Does this help who the most?

[CalKidinMO]

Saw this in the NCAA website

"SEC to request baseball scholarship increase

June 02, 2008

The NCAA News



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Southeastern Conference presidents voted May 30 to sponsor NCAA legislation that would increase the number of permissible baseball scholarships in Division I from 11.7 to 14.7. Once entered into the 2008-09 legislative cycle, the proposal will first be considered by the new Legislative Council.

The earliest the proposal could be adopted by the Division I Board of Directors would be at the NCAA Convention in January 2009.

The proposal, sponsored by Mississippi State and LSU, gives voice to those who have long felt that the number of scholarships allowed for baseball student-athletes is too small, especially in the wake of recent changes in the sport.

In 2007, an NCAA working group recommended various changes in the sport as a way to improve academic success. Among those changes, approved as emergency legislation by the Board and implemented last year, was a requirement that individual financial aid packages for baseball student-athletes include at least 25 percent athletics aid and the elimination of the one-time transfer rule for student-athletes.

Supporters say the change would help create more parity among teams that have state assistance for scholarship programs and those that do not, but they acknowledged that the change might be a tough sell at the national level.

Larry Templeton, Mississippi State athletics director and a member of the baseball working group, told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that “we’ve got to do a lot of work” to get the Division I Board of Directors – which has final approval on the plan – to agree to it.

"

It helps the BCS schools and will help the Shockers. But it will make it even more difficult for some the schools that are not fully supported (use the full 11.7).

BTW Congrats for the Regional win and I am rooting for the Green Wave today.

[CharlieHog]

I think it would help the bigger programs more. They will get guys that otherwise would have gone to smaller programs because they got more money.

I don't think it will pass, though.

[ShockTalk]

Big programs over-recruit now. This would allow them to hang on to a few more players (maybe like McKeever). Don't see how this helps parity. I believe Clint was a walk-on for OSU, but you get the idea.

[SB Shock]

It probably helps the big schools, but the thing is the scholarship situation is a joke in baseball - 11.7 scholarships?

They should fund more scholarship for the athletes playing baseball to at least on par with other sports. But it probably won't pass, because the schools like in the MVC won't want to pony up and spend any more on baseball, and then there is probably Title IX considerations.

[William]

It should be books and tuition for 24 or 25 guys whatever the postseason roster holds.

[RoyalShock]

It should be books and tuition for 24 or 25 guys whatever the postseason roster holds.

Half or more of the non-BCS schools with baseball would either drop it altogether or continue to only fund the 11-12-ish scholarships. You may even see some BCS schools drop it (those like Colorado and Iowa State who have already done so).

The NCAA says their goal is for more athletes to get an education. Making it more difficult for 100+ schools to field a competitive program would not help them achieve that goal. I could see a small tweak, say 13-14, being OK. Any more than that would be an asassination attempt on parity.

[7hottamales]

I think it helps the student athlete the most...and that's what's most important.

It also helps college baseball in general as more players can potentially be offered a higher % scholarship and therefore afford to bypass the signing bonus out of high school.

This would be a win/win.

[7hottamales]

It should be books and tuition for 24 or 25 guys whatever the postseason roster holds.

Half or more of the non-BCS schools with baseball would either drop it altogether or continue to only fund the 11-12-ish scholarships. You may even see some BCS schools drop it (those like Colorado and Iowa State who have already done so).

The NCAA says their goal is for more athletes to get an education. Making it more difficult for 100+ schools to field a competitive program would not help them achieve that goal. I could see a small tweak, say 13-14, being OK. Any more than that would be an asassination attempt on parity.

How many scholarships does women's softball get? How about golf, track, and soccer?

My impression is that this isn't about money for scholarships as much as it is about Title IX

[RoyalShock]

My impression is that this isn't about money for scholarships as much as it is about Title IX

Those two things are pretty much tied together. Because of Title IX, there isn't as much money to spend on baseball scholarships/facilities/equipment. Schools have to support softball and the other women's sports, regardless of the cost. Getting rid of baseball, particularly if it isn't a money-maker, could become an easy decision for some schools, assuming they still have enough sports to remain D-1.

