Scholarship Reductions?

[DFW HOYA]

Sorry if posted already, but....

"Following a six-hour meeting in late September, the [NCAA] Resource Allocation Working Group, chaired by Georgia President Michael Adams, agreed to consider a reduction in FBS football scholarships from the current number of 85 to 80 and a reduction in the number of FCS football scholarships from 63 to 60. The reductions would likely follow a move toward a full cost-of-attendance scholarship that is expected to be passed in early 2012."

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32698997

[aceinthehole]

Also, note they are proposing reducing MBB scholarships from 13 to 12, and WBB scholarships from 15 to 13.

I like this idea. It certainly expands the pool of players available to FCS football and mid-major basketball teams.

What would the new "bowl counter" number be? If the new counter was 53 (90% of 60), then I think that's great news for some NEC and PL programs!

[Strommer10]

Also, note they are proposing reducing MBB scholarships from 13 to 12, and WBB scholarships from 15 to 13.

I like this idea. It certainly expands the pool of players available to FCS football and mid-major basketball teams.

What would the new "bowl counter" number be? If the new counter was 53 (90% of 60), then I think that's great news for some NEC and PL programs!

This is good for FCS/ mid-major teams like you said. 5 less scholarships at the FBS level means those 5 for each team have to go somewhere. And unless they want to walk-on, the obvious choice is FCS teams.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I kind of like this idea. It would save the schools money and strengthen the lower divisions imo.

[DetroitFlyer]

My Football Flyers are already in full compliance!! And, the only "counter rule" that should exist is that you are a full member of FCS in good standing.

[aceinthehole]

My Football Flyers are already in full compliance!! And, the only "counter rule" that should exist is that you are a full member of FCS in good standing.

What do you mean by "full compliance?" Doesn't Dayton offer the maxium 13 scholarshipls allowed for MBB?

I can't imgaine why any D-I team would currently offer less than the NCAA max in MBB (unless they have penalty restrictions)

Edit: Sorry, I see you wrote "Football Flyers" - my mistake

[RichH2]

Less schollies as each will max out at more than current schollies are permitted with "full cost of attendance" addition. Great for all down the hill from BCS more talent will flow to mid level FBS and FCS teams. I wonder is there a similar provision for D-II squads?

[DFW HOYA]

I can't imgaine why any D-I team would currently offer less than the NCAA max in MBB (unless they have penalty restrictions)


Georgetown fielded less than 13 in a number of past years and there were no penalties involved. As the Lafayette fans will tell you, things are done a little differently.

[darell1976]

Also, note they are proposing reducing MBB scholarships from 13 to 12, and WBB scholarships from 15 to 13.

I like this idea. It certainly expands the pool of players available to FCS football and mid-major basketball teams.

What would the new "bowl counter" number be? If the new counter was 53 (90% of 60), then I think that's great news for some NEC and PL programs!

Why is there more scholarships for WBB than MBB? Doesn't MBB attract more attendance, and attendance = $$$????

[NDB]

I think it has something to do with menstration.

[aceinthehole]

Why is there more scholarships for WBB than MBB? Doesn't MBB attract more attendance, and attendance = $$$????

It just increased the scholarship opportunities for women (Title IX). I think its the same for baseball/softball. You will see this done for a lot of sports. You may have just 3 MGolf members on scholarship, while the Womens Golf team has 5.

If you can given out a few extra womens scholarships in these sports, it is what helps you to balance the books for football, etc.

[MSUDuo]

Why is there more scholarships for WBB than MBB? Doesn't MBB attract more attendance, and attendance = $$$????

Title IX

[Strommer10]

**** Title IX. xnonono2x I know It's to "make it fair" between mens and womens sports. But in order to make the difference from football, women get more scholarships in every other sport. It is what it is I guess. xmadx

[Walkon79]

I think it has something to do with menstration.

Funny, but I'm sure it's a Title IX issue. As I understand it you need to offer the same % of scholarships by gender as the student population to be in compliance. Since football has 65, you need to balance out the girls in other sports.

