 has football and basketball making money....not even close.  Example....both are D1's here in Ohio.  Son's school averages 10,000 for football games at $16/ticket.  That's 160,000 per game coming in.  Another school averages 105,000@ $85/ticket.  That's almost $9 million.  Once school has top notch baseball facilities, multi-million dollar stadium that seats 3500, turf, professional level locker rooms.  The other has a grass field, no lights a decent locker room inside the hockey arena across the road and seating for 300.  To say schools can fund baseball from their football money isn't always the case.  $160,000/game x 5 home games doesn't go far......now $9 million x 7 or 8 home games....you may have some extra $$$ laying around.

TPM posted:

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So since one program might not use all of its allotment of scholarships for ice hockey they should give unused scholarships to spent on baseball?  Now that seems fair..NOT!

I'm not saying that these unused scholarships should automatically go to baseball. I'm saying that it should be at the discretion of the school to use these unused scholarships for other sports as they see fit. You would have to impose some sort of cap to prevent some schools from eliminating certain sports in order to fund their flagship programs to a greater degree than they do now.  

CTBASEBALLDAD,

If you've come to college baseball in search of equality, fairness, and what is right, then you've come to wrong place in my honest opinion.  It is about money, plain and simple.  It is a low supply and high demand proposition, and many young men will not reach their potential or expectations.  It is even more so in the professional ranks. 

It was explained to me (simply) many years ago that some recruits have the choice of taking advantage of college baseball before it takes advantage of them.  If you are fortunate to be one of those people, then you are ahead of the game.  Again, JMO.  

Shooter44 posted:

TPM posted:

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So since one program might not use all of its allotment of scholarships for ice hockey they should give unused scholarships to spent on baseball?  Now that seems fair..NOT!

I'm not saying that these unused scholarships should automatically go to baseball. I'm saying that it should be at the discretion of the school to use these unused scholarships for other sports as they see fit. You would have to impose some sort of cap to prevent some schools from eliminating certain sports in order to fund their flagship programs to a greater degree than they do now.  

Yes I understand what you meant, I used an example, not understanding why you feel that programs should have the right to do as you suggest.  

That's just not how it works.  

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Fair?  Maybe not. O??....yes.  My son is getting 25% for baseball and a little more than that for academics, meaning it's costing him/us roughly 48% of the posted room and board totals to attend a D1 close to home.  Yes, he'd have gotten the academic money without baseball, but so would anyone else that had his grades in HS.  The baseball money is "gravy"....he gets to play a sport he loves at a good school and I get to watch almost all of his games for free....yep, no admission charge at his school or most of the schools on his schedule.  25% for 4 years, he's essentially getting a year of school free for playing baseball.  Would we like it to be more...sure, but it's a lot better than nothing!   Oh, did I mention, I haven't bought a bat(s), glove(s) or any other baseball related apparel or equipment ($$$$) for 2 years....lol.   That doesn't show up on his scholarship dollar figure, but anyone who's been thru baseball knows that adds up too.

I think another thing to consider is that not every D1 has football and basketball making money....not even close.  Example....both are D1's here in Ohio.  Son's school averages 10,000 for football games at $16/ticket.  That's 160,000 per game coming in.  Another school averages 105,000@ $85/ticket.  That's almost $9 million.  Once school has top notch baseball facilities, multi-million dollar stadium that seats 3500, turf, professional level locker rooms.  The other has a grass field, no lights a decent locker room inside the hockey arena across the road and seating for 300.  To say schools can fund baseball from their football money isn't always the case.  $160,000/game x 5 home games doesn't go far......now $9 million x 7 or 8 home games....you may have some extra $$$ laying around.

 

No they don't all make money, agreed. But thats what makes recruiting a bit easier for some but not all.

You pointed out something pretty important. 25% @  4 years is one year paid by baseball.  You get it.  Good for you.

Full scholarships in baseball aren't ever going to happen.  

Academic money is pretty plentiful. Players need to be competitive in the classroom as well as on the field to help eliminate huge college debt.

fenwaysouth posted:

CTBASEBALLDAD,

If you've come to college baseball in search of equality, fairness, and what is right, then you've come to wrong place in my honest opinion.  It is about money, plain and simple.  It is a low supply and high demand proposition, and many young men will not reach their potential or expectations.  It is even more so in the professional ranks. 

It was explained to me (simply) many years ago that some recruits have the choice of taking advantage of college baseball before it takes advantage of them.  If you are fortunate to be one of those people, then you are ahead of the game.  Again, JMO.  

