Stipends for college baseball players

3,799 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by TXAGBQ76
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
if the power 5 conferences (with their new autonomy) decide to give each college baseball player on scholarship an annual stipend of, let's say, $5,000 per year...

how will college baseball's traditional non-power 5 programs respond to avoid being at a significant recruiting disadvantage?

programs like Rice, Fullerton, Irvine, Long Beach, etc..,? Even ULL and UH.

Due to Title IX, if Rice for example pays a matching stipend to their baseball players, they would also have to pay stipends to their female athletes. Will be an interesting predicament for some schools
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
and perhaps in 3 or 4 years, the power 5 conferences will decide it's time to increase the scholarship limit from 11.7 to 13 to 15 or more.

that would seem to put more financial burden on the non-power 5 baseball programs. However there might still be quite a few power 5 programs in the Big 10 or Big 12 that would vote against an increase in scholarship limits for baseball
Sandman98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Baseball is interesting because the schools you mentioned are as attractive (or more), as many of the power 5 destinations (not the case in football).

They would definitely lose their edge because studs who choose Fullerton over USC or UCLA today wouldn't do that anymore. They would still get players because there aren't enough spots to take everyone, but the best players would think twice about Rice and Fullerton et al.

Not sure how they can respond. Good question.

[This message has been edited by Sandman98 (edited 8/11/2014 1:53p).]
viva torrente
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Due to Title IX, if Rice for example pays a matching stipend to their baseball players, they would also have to pay stipends to their female athletes.


This is what will probably slow the roll for the increased compensation for student athletes. Most schools are not going to want to be on the hook for paying their female athletes whatever they pay their male athletes. Title IX needs to be dealt with.
McCoveysCove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So what Title IX means is that for every extra scholarship that baseball wants to add, then a womens sports needs to match on 1:1 ratio, correct?
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
yes, which means some power 5 conference members might think about dropping baseball. But the mega-TV revenue from the various networks might offset the cost increase.

if the SEC schools can absorb the scholarship cost increases they should push to raise the limit -- regardless of whether the other power 5 conferences can handle the additional cost

TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think many would try to keep up...and if they can't, they'd either cut their program or learn to be OK with the recruiting disadvantage.

Some won't try to keep up, and learn to be OK with the disadvantage or cut their program.

Some athletic programs will get cut, somewhere, sometime, if stipends become a thing. Most athletic departments barely hang on, as is. We're very spoiled in the power conferences.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:

So what Title IX means is that for every extra scholarship that baseball wants to add, then a womens sports needs to match on 1:1 ratio, correct?


Not entirely. Title IX review is usually a little more bigger picture. It's not going to require 1:1 for something like scholarships--but for purposes of a stipend, a school would never ever get away with giving a stipend to a male athlete and not giving a stipend to a female athlete.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
This is what will probably slow the roll for the increased compensation for student athletes. Most schools are not going to want to be on the hook for paying their female athletes whatever they pay their male athletes. Title IX needs to be dealt with.


Male athletes are expensive enough for most schools, they're often too worried about their budget for male athletes to even get so far as worry about the implications for their women athletes. Let's make that one clear.

And on that note, Title IX doesn't need to be "dealt with". The argument, and I get it, is changing Title IX or dismantling it would allow some since of (false) justice for athletes at a handful of big schools, but dismantling Title IX would hurt a lot more athletes than it'd help.

Just my two cents on that.
Shane Minks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just make the scholarships full instead of the 11.7 BS!!!!!!
Floorguy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Just make the scholarships full instead of the 11.7 BS!!!!!!
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shane

Would you advocate only 12 players on scholarship or 25-30 scholarships for baseball? I think the latter would kill the sport. I believe that overnight you'd see huge numbers of programs drop baseball altogether.
viva torrente
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
And on that note, Title IX doesn't need to be "dealt with". The argument, and I get it, is changing Title IX or dismantling it would allow some since of (false) justice for athletes at a handful of big schools, but dismantling Title IX would hurt a lot more athletes than it'd help


It needs to be revisited for the benefit of other athletes. Football is such unique animal it should not count towards Title IX at all. It requires nearly 100 scholarships and has no "equivalent" on the female side. It kills a bunch of other possible school sports for men, like soccer, lacrosse, etc. Taking football out of the Title IX equation could also help get rid of partial scholarships.

The biggest problem is going to be how to determine the football stipends (and to a lesser extent MBB) versus everything else.
Luke The Drifter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think raising the baseball scholly limit from 11.7 up to about 16 or 17 would be great. Also require schools to divvy the 'ships in 1/2 scholarship intervals. That way the school can choose:

1. Do you want to give 17 full rides and let the other 10-ish players be walk-ons?

2. Do you want to give 34 players each a 1/2 scholarship?

3. Do you want to have a varied mix with some getting full rides, some getting 1/2 rides and some being walk-ons?




But those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. – Isaiah 40:31 (NIV)
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
It needs to be revisited for the benefit of other athletes. Football is such unique animal it should not count towards Title IX at all. It requires nearly 100 scholarships and has no "equivalent" on the female side. It kills a bunch of other possible school sports for men, like soccer, lacrosse, etc. Taking football out of the Title IX equation could also help get rid of partial scholarships.


Football has been pushed out of he equation to an extent. Much more money is spent, and many more total scholarships are available to men, and football is a big part of that.

Taking football out of the equation would take a lot of the teeth out of Title IX. You'd suddenly have this sport where a very significant proportion of male athletes can and will get treated differently.

I think it's a hard (read "probably impossible") sell twofer the Feds to change Title IX because a small segment of players in one sport "deserve" to be paid a stipend. First, let's be real- it's a small number of stars and near-stars that are actually worth much to schools. And again, it's take so much of the teeth out of Title IX, and it'd open a can of warms--suddenly basketball players at Kentucky and Duke are clamoring for exemption, etc...

The system, at the D-1 level, got messed up when people pushed for football to be treated a little differently and be given enough scholarships to field a 4 deep roster. Of course, getting football scholarship limits reduced is the most unlikely solution to he problem.

What Id like to see is a more favorable to men read on "proportion to interest" but I don't know how that'd happen at this pint. What I think will happen is we'll see further fracture of division-1.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Not entirely. Title IX review is usually a little more bigger picture. It's not going to require 1:1 for something like scholarships--but for purposes of a stipend, a school would never ever get away with giving a stipend to a male athlete and not giving a stipend to a female athlete.
Not sure about that. I think that if the NCAA makes a distinction based upon whether or not it is a revenue sport, that might not pose a Title IX problem. However, that won't help baseball, which needs the number of scholarships raised. Unfortunately, if the scholarships were raised, there would be schools that would drop the sport, but maybe some would carry on without giving a full complement, or have conference limits to sort of equalize things with their conference mates (I could see the NCAA raising the limit to something like 16, but having conferences like the Southland opt to stay at 11.7).
rallydawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Get rid of the 11.8 scholarships for baseball. It's the least funded sport there is! Ridiculous
Woof Woof
aggies1960
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sports with more scholarships than baseball (D1)

Men
Football (85)
Basketball (13)
Cross Country/Track (12.6)
Ice Hockey (18)
Lacrosse (12.6)

Women
Basketball (15)
Cross Country/Track (18)
Equestrian (15)
Field Hockey (12)
Gymnastics (12)
Ice Hockey (18)
Lacrosse (12)
Rowing (20)
Rugby (12)
Soccer (14)
Softball (12)
Swimming & Diving (14)
Volleyball (12)

TXAGBQ76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All of those women's sports are due to title IX; they offset the high football numbers and to a lesser extent men's basketball numbers- the only two sports that make money.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.