I would agree. With the introduction of NIL it is making college baseball relevant because of its relevancy to minor league ball and its creature comforts. One of the few positives of NIL in college sports.OKCAGS said:
Plus NIL now ….. college baseball has TOTALLY changed in a few short years ( for the better ).
Potential increase to 32+ baseball scholarships
10,818 Views |
82 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by greg.w.h
yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
It is a shame because hundreds of great athletes are not going to get the chance to play the sport they love in college …… and many athletes will not even get the chance to attend college now.
Lucky for us TAMU is a "have" school but for another 150 programs who are "have not" schools i can see abandonment of programs within 5 years
Wicked Good Ag said:
Lucky for us TAMU is a "have" school but for another 150 programs who are "have not" schools i can see abandonment of programs within 5 years
Is DBU a have or have-not school? I would hate to see programs like this negatively impacted/eliminated by this change.
That depends on if they break it down to two different divisions so to speak. But DBU would be an interesting case with its baseball pedigree but likely a have not
Was just announced that the NCAA is expected to increase the number of baseball scholarships to 34. That's up 22.3 from the 11.7 it used to be
A lot more scholarships are 100% heading to @NCAABaseball.
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 24, 2024
One VERY important clarification is that teams can spread 18 scholarships, for instance, over 34 players. Yes, you can give out 34 fulls, but you can also increase from 11.7 to 18-20, and then spread that over 34…
That's an excellent clarification. But I hope our league ignores it…
Panama Red said:A lot more scholarships are 100% heading to @NCAABaseball.
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 24, 2024
One VERY important clarification is that teams can spread 18 scholarships, for instance, over 34 players. Yes, you can give out 34 fulls, but you can also increase from 11.7 to 18-20, and then spread that over 34…
Thats a nice compromise. It gives the biggest programs full rides but gives smaller ones the ability to recruit with partials still instead of only being blanket to do 18 full rides and the rest of the roster being walk ons. That assuages some of my concern of how many programs quit the sport altogether.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
This really doesn't change much other than force money to be accounted and be official.W said:yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
If the roster cap drops, that's going to be the difference. Fringe D1 guys drop down to lesser levels and so forth. What I'm hoping is this limits some of the transfer portal limit as kids aren't having to transfer to a lesser college to get a bump up into a 1/4 or 1/2 a scholarship they need to stay in school.
Football needs 20 more….
REPORT: The NCAA is expected to approve increased scholarships across multiple sports, per @RossDellenger
— On3 (@On3sports) July 24, 2024
Football 105 (+20)
Basketball 15 (+2)
Baseball 34 (+22.3)
Softball 25 (+13)
Volleyball 18 (+6)https://t.co/DIHA2742Ik pic.twitter.com/R3HqocpbYF
When is it supposed to be implemented? This academic year?
themissinglink said:
When is it supposed to be implemented? This academic year?
25/26 academic year I believe.
I agree there will be cancellation of programs, especially in non-revenue sports.W said:yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
The money is there for sports like football, basketball, and baseball, but I would expect some additional hefty trimming of costs in athletic departments. Specific to A&M, Trev already did one round of layoffs this spring that certain people (like our former baseball coach) were not happy about and it wouldn't surprise me if we see more.
themissinglink said:I agree there will be cancellation of programs, especially in non-revenue sports.W said:yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
The money is there for sports like football, basketball, and baseball, but I would expect some additional hefty trimming of costs in athletic departments. Specific to A&M, Trev already did one round of layoffs this spring that certain people (like our former baseball coach) were not happy about and it wouldn't surprise me if we see more.
Baseball at 11.7 is a money loser for almost everyone. It's a bigger loser at 34. I do like the compromise of allowing 18 partials for 34 players but still that's more money the vast majority of baseball programs simply don't have. This could get ugly.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
Maybe I don't understand the way the money flows here, but the baseball program itself doesn't have to come up with this money for the scholarships. In fact the scholarship is pretty much... just free logistically speaking, you just change the tuition and fees owed to $0.00 for athletes on scholarship.
