Can someone explain why baseball only has 11.7 or so scholarships???

[Punter1]

Is it because of Title IX?? Big public schools trying to keep an advantage over smaller, more expensive private schools?? What then??

I don't get it...would it be so hard to bump it to 25-30 full rides?? No other major sport, and college baseball is a major sport now, has to split scholarships up. It seems like doing so would influence more good players, especially the socially disadvantaged which the NCAA claims to care about so much, to go to college. This would obviously help the quality of play and diversify the lineups...which again the NCAA should be all for.

 

[Pharm Frog]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/coll...lars-key-college-success/#gb5Fb24eh8WJ3qp2.97

Good article....excerpt below.

The Myth Of 11.7

The NCAA’s 11.7 limit on baseball scholarships is best understood as a cap, rather than a universally set amount. As the actual amount of aid baseball coaches distribute among their student athletes, its existence is far from universal.

That such an amount of scholarships is legislated does not mean schools have to fund them. A considerable portion of Division I baseball programs have fewer than 11.7 scholarships; with the actual amount depending on how each university prioritizes baseball.

Such a difference, combined with the financial gulf between “Power Five” conferences and mid-majors and that between northern and southern schools in relation to the season’s February start date, puts an almost incomprehensible gap between schools on the same footing in terms of classification.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Just a few years ago Schloss indicated he needed more ships than (whatever) the number he had. Also this past season I saw a ball game on tv and the announcer said they only had three ships to offer ...??

 

[Pharm Frog]

I should add that the article posted above doesn't really answer the question as to "why" but gives some really interesting perspective on scholly stacking.

Once upon a time when I served on committees for a D2 conference, I can without hesitation say that the scholly limits on baseball were universally attributed to Title IX concerns, budget and resource concerns, and competitive balance and the second two considerations paled relative to the first issue.

 

[Punter1]

If Title IX is a concern just add a couple extra scholarships to women's golf, track, volleyball, swimming and diving, etc. These are cheap sports to fund relatively speaking if they don't want to create a new sport.

Do the college softball teams have to split up scholarships?? I assume not. Baseball shouldn't either. I know these are responses to football having 85 scholarships counting towards the men's total...but partial scholarships in any sport at the D1 level are just absurd.

 

[Brog]

Is it because of Title IX?? Big public schools trying to keep an advantage over smaller, more expensive private schools?? What then??

I don't get it...would it be so hard to bump it to 25-30 full rides?? No other major sport, and college baseball is a major sport now, has to split scholarships up. It seems like doing so would influence more good players, especially the socially disadvantaged which the NCAA claims to care about so much, to go to college. This would obviously help the quality of play and diversify the lineups...which again the NCAA should be all for.

Money, honey.

 

[Pharm Frog]

If Title IX is a concern just add a couple extra scholarships to women's golf, track, volleyball, swimming and diving, etc. These are cheap sports to fund relatively speaking if they don't want to create a new sport.

Do the college softball teams have to split up scholarships?? I assume not. Baseball shouldn't either. I know these are responses to football having 85 scholarships counting towards the men's total...but partial scholarships in any sport at the D1 level are just absurd.

Women's softball (or just softball for the gender-agnostics) gets 12 scholarships for NCAA D1. It is not a headcount sport unless something has changed in the very recent past. It's an equivalency sport so schollies can (and must) be divided up among recipients to build a team. Assuming that softball requires more schollies for those deep bullpens that teams must carry. /s Track and field is already at 12.6 for men and 18 for women (D1). Swimming/Diving is already at 9.9 for men and 14 for women. Tennis is already at 4.5 for men and 8 for women. Where you can really make up the ground is in equestrian where men get none and women get 15, rugby where men get none and women get 12, and rowing where men get none and women get 20.

Of course this makes no mention of the football schollies for the sport that pays for all the rest of them, assumes fully funded programs (relatively rare), and ignores the current or future impact of gender-flexing.

 

[ScottPatrick]

the 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX but does have to do with funding. Prior to 1991 teams could give out 13 scholarship equivalents and split the money anyway they wanted among 30 player. In 1991 the NCAA enacted a flat 10% cut in several sports including baseball so 13 became 11.7. More recent changes have expanded the roster size to 35 but required at least 25% minimum allocations to players on scholly.

The 11.7 is a ridiculous rule and as baseball revenues have increased (but so have scholly costs) there has not been any reasonable NCAA review of the limits, basically not enough input against the rule from schools.

TCU gets hurt more than most schools by the rule as it forces many of the players to pay a substantial portion out of there pockets. If you can get academic funds that obviously helps a lot but only a few players get a full-ride and the rest are left scrambling for funds.

 

[BABYFACE]

Scott Patrick dead on with his post.

 

[BABYFACE]

TCU has and will continue to be a national recruiter to have a bigger pool of prospects to choose from can play and have the ability to pay.

