DeviousDawg
01-22-2017, 06:36 PM
A little preface: out of the 40+ Division I men and women scholarship sports, only 6 are considered "head count sports" (Football, Men's & Women's Basketball, Women's Tennis, Women's Gymnastics and Women's Volleyball). A head count sport is considered a sport in which recruits can only be offered full scholarships. The other 30+ Division I scholarship sports are considered "equivalency sports", where recruits can be offered full or partial scholarships, baseball is probably the most familiar example.
26592660
There seems to be no precedent for why the NCAA has chosen which sports are head count or equivalency sports. It doesn't seem to be based on team size/scholarship amount, Football has 85 scholarships while women's Tennis only has 8 scholarships. It doesn't seem to have to do with the sport, when considering both men and women; both men's and women's Basketball are head count sports, but women's gymnastics, volleyball and tennis are head count sports while men's gymnastics, volleyball and tennis are not. It doesn't seem to do with Title IX "all things men and women must be equal" because men's sports offer 98 head count scholarships(85 football + 13 basketball) while women's sports offer 47 head count scholarships(12 gymnastics + 15 basketball + 12 volleyball + 8 tennis). The only thing I can see that it might be based off of is revenue generated by the respective sport, but that still doesn't constitute a practical reason as to why the high revenue sports must be head count sports and can not give partial scholarships. Title IX doesn't allow the NCAA to create a sports hierarchy of importance based on anything, especially not $$$. So why are these 6 high revenue sports unique to the other 30+ sports in the way that they have to offer a full scholarship?
Now, let's pretend for a minute that the NCAA did away with the head count/equivalency distinctions, and each sport is given a set amount of scholarships that they can split in any way the coaches please. What would it do for football? For one, it would do away with the greyshirt/blueshirt BS. Instead of promising two guys that they will be on scholarship in a year, offer them both half a scholarship, and tell them if they work hard and perform they can earn a full scholarship when the numbers are right. It would also help special teams recruits. Instead of offering kickers/punters/long snappers preferred walk on spots, in hopes of maybe earning a scholarship by their junior year, offer 33% of a scholarship to each, and tell them if they start for a full year they will get a full scholarship.
You would have to think that it would help even the playing field a bit too. For instance, consider Nigel Knott's recruitment, Bama wanted him, but didn't seem to have the numbers for him until the very end. Let's say Bama offered him a 60% scholarship while MSU offered him a full ride. There would have been a lot more incentive for him to choose MSU earlier in the recruiting season so that he could secure his 100% scholarship. Even if Bama comes in and offers a full ride at the very end, it would be clear to the recruit that he is much more important to MSU than Bama. So many kids get strung along by the big name schools in hopes of getting a scholarship at the last minute if the numbers work out. Instead of saying, "well we can't offer you a scholarship right now, but if the numbers work out in the last week you have a spot" a coach could say "well we can't offer you a full scholarship right now but we can give you 40%". I think you would see a lot more of the high 3*/low 4* recruits committing early to mid level schools like MSU, Arkansas, South Carolina, etc. it would make it to where a school has more to offer than just their history, campus and location. You see recruits taking grey shirt offers from big name schools over actual scholarship offers from mid level schools, however, I don't think you would see as many recruits accepting a 50% offer from Bama over a full scholarship from MSU.
26592660
There seems to be no precedent for why the NCAA has chosen which sports are head count or equivalency sports. It doesn't seem to be based on team size/scholarship amount, Football has 85 scholarships while women's Tennis only has 8 scholarships. It doesn't seem to have to do with the sport, when considering both men and women; both men's and women's Basketball are head count sports, but women's gymnastics, volleyball and tennis are head count sports while men's gymnastics, volleyball and tennis are not. It doesn't seem to do with Title IX "all things men and women must be equal" because men's sports offer 98 head count scholarships(85 football + 13 basketball) while women's sports offer 47 head count scholarships(12 gymnastics + 15 basketball + 12 volleyball + 8 tennis). The only thing I can see that it might be based off of is revenue generated by the respective sport, but that still doesn't constitute a practical reason as to why the high revenue sports must be head count sports and can not give partial scholarships. Title IX doesn't allow the NCAA to create a sports hierarchy of importance based on anything, especially not $$$. So why are these 6 high revenue sports unique to the other 30+ sports in the way that they have to offer a full scholarship?
Now, let's pretend for a minute that the NCAA did away with the head count/equivalency distinctions, and each sport is given a set amount of scholarships that they can split in any way the coaches please. What would it do for football? For one, it would do away with the greyshirt/blueshirt BS. Instead of promising two guys that they will be on scholarship in a year, offer them both half a scholarship, and tell them if they work hard and perform they can earn a full scholarship when the numbers are right. It would also help special teams recruits. Instead of offering kickers/punters/long snappers preferred walk on spots, in hopes of maybe earning a scholarship by their junior year, offer 33% of a scholarship to each, and tell them if they start for a full year they will get a full scholarship.
You would have to think that it would help even the playing field a bit too. For instance, consider Nigel Knott's recruitment, Bama wanted him, but didn't seem to have the numbers for him until the very end. Let's say Bama offered him a 60% scholarship while MSU offered him a full ride. There would have been a lot more incentive for him to choose MSU earlier in the recruiting season so that he could secure his 100% scholarship. Even if Bama comes in and offers a full ride at the very end, it would be clear to the recruit that he is much more important to MSU than Bama. So many kids get strung along by the big name schools in hopes of getting a scholarship at the last minute if the numbers work out. Instead of saying, "well we can't offer you a scholarship right now, but if the numbers work out in the last week you have a spot" a coach could say "well we can't offer you a full scholarship right now but we can give you 40%". I think you would see a lot more of the high 3*/low 4* recruits committing early to mid level schools like MSU, Arkansas, South Carolina, etc. it would make it to where a school has more to offer than just their history, campus and location. You see recruits taking grey shirt offers from big name schools over actual scholarship offers from mid level schools, however, I don't think you would see as many recruits accepting a 50% offer from Bama over a full scholarship from MSU.