ArticlE from Baseball America on schollys

[MSUDawg99]

About how limited schollys create challenge for college baseball...https://twitter.com/baseballamerica/status/613434647100272640

[Coach34]

great article Buddy- many fans have no idea how unlevel the playing field has become in college beisball

[engie]

Tremendous article... Does a pretty good job of explaining how things work. Wish it would have included a rule change timeline so people could see just how directly it correlated to our fall from grace.

One thing I've never been clear on. Could the BDC or similar venture start a baseball scholarship endowment fund and essentially privatize extra funding for our teams? Most probably do not have the fan interest to do this -- but we certainly do...

[MSUDawg99]

Tremendous article... Does a pretty good job of explaining how things work. Wish it would have included a rule change timeline so people could see just how directly it correlated to our fall from grace.

One thing I've never been clear on. Could the BDC or similar venture start a baseball scholarship endowment fund and essentially privatize extra funding for our teams? Most probably do not have the fan interest to do this -- but we certainly do...

I wondered something similar. Does any of Grishams giving to VA help players on scholly you think?

[turkish]

LSU fans are even bitching about it, watching Vandy go for another 'ship.

[MSUDawg99]

Vandy bein private & havin lots money def have the upper hand in recruiting.

[Homedawg]

Tremendous article... Does a pretty good job of explaining how things work. Wish it would have included a rule change timeline so people could see just how directly it correlated to our fall from grace.

One thing I've never been clear on. Could the BDC or similar venture start a baseball scholarship endowment fund and essentially privatize extra funding for our teams? Most probably do not have the fan interest to do this -- but we certainly do...
The only "legal" way to offer a scholarship is to have it "available" to everyone in the student body or everyone that applies, qualifies etc. so no you can't have a strictly baseball endowment.

[Homedawg]

Of course, give credit to vandy, they aren't the only school w that chance- Stanford being another, yet they have fallen from baseball grace.

[engie]

I'm not talking about playing it down the middle. I'm talking about living in the loopholes, which I know we are already doing to a large and ever growing extent. This is part of the reason the team gpa breaks records almost every semester...

[Todd4State]

Vanderbilt winning big is probably the best way to get things changed in the SEC. Their advantage is even more slanted than TOPS, HOPE, etc. And like Derek Johnson said in the article, people are probably wondering how they started to win so big all of a sudden. I wouldn't be surprised at all in the coming years if the SEC makes changes to how baseball teams allot their scholarship money. And I imagine the vote will be 13-1.

The NCAA did it to an extent with the athletic scholarship money by telling teams how they have to spend their money. The x amount of players have to be on scholarship rule.

[Todd4State]

I'm not talking about playing it down the middle. I'm talking about living in the loopholes, which I know we are already doing to a large and ever growing extent. This is part of the reason the team gpa breaks records almost every semester...

What's to stop us from giving some of the "baseball endowment" money to some random students who are deserving while giving the rest to baseball players?

I agree with you- MSU fans and alumni need to start thinking outside the box and less within the actual rules and saying "nothing we can do."

If we were Alabama and this was football and the situation for football scholarships was the same as it is for baseball relatively speaking, I think we all know what they would do.

The problem is finding someone that can actually finance it- which is why I haven't done it personally because if I had the power I would do so.

[Todd4State]

Of course, give credit to vandy, they aren't the only school w that chance- Stanford being another, yet they have fallen from baseball grace.

A lot of that is because their coach is past his prime. They could very easily rebuild very quickly with a different coach. I also have to wonder if USC has similar advantages as well- which gives them more competition.

[KB21]

A lot of that is because their coach is past his prime. They could very easily rebuild very quickly with a different coach. I also have to wonder if USC has similar advantages as well- which gives them more competition.

Stanford commitments are have signability issues with the pros. They had a highly rated guy named Tristen Beck that turned down 1st round money to go to Stanford. They simply do not recruit at the same level as Vandy even though they can. Stanford is also diverting a lot of funds to their football program as well.

[ScottH]

One of the best things that can happen for us is Bama and Auburn begin caring.