[Walkon79]

Wow, 4 responses to the original question in les than a minute. Don't any of you work??

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Personally, I am very much against including the "full cost of attendance" to scholarship costs.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-jim-delanys-endorsement-of-full.html

While some of you guys are focusing on the "little picture" - i.e. a larger pool of recruits - it's the "bigger picture" that concerns me.

BCS-level schools can absorb this extra expense - as much as $5,000 per scholarship athlete, and not just in football - relatively easily with the amount of money they are making in TV deals alone.

But the "everyone else" in Division I will find it much harder to match this number, even with a (tiny) reduced number of scholarships. It will be an athletic department buster. Suddenly, schools' athletic departments could be spending more than $1 million to just keep fewer of the athletes they had before.

Also, what's the likelihood that the number stays fixed at $5,000? When was the last time college tuition went down in price? The "full cost of attendance" will be subject to same economic fantasyland which causes tuitions to raise by double-digit percentage every year.

"Full Cost of Attendance" means: 1) more out-of-control athletics spending, 2) fewer athletes getting scholarships, and 3) more power and money centered in BCS conferences. I personally think this is terrible for Division I athletics as a whole, and isn't worth the release of a few more athletes into the recruiting pool.

My own proposal is this (which I wish some college president would propose):


Taking a percentage of the revenues generated by the BCS and their bowl system and putting it in an NCAA-administered fund for the purpose of subsidizing the "full cost of attendance" adjustment for all Division I athletes would provide a lasting legacy for all of its participants.

To give all Division I athletes a $1,000 yearly stipend - assuming on average 100 covered athletes for all 330 Division I institutions, whether they play football or not - a fund would be required to pay out $33 million annually.

Sound like a lot of money? Well, starting next year, the BCS will be receiving $125 million from ESPN.

It wouldn't even tough the BCS' existing payouts, either. Last year, the BCS received $82.5 million from Fox. Not only would the $33 million be covered by the new deal, the BCS would be able to increase the payouts to its member schools as well.

If Jim Delany, Mark Emmert and the BCS power structure are truly committed about student-athlete welfare, they should certainly be in favor of such a fund.

Of course, it only has a chance of being seriously considered if they really mean what they say about improving the welfare of student-athletes.

No other proposal could possibly benefit student-athletes more than the one I'm proposing - and it wouldn't even cost the BCS any extra money, just a large percentage of the new money from the 50% increase in TV money from your latest contract. And in four years, the TV contract will likely increase again.

The ball is in your court, members of the BCS. Do you really care about student-athlete welfare, or those just words in your public relations game to separate the BCS from the rest of collegiate athletics?

[Bogus Megapardus]

Will the proposed "full cost" stipend be need-based? Merit based? Discretionary? Provided equally to every scholarship athlete? At the FCS level, provided in proportion to partial scholarships?

Harvard's Tim Murphy supports this, I read. Odd, unless one envisions Ivy-style aid being modified to include "full cost" stipends to cellists and mathematicians as well.

[superman7515]

From what I understood of the NCAA article, it would apply to all athletes getting a scholarship in any sport. In the FCS, if you were to give an athlete 1/2 a scholarship, you then have to make up the other 1/2 plus cost of living expenses (food, transportation, personal expenses, etc). So you could put 120 players on 1/2 scholarships and then you're required to make up the rest so that you basically have 120 full scholarship football players.

Say the womens golf team has 5 scholarships broken down between 9 girls, you won't be allowed to just say full cost of attendance is $5,000 x 5 scholarships and divide the money, you will have to give $5,000 to all 9.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

From what I understood of the NCAA article, it would apply to all athletes getting a scholarship in any sport. In the FCS, if you were to give an athlete 1/2 a scholarship, you then have to make up the other 1/2 plus cost of living expenses (food, transportation, personal expenses, etc). So you could put 120 players on 1/2 scholarships and then you're required to make up the rest so that you basically have 120 full scholarship football players.