If any accounting at all must be done here to account for more scholarships, the university could just fold that lost money into raising tuition for all students at the university so that their net intake of tuition and fees stays the same. Or the athletic department/conferences could easily fund it via increased TV dollars that now exist. One creative solution could be that NIL collectives could help fund these and be more like a "scholarship fund" of sorts. I know I'd be much more apt to donate say $200.00 towards baseball scholarships annually rather than give money for purely NIL purposes.
In any case, I don't think programs would go out of business simply because of offering more scholarships unless they are already being badly mismanaged financially. Also, supply and demand is in play here. There will in my opinion always be a big enough supply of players that will pay their way to play D1 baseball. If they have to go to Sam Houston for a year and rake/dominate, they will just to have the chance to play big time baseball, and for the opportunity to get noticed and then transfer into a power four school and get on scholarship. So even in a situation where small schools can't increase past 11.7 for whatever reason, I think they'd still be able to put a team together and compete.
If any accounting at all must be done here to account for more scholarships, the university could just fold that lost money into raising tuition for all students at the university so that their net intake of tuition and fees stays the same. Or the athletic department/conferences could easily fund it via increased TV dollars that now exist. One creative solution could be that NIL collectives could help fund these and be more like a "scholarship fund" of sorts. I know I'd be much more apt to donate say $200.00 towards baseball scholarships annually rather than give money for purely NIL purposes.
In any case, I don't think programs would go out of business simply because of offering more scholarships unless they are already being badly mismanaged financially. Also, supply and demand is in play here. There will in my opinion always be a big enough supply of players that will pay their way to play D1 baseball. If they have to go to Sam Houston for a year and rake/dominate, they will just to have the chance to play big time baseball, and for the opportunity to get noticed and then transfer into a power four school and get on scholarship. So even in a situation where small schools can't increase past 11.7 for whatever reason, I think they'd still be able to put a team together and compete.
Small private might be able to pay games like $0 tuition, but state schools (at least in Texas) cannot. But the small privates were already stacking academic scholarships on top of the partial athletic so it probably isn't as big a deal as some think.
Also, an athletic scholarship is more than just tuition and fees.
For A&M, TMF does a lot to fund the scholarships through donations. I'd guess similar booster organizations at other schools do the same. There isn't a need to try and back NIL dollars back into scholarship dollars. BTW, if you want to contribute to baseball scholarships, call up the TMF. I'm sure they can help you find a way.
Also, an athletic scholarship is more than just tuition and fees.
For A&M, TMF does a lot to fund the scholarships through donations. I'd guess similar booster organizations at other schools do the same. There isn't a need to try and back NIL dollars back into scholarship dollars. BTW, if you want to contribute to baseball scholarships, call up the TMF. I'm sure they can help you find a way.
It's a limit of 34 on the roster, not a scholarship limit. I would be curious whether there's anything in the new regulations that would stop a school from giving 44 scholarships, for example, with 10 guys taking freshman or medical redshirts. In the era of the transfer portal, it wouldn't be unusual in the least for 10+ players to rotate out every year.
Personally, I think you may see more clear regional differences. I can see the schools out west, for example, deciding that they will play with 15-18. As long as the schools that they are competing with are play with the same limits, it won't be as big of a disadvantage in the regular season. Where it will kill them is being competitive in the tournament. If the SEC and ACC are all providing full rides, and other conferences are not, they are going to have a clear talent edge. That's already the case right now, so some more movement in that direction will not kill the sport, in my opinion.LOYAL AG said:themissinglink said:I agree there will be cancellation of programs, especially in non-revenue sports.W said:yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
The money is there for sports like football, basketball, and baseball, but I would expect some additional hefty trimming of costs in athletic departments. Specific to A&M, Trev already did one round of layoffs this spring that certain people (like our former baseball coach) were not happy about and it wouldn't surprise me if we see more.
Baseball at 11.7 is a money loser for almost everyone. It's a bigger loser at 34. I do like the compromise of allowing 18 partials for 34 players but still that's more money the vast majority of baseball programs simply don't have. This could get ugly.