+1

TPM posted:

No they don't all make money, agreed. But thats what makes recruiting a bit easier for some but not all.

You pointed out something pretty important. 25% @  4 years is one year paid by baseball.  You get it.  Good for you.

Full scholarships in baseball aren't ever going to happen.  

Academic money is pretty plentiful. Players need to be competitive in the classroom as well as on the field to help eliminate huge college debt.

I guess I should also point out that he gets to travel for free....he likely wouldn't have been to Seattle for a long time if it hadn't been for baseball.  A nice free weekend in Tallahassee wasn't awful and I'm sure he'll be much warmer with weekends in Nashville and College Station, TX in the few weeks than he would be sitting home in NW Ohio. Now if they can somehow just figure out how to get that 10 day vacation in Omaha in the next 3 years that will be perfect.....lol

There are college baseball programs that feel fortunate to still be around the next year. These schools tend to have two things in common; cold weather and a FCS football program that doesn't fill a large stadium or no football at all. 

The program that comes to mind is Providence. They dropped baseball after winning the Big East (back when it was a relevant conference in sports).

On the topic of not having to pay for baseball equipment/apparel etc, I have heard from folks whose sons are being recruited that some schools do have "fees" that the players must pay. I didn't ask them to elaborate so I can't specifically state what they meant, but I thought perhaps some of the folks on here with players who are/were college players can expand on that.

I have also heard instances where a senior may be asked to give up their scholarship to allow the team to recruit a younger player, and that it's not unusual for a college senior baseball player who has previously been on scholarship to not have it his senior year. Has anyone encountered that?

My son's only "fee" is that they are required to sell 30 tickets for their spring raffle at $10/each.  It's just less hassle for us to pay the $300 and buy all the tickets than it is to have him try to pawn them off on friends/family/relatives.  No other costs.  He gets all of his gear & apparel for free....and since they switched from Adidas to Nike this year, he's got plenty of apparel....trust me.   They also get food money on the road trips.....and actually got to fly to two away trips last year....only one this season....but that's more than they've had in the past.  His only complaint is the wi-fi on the bus isn't always the best 

SanDiegoRealist posted:

On the topic of not having to pay for baseball equipment/apparel etc, I have heard from folks whose sons are being recruited that some schools do have "fees" that the players must pay. I didn't ask them to elaborate so I can't specifically state what they meant, but I thought perhaps some of the folks on here with players who are/were college players can expand on that.

I have also heard instances where a senior may be asked to give up their scholarship to allow the team to recruit a younger player, and that it's not unusual for a college senior baseball player who has previously been on scholarship to not have it his senior year. Has anyone encountered that?

I dont know about the fees you are talking about.

Yes seniors are asked to give up scholarships, unless they are impact players. LSU has 4 seniors returning that turned down the draft. If they had baseball money still available doubt it was taken away. More than likely Coach played with numbers to other players. Most common is asking frosh or sophmores to give up some money and then given more the next year. Mine was given a hefty sum, but told none as a senior. 

FWIW this is a discussion that happens for most in their junior year.  It depends on the player.  I know one ace that never got a dime but then rewarded senior year.

Shooter44 posted:

TPM posted:

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So since one program might not use all of its allotment of scholarships for ice hockey they should give unused scholarships to spent on baseball?  Now that seems fair..NOT!

I'm not saying that these unused scholarships should automatically go to baseball. I'm saying that it should be at the discretion of the school to use these unused scholarships for other sports as they see fit. You would have to impose some sort of cap to prevent some schools from eliminating certain sports in order to fund their flagship programs to a greater degree than they do now.  

So as you said, LSU probably isn't playing much ice hockey. I'll bet Alabama isn't either. So with your suggestion, what would stop those universities from awarding those scholarships to football? At those schools, it's not all about putting a player on scholarship to help their team, but instead to keep them from the competition. Think about Alabama with 103 scholarships instead of 85? 

Bulldog 19 posted:

Shooter44 posted:

TPM posted:

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. Since the article mentions LSU  (Geaux Tigers) by name, I'll use that as an example. The NCAA gives each school 18 scholarships for ice hockey.  I'm pretty sure there isn't much ice hockey being played at LSU. Why doesn't the NCAA allow them to reallocate those unused scholarships to baseball, which is huge down here? I totally agree with the article's author when he says schools should be allowed to award each sport scholarships from a larger pool as they see fit.  The only restriction I'd make on that is to cap it at twice the roster size.  For example in football, you have 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and 11 on special teams.  Cap it at 66 (I can already hear the football coaches wailing).  Do you really need 85 scholarships to cover 33 starters? Baseball, say 9 starters and a 5 pitcher bullpen for a cap of 28.  If you want to play ice hockey, don't choose a school in south Louisiana as there wouldn't be any scholarships in that sport.