Say the womens golf team has 5 scholarships broken down between 9 girls, you won't be allowed to just say full cost of attendance is $5,000 x 5 scholarships and divide the money, you will have to give $5,000 to all 9.

Exactly. And in FCS football, where everyone divides scholarships, it's going to be a gigantic strain.

[superman7515]

Some smaller schools may be forced to rethink Division 1 because of this. I'm usually a fairly big supporter of the MEAC schools, but Savannah State would be in a real bad spot. Mississippi Valley State over in the SWAC as well. States are not interested or able to subsidize athletics to that extent in this economy and some of the smaller private schools may not have the resources available to make that happen.

[aceinthehole]

From what I understood of the NCAA article, it would apply to all athletes getting a scholarship in any sport. In the FCS, if you were to give an athlete 1/2 a scholarship, you then have to make up the other 1/2 plus cost of living expenses (food, transportation, personal expenses, etc). So you could put 120 players on 1/2 scholarships and then you're required to make up the rest so that you basically have 120 full scholarship football players.

Say the womens golf team has 5 scholarships broken down between 9 girls, you won't be allowed to just say full cost of attendance is $5,000 x 5 scholarships and divide the money, you will have to give $5,000 to all 9.

I don't think it works excatly as you explained it, but it will certainly cost schools more $$$

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-09-28/ncaa-cost-of-attendance/50594680/1


Sentiment in the past year has grown for finding ways to put more money into the hands of athletes, particularly in the wake of lucrative new television agreements struck by the NCAA in basketball, the Bowl Championship Series in football and a number of major conferences. Analysis by USA TODAY found that, in 2009-10, median college costs at public universities exceeded an athlete's scholarship coverage by about $4,000. The range at individual schools varied from $177 to more than $9,600.

The gap entails such incidental costs of attendance as travel and laundry.

Scholarship increases would vary by school, and Swarbrick's committee is proposing a cap: the lesser of an institution's uncovered costs or $2,000. The move, if approved next month, wouldn't be mandatory but subject to adoption by conference. Amounts for athletes on partial scholarships would be prorated.

more info on how schools calculate the COA: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-07-29-athletic-departments-cost-of-attendance_n.htm

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Here's a shocker: of the twenty most affected schools in the formula:

* only two come from BCS conferences (South Carolina, Texas Tech), and neither would be considered a powerhouse
* Of those two BCS schools, it comprises only 2-3% of the operating athletics budget of the school
* Four are HBCU's - and they'd have to increase their entire athletics budget by 20%
* Four more are non-HBCU FCS schools - and all would require a > 10% athletics budget increase to handle it

Who'd have thunk it? FCS schools are deeply, and adversely affected, while the BCS schools just sell another ivory backscratcher to pay the extra costs. xrolleyesx

[Dane96]

What world do you live in that S. Carolina athletics are not a powerhouse?

[superman7515]

The one where they win 2 conference championships since joining a conference in 1915, have only played in 16 bowl games in their history (with a 4-12 record), and have only won 10 games once in their history going back to 1892.

[URMite]

Here's a shocker: of the twenty most affected schools in the formula:

* only two come from BCS conferences (South Carolina, Texas Tech), and neither would be considered a powerhouse
* Of those two BCS schools, it comprises only 2-3% of the operating athletics budget of the school
* Four are HBCU's - and they'd have to increase their entire athletics budget by 20%
* Four more are non-HBCU FCS schools - and all would require a > 10% athletics budget increase to handle it

Who'd have thunk it? FCS schools are deeply, and adversely affected, while the BCS schools just sell another ivory backscratcher to pay the extra costs. xrolleyesx

Is that the top 20 teams affected by $? Top 12 (all >10%) by % below:

