TCU recruits really well and get kids on campus....do they benefit from being a private school and have the ability to suppliment baseball scholarships with academic scholarships, similarly to Rice/Vandy/Miami?

Generally speaking, any school does not have to count towards a sport's scholarship limit which are granted to an athlete without any regard to athletic ability AND the athlete does not receive any other support that is based on athletic ability.

So, you cannot "supplement" athletic scholarships with academic scholarships to get around the scholarship limits.

There are about 6 or so exceptions. Most of them actually are public school specific, and not available to private schools.

yes.

According to swimmer on another thread, no.

AgRyan04 said:

---

TCU recruits really well and get kids on campus....do they benefit from being a private school and have the ability to suppliment baseball scholarships with academic scholarships, similarly to Rice/Vandy/Miami?

---

As I understand it, Rice, Vandy, and Stanford are on a different level from everyone else because every student that attends those schools pays based upon financial need, so, in effect, the vast majority of students at these schools are on scholarshp. If a baseball player can get in to these schools (harder than most places), they will, in many cases, have a cost of attendance similar to what they would see if they were on a partial baseball scholarship at another school. That's not enough to get the stars, but it frees up some scholarship money that they can use to sign the top kids, and thereby offer them a larger scholarship.

Do schools like TCU and Baylor have some leeway that A&M doesn't? Perhpas, but it's largely overcome by the increased cost. What is frustrating is that kids don't recognize that cost factor, and they look at it more as a matter of respect--if TCU offers you 50% and A&M 25%, a lot of kids will take the TCU offer even though it will end up costing them more.

This idea that private schools have a big advantage is based on the idea that they have larger academic scholarship programs so they can give out more awards to athletes without having to provide aid based on athletics.

The thing is that if you actually look at the NCAA rulebook, and you actually look at the private school scholarship programs, its not such an easy thing to do.



The new Rice scholarship program is probably the most interesting private school program. But I'm still skeptical it'll prove to be a boon for their athletic programs.

Quote:

---

What is frustrating is that kids don't recognize that cost factor, and they look at it more as a matter of respect--if TCU offers you 50% and A&M 25%, a lot of kids will take the TCU offer even though it will end up costing their parents more.

---

FIFY

Then again if they can afford it why not go where you believe you are the best fit. Cost is just one factor in which a kid will decide to attend a school.

Thanks....that's exactly what I was curious about

Quote:

---

The new Rice scholarship program is probably the most interesting private school program. But I'm still skeptical it'll prove to be a boon for their athletic programs.

---

This kind of program helps equivalency (partial scholarship) sports, but it only goes so far. Take track, for instance, as compared to baseball. The demographic for track parents is, I'd be willing to bet, much poorer than for kids that are college baseball prospects since baseball is rather expensive to play at the youth level (at least as most kids do it nowadays). So, that academic scholarship may not be enough to entice track kids to Rice, unless it covers everything.

And, as I said, there are only a handful of D1 private schools that are on the same plane (Vandy, Stanford, and Rice come to mind). Most others are not. While a school like TCU or Baylor awards a lot more academic scholarships than A&M, they aren't often large enough to make a difference (and, for it to help baseball, the kid has to be a walk-on; if they receive any baseball scholarship money, an academic scholarship would count against their 11.7).

It also only really helps with the role players, but that's a big deal when you are working with 11.7 scholarships. If you've got four guys receiving academic scholarships instead of the 25% minimum baseball scholarship, that's one full ride you've freed up to give to a star, or any extra 25% than you can add to four who might have been given 50%, but now can receive 75%.

Purple Frog's main advantage over A&M is the guy sitting in the office marked Head Coach...

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Generally speaking, any school does not have to count towards a sport's scholarship limit which are granted to an athlete without any regard to athletic ability AND the athlete does not receive any other support that is based on athletic ability.

So, you cannot "supplement" athletic scholarships with academic scholarships to get around the scholarship limits.

There are about 6 or so exceptions. Most of them actually are public school specific, and not available to private schools.

