Ags what are your thoughts on this??

More scholarships are always better than less, especially considering how limited they are right now. I also like rewarding a guy for staying in school. My only problem is that there is still such a strong incentive to go pro after Junior year that only a limited number of student athletes will be able to take advantage of the opportunity. Its a good step, no doubt, but just not nearly enough

What are the proposed changes ?

Schools that have money could offer productive soon-to-be seniors a full ride that could prevent some later round juniors from leaving.

However, it will likely change the market for these draft picks since their leverage would be different than before. MLB clubs would likely sweeten the pot to counter this move. They have the money.

wareagle044 said:

---

What are the proposed changes ?

---

Proposal to not count senior scholarship money against 11.7.

I suspect the usual suspects will vote it down. If anything passes, rather than allowing seniors to get a full ride that doesn't count against the 11.7 limit, I suspect that they might pass a rule that lets then get the same aid their senior year that they got their junior year, and not have that count against the limit. But, even that probably won't get the approval of the penny pinchers.

I believe Kendall's article on the subject is not behind the paywall (I'm a subscriber, so I'd have access anyway and can't be sure): https://d1baseball.com/news/new-legislative-proposal-aims-to-ease-seniors-suffering/

The rule below already exists. I imagine some folks will suggest it is strengthened as an alternative to the proposed rule. In particular, part (c) and what "athletics reason" means.

Quote:

---

15.3.5.3 Reduction or Nonrenewal Not PermittedAfter the Period of the Award.
[A] If a student athlete receives athletically related financial aid in the academic year of his or her initial full-time enrollment at the certifying institution, the following factors shall not be considered in the reduction or nonrenewal of such aid for the following academic year or years of the student-athlete's five-year period of eligibility:

(a) A student-athlete's athletics ability, performance or contribution to a team's success (e.g., financial aid contingent upon specified performance or playing a specific position);
(b) An injury, illness, or physical or mental medical condition; or
(c) Any other athletics reason.

---

Not sure exactly what I think about the scholarship change, as I would need to have some time to look into the details, but I enjoyed watching you play at Olsen!!!!

Driving up scholarships on men's sports is twice as expensive as baseline cost of the scholarship...and Title IX likely won't permit this scheme as a means of avoiding matching with more aid for women athletes...

TXAggie2011 said:

---

But I also always worry about making those sports too expensive for less-funded athletic departments to compete in.

---

I worry about that too, but I don't think much can be done about that. When everyone was losing money on baseball, you could justify partial scholarships as a way to keep everything fair. Even when everyone was losing money except LSU you could justify it. But now that we are starting to see more schools in the black it is getting harder. And the SEC has built the model for making money primarily by adding premium seats. That is something the big baseball schools in the South can follow. Heck, some Cali schools might be able to follow that model to profit as it requires a small number of big wealthy donors that don't even have to show up all that often.

I think this is a step toward baseball becoming a head count sport. I don't see how it could remain partial as more schools start making money on it. I'm just not sure what this is going to do to the smaller schools (shut down programs, two divisions, or just play with more unequal resources) but I think it has to be done.

Here is my perspective on this:

Yes, we are considered a school with money; however, that money is incredibly donor dependent, and we really dont have a ton of discretionary spending money for scholarships (athletic or academic). Top that off with the fact that only a small number of athletes can receive a non-resident tuition waiver, and a full ride is now looking anywhere between 28k and 50k per year, per kid (assuming full ride meaning more than T+F to include the full cost of attendance). Maybe this funding will come from athletics, and not where I think it will come from, which would help a ton.

From my perspective, it looks like the NCAA is trying to push the blame for lack of scholarships in these sports from themselves and onto the schools.

Quote:

---

From my perspective, it looks like the NCAA is trying to push the blame for lack of scholarships in these sports from themselves and onto the schools.

---

This is a good observation because it's exactly the problem. The schools aren't touching this because they want every extra penny going to revenue sports. It's very convenient for them to blame title IX. They all have the money to satisfy title IX while raising baseball scholarship numbers. It would just be money that can no longer be thrown at football.

Quote:

---

From my perspective, it looks like the NCAA is trying to push the blame for lack of scholarships in these sports from themselves and onto the schools.

---

I tried to click on the above linked article to remind myself where the proposal came from, and what its current status is, but it looks like the article got deleted for some reason.

Point being its hard to draw a line between the "NCAA" and "the schools" because the NCAA committee(s) that vote on rule changes are "the schools"---they're made up of a bunch of athletic directors and conference commissioners.

Sandman98 said:

---

Quote:

---

From my perspective, it looks like the NCAA is trying to push the blame for lack of scholarships in these sports from themselves and onto the schools.

---

This is a good observation because it's exactly the problem. The schools aren't touching this because they want every extra penny going to revenue sports. It's very convenient for them to blame title IX. They all have the money to satisfy title IX while raising baseball scholarship numbers. It would just be money that can no longer be thrown at football.

---

I don't see how this is far from the truth.