School Conference Scholarships Added Cost per Total Percent of
............................................. Scholarship... Cost... Budget
Grambling State SWAC 164.58 $9,684 $1,593,793 29%
Mississippi Valley State SWAC 137.19 $6,501 $891,804 21%
Jackson State SWAC 174.74 $5,306 $927,083 16%
Prairie View A&M SWAC 157.59 $5,820 $917,174 11%
South Carolina State MEAC 167.48 $17,241 $2,887,439 28%
Savannah State Ind. 110 $12,208 $1,342,880 42%
Austin Peay Oh. Valley 163.86 $7,440 $1,219,118 17%
Southern Illinois Edwardsville Oh. Valley 95.51 $8,019 $765,895 13%
Tennessee-Martin Oh. Valley 142.76 $7,260 $1,036,438 12%
Southern Utah Summit 194.1 $9,642 $1,871,512 22%
Idaho State Big Sky 155.3 $7,159 $1,111,793 11%
North Florida Atl. Sun 255 $6,398 $1,631,363 20%

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Is that the top 20 teams affected by $? by % below:

School Conference Scholarships Added Cost per Total Percent of
............................................. Scholarship... Cost... Budget
Grambling State SWAC 164.58 $9,684 $1,593,793 29%
Mississippi Valley State SWAC 137.19 $6,501 $891,804 21%
Jackson State SWAC 174.74 $5,306 $927,083 16%
Prairie View A&M SWAC 157.59 $5,820 $917,174 11%
South Carolina State MEAC 167.48 $17,241 $2,887,439 28%
Savannah State Ind. 110 $12,208 $1,342,880 42%
Austin Peay Oh. Valley 163.86 $7,440 $1,219,118 17%
Southern Illinois Edwardsville Oh. Valley 95.51 $8,019 $765,895 13%
Tennessee-Martin Oh. Valley 142.76 $7,260 $1,036,438 12%
Southern Utah Summit 194.1 $9,642 $1,871,512 22%
Idaho State Big Sky 155.3 $7,159 $1,111,793 11%
North Florida Atl. Sun 255 $6,398 $1,631,363 20%

I sorted by "added cost per scholarship", but I'm sure if you went on sheer % you'd probably come up with similar numbers - i.e, FCS schools get screwed, BCS schools spend little, if anything.

[jmufan]

Title 9 need to be restructured to fit today's society. It is killing programs. Not that this is the topic, but thought I would throw that out there.

[Mr. C]

Title 9 need to be restructured to fit today's society. It is killing programs. Not that this is the topic, but thought I would throw that out there.

So my daughter, a budding softball player from a state 4-A championship team, should have scholarship opportunities stripped away from her, just so we can keep feeding the football machinery? There is nothing wrong with 50% of the scholarship money going to women's athletics.

[Go...gate]

Exactly. And in FCS football, where everyone divides scholarships, it's going to be a gigantic strain.

I'm confused as hell on this, but one question: do the PL's "need-based equivalencies" take living expenses into acccount?

[FargoBison]

So my daughter, a budding softball player from a state 4-A championship team, should have scholarship opportunities stripped away from her, just so we can keep feeding the football machinery? There is nothing wrong with 50% of the scholarship money going to women's athletics.


Title IX is in need of reform. It needs to be fair to both female athletes and male athletes who don't play a revenue sport. Sports like wrestling have been gutted thanks to Title IX.

[darell1976]

Title IX is in need of reform. It needs to be fair to both female athletes and male athletes who don't play a revenue sport. Sports like wrestling have been gutted thanks to Title IX.

Thats what happened at UND.

[Skjellyfetti]

Title IX is in need of reform. It needs to be fair to both female athletes and male athletes who don't play a revenue sport. Sports like wrestling have been gutted thanks to Title IX.

Yeah, I was a swimmer in high school... and had much more difficulty getting a scholarship than less talented girls.

I went to TCU on a swim scholarship. There was a girl my freshman year that quit the team... she got a crew scholarship to a Big 10 school... with 0 experience. They just needed bodies for their team... and she was a good athlete.

Title IX is horse****. The idea is good... but, it needs reform.