I can't speak for Bama but Jay Jacobs has started chirping a bit.

[sbcmortgageman]

Basically until the state of MS gets a lottery, we will suffer somewhat. With casinos and what not I cannot believe we can't get lottery approval.

[engie]

One of the best things that can happen for us is Bama and Auburn begin caring.

I can't speak for Bama but Jay Jacobs has started chirping a bit.

I think Bama almost has to follow his lead now that they are investing heavily into baseball...

My thing is -- I don't want anything "taken away" from anyone else in the SEC. Just get creative -- and create a loophole that allows everyone else to give those same advantages to themselves. With the $$ the conference is making, that should be easily enough accomplished.

[Jack Lambert]

Basically until the state of MS gets a lottery, we will suffer somewhat. With casinos and what not I cannot believe we can't get lottery approval.

I think the original intent of the casino was to fund education. Just because you have the Lotto doesn't mean the money will be spent where it should be.

[AlSwearengen]

Basically until the state of MS gets a lottery, we will suffer somewhat. With casinos and what not I cannot believe we can't get lottery approval.

I could be wrong, but I think I have heard that the casinos are against a lottery. They don't want any competition and the people that are against the casinos damn sure don't want a lottery either.

[maroonmania]

I think the original intent of the casino was to fund education. Just because you have the Lotto doesn't mean the money will be spent where it should be.

All I know is that every state with a lottery always seems to end up with college assistance for any HS student in that state that has reasonably good grades. And if you've seen what college tuition is these days, this makes parents of prospective college students very happy in those states. I know as a parent of one child already through college and two more to go I'm jealous.

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

Basically until the state of MS gets a lottery, we will suffer somewhat. With casinos and what not I cannot believe we can't get lottery approval.

Won't happen...it "targets the poor" in the mind of many regardless on any benefit it provides.

[smootness]

Won't happen...it "targets the poor" in the mind of many regardless on any benefit it provides.

That's because it does. It's just a regressive tax.

[Joe Schmedlap]

Jesus say -" you will ways have the poor" or something to that extent.

[maroonmania]

That's because it does. It's just a regressive tax.

It may be regressive in where the money comes from but don't call it a tax. Last time I checked I didn't have an option on whether I paid a tax or not.

[smootness]

It may be regressive in where the money comes from but don't call it a tax. Last time I checked I didn't have an option on whether I paid a tax or not.

Understood, but that's its intent. It is designed to take money from the uninformed, poor, and desperate. It is voluntary, but it doesn't change its purpose. And it is sold as an easy chance to make a lot of money when in reality your chances to win are essentially 0.

[dawgs]

Vanderbilt winning big is probably the best way to get things changed in the SEC. Their advantage is even more slanted than TOPS, HOPE, etc. And like Derek Johnson said in the article, people are probably wondering how they started to win so big all of a sudden. I wouldn't be surprised at all in the coming years if the SEC makes changes to how baseball teams allot their scholarship money. And I imagine the vote will be 13-1.

The NCAA did it to an extent with the athletic scholarship money by telling teams how they have to spend their money. The x amount of players have to be on scholarship rule.

Sec isn't going to do anything that puts the conference as a whole at a disadvantage. The conference would rather have vandy winning titles by exploiting loopholes than close the loopholes to every conference team and put us all at a disadvantage of all the other conferences. Now the conference might start pushing the NCAA to create a more fair and equitable system, but we'd need Bama, lsu, Florida, etc. to get on board. And lsu and Florida are both still winning big, so they might now care enough to raise enough hell.

[dawgs]

Understood, but that's its intent. It is designed to take money from the uninformed, poor, and desperate. It is voluntary, but it doesn't change its purpose. And it is sold as an easy chance to make a lot of money when in reality your chances to win are essentially 0.

That altruistic argument is a lot easier to buy into if we already didn't have casinos that do essentially the same thing. Sure, the gambler has a little more control over their outcomes, but the intent is generally the same. We've already crossed that line, so I don't see what's the point in stopping now. It's not like the lottery is some wild and crazy idea that people can fret over going down an imaginary slippery slope, most other states have a legalized lottery systems.