---

Even then, its not that easy. At that point, you are generally talking about non-institutional scholarships, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the donor. If a donor's application simply lists "extracurricular activities (athletics, band, 4-H, etc)", it generally disqualifies a student athlete from receiving it (at least at TAMU). Each school has their own NCAA compliance department that spends countless hours sifting through documentation of these awards and the NCAA bi-laws to determine if a student can have the funds.

NOW - that is actually changing a bit going forward. If I remember correctly, a student athlete will be allowed a small amount of money in outside scholarships without needing all of the proof (they are all given 1 per year I think).

Just for reference - its even difficult to give a student athlete an institutional grant as financial aid, as the institution must prove that several factors were/were not considered in the awarding (even if its an automated selection of students).

I have a friend's son that was recruited to TCU from a D1 JC as a position player. Basically got a graduated % of money. Approximately 50% in year 1 to 70% in year 3. It seemed that TCU banked on him leaving early.

twk said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

TCU recruits really well and get kids on campus....do they benefit from being a private school and have the ability to suppliment baseball scholarships with academic scholarships, similarly to Rice/Vandy/Miami?

---

As I understand it, Rice, Vandy, and Stanford are on a different level from everyone else because every student that attends those schools pays based upon financial need, so, in effect, the vast majority of students at these schools are on scholarshp. If a baseball player can get in to these schools (harder than most places), they will, in many cases, have a cost of attendance similar to what they would see if they were on a partial baseball scholarship at another school. That's not enough to get the stars, but it frees up some scholarship money that they can use to sign the top kids, and thereby offer them a larger scholarship.

Do schools like TCU and Baylor have some leeway that A&M doesn't? Perhpas, but it's largely overcome by the increased cost. What is frustrating is that kids don't recognize that cost factor, and they look at it more as a matter of respect--if TCU offers you 50% and A&M 25%, a lot of kids will take the TCU offer even though it will end up costing them more.

---

This is better said than I could have explained. Although, alums are told all the time that we are working to move towards a Vandy formula...which I think would be incredible (not just for sports)

In a lot of ways, we have a bigger challenge in recruiting because of the difference in tuition expense.

I have no idea how things like the Micah Ahearn Scholly factor into that though.

I think these supposed benefits of private schools is largely exaggerated. If they do have an advantage, it doesn't show on the field.

27/39 teams (last 19 years) who played in the CWS were public schools
7/10 schools with the most wins all time in Omaha are public
17/25 in the D1 Baseball top 25 are public

cb1919 said:

---

I think these supposed benefits of private schools is largely exaggerated. If they do have an advantage, it doesn't show on the field.

27/39 teams (last 19 years) who played in the CWS were public schools
7/10 schools with the most wins all time in Omaha are public
17/25 in the D1 Baseball top 25 are public

---

Your conclusions are severely flawed for a couple of reasons but primarily because of the difference between the number of public versus private schools there are chasing those Omaha spots. Look at the four major conferences in baseball. The only private schools are Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake and Southern Cal. Of those BC, Syracuse and Wake don't even try to be good Duke only started trying recently. all of the others have been there at least once during that span.

The private school advantage only arose in 1999 when the NCAA started allowing non-athletic scholarships to first year players. Prior to that a player had to be on campus a year before he could get academic money.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

twk said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

TCU recruits really well and get kids on campus....do they benefit from being a private school and have the ability to suppliment baseball scholarships with academic scholarships, similarly to Rice/Vandy/Miami?

---

As I understand it, Rice, Vandy, and Stanford are on a different level from everyone else because every student that attends those schools pays based upon financial need, so, in effect, the vast majority of students at these schools are on scholarshp. If a baseball player can get in to these schools (harder than most places), they will, in many cases, have a cost of attendance similar to what they would see if they were on a partial baseball scholarship at another school. That's not enough to get the stars, but it frees up some scholarship money that they can use to sign the top kids, and thereby offer them a larger scholarship.

Do schools like TCU and Baylor have some leeway that A&M doesn't? Perhpas, but it's largely overcome by the increased cost. What is frustrating is that kids don't recognize that cost factor, and they look at it more as a matter of respect--if TCU offers you 50% and A&M 25%, a lot of kids will take the TCU offer even though it will end up costing them more.

