slightly off topic...with the growing and growing number of Latin players (from south of the border) populating major league rosters...(between 25% and 30% in 2016)...would that or does that push more American kids toward college ball?

I don't expect the number of Latin players in the bigs to decrease going forward

mdanyc03 said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

Coaches are making over a million a year.

---

Um, no they're not. Maybe one or two in all of college ball are making that much but most are making far less than that.

While I do think the players deserve bigger scholarship amounts, part of me really enjoys that a Coastal Carolina can win the CWS or Dallas Baptist can become a contending team at the national level in a state where there are already established baseball schools.

---

1. So you are taking one sentence out of context. I realize that. My point is precisely that there are a handful of programs that are ready to become big time major sports programs and willing to invest but they are all held back by the 11.7 scholarship rule put in place to placate the lawn chair/ city park bulk of college baseball.

2. I understand that many long time college baseball fans appreciate the folksy, small time, local feel of college baseball and that is fine. While I think college baseball should retain its culture and feel, I'd love to see the sport grow and get more exposure nationally. There is plenty, plenty of room to grow before it becomes like college football, for example.

---

I do agree that changes can and should be looked at to help the sport grow it's popularity and exposure, and I'm sure there are people at the top looking at those options. One thing I know is that A&M's baseball program is at a level that no matter what changes are made, we will not be one of the schools that are negatively impacted.

Quote:

---

So first, I will start by pointing out that there is a HUGE difference in taking a scholarship worth maybe 100K over the course of 4 years, and signing out of high school. Financially, its a huge difference, and I would have to believe that any prospect being drafted out of high school has people in place to tell him exactly this.

---

First- third round draft pick guys should sign big contracts and go play minor league baseball in most cases. That is fine, and it won't change with an increase in scholarships.

What I am talking about really is guys who go in, say, the 15th, or 25th round. The numbers show that the vast majority of these are going to be out of baseball within a couple of years. They will have a relatively modest signing bonus that will probably be gone by the time they are done with baseball. Then they will be 22 years old with no college and no job skills and will probably have to start college again, with no scholarship, as a 22 year old freshman.

Some of those guys already play college baseball. Others would if they could get a full scholarship at a top tier program. It would be better for them, better for the game of baseball (lots of stats show higher hit rates for MLB teams with college players) at all levels and better for us as college baseball fans.

So yeah, guys at the very top of the pyramid won't be impacted and guys at the bottom of the pyramid (undrafted anyway) don't have a choice now anyway besides college. I am talking about the guys in the middle. And this would make for a clear improvement in the quality of the college baseball product.

Quote:

---

Secondly, based on your logic, why dont we just give scholarships to everyone. Free college! It would not necessarily result in better quality of play. To think so is fairly ignorant.

---

Okay, and for this. I don't mean to make what has been a polite conversation hostile, but this make no sense. I can't even follow your thought process.

I am not saying scholarships for everybody. I am saying that there is an artificially low limit on the number of baseball scholarships and the free market would support a higher number.

Missouri State rounded out the top 50 in total attendance in 2015 with 38,800 total spectators.

Liberty rounded out the top 50 in average attendance at 1,405 per game.

You can pare down top-division membership to a small fraction of what it is now and you'll still have schools saying "no, we really can't afford to make this more expensive."

Quote:

---

there are people at the top looking at those options

---

BUT, the problem is that the college baseball is regulated to benefit the majority (who have no business being D1) rather than the top programs. Unless college baseball splits into two subdivisions this won't happen.

It is fine for college basketball to have 300+ D1 teams but baseball shouldn't have that many. Imagine if we had 300+ FBS teams and the majority (the small schools) were able to dictate rules to their advantage to level things out. We would have 63 football scholarships in the SEC which would make no sense.

mdanyc03 said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

Coaches are making over a million a year.

---

Um, no they're not. Maybe one or two in all of college ball are making that much but most are making far less than that.

While I do think the players deserve bigger scholarship amounts, part of me really enjoys that a Coastal Carolina can win the CWS or Dallas Baptist can become a contending team at the national level in a state where there are already established baseball schools.

---

1. So you are taking one sentence out of context. I realize that. My point is precisely that there are a handful of programs that are ready to become big time major sports programs and willing to invest but they are all held back by the 11.7 scholarship rule put in place to placate the lawn chair/ city park bulk of college baseball.

---

Then be more careful in your wording. I took it to mean that salaries at this level was fairly common place, it is not even among the big boys. In other words, I do not think you will find enough schools at this time willing to separate themselves in such a manner for what is a niche sport at the collegiate level.