The curious case will be the Big Ten. The legacy Big Ten members all have plenty of money, and could afford to go to 34 if they wanted to. These schools typically field a lot more money losing sports than the minimum 18 (which is what we, and most SEC schools, do), so they are used to losing money in everything outside football and mens' basketball. If they are willing to fund the full complement, then that might actually help them finally step up a bit, because they will probably be able to raid the west coast and pick up some talent that previously wouldn't even have considered them.
twk said:Personally, I think you may see more clear regional differences. I can see the schools out west, for example, deciding that they will play with 15-18. As long as the schools that they are competing with are play with the same limits, it won't be as big of a disadvantage in the regular season. Where it will kill them is being competitive in the tournament. If the SEC and ACC are all providing full rides, and other conferences are not, they are going to have a clear talent edge. That's already the case right now, so some more movement in that direction will not kill the sport, in my opinion.LOYAL AG said:themissinglink said:I agree there will be cancellation of programs, especially in non-revenue sports.W said:yes, at some point the cancellation of programs at schools across the country has to beginGap said:
Average cost of a scholarship is $54,700. So 20 additional scholarships is about $1.1M per year over $11M for a 10 year period.
Where does the $ come from? Does it come out of potential NIL, potential facilities, cutting sports with substantial losses, etc.?
What does a model that increases funding and scholarships for sports with higher demand like baseball mean regarding Title IX?? Do we then need to add a ladies sports to get back into equilibrium on scholarship numbers or do we cut a male sport to make up the difference?
the money isn't there
The money is there for sports like football, basketball, and baseball, but I would expect some additional hefty trimming of costs in athletic departments. Specific to A&M, Trev already did one round of layoffs this spring that certain people (like our former baseball coach) were not happy about and it wouldn't surprise me if we see more.
Baseball at 11.7 is a money loser for almost everyone. It's a bigger loser at 34. I do like the compromise of allowing 18 partials for 34 players but still that's more money the vast majority of baseball programs simply don't have. This could get ugly.
The curious case will be the Big Ten. The legacy Big Ten members all have plenty of money, and could afford to go to 34 if they wanted to. These schools typically field a lot more money losing sports than the minimum 18 (which is what we, and most SEC schools, do), so they are used to losing money in everything outside football and mens' basketball. If they are willing to fund the full complement, then that might actually help them finally step up a bit, because they will probably be able to raid the west coast and pick up some talent that previously wouldn't even have considered them.
My concern is really the G5 programs. I would be surprised if those programs make money at any sport. I've read that they often carry something like 6 baseball scholarships so even getting to the 11.7 we think is silly would double their scholarship cost. Now to get to 18 just for a chance to be competitive is a massive leap. This is where I think we'll see attrition.
I hadn't really thought about the B1G but that's a good point. The west coast schools don't care about sports anyway but a full ride to Michigan is going to look a lot better than 50% from Fullerton. This could actually help the Michigans and tOSU of the world.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
Under the current rules, anyone that receives any scholarship money (even freshman and medical redshirts) are counted against the roster limit. That isn't expected to change. They are going to set the max scholarship number at the max roster number so walk-ons will be eliminated for any school offering the full complement of scholarships.GoldenGun00 said:
It's a limit of 34 on the roster, not a scholarship limit. I would be curious whether there's anything in the new regulations that would stop a school from giving 44 scholarships, for example, with 10 guys taking freshman or medical redshirts. In the era of the transfer portal, it wouldn't be unusual in the least for 10+ players to rotate out every year.
Here are the roster limits under the settlement-related new rev-share model that will take effect in the 2025-26 academic year.
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) July 26, 2024
Under the new system, schools are permitted - not required - to offer scholarships to each player up to these new roster limits. pic.twitter.com/B2komW14rE
Should a school fund the additional 20 football scholarships (not to mention basketball, baseball, etc), those will have to be offset with either more awards for non-revenue women or cuts to men's programs.
Many sports will have to cut rosters regardless of funding. Making a P4 roster just got a whole lot more difficult.
It's going to get ugly for many, better for some.
What about 2025 commits to high-roster programs? No NLIs signed yet. They have to reopen recruiting, I suppose.
Many sports will have to cut rosters regardless of funding. Making a P4 roster just got a whole lot more difficult.
It's going to get ugly for many, better for some.