---

This is better said than I could have explained. Although, alums are told all the time that we are working to move towards a Vandy formula...which I think would be incredible (not just for sports)

In a lot of ways, we have a bigger challenge in recruiting because of the difference in tuition expense.

I have no idea how things like the Micah Ahearn Scholly factor into that though.

---

Ignoring baseball for a minute IMO TCU is a long way away from Vanderbilt's economic model. TCU's endowment per student is $150k give or take. Vanderbilt? Their endowment is a bit over $500k per student. That's why they can offer full coverage to all students above what the family can pay. I don't see how a school can make that offer without a similar endowment.

That's why they are constantly asking me for money

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

That's why they are constantly asking me for money

---

Ha! That's great!

I grew up a Vandy fan as dad graduated from there in 1977. Now my daughter is hoping to go there starting fall of 2020. As we've done our homework it's really a very impressive place. Honestly I'm not sure I'd want her anywhere else. It'll cost us about $30k/year for what is a top 15 education. Thats just hard to beat.

Definitely a fair point. If you look at schools who are truly all in on baseball, private v public schools is probably closer.

If you look at just the national championship winners, I think if it was truly that big of an advantage, you would see predominately private schools.

Quote:

---

Your conclusions are severely flawed for a couple of reasons but primarily because of the difference between the number of public versus private schools there are chasing those Omaha spots. Look at the four major conferences in baseball. The only private schools are Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake and Southern Cal. Of those BC, Syracuse and Wake don't even try to be good Duke only started trying recently. all of the others have been there at least once during that span.

The private school advantage only arose in 1999 when the NCAA started allowing non-athletic scholarships to first year players. Prior to that a player had to be on campus a year before he could get academic money.

---

(1) That's not all the private schools playing baseball in your "power four" conferences. You even missed one that's really good at baseball.
(2) You take out schools who haven't been successful and of course the list looks more successful.
(3) Several of those programs on your list...namely Miami and Southern Cal (and one you missed)...were baseball powers well before 1999.
(4) The percentage of public schools in the "power four" that have made CWS in that time span is pretty high, too. Like, something like 7 of the 9 public schools in the ACC have made the CWS multiple times in that span. And Pittsburgh certainly doesn't try.


Your successful private schools have almost all had pretty high levels of success in football, men's basketball, and/or women's basketball. There's a bunch of reasons why private schools are good at baseball or pick your sport. It usually starts with having the right head coach, public or private school alike.

How will Rice's free tuition deal work when it's implemented this fall?

Families that make under $130k a get 100%
From $130k-$200k they get at least 50%

Their program is about to really take off again if they can go get the best players in the state whose parents make under $200k and give them full rides.

PhatMack19 said:

---

How will Rice's free tuition deal work when it's implemented this fall?

Families that make under $130k a get 100%
From $130k-$200k they get at least 50%

Their program is about to really take off again if they can go get the best players in the state whose parents make under $200k and give them full rides.

---

That will be very interesting for the NCAA to tackle

PhatMack19 said:

---

How will Rice's free tuition deal work when it's implemented this fall?

Families that make under $130k a get 100%
From $130k-$200k they get at least 50%

Their program is about to really take off again if they can go get the best players in the state whose parents make under $200k and give them full rides.

---

Only the families making under $130k get the free ride. If a player's family makes more than $130k, he'd have to choose between the academic scholarship and a baseball scholarship. Let me give you an example of how that might work.

From what I've read and heard elsewhere, it seems that stud pitchers are getting 80% to 90% offers as freshmen, while hitters either have to walk or on take the minimum 25% their first year (with the promise that they will get more in subsequent years--if they pan out). Let's take two players, a pitcher and a position player, whose families both have $200k in income.

The position player may be enticed to attend Rice with, say, a 50% academic scholarship, even though his parents will still be paying a chunk out of pocket (or he will be taking loans) because he'd either be a walk on or get the minimum his first year at A&M (and still pay less). The pitcher, on the other hand, will require Rice to offer him a baseball scholarship of 90%, or a full ride, in order to turn down the A&M offer of 80%. Because Rice has got some key position players on academic scholarship instead of taking any baseball money, they can probably offer a larger percentage to the pitcher, maybe even a full ride.