Quote:

---

2. I understand that many long time college baseball fans appreciate the folksy, small time, local feel of college baseball and that is fine. While I think college baseball should retain its culture and feel, I'd love to see the sport grow and get more exposure nationally. There is plenty, plenty of room to grow before it becomes like college football, for example.

---

I would love to see it get the exposure I believe it deserves. IMO your idea to increase that exposure would be a detriment to its growth at this time, not a boost.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Missouri State rounded out the top 50 in total attendance in 2015 with 38,800 total spectators.

Liberty rounded out the top 50 in average attendance at 1,405 per game.

You can pare down top-division membership to a small fraction of what it is now and you'll still have schools saying "no, we really can't afford to make this more expensive."

---

They would have to trust that the rising tide would lift all boats. So that is why I am saying 16 scholarships rather than 25 (which I think would be ideal). But you make a better product and you get better TV contracts and so forth. I think you could find at least seven or eight conferences that would be happy to go to 16. The whole point would be to grow the sport though.

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is why they have no business competing in the same classification as programs that sell out 10,000 plus seat stadiums.

---

Maybe a handful of programs draw crowds that size on a semi-regular basis. A lot of great baseball played on the left coast, few of those programs draw crowds of 2,000 +, even those with a great history. So inother words, even what many would consider big boy programs would be hesitant to raise scholly limits. Do what you want and college baseball becomes even more regionalized. I think we need to be patient and give time for the sport to grow in popularity on the collegiate level.

---

Look we disagree here and that is fine.

I think the the Fullerton's of the world would be happy to support 16 scholarships.

I just don't think the sport is going to grow much in popularity until the talent level increases. I love college baseball but from a talent on the field stand point, you can have your tv on for five minutes and see it is far below the relative talent level in college football or basketball.

There are many, many reasons for that but increasing the scholarship limit would help a lot, imo.

You can do nothing and wait for the sport to grow but outside of the SEC and ACC I think, if anything, the popularity of the sport is stagnating or even regressing.

W said:

---

slightly off topic...with the growing and growing number of Latin players (from south of the border) populating major league rosters...(between 25% and 30% in 2016)...would that or does that push more American kids toward college ball?

I don't expect the number of Latin players in the bigs to decrease going forward

---

I think the impact is towards pushing American kids towards college ball, but the impact is not as strong as it could be. Right now, most foreign born kids are exempt from the draft and are able to sign as free agents (after certain criteria are met). If those kids went through the draft (as Manfred strongly wants), then more high-round draft opportunities would go to them (and away from American kids), making college more attractive to a greater number of kids who would otherwise take the money and run.

mdanyc03 said:

---

Quote:

---

So first, I will start by pointing out that there is a HUGE difference in taking a scholarship worth maybe 100K over the course of 4 years, and signing out of high school. Financially, its a huge difference, and I would have to believe that any prospect being drafted out of high school has people in place to tell him exactly this.

---

First- third round draft pick guys should sign big contracts and go play minor league baseball in most cases. That is fine, and it won't change with an increase in scholarships.

What I am talking about really is guys who go in, say, the 15th, or 25th round. The numbers show that the vast majority of these are going to be out of baseball within a couple of years. They will have a relatively modest signing bonus that will probably be gone by the time they are done with baseball. Then they will be 22 years old with no college and no job skills and will probably have to start college again, with no scholarship, as a 22 year old freshman.

Some of those guys already play college baseball. Others would if they could get a full scholarship at a top tier program. It would be better for them, better for the game of baseball (lots of stats show higher hit rates for MLB teams with college players) at all levels and better for us as college baseball fans.

So yeah, guys at the very top of the pyramid won't be impacted and guys at the bottom of the pyramid (undrafted anyway) don't have a choice now anyway besides college. I am talking about the guys in the middle. And this would make for a clear improvement in the quality of the college baseball product.

Quote:

---

Secondly, based on your logic, why dont we just give scholarships to everyone. Free college! It would not necessarily result in better quality of play. To think so is fairly ignorant.

---

Okay, and for this. I don't mean to make what has been a polite conversation hostile, but this make no sense. I can't even follow your thought process.

I am not saying scholarships for everybody. I am saying that there is an artificially low limit on the number of baseball scholarships and the free market would support a higher number.