I think the net result of a large scholarship increase for baseball will be fewer total student athletes. Yes, those remaining will be forking over less of their own money, but is that really the goal?

Then, if a school drops baseball, under Title IX they might be able to drop women's golf or tennis, creating even greater casualties in terms of student-athlete numbers. I think the bell curve applies here and the NCAA needs to find the top of it.

[William]

Would it really break the universities to let 24 baseball players sit in classrooms with the paying students, and provide them with used books.
I seriously doubt my suggestion has anything to do with money.

[SB Shock]

On Gene show tonight he was all for it - he said it wouldn't help the program any but what it would do is help the athletes who are scraping by.

He gave a history of baseball scholarships (from when they went from fully funded) to how they got to 11.7 (they were 13 until the femi-nazi's complain and the NCAA dictated that baseball had to take a 10% cut in scholarship [13- 1.3 = 11.7 scholarship]).

[The Mad Hatter]

I really don't understand the violent hatred some people have for women's sports and Title IX.

Do you really think it would be fair for male athletes to have some or all of their education paid for through athletics and not give female athletes the same opportunity?

Because if it weren't for Title IX, colleges would not give women equal opportunities.

I agree with the premise of Title IX, but unfortunately its implementation has resulted in limitations on the ability of schools to provide scholarships to athletes. Whether it is a cap on scholarships for a specific sport, like baseball, or no allowance for the fact that there is no woman's sport with as many scholarships as football, which causes smaller men's programs to be cut.

While women should certainly be a equal opportunity (and I am a big fan of women's college sports), the irony is that the rules have not cut into the high profile sports (football & basketball), but have rather hurt the lower profile sports. Many want to know why equality for one kind of lower profile sport (women's sports) must come at the expense of other lower profile sports.

The aim is right, but the execution could be substantially better.

[SubGod22]

I do think it needs to be changed because of football as there is no sport that comes close to matching that size. A number of smaller schools have had to give up baseball because of Title IX. That's just sad. And the fact that there are only a couple of sports that can support themselves makes it even more difficult.

Here, we know Mens Basketball funds everything else. I believe Baseball is self sufficient but I can't be positive. Volleyball probably does a decent job of covering itself but I'm not sure if actually runs in the black. Everything else loses money. Then there's football that actually loses money at a lot of schools but because of the high profile it's a good thing for recognition and recruiting of both students and athletes. Then when you add the profit from merchandise it probably makes money or is at least not losing near as much as one would think.

I enjoy womens sports, but very few anywhere can cover thier costs and put more strain on the athletic department. I do realize at the same time there are mens sports that are the same way

Basically I agree with TMH which is no surprise...

[CharlieHog]

I really don't understand the violent hatred some people have for women's sports and Title IX.

Do you really think it would be fair for male athletes to have some or all of their education paid for through athletics and not give female athletes the same opportunity?

Because if it weren't for Title IX, colleges would not give women equal opportunities.

I agree with the premise of Title IX, but unfortunately its implementation has resulted in limitations on the ability of schools to provide scholarships to athletes. Whether it is a cap on scholarships for a specific sport, like baseball, or no allowance for the fact that there is no woman's sport with as many scholarships as football, which causes smaller men's programs to be cut.

While women should certainly be a equal opportunity (and I am a big fan of women's college sports), the irony is that the rules have not cut into the high profile sports (football & basketball), but have rather hurt the lower profile sports. Many want to know why equality for one kind of lower profile sport (women's sports) must come at the expense of other lower profile sports.

The aim is right, but the execution could be substantially better.

You got in before I could delete my post. I just decided last night I didn't want to argue about it. lol

Anyway there could probably be some changes to Title IX. Maybe they could take some scholarships away from football and give them to other men's sports.


I just get annoyed at the attitude, because you see it a lot from baseball fans.

[7hottamales]

Is the universe of women wanting to play division 1 college sports proportional to the universe of men competing against each other for the same scholarship dollars? If not, is it actually the "fair" thing to mandate equal number of scholarships awarded?

I think at the very least football and volleyball should be eliminated from the equation.