Now, a financially savvy family will crunch the numbers and still see A&M's offers as being competitive with Rice, but a lot of players are swayed by that percentage. 90% or a "full ride" at Rice is going to beat 80% from A&M for a lot of kids, because it tells them Rice values them more than A&M.

twk said:

---

PhatMack19 said:

---

How will Rice's free tuition deal work when it's implemented this fall?

Families that make under $130k a get 100%
From $130k-$200k they get at least 50%

Their program is about to really take off again if they can go get the best players in the state whose parents make under $200k and give them full rides.

---

Only the families making under $130k get the free ride. If a player's family makes more than $130k, he'd have to choose between the academic scholarship and a baseball scholarship. Let me give you an example of how that might work.

From what I've read and heard elsewhere, it seems that stud pitchers are getting 80% to 90% offers as freshmen, while hitters either have to walk or on take the minimum 25% their first year (with the promise that they will get more in subsequent years--if they pan out). Let's take two players, a pitcher and a position player, whose families both have $200k in income.

The position player may be enticed to attend Rice with, say, a 50% academic scholarship, even though his parents will still be paying a chunk out of pocket (or he will be taking loans) because he'd either be a walk on or get the minimum his first year at A&M (and still pay less). The pitcher, on the other hand, will require Rice to offer him a baseball scholarship of 90%, or a full ride, in order to turn down the A&M offer of 80%. Because Rice has got some key position players on academic scholarship instead of taking any baseball money, they can probably offer a larger percentage to the pitcher, maybe even a full ride.

Now, a financially savvy family will crunch the numbers and still see A&M's offers as being competitive with Rice, but a lot of players are swayed by that percentage. 90% or a "full ride" at Rice is going to beat 80% from A&M for a lot of kids, because it tells them Rice values them more than A&M.

---

I don't know if you're lumping in scholarship from the new program but, if you aren't, 90% or full ride baseball scholarships aren't a thing

Quote:

---

I don't know if you're lumping in scholarship from the new program but, if you aren't, 90% or full ride baseball scholarships aren't a thing

---

I'm not. Full ride is rare (maybe unheard of) at A&M, but we do have some pitchers way up there on scholarship percentage. I was surprised when I heard that recently, but I've heard it from more than one source, and it is apparently not unique to A&M. Pitchers get big offers while hitters have to settle for the crumbs. That seems to be the way it is everywhere,

Also, you can't add an academic scholarship on top of a baseball scholarship, in most cases (there are some exceptions, but they don't apply at A&M, or the private schools). If you receive a baseball scholarship, every dollar that you receive, from any source, counts against the 11.7. So, it's an either or situation. Either you are on a baseball scholarship, or you're on an academic scholarship, but you can't be both.

Quote:

---

Also, you can't add an academic scholarship on top of a baseball scholarship, in most cases (there are some exceptions, but they don't apply at A&M, or the private schools). If you receive a baseball scholarship, every dollar that you receive, from any source, counts against the 11.7. So, it's an either or situation. Either you are on a baseball scholarship, or you're on an academic scholarship, but you can't be both.

---

Its unfortunate that people starred up the response early in the thread that answered the OP's question with "yes."

Its the wrong answer in the sense of what the OP was really trying to ask.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your conclusions are severely flawed for a couple of reasons but primarily because of the difference between the number of public versus private schools there are chasing those Omaha spots. Look at the four major conferences in baseball. The only private schools are Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake and Southern Cal. Of those BC, Syracuse and Wake don't even try to be good Duke only started trying recently. all of the others have been there at least once during that span.

The private school advantage only arose in 1999 when the NCAA started allowing non-athletic scholarships to first year players. Prior to that a player had to be on campus a year before he could get academic money.

---

(1) That's not all the private schools playing baseball in your "power four" conferences. You even missed one that's really good at baseball.
(2) You take out schools who haven't been successful and of course the list looks more successful.
(3) Several of those programs on your list...namely Miami and Southern Cal (and one you missed)...were baseball powers well before 1999.
(4) The percentage of public schools in the "power four" that have made CWS in that time span is pretty high, too. Like, something like 7 of the 9 public schools in the ACC have made the CWS multiple times in that span. And Pittsburgh certainly doesn't try.