---

How many high school grads take a 15th or 25th round pick? You make it seem like it must be a large number. Even raising scholarship limits, what makes you think a kid in the 15th or 25th round would get one? Seems to me that most of the high school grads that forego college tend to go in early enough rounds for it to make financial sense

Secondly, you stated that there should be more scholarships for the teams because it would produce better quality baseball, right? I'm saying by that logic, you could give every athlete a full ride, and it should be the highest level competition, right?

No, wrong, because with baseball, the guys who go to college are going to go and put in the work anyways, and the ones that take their draft slot will likely still take their draft slot. Having more money may simply result in paying for lesser talent to be here for free.

Fullerton might. Poly? Riverside? Northridge? Not sure the Big West would buy-in.

You'd possibly be looking at a whole substructure of special conference affiliations and things which adds a whole other level of costs and complication.

Not saying I think it will or won't work, but I think it'd require a lot of faith in a climate that's already difficult for athletic programs.

Quote:

---

How many high school grads take a 15th or 25th round pick? You make it seem like it must be a large number. Even raising scholarship limits, what makes you think a kid in the 15th or 25th round would get one? Seems to me that most of the high school grads that forego college tend to go in early enough rounds for it to make financial sense

---

For any economic decision there is a utility curve and there is a marginal point along that utility curve where either option is equally attractive. By increasing the scholarship available you simply move that utility curve out a bit. This will impact some juco guys, some high school guy, some draft eligible sophomores and juniors who are drafted and have to decide between returning and signing. Surely you understand that for some kids it is a tough decision and an extra half scholarship would make the difference?

At the end of the day, what I am talking about here is upgrading maybe 2-3 of the positions on the field at any given time at the SEC level programs. That might not sound like a lot but I think it would make a big difference and in the big scheme of things isn't that expensive.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, you stated that there should be more scholarships for the teams because it would produce better quality baseball, right? I'm saying by that logic, you could give every athlete a full ride, and it should be the highest level competition, right?

---

---

Hmmm. I sense logical thinking isn't your strength.

What I am saying is that when you increase compensation for a position (pay, scholarships, whatever compensation you might be offering) you increase demand for that position and therefore, generally speaking, the quality of the personnel filling that position. This is both common sense and empirically proven.

I think every coach at the college level would love to increase scholarships. The fact of the matter is, very few schools are even breaking even with baseball. You may not be wrong in your vision but at this time I really don't believe there are fifty schools willing to take the risk in creating an upper tier when most programs are not paying for themselves as it is.

mdanyc03 said:

---

Quote:

---

How many high school grads take a 15th or 25th round pick? You make it seem like it must be a large number. Even raising scholarship limits, what makes you think a kid in the 15th or 25th round would get one? Seems to me that most of the high school grads that forego college tend to go in early enough rounds for it to make financial sense

---

For any economic decision there is a utility curve and there is a marginal point along that utility curve where either option is equally attractive. By increasing the scholarship available you simply move that utility curve out a bit. This will impact some juco guys, some high school guy, some draft eligible sophomores and juniors who are drafted and have to decide between returning and signing. Surely you understand that for some kids it is a tough decision and an extra half scholarship would make the difference?

At the end of the day, what I am talking about here is upgrading maybe 2-3 of the positions on the field at any given time at the SEC level programs. That might not sound like a lot but I think it would make a big difference and in the big scheme of things isn't that expensive.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, you stated that there should be more scholarships for the teams because it would produce better quality baseball, right? I'm saying by that logic, you could give every athlete a full ride, and it should be the highest level competition, right?

---

---

Hmmm. I sense logical thinking isn't your strength.

What I am saying is that when you increase compensation for a position (pay, scholarships, whatever compensation you might be offering) you increase demand for that position and therefore, generally speaking, the quality of the personnel filling that position. This is both common sense and empirically proven.

---

Well that's a bit rude and presumptuous.

You are assuming that 16-22 year old boys/men playing baseball (including high school students being recruited and likely to draft) are driven in the same way someone in a business is. I'm saying thats not true. Yes, your empirical data would support that in most industries, but I dont think it would when looking at turnover rates from amateur to professional level sports. There is more that goes into that decision than simply money, especially for a draft eligible sophomore or junior, or juco transfer. That being said, I believe that those who are being drafted in those positions will still take their draft slot regardless of if you are offering another year paid. Their ultimate goal is to make it to the show, and staying in college for another year could very possibly hinder that.

You also have to assume that those "higher quality personnel" would be the ones typically offered a higher draft slot, and therefore less likely to take ANY offer, regardless of if its' a partial or full scholarship.


