Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/14/09 at 10:31 pm to JudgeBoyett
quote:
It's actually a Title IX thing.
If that's the case why does men's hockey get more schollies?
Posted on 6/14/09 at 11:09 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
he bitched bc he was stuck in