my 2 cents worth...2006, 2010, 2013, and 2014 were the seasons in which the program did not have the necessary talent to reach the CWS. Too many holes in the lineup and the rotation in those years.

2009 and 2012 were the seasons where the talent was there, but the team significantly underachieved (i.e. could not win a regional or even make the regional final).

the other 4 seasons, the program reached the SR round on the road...and advanced/won 1 of 4 vs. national seeds...which is consistent with the winning % of road teams in the super regional round (25%)

It is a big deal, More money = more elite arms. its just the way it is.

Man you're sensitive. You came out hot with three short jabs on three different topics. I thought it was funny. The only things misinterpreted was you thinking I was hoping for more detail.

Without reading this entire thread, I thought Title IX was the reason women's softball received full scholarships and baseball did not.

actually, isn't football the reason softball gets full rides?

Aaron Fitt weighs in during his State of College Baseball article:

http://www.d1baseball.com/columns/the-state-of-college-baseball-2015-edition/

Hard Cap On Scholarships? Not Anytime Soon

One of the most pressing concerns from many coaches about the current state of college baseball is how the 11.7 scholarships mixes in with financial and need-based aid. While plenty of programs receive almost no need-based aid and strictly adhere to the 11.7, others either have the luxury of an in-state tuition, lottery, etc./need program, or, in some instances, private institutions have a significant amount of need-based aid that simply dwarfs some of their national, and even, conference counterparts.


As frustrating as this can be to some coaches, don't expect any changes to come down the pike anytime soon.

"The short answer is no," Leech said about the potential of hard-capping scholarships. "We already have a rule, and that's 11.7 athletic aid, and we really haven't had a lot of people put it up for a great debate just yet.

"I think today, we're in a culture where the environment is how can we add more resources to these players, not less, and doing something like that would be a pretty hard sell right now," he continued. "I get the issue that programs have with those advantages, but right now, it's very tough to craft."

With the NCAA not likely to soon address this brewing dilemma, it will be the responsibility of the individual conferences to take a holistic approach to the issue. As recently as last summer, at least one or two coaches were considering proposals to hard-cap scholarships in a pair of major conferences, but neither coach went through with it. As dissension grows, will coaches step up to the table and take matters into their own hands?

Leech doesn't seem to be a fan of seeding the top 16 either citing excuses that softball somehow manages to avoid.

...and is it me, or is having a football player from Princeton in charge of college baseball a little out of touch?

Damani Leech is in charge of Championships, not just baseball if I understand correctly.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/10/Forty-Under-40/Damani-Leech.aspx

https://www.afcf.us/?nd=damani_leech

The idea of a hard cap scares me.

While I'd love true equity in aid across the game (and across all athletics, not just baseball), limiting total aid is going to make the game more expensive for athletes. It'd be taking away funding opportunities for athletes.

I'm all about creating opportunities to make college less expensive for athletes. I understand the need for limiting athletic scholarships, but non-athletic based scholarships should not be limited, imo. They help kids who need the help and they award kids who work hard in the classroom.

On a related note- I don't buy it that most college baseball players grew up in families that never had to think about paying for college. I think that's overestimating the bourgeois-ness of the game. (And that's a good thing, you don't want baseball to turn into golf)

Actually, I don't understand the need for limiting athletic scholarships in baseball. In reality, these programs are just working a loophole to get full schollies for the entire team. Setting the cap at full shouldn't scare you. It's what these programs are already doing.

quote:

---

Actually, I don't understand the need for limiting athletic scholarships in baseball. In reality, these programs are just working a loophole to get full schollies for the entire team. Setting the cap at full shouldn't scare you. It's what these programs are already doing.

---

Sorry, I'm not talking about setting the cap for what an individual can receive at something less than a full scholarship- a player can and should be able to receive a full athletic based scholarship if the coach chooses to give him one.

I'm talking the possibility of capping how much non-athletic based aid a team can receive (like they do with athletic aid). I don't like that. While yes, I know it means LSU and ULaLa might get an advantage in recruiting, I don't like the idea of telling an athlete he can't receive aid he otherwise would be receiving because he chose to play baseball. We should be looking to increase funding for athletes, not limit or decrease it.

If that means recruiting isn't totally even, then so be it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually, I don't understand the need for limiting athletic scholarships in baseball. In reality, these programs are just working a loophole to get full schollies for the entire team. Setting the cap at full shouldn't scare you. It's what these programs are already doing.

---

Sorry, I'm not talking about setting the cap for what an individual can receive at something less than a full scholarship- a player can and should be able to receive a full athletic based scholarship if the coach chooses to give him one.

I'm talking the possibility of capping how much non-athletic based aid a team can receive (like they do with athletic aid). I don't like that. While yes, I know it means LSU and ULaLa might get an advantage in recruiting, I don't like the idea of telling an athlete he can't receive aid he otherwise would be receiving because he chose to play baseball. We should be looking to increase funding for athletes, not limit or decrease it.

If that means recruiting isn't totally even, then so be it.

---

I agree with this. No one in their right mind would vote to limit the amount of aid a kid can receive to go to school.

I do think that the number of scholarships for baseball should be changed. And if this means that there are not as many D-1 schools, then so be it. The ones that have the resources can stay and the ones that don't can drop their status or the sport altogether. That gets the resources allocated where they should go in the first place and creates a more even playing field for the schools that endeavor to belong at the top.

I think this

quote:

---

"I think today, we're in a culture where the environment is how can we add more resources to these players, not less, and doing something like that would be a pretty hard sell right now," he continued. "I get the issue that programs have with those advantages, but right now, it's very tough to craft."

---

says it all.


College Baseball competes against JuCo and Minors for prospects. Anything any team can do to build the reputation of college baseball is better for the whole sport. The NCAA isn't going to do anything that damages the allure for a collegiate athlete to choose a JuCo or draft over college.

But isn't the existing policy possibly restricting aid for more schools (students) than the one's utilizing loopholes? He says they aren't going to do something to reduce aid, but what they are doing is actually doing that to more students, no?

quote:

---

But isn't the existing policy possibly restricting aid for more schools (students) than the one's utilizing loopholes? He says they aren't going to do something to reduce aid, but what they are doing is actually doing that to more students, no?

---

I'm not exactly sure I understand your question, but the current policy is a school can provide 11.7 athletic scholarships for baseball with no such limitation on other scholarships. If a player receives an athletic scholarship, he has to receive at least a 25% (or 33%, I forget what the rule is now) scholarship and can receive up to a full scholarship. Athletes have to be treated like non-athletes for non-athletic scholarships, i.e. no special treatment for athletes for non-athletic scholarships.

Obviously, the 11.7 limit is a limit on how much aid is being given to athletes. I think there are a lot of people (probably the vast majority) that wish that limit was higher. But its the result of a whole lot of policy considerations.

For the purposes of this thread and the question of inequity of the availability of non-athletic scholarships at schools, raising that athletic scholarship limit doesn't really solve that problem, for at least 2 reasons that I can see:

1) LSU will still have an advantage. it might be less, but unless you want to have full athletic scholarships for every player on the baseball roster, LSU will still have an advantage. It might be less of an advantage then what they have now, but it'd still exist.

2) You'll create another advantage that stems from budget inequality across athletic programs. Many, many D-1 athletic programs struggle to fund themselves as is. Some can't fund 11.7 scholarships, and certainly could not keep up with major conference teams allowed to give 15, 20, or more baseball scholarships.