 

[Pharm Frog]

the 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX but does have to do with funding. Prior to 1991 teams could give out 13 scholarship equivalents and split the money anyway they wanted among 30 player. In 1991 the NCAA enacted a flat 10% cut in several sports including baseball so 13 became 11.7. More recent changes have expanded the roster size to 35 but required at least 25% minimum allocations to players on scholly.

The 11.7 is a ridiculous rule and as baseball revenues have increased (but so have scholly costs) there has not been any reasonable NCAA review of the limits, basically not enough input against the rule from schools.

TCU gets hurt more than most schools by the rule as it forces many of the players to pay a substantial portion out of there pockets. If you can get academic funds that obviously helps a lot but only a few players get a full-ride and the rest are left scrambling for funds.

While it is true that this is the way we got to 11.7, the fact that it has remained there (and lower for D2) is virtually all because of Title IX and equivalent opportunities. To claim that Title IX has nothing to do with the current scholly limits (including baseball) is simply not accurate. I've sat through too many conference committee meetings in my past and heard with my own ears what institutional reps, consultants, and university presidents say and fear. The most recent meeting was at my former employer in early March. I fully understand that it is the NCAA that sets the scholarship limits not Title IX and not the federal government but the NCAA action is two-fold -- protect members from non-compliance with Title IX and protect the revenue sport.

I've heard it a hundred times if I've heard it once -- "But Title IX doesn't specify "how" to meet the standards." While technically true, does any member institution want to test something in court? Of course not, and the NCAA gives them cover. When a college men's volleyball team can give 4.5 schollies (equivalency) and the women's volleyball team can give 12 schollies (headcount), I don't see any way someone can make the argument that NCAA scholly limits are unrelated to Title IX.

And I agree completely....11.7 is and always has been ridiculous.

 

[Pharm Frog]

There's this which made big headlines "back in the day". People may remember John Thompson and other coaches going apoplectic over reductions.

Washington Post, January 10, 1994

The men's basketball scholarship limit fell from 15 to 14 for the 1992-93 season and from 14 to 13 for this season because of a vote at the 1991 convention to cut all scholarship limits by 10 percent. The cuts came as part of an overall cost-reduction effort by Division I schools, about 70 percent of which are losing money annually on athletics. (Gender equity concerns later prompted the schools to put aside any reductions in women's scholarship limits, meaning the women's basketball limit remains 15.)

 

[Fred Garvin]

While it is true that this is the way we got to 11.7, the fact that it has remained there (and lower for D2) is virtually all because of Title IX and equivalent opportunities. To claim that Title IX has nothing to do with the current scholly limits (including baseball) is simply not accurate. I've sat through too many conference committee meetings in my past and heard with my own ears what institutional reps, consultants, and university presidents say and fear. The most recent meeting was at my former employer in early March. I fully understand that it is the NCAA that sets the scholarship limits not Title IX and not the federal government but the NCAA action is two-fold -- protect members from non-compliance with Title IX and protect the revenue sport.

I've heard it a hundred times if I've heard it once -- "But Title IX doesn't specify "how" to meet the standards." While technically true, does any member institution want to test something in court? Of course not, and the NCAA gives them cover. When a college men's volleyball team can give 4.5 schollies (equivalency) and the women's volleyball team can give 12 schollies (headcount), I don't see any way someone can make the argument that NCAA scholly limits are unrelated to Title IX.

And I agree completely....11.7 is and always has been ridiculous.

Title IX is THE reason for 11.7. Thanks for the details. Considering the number of players needed to field a baseball team, 11.7 is a total crock.

 

[Opintel]

Yup

 

[Opintel]

Yup

 

[Opintel]

Yup

 

[MrMcgibblets]

We should add sandwich making scholarships for the ladies.

 

[CountryFrog]

Because 12 would clearly be way too many.

 

[Punter1]

We should add sandwich making scholarships for the ladies.

Don't give the NCAA any ideas...its the worst run, corrupt, hypocritical organization in the world.

 

[Gary's Shirtless Revenge]

The rumor mill has said a scholarship increase could be coming, adding 1 a year for three years up to 15.

Longer term, I think the sport is headed to stricter divisions, with the D1A being at a higher scholarship level and D1B being at a lower scholarship level. That way, schools can choose whether to compete and the playing field will be more fair for everyone involved.

The NCAA and member schools would ultimately say that the 11.7 is about funding a sport that losses money... Back in the day, with a higher scholarship level, bigger schools could afford to fund a full scholarship roster while smaller schools couldn't, thus the cap, but Title IX is obviously a component today. At the end of the day, I think a majority of the schools are going to agree that divisions makes sense, let the big schools run baseball like the third major sport that it is, and smaller schools can compete with like-institutions at a more affordable level.