[Pinto]

Could a baseball player sue a college/the NCAA for disparity in financial aid? Seems like if you are giving one student athlete x in financial aid then all regardless of sport should get x.

[Todd4State]

Sec isn't going to do anything that puts the conference as a whole at a disadvantage. The conference would rather have vandy winning titles by exploiting loopholes than close the loopholes to every conference team and put us all at a disadvantage of all the other conferences. Now the conference might start pushing the NCAA to create a more fair and equitable system, but we'd need Bama, lsu, Florida, etc. to get on board. And lsu and Florida are both still winning big, so they might now care enough to raise enough hell.

One team dominating in baseball isn't what is best for the SEC. It's why the SEC is the dominant conference in football.

I'm not sure how this will really go. I know Auburn has brought it up before, and it didn't really go anywhere. It's why I said Vandy winning big may be what causes it to change eventually. LSU is the key IMO- they still have the most political clout in the SEC as far as baseball. Georgia should be easy to sway because Vandy gets a LOT of players from there- and they are probably affected more than anyone to be honest. I would hope that MSU and Ole Miss would be on board as well.

I really don't care if they take away players on endowments completely or limit the amount of players a team can have on endowments- similar to what they do with walk-ons in football- or if they somehow come up with an across the board endowment to even it out. Whatever direction they go, it needs to be a level playing field.

[Todd4State]

Could a baseball player sue a college/the NCAA for disparity in financial aid? Seems like if you are giving one student athlete x in financial aid then all regardless of sport should get x.

It wouldn't go very far because of politics. Even thought it's basically reverse discrimination.

[dawgs]

so what is the answer? Title IX isn't going away (maybe best case scenario is football gets dropped from the equation?) and baseball scholarships are going to become unlimited. Would the best answer be to raise the scholarship limit to 30 or so scholarships and any player that's recruited as an athlete counts against the scholarship limit even if he's on another scholarship besides athletics? (much like a football or basketball recruit counts against the limits even if they are on academic scholarship).

If the scholarship cap remains at 11.7, what's the answer? Its impossible to count a full academic scholarship as 1 less scholarship against the 11.7 because that's pretty crippling. And then you are hurting guys' opportunities to play college baseball far beyond the benefit of leveling the playing field IMO.

I'm honestly not sure what's the best answer other than we all know something has to be done and we've known it since polk's 1st go round.

[dawgs]

One team dominating in baseball isn't what is best for the SEC. It's why the SEC is the dominant conference in football.

I'm not sure how this will really go. I know Auburn has brought it up before, and it didn't really go anywhere. It's why I said Vandy winning big may be what causes it to change eventually. LSU is the key IMO- they still have the most political clout in the SEC as far as baseball. Georgia should be easy to sway because Vandy gets a LOT of players from there- and they are probably affected more than anyone to be honest. I would hope that MSU and Ole Miss would be on board as well.

I really don't care if they take away players on endowments completely or limit the amount of players a team can have on endowments- similar to what they do with walk-ons in football- or if they somehow come up with an across the board endowment to even it out. Whatever direction they go, it needs to be a level playing field.

I wouldn't say vandy is dominating the conference though. Sec just put half the field in the CWS. Vandy has become one of the premier programs regionally and nationally over the last 5-10 years though, obviously with the help of their endowment.

[Todd4State]

so what is the answer? Title IX isn't going away (maybe best case scenario is football gets dropped from the equation?) and baseball scholarships are going to become unlimited. Would the best answer be to raise the scholarship limit to 30 or so scholarships and any player that's recruited as an athlete counts against the scholarship limit even if he's on another scholarship besides athletics? (much like a football or basketball recruit counts against the limits even if they are on academic scholarship).

If the scholarship cap remains at 11.7, what's the answer? Its impossible to count a full academic scholarship as 1 less scholarship against the 11.7 because that's pretty crippling. And then you are hurting guys' opportunities to play college baseball far beyond the benefit of leveling the playing field IMO.