[dgtw]

I lived in Knoxville when Tennessee started their crew team. They actually took out an ad in the school paper recruiting people to join the team and said no experience was necessary. I never understood why they started a crew team instead of gymnastics, which is an official league sport and one in which two of their their biggest football rivals (Alabama and Georgia) are national powers.

[UAalum72]

Title IX is in need of reform. It needs to be fair to both female athletes and male athletes who don't play a revenue sport. Sports like wrestling have been gutted thanks to Title IX.
Wrong. Sports like wrestling have been gutted because schools would rather cut non-revenue men's sports than lay a finger on the four scholarships at every position (in FBS) and the dozen coaches in football, all to maintain themselves as the de facto minor league for pro football.

[DFW HOYA]

Read Title IX: it never mentions the word "athletics". It's been narrowly litigated in that regard.

[BlueHenSinfonian]

Is that the top 20 teams affected by $? Top 12 (all >10%) by % below:

School Conference Scholarships Added Cost per Total Percent of
............................................. Scholarship... Cost... Budget
Grambling State SWAC 164.58 $9,684 $1,593,793 29%
Mississippi Valley State SWAC 137.19 $6,501 $891,804 21%
Jackson State SWAC 174.74 $5,306 $927,083 16%
Prairie View A&M SWAC 157.59 $5,820 $917,174 11%
South Carolina State MEAC 167.48 $17,241 $2,887,439 28%
Savannah State Ind. 110 $12,208 $1,342,880 42%
Austin Peay Oh. Valley 163.86 $7,440 $1,219,118 17%
Southern Illinois Edwardsville Oh. Valley 95.51 $8,019 $765,895 13%
Tennessee-Martin Oh. Valley 142.76 $7,260 $1,036,438 12%
Southern Utah Summit 194.1 $9,642 $1,871,512 22%
Idaho State Big Sky 155.3 $7,159 $1,111,793 11%
North Florida Atl. Sun 255 $6,398 $1,631,363 20%

The added cost to go from just a tuition/room/board to whatever the school considers full cost-of-attendance is interesting. Why is it that schools in rural inexpensive areas to live seem to have greater jumps than those in urban environments? Is it just that some schools consider the standard scholarship to be tuition only without room and board?

[BlueHenSinfonian]

So my daughter, a budding softball player from a state 4-A championship team, should have scholarship opportunities stripped away from her, just so we can keep feeding the football machinery? There is nothing wrong with 50% of the scholarship money going to women's athletics.

If they let schools fund athletic scholarships as they saw fit there would likely be some that chose not to offer scholarships in various women's sports. On the other hand, other schools, seeing the vacuum, would likely decide to emphasize women's sports to excel in a niche that others had abandoned. Schools like ODU and UConn have profited both in reputation and ticket sales from the strength of their women's basketball teams, so it isn't out of the question that some schools would choose to put their weight behind women's programs.

One of the biggest things that could be done to help the situation under the current system is to allow scholarships for cheer and dance teams to count as women's athletics funding.

[Dane96]

The one where they win 2 conference championships since joining a conference in 1915, have only played in 16 bowl games in their history (with a 4-12 record), and have only won 10 games once in their history going back to 1892.

You are full of it on this one. Fact is, good teams or not, S. Carolina IS CONSIDERED A PLAYER in all football circles I, and my family, have been in for 50+ years. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

When you play in one of the largest stadiums in the world, have one of the most rabid...and probably most loyal...fan bases in the world, are squarely set in a football recruiting hotbed, etc....etc. you are relevant.

And let's cut the 1892 nonsense. Nobody in their right mind goes back to what is not considered "modern football". Hell, guess that means Princeton is relevant (which, I add, it is in a different historical way). Fact is...you need to go back in time to the post-WWII start of the modern era. IN that time, the Gamecocks are a .500 team...and have resided (in recent years) in the most insanely difficult conference in the country, have produced a Coach of the Year, a Heisman Winner, and Top 25 rankings.

[DFW HOYA]

South Carolina has some of the best fans anywhere. Not many schools could fill a place the size of Williams-Brice Stadium during so many lean years.