What about 2025 commits to high-roster programs? No NLIs signed yet. They have to reopen recruiting, I suppose.
Trev Alberts talked about this at the TexAgs PKO today. In the NCAA revenue suit, the federal judge hearing that case allocated revenue based on the revenue for each sport, which will disproportionately go to men. So, that may be the opening for a more realistic approach on Title IX issues. Of course, that will have to be litigated.FriskyGardenGnome said:
Should a school fund the additional 20 football scholarships (not to mention basketball, baseball, etc), those will have to be offset with either more awards for non-revenue women or cuts to men's programs.
Many sports will have to cut rosters regardless of funding. Making a P4 roster just got a whole lot more difficult.
It's going to get ugly for many, better for some.
What about 2025 commits to high-roster programs? No NLIs signed yet. They have to reopen recruiting, I suppose.
Given the judge's approach, the schools would have to allocate another 20% from their revenue sources if they lose Title IX litigation…that suit can't set aside this judgment. But the schools were complicit in all of this.
That may take care of the revenue sharing portion. How could it carry over to scholarships?
Title IX
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The allocation calculation is based on revenue per sport, thus not discrimination based on sex.
The law doesn't require equal scholarships. Rather dollars proportional to participation rates. If half your student athletes are female, then half your scholarship dollars should go to females. If every student athlete has an equal full scholarship, then the dollars proportional to participation rate is automatic.
Additionally, the school needs to meet a participation requirement. That can be met if the ratio of number of spots is equivalent to the ratio of the student body (for A&M that is close to 50:50). But that is not the only way to meet the participation requirement.
I think you have a big issue if you start cutting girls sports without similarly cutting men's sports, but equal scholarships are not an absolute requirement, just an easy way to show compliance.
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The allocation calculation is based on revenue per sport, thus not discrimination based on sex.
The law doesn't require equal scholarships. Rather dollars proportional to participation rates. If half your student athletes are female, then half your scholarship dollars should go to females. If every student athlete has an equal full scholarship, then the dollars proportional to participation rate is automatic.
Additionally, the school needs to meet a participation requirement. That can be met if the ratio of number of spots is equivalent to the ratio of the student body (for A&M that is close to 50:50). But that is not the only way to meet the participation requirement.
I think you have a big issue if you start cutting girls sports without similarly cutting men's sports, but equal scholarships are not an absolute requirement, just an easy way to show compliance.
It's worth noting that there is no federal funding being segmented by the NCAA settlement. But there will be disproportionate payments even between football and men's basketball with latter probably having a higher average payout than the former in spite of more of the total revenue being determined by the expert testimony as being derived from football.
Assuming that won't get successfully litigated strikes me as risky which could lead to an additional settlement for the purpose of building a consensus the athletes agree to accept which in this case is female (born that way) and, yes, potentially trans and fluid as well.
But why that is valuable is it creates the basis for ongoing management of the situation without employment and creative bargaining under federal labor law.
And, no, I don't think that is a durable solution but given student athletes likely will have a maximum tenure of five years getting a stable CBA is…in a word…difficult. So the NCAA is trying the strategy to see how far they can get in locking down a solution likely so if that fails they have something to show Congress. All speculation of course.
Assuming that won't get successfully litigated strikes me as risky which could lead to an additional settlement for the purpose of building a consensus the athletes agree to accept which in this case is female (born that way) and, yes, potentially trans and fluid as well.
But why that is valuable is it creates the basis for ongoing management of the situation without employment and creative bargaining under federal labor law.
And, no, I don't think that is a durable solution but given student athletes likely will have a maximum tenure of five years getting a stable CBA is…in a word…difficult. So the NCAA is trying the strategy to see how far they can get in locking down a solution likely so if that fails they have something to show Congress. All speculation of course.
The Marksman said:Excellent news! These student-athletes deserve it!Panama Red said:Big news here from Ross at #SEC Media Days. The #SEC's Greg Sankey says @NCAABaseball is expected to have a roster limit in the 'mid-30s' -- schools would be able to offer full scholarships to their entire roster. 👇 https://t.co/J09ysdO8R3
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 18, 2024
So, take the 12 schollys from SHSU and SFA, and give them to A&M. SHSU and SFA drop baseball or go to D3..