I'm honestly not sure what's the best answer other than we all know something has to be done and we've known it since polk's 1st go round.

The best answer is for baseball to have 25 scholarships for baseball and for common sense to prevail.

[Todd4State]

I wouldn't say vandy is dominating the conference though. Sec just put half the field in the CWS. Vandy has become one of the premier programs regionally and nationally over the last 5-10 years though, obviously with the help of their endowment.

Maybe this is just the beginning of a Vanderbilt dynasty though. It takes a long time (relative to other sports) to build a baseball program like Vanderbilt. That's why I said if they keep winning big it will become more likely that change comes. One NC I don't think would raise eyebrows from a SEC team- Georgia has one, and many teams have made it deep.

If Vanderbilt keeps winning, then the inevitable question becomes, why are they winning from other SEC programs. And that's when the baseball coaches say "well they can use endowment money while all we can use are the 11.7 and some academic aid and some TOPS money or whatever." And then the AD's say "well, that's not fair- no wonder" and it goes from there.

[dawgs]

The best answer is for baseball to have 25 scholarships for baseball and for common sense to prevail.

Right, but what about if the scholarship level remains at 11.7. What then?

[maroonmania]

Understood, but that's its intent. It is designed to take money from the uninformed, poor, and desperate. It is voluntary, but it doesn't change its purpose. And it is sold as an easy chance to make a lot of money when in reality your chances to win are essentially 0.

Its designed to take money from anyone willing to give it but the uninformed, poor and desperate do like to play for sure. Now with that said there are LOTS of people who are doing just fine who like to play the Lotto as well as much for the fun of it as anything else. And people win small amounts of money all the time. A large percentage of people who are poor and desperate squander their money in various ways, for a lot of them its why they are in that shape. Not having a lottery is not going to make them make wise financial decisions or be any better off.

[Todd4State]

Right, but what about if the scholarship level remains at 11.7. What then?

I think you treat it like walk-ons in football. A walk-on in football can't be on scholarship and has to pay their way for at least two years. To my understanding, the only way a guy can walk-on and keep an academic scholarship is to not be actively recruited by the football team that they play for- I think they call it blue shirting.

Maybe not take it away totally because I'm sure there are a few legit hardship cases- but maybe limit it to 1-2 a year.

[Todd4State]

Its designed to take money from anyone willing to give it but the uninformed, poor and desperate do like to play for sure. Now with that said there are LOTS of people who are doing just fine who like to play the Lotto as well as much for the fun of it as anything else. And people win small amounts of money all the time. A large percentage of people who are poor and desperate squander their money in various ways, for a lot of them its why they are in that shape. Not having a lottery is not going to make them make wise financial decisions or be any better off.

The lottery and MLB draft are a lot alike- gullible people that think a million dollars is life changing money that usually end up blowing it all.

[dawgs]

I think you treat it like walk-ons in football. A walk-on in football can't be on scholarship and has to pay their way for at least two years. To my understanding, the only way a guy can walk-on and keep an academic scholarship is to not be actively recruited by the football team that they play for- I think they call it blue shirting.

Maybe not take it away totally because I'm sure there are a few legit hardship cases- but maybe limit it to 1-2 a year.

Right but now you are taking away opportunities for guys that maybe want a vandy (or Stanford or duke or fill in prestigious private university with a D1 baseball program) education for all the obviously right reasons that can't accept their financial aid package if they play baseball because vandy can't give them the exact same benefits literally every other student in their family situation can receive. All because the kid might be recruited a little bit by some low end D1 programs.

Now if you up the scholarships numbers to 25-30, it makes some more sense, but with the cap at 11.7, that's a lot of players affected. A lot of legit D1 baseball players. With football, you have 85 scholarships (which is about the equivalent of 34 scholarships in baseball - just under 4 times the number of players on the field at once on offense and defense), so the roster is so deep with scholarship guys, that not being able to take an academic guy that wasn't maybe deserving of a football scholarship won't really affect the team and he was very likely an afterthought anyway that wouldn't likely turn into anything more than a practice squad guy. In baseball with the 11.7 limit, a lot of very good players don't get any money or only a little money. even if you can take 2 endowments, now you are in the position of either turning away quality players that want to play, quit the sport to keep getting financial aid, or forcing them into taking out thousands in loans that no other students at the university in their family income range have to take out.