My opinion is that you seem to be wanting to professionalize college baseball, which by nature is an amateur sport.

mdanyc03 said:

---

Quote:

---

there are people at the top looking at those options

---

BUT, the problem is that the college baseball is regulated to benefit the majority (who have no business being D1) rather than the top programs. Unless college baseball splits into two subdivisions this won't happen.

It is fine for college basketball to have 300+ D1 teams but baseball shouldn't have that many. Imagine if we had 300+ FBS teams and the majority (the small schools) were able to dictate rules to their advantage to level things out. We would have 63 football scholarships in the SEC which would make no sense.

---

I don't really follow college basketball until march madness starts, why does it work so well for college basketball to have so many D1 teams?

I wouldn't be against splitting college baseball up into two subdivisions, but how would you decide which schools go in which division? You can't do it just by size because that would leave out a lot of really good baseball programs (Missouri state, coastal Carolina, etc.).

It works for college basketball because everybody can afford 13 scholarships and nobody is limited by "only" having 13 scholarships.

In college baseball you 24-25 guys that will actually regularly contribute to your team but you only have half that many scholarships.

What I am proposing is that 1) you increase the limit to 16, 2) you keep it open to everybody, 3) and those conferences that don't want to go to 16 or can't afford to go to 16 drop down to Div 1-AA. Their option.

Revenue? LSU's athletic director says if they break even it's a good year. 3-4 years ago our baseball program was down ~$700K.

Except for football (the cash cow) and men's basketball, all other sports generate zero revenue- and fact lose money- a lot of money. 3-4 years ago women's basketball lost every dollar the men's program made

Quote:

---

My opinion is that you seem to be wanting to professionalize college baseball, which by nature is an amateur sport.

---

That what you think I seem to be wanting, huh?

I don't think you know what the word "revenue" means.

"Mediocre" to "bad" attendance in basketball is "good" to "great" attendance in baseball.

That's why I think you can say it works in basketball. But also why efforts to increase baseball scholarships are going to run into a lot of high hurdles.

mdanyc03 said:

---

It works for college basketball because everybody can afford 13 scholarships and nobody is limited by "only" having 13 scholarships.

In college baseball you 24-25 guys that will actually regularly contribute to your team but you only have half that many scholarships.

What I am proposing is that 1) you increase the limit to 16, 2) you keep it open to everybody, 3) and those conferences that don't want to go to 16 or can't afford to go to 16 drop down to Div 1-AA. Their option.

---

Nobody is saying you are necessarily wrong, we are saying there are not enough schools willing up the number even in the major conferences.

Quote:

---

Nobody is saying you are necessarily wrong, we are saying there are not enough schools willing up the number even in the major conferences.

---

So one final point, I think you are overestimating the relative cost of increasing scholarships.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I have looked at them in the past. Scholarships represent a relatively small percentage of total costs. Facilities, coaches salaries, travel, recruiting, equipment, strength and conditioning, nutrition, etc. etc.

So if you increase your scholarship costs by 30% you are only increasing your total expenses by maybe 5-10% or so. I think there are more programs willing to make that trade off than you think, especially if they think there will be a return on that investment in the long run.

Now, the big wild card/ head wind in all this is the trend for cord cutting and the break down of the subscription cable revenue model which is going to reduce the amount of money in all American sports from the very top of the cash flow stream and will trickle all the way through. But it could be that ESPN for example decides "you know, we can't renew every big ticket league content contract we have, so let's take college baseball, which is really cheap, and make it something bigger. And improve production quality, marketing, etc, especially at Omaha." That is the optimistic view.

To me the fundamental obvious issue is this.

The big three revenue sports in America are football, baseball and basketball. For football and basketball that is at the college and pro level. And then college baseball is basically invisible at the national level. There is so much obvious potential there to grow the sport with more investment.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

I haven't read the Title IX document, but one question I've always wanted to bring up: could the law be rewritten to take football out of the equation?

---

q

Removing a men's sport that's offering 70+ scholarships and all the grand facilities and all of that kind of defeats the purpose of Title IX as far as sports are concerned, doesn't it?

---

Not really. My point is that you have 65-85 football players for a sport actually making money subsidizing the entire athletic program. I would propose that universities be required to match female athlete scholarships 1:1 with the other 250 men's athlete scholarships, aside from football. Football skews things because there are no equivalent women's sports. Aside from men's basketball (at most universities; ours may not pull it off), every other sport is living off of football revenue...