So since one program might not use all of its allotment of scholarships for ice hockey they should give unused scholarships to spent on baseball?  Now that seems fair..NOT!

I'm not saying that these unused scholarships should automatically go to baseball. I'm saying that it should be at the discretion of the school to use these unused scholarships for other sports as they see fit. You would have to impose some sort of cap to prevent some schools from eliminating certain sports in order to fund their flagship programs to a greater degree than they do now.  

So as you said, LSU probably isn't playing much ice hockey. I'll bet Alabama isn't either. So with your suggestion, what would stop those universities from awarding those scholarships to football? At those schools, it's not all about putting a player on scholarship to help their team, but instead to keep them from the competition. Think about Alabama with 103 scholarships instead of 85? 

The cap on scholarships I mentioned in both my original post and my reply to TPM would prevent 103 football scholarships.  Also, I really don't think an additional 18 scholarships would make Bama any better. It would, however, make the teams losing those 18 players who went to Bama instead worse.

Maybe not in football, but one full scholarship in baseball would make an impact.  

But if you're changing caps, then shouldn't the caps be opened in all sports? Or you just want to make baseball better? 

TPM & Fenwaysouth pretty much said it all. I would only add that the NCAA D1 '11.7 ' scholarship allotment is very misleading.

Most schools are NOT fully funded ......There are approximately 300 NCAA D1 men's baseball programs and maybe 15% to 20% are 'fully funded' ( Per 2015 NCAA stats ) 

http://d1baseball.com/columns/...seball-2015-edition/

Most programs are at 8.5 mark. Some 9.5 and some at 7

Just wanna make sure I point that out to parents or players new the recruiting process

StrainedOblique posted:

TPM & Fenwaysouth pretty much said it all. I would only add that the NCAA D1 '11.5 ' scholarship allotment is very misleading.

Most schools are NOT fully funded ......There are approximately 300 NCAA D1 men's baseball programs and maybe 15% to 20% are 'fully funded' ( Per 2015 NCAA stats ) 

http://d1baseball.com/columns/...seball-2015-edition/

Most programs are at 8.5 mark. Some 9.5 and some at 7

Just wanna make sure I point that out to parents or players new the recruiting process

 

11.7

TPM posted:

StrainedOblique posted:

TPM & Fenwaysouth pretty much said it all. I would only add that the NCAA D1 '11.5 ' scholarship allotment is very misleading.

Most schools are NOT fully funded ......There are approximately 300 NCAA D1 men's baseball programs and maybe 15% to 20% are 'fully funded' ( Per 2015 NCAA stats ) 

http://d1baseball.com/columns/...seball-2015-edition/

Most programs are at 8.5 mark. Some 9.5 and some at 7

Just wanna make sure I point that out to parents or players new the recruiting process

 

11.7

Thanks

NP, thanks for pointing out about the fact that many programs dont even fund the scholarships they have. 

A strong alumni program helps to fund scholarships. A good question to ask during recruiting, how much is spent on athletic scholarships. 

StrainedOblique posted:

TPM & Fenwaysouth pretty much said it all. I would only add that the NCAA D1 '11.7 ' scholarship allotment is very misleading.

Most schools are NOT fully funded ......There are approximately 300 NCAA D1 men's baseball programs and maybe 15% to 20% are 'fully funded' ( Per 2015 NCAA stats ) 

http://d1baseball.com/columns/...seball-2015-edition/

Most programs are at 8.5 mark. Some 9.5 and some at 7

Just wanna make sure I point that out to parents or players new the recruiting process

 

Very important point and one that is overlooked or not fully understood by many. 

Shooter44 posted:

What makes no sense to me is the allocation of the number of scholarships by sport. 

I think the main reason for the cap by sport is related to leveling the playing field between schools who compete for the same championship. About 300 schools compete for the D1 championship. In theory, the 11.7 cap protects smaller schools who can't afford to fund 18 full scholarships for baseball. Of course that number is very arbitrary in the real world since most schools can't even (or choose not to) fund the 11.7.