I know that obviously as MSU fans we are biased against vandy and the lotto scholarships, but as a general policy, they are great for society and families - unless you don't want kids getting top notch educations or think massive student loans are good for building character. So I can't see that idea gaining much traction.

Btw how does the NCAA handle these endowment scholarships for football walk ons at stanfor and vandy?

[Todd4State]

Right but now you are taking away opportunities for guys that maybe want a vandy (or Stanford or duke or fill in prestigious private university with a D1 baseball program) education for all the obviously right reasons that can't accept their financial aid package if they play baseball because vandy can't give them the exact same benefits literally every other student in their family situation can receive. All because the kid might be recruited a little bit by some low end D1 programs.

Now if you up the scholarships numbers to 25-30, it makes some more sense, but with the cap at 11.7, that's a lot of players affected. A lot of legit D1 baseball players. With football, you have 85 scholarships (which is about the equivalent of 34 scholarships in baseball - just under 4 times the number of players on the field at once on offense and defense), so the roster is so deep with scholarship guys, that not being able to take an academic guy that wasn't maybe deserving of a football scholarship won't really affect the team and he was very likely an afterthought anyway that wouldn't likely turn into anything more than a practice squad guy. In baseball with the 11.7 limit, a lot of very good players don't get any money or only a little money. even if you can take 2 endowments, now you are in the position of either turning away quality players that want to play, quit the sport to keep getting financial aid, or forcing them into taking out thousands in loans that no other students at the university in their family income range have to take out.

I know that obviously as MSU fans we are biased against vandy and the lotto scholarships, but as a general policy, they are great for society and families - unless you don't want kids getting top notch educations or think massive student loans are good for building character. So I can't see that idea gaining much traction.

Btw how does the NCAA handle these endowment scholarships for football walk ons at stanfor and vandy?

It hasn't bothered the NCAA in the past with football or for baseball for that matter. How many guys should have gotten an opportunity to play at MSU, but couldn't because of scholarship limits?

Right or wrong, restrictions on things like this happen when it gets abused. The walk-on thing came about in part because Bear Bryant and Vaught were giving swimming scholarships out to everyone. The rule about having to give x amount of baseball players athletic aid came about because teams were abusing lottery scholarships.

I imagine with football it's not an issue because they have 85 scholarships. Plus, I think walk-ons in football have certain restrictions about when they can work out with the team. So, if there is a guy who is a QB and has a 4.0 GPA who can legitimately play it's more advantageous to for him to have an athletic scholarship than any other form of financial aid at least for that sport.

Also, I'm not real sure how many baseball players care all that much about the Vandy education. I'm sure some of them do. But I imagine that most of them just want to go to college for free and get to MLB. Vandy has one of the lowest GPA's among baseball programs in the SEC.

[engie]

Also, I'm not real sure how many baseball players care all that much about the Vandy education. I'm sure some of them do. But I imagine that most of them just want to go to college for free and get to MLB. Vandy has one of the lowest GPA's among baseball programs in the SEC.

While I agree with your general sentiment, you lost me here. It's an absolutely huge consideration and recruiting tool. Even for guys with no intentions of going to school -- why not sign with Vandy and lock MLB in for those 4 years after the fact? It's the equivalent of adding $100k to your signing bonus. The education costs alot more at Vandy because it's worth alot more in the long run. It also stands to reason their GPA would be lower because the course difficulty is higher. I'd argue that education is of the highest consideration in baseball of any sport in college...

[dawgs]

It hasn't bothered the NCAA in the past with football or for baseball for that matter. How many guys should have gotten an opportunity to play at MSU, but couldn't because of scholarship limits?

Right or wrong, restrictions on things like this happen when it gets abused. The walk-on thing came about in part because Bear Bryant and Vaught were giving swimming scholarships out to everyone. The rule about having to give x amount of baseball players athletic aid came about because teams were abusing lottery scholarships.