Zero sum gain.
Or how do you see this playing out?
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
greg.w.h said:
It's worth noting that there is no federal funding being segmented by the NCAA settlement. But there will be disproportionate payments even between football and men's basketball with latter probably having a higher average payout than the former in spite of more of the total revenue being determined by the expert testimony as being derived from football.
Assuming that won't get successfully litigated strikes me as risky which could lead to an additional settlement for the purpose of building a consensus the athletes agree to accept which in this case is female (born that way) and, yes, potentially trans and fluid as well.
But why that is valuable is it creates the basis for ongoing management of the situation without employment and creative bargaining under federal labor law.
And, no, I don't think that is a durable solution but given student athletes likely will have a maximum tenure of five years getting a stable CBA is…in a word…difficult. So the NCAA is trying the strategy to see how far they can get in locking down a solution likely so if that fails they have something to show Congress. All speculation of course.
I don't think the stability of the CBA is that difficult. The current NFL CBA has a 10 year term. How many NFL players that ratified the CBA in 2020 are going to be around in 2025 or 2028, let alone when the agreement expires in 2030.
The stability comes from the union persisting even if the players turn over. If a player drafted in 2025 doesn't like the CBA terms, they have the option not to work in the NFL. They can't just sue or petition to change it.
The key difference is that unions are shielded from antitrust laws, so the CBA is not subject to the same antitrust claims that have torpedoed the NCAA of late.
Why are there eligibility limits at all? As long as the player is enrolled, they should be able to play until retirement.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
94chem said:The Marksman said:Excellent news! These student-athletes deserve it!Panama Red said:Big news here from Ross at #SEC Media Days. The #SEC's Greg Sankey says @NCAABaseball is expected to have a roster limit in the 'mid-30s' -- schools would be able to offer full scholarships to their entire roster. 👇 https://t.co/J09ysdO8R3
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 18, 2024
So, take the 12 schollys from SHSU and SFA, and give them to A&M. SHSU and SFA drop baseball or go to D3..
Zero sum gain.
Or how do you see this playing out?
Anyone else not understand what this guy is rambling about?
The Marksman said:94chem said:The Marksman said:Excellent news! These student-athletes deserve it!Panama Red said:Big news here from Ross at #SEC Media Days. The #SEC's Greg Sankey says @NCAABaseball is expected to have a roster limit in the 'mid-30s' -- schools would be able to offer full scholarships to their entire roster. 👇 https://t.co/J09ysdO8R3
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 18, 2024
So, take the 12 schollys from SHSU and SFA, and give them to A&M. SHSU and SFA drop baseball or go to D3..
Zero sum gain.
Or how do you see this playing out?
Anyone else not understand what this guy is rambling about?
11.7 x 3 = 35.1
Approximately the same number of schollys for one school under the new rule. Don't be so angry. It's just math. I'm not sure that offering more scholarships in a negative revenue sport will do anything more than concentrate the scholarships among fewer teams.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
94chem said:The Marksman said:94chem said:The Marksman said:Excellent news! These student-athletes deserve it!Panama Red said:Big news here from Ross at #SEC Media Days. The #SEC's Greg Sankey says @NCAABaseball is expected to have a roster limit in the 'mid-30s' -- schools would be able to offer full scholarships to their entire roster. 👇 https://t.co/J09ysdO8R3
— Kendall Rogers (@KendallRogers) July 18, 2024
So, take the 12 schollys from SHSU and SFA, and give them to A&M. SHSU and SFA drop baseball or go to D3..
Zero sum gain.
Or how do you see this playing out?
Anyone else not understand what this guy is rambling about?
11.7 x 3 = 35.1
Approximately the same number of schollys for one school under the new rule. Don't be so angry. It's just math. I'm not sure that offering more scholarships in a negative revenue sport will do anything more than concentrate the scholarships among fewer teams.
What on Earth do SHSU and SFA have to do with A&M baseball scholarships? You're one confused poster.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
1d ago
2.4k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
1d ago
6.9k
47:49
1d ago
2.5k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
1d ago
2.2k