Your successful private schools have almost all had pretty high levels of success in football, men's basketball, and/or women's basketball. There's a bunch of reasons why private schools are good at baseball or pick your sport. It usually starts with having the right head coach, public or private school alike.

---

So complete the list. I didn't intentionally omit anyone. Who did I miss? Stanford. Yep that's a big miss.

I never said private schools weren't good before 1999. I said the rules changes that year helped them. Being good at full scholarship sports is different that equivalency sports. And yes the right coach is still a huge part of the equation.

Baseball scholarship situations fall into 4 categories.

1. Elite private schools that pay for all expenses beyond family means for all students. That's where Vanderbilt is. I don't know if any other private schools in P4 do that. Based on info gathered during a visit last summer USC does not. I haven't researched the rest.
2. Schools that award scholarships to applicants in the fall in an effort to persuade those students to attend their school. These are public and private. The school is recruiting and baseball benefits from that effort as players know their financial situation before the early signing period.
3. Public schools with state funded programs for kids that meet minimum academic in high school. Georgia and Louisiana type of programs.
4. Schools that don't have state programs and don't offer financial aid in the fall. This is where A&M is.

I've tried to rank them in order of most to least advantageous to baseball.

It'll be interesting to see how it goes at Rice.

I think its important to keep in mind that their program covers tuition. And by tuition, they mean tuition and not fees, room and board, and other expenses. You also have to be admitted to Rice. Unless things have changed, they don't lower their admission requirements all the way to the NCAA minimums for athletes (as A&M and many others do.)

So, yeah, Rice may have the opportunity to scour the American lower and middle classes for baseball players. There are some caveats and still some potentially significant expenses.


Its complicated, and my point is always that folks ought not to oversell this caveat in the NCAA rules.

You can have both athletic and academic scholarships combined to cover all cost. First, you have to qualify for the academic just like any other student. Second, you have to maintain a higher gpa than typically required by the school for the academic or the NCAA makes you forfeit one of the two.

Quote:

---

I never said private schools weren't good before 1999. I said the rules changes that year helped them. Being good at full scholarship sports is different that equivalency sports. And yes the right coach is still a huge part of the equation.

---

Right.

I'm just commenting on the causality aspect of the rule, i.e. what the "help" has actually led to. USC's program basically fell apart shortly after 1999. Miami's program took steps back a few years after 1999. So did Stanford.

Rice got up and running before 1999, although maybe it helped Wayne Graham keep the good vibes going. Vanderbilt eventually stepped up, but it took Tim Corbin almost a decade to forge his reputation.

Baseball is a different animal. You want to recruit and sign good players... but not too good if you lose them to MLB/Minors.

Therefore, development/coaching is the key, IMO.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It'll be interesting to see how it goes at Rice.

I think its important to keep in mind that their program covers tuition. And by tuition, they mean tuition and not fees, room and board, and other expenses. You also have to be admitted to Rice. Unless things have changed, they don't lower their admission requirements all the way to the NCAA minimums for athletes (as A&M and many others do.)

So, yeah, Rice may have the opportunity to scour the American lower and middle classes for baseball players. There are some caveats and still some potentially significant expenses.


Its complicated, and my point is always that folks ought not to oversell this caveat in the NCAA rules.

---

Students with family incomes of $65,000 or less will receive free tuition plus grants covering the full cost of room, board and fees. The plan will take effect in the fall of 2019.


It wouldn't be hard for most families to Game the system to claim they make under $65k. Single parents where the wife claims the kid?

Years ago in my home town, one of our better players got in an argument with the coach and wanted to transfer to a rival school which wasn't allowed. His parents actually got divorced and the wife rented an apt in that city. He was allowed to play even though everyone knew they were still together. They re-married when he graduated. He ended up playing 4 years at Alabama.

Not saying things like that would become common, but if a family really wants to get free college for their kids, it wouldn't be that hard to make happen.