I imagine with football it's not an issue because they have 85 scholarships. Plus, I think walk-ons in football have certain restrictions about when they can work out with the team. So, if there is a guy who is a QB and has a 4.0 GPA who can legitimately play it's more advantageous to for him to have an athletic scholarship than any other form of financial aid at least for that sport.

Also, I'm not real sure how many baseball players care all that much about the Vandy education. I'm sure some of them do. But I imagine that most of them just want to go to college for free and get to MLB. Vandy has one of the lowest GPA's among baseball programs in the SEC.

The lower the scholarship limits relative the number of plays that play consistently, the bigger the impact. In football, you have about 40-50 guys that get a significant number of snaps any given game, but 85 scholarships to find those contributors. In basketball, most teams have a rotation of 7-8 guys, but 13 scholarships. In baseball, you have at least 8 position players that start a significant number of games at a position, another 1 for DH, and then 5 or so starters that pitch ever 5th game and 5-6 bullpen guys that are called on regularly. So that's at least around 20 guys that gets significant regular playing time (not counting for platoons, defensive specialists, etc), but only 11.7 scholarships. So now you are very reliant on academic and leadership scholarships, even at MSU. So saying that non-athletic financial aid counts against your 11.7 makes it damn near impossible to field a team. And talk about making it next to impossible to hold any signee that gets drafted...

[Todd4State]

While I agree with your general sentiment, you lost me here. It's an absolutely huge consideration and recruiting tool. Even for guys with no intentions of going to school -- why not sign with Vandy and lock MLB in for those 4 years after the fact? It's the equivalent of adding $100k to your signing bonus. The education costs alot more at Vandy because it's worth alot more in the long run. It also stands to reason their GPA would be lower because the course difficulty is higher. I'd argue that education is of the highest consideration in baseball of any sport in college...

It just depends on the player. Some players I'm sure it's a big deal. For some it isn't even though it may end up being a perk that they realize later once their career is over.

You obviously value education very highly- which is a good thing.

[Todd4State]

The lower the scholarship limits relative the number of plays that play consistently, the bigger the impact. In football, you have about 40-50 guys that get a significant number of snaps any given game, but 85 scholarships to find those contributors. In basketball, most teams have a rotation of 7-8 guys, but 13 scholarships. In baseball, you have at least 8 position players that start a significant number of games at a position, another 1 for DH, and then 5 or so starters that pitch ever 5th game and 5-6 bullpen guys that are called on regularly. So that's at least around 20 guys that gets significant regular playing time (not counting for platoons, defensive specialists, etc), but only 11.7 scholarships. So now you are very reliant on academic and leadership scholarships, even at MSU. So saying that non-athletic financial aid counts against your 11.7 makes it damn near impossible to field a team. And talk about making it next to impossible to hold any signee that gets drafted...

Which is why I think they might allow a limited amount of players to on endowment money. Like the TOPS/lottery scholarships are limited now whereas before they weren't.

[Homedawg]

Right, but what about if the scholarship level remains at 11.7. What then?

And it's going to, at least in the interim. Until there is a full power 5 break away. Until then. 11.7 it is.

[Todd4State]

And it's going to, at least in the interim. Until there is a full power 5 break away. Until then. 11.7 it is.


This is another possible solution. Which would be ironic to me that it might be baseball of all sports that breaks up the NCAA.

[dawgs]

Which is why I think they might allow a limited amount of players to on endowment money. Like the TOPS/lottery scholarships are limited now whereas before they weren't.

Yeah, but how are Stanford and vandy walk on football players treated by the NCAA?

Seems like that's a recipe for a lawsuit where a student sues the NCAA because literally every other student from his family income bracket automatically gets their school paid for, but because of ridiculous scholarship limitations the player must choose to "pay to play" or quit the sport. And I can't imagine a court would rule against a player getting a top tier education and having to refuse financial aid for which he qualifies for.

I just find it an interesting subject and do wonder, short of 25-30 scholarships, what the answer is.