TXAggie2011 said:

---

"Mediocre" to "bad" attendance in basketball is "good" to "great" attendance in baseball.

That's why I think you can say it works in basketball. But also why efforts to increase baseball scholarships are going to run into a lot of high hurdles.

---

Well yeah but that isn't really the issue. Half the conferences in college basketball don't have any attendance either but 1) they can still afford 13 scholarships, 2) and they get some money from the CBS ncaa tournament contract.

When people tell me about their son or granddaughter getting "a full ride," I always take it with a grain of salt. Not many of them to go around.

good catch, I misspoke. I should have said every other sport (i.e. non football and men's basketball) spends more money- a lot more money than they generate in revenue- i.e. they lose money- and in most cases a lot of money.

mdanyc03 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

"Mediocre" to "bad" attendance in basketball is "good" to "great" attendance in baseball.

That's why I think you can say it works in basketball. But also why efforts to increase baseball scholarships are going to run into a lot of high hurdles.

---

Well yeah but that isn't really the issue. Half the conferences in college basketball don't have any attendance either but 1) they can still afford 13 scholarships, 2) and they get some money from the CBS ncaa tournament contract.

---

The worst attended conference in basketball (the Northeast) draws over 1,100 fans per game. The second worst attended (Southland) draws over 1,300 fans per game.

About 22-23 basketball conferences draw over 2,000 fans a game.

There are about 50-60 total baseball programs that draw 1,300 or more fans a game. There are about 35 total baseball programs that draw over 2,000 fans a game.

Granted, you play more baseball games but basketball tickets are usually more expensive and the smaller baseball schools spend beaucoup bucks traveling for all their road games.

But I'm really just saying college basketball is all-around immensely more popular than college baseball. Attendance is just the proxy for that that I used. You can talk about how regular season TV coverage, the tournament, all of that...

_lefraud_ said:

---

College baseball is not a major sport

---

In the SEC it is

AgCynic2 said:

---

It's also worth pointing out that private schools like TCU and Rice effectively have more scholarships that everyone else in baseball because they give so many academic scholarships to baseball players. It's not really a level playing field.

---

Have always heard this argument. Why can't A&M hand out academic scholarships to level the playing field? Are we restricted on this because we are a public school?

12th Man Ag said:

---

AgCynic2 said:

---

It's also worth pointing out that private schools like TCU and Rice effectively have more scholarships that everyone else in baseball because they give so many academic scholarships to baseball players. It's not really a level playing field.

---

Have always heard this argument. Why can't A&M hand out academic scholarships to level the playing field? Are we restricted on this because we are a public school?

---

It's been a topic here many times and while I'm not going to go through it all again, once you actually look at NCAA rules and the requirements for scholarships at those schools and all of that, I think this argument starts to fall apart.

And to answer your question, we're not restricted anymore than Rice or TCU and some of our athletes do receive academic scholarships.

There are only 25 or so athletic departments in the country that make money. Few outside of that group are going to be willing to increase scholarship levels for any sport that doesn't make money. If you add scholarship for baseball, you will be required to add scholarships to a women's sport. So now, you'll have double the scholarships added to sports that lose money.

I'd love more scholarships in baseball, but it's not going to happen.

Also, they will never change the law pulling football scholarships from the title IX equation. "War on women" would be the headlines for months.

Thanks. Seems like a hard argument to defend. I am sure there are plenty of baseball players at A&M that deserve and qualify for academic scholarships.

But, if true, why aren't we handing more out? If the NCAA limits walk-one, would this be the reason? But private schools run into the same issues.

TheChameleon said:

---

_lefraud_ said:

---

College baseball is not a major sport

---

In the SEC it is

---

And so is Lacrosse in the ACC & for Navy, Johns Hopkins, Denver, etc.

So is Hockey for the B10 & other northern schools.

So is Wrestling for the B10 & some of the B12 (Iowa & Penn St average about the same # of fans as Arky & Ole Miss in baseball)

So is Soccer for the ACC & some west coast schools

We have a number of academic scholarships to give out. Hell, even I got one.

The thought is private schools have more academic-based scholarships because they're more dependent on scholarships because of higher tuition costs.

The academic scholarships handed out to athletes have to be scholarships accessible to not athletes as well. So, the athletes are competing with the student body to earn them. We would have to offer a ton more academic scholarships to see the effects on the sports teams since most of those new scholarships wouldn't be going to athletes. I'm sure A&M would love to give out more academic scholarships, but funding the additional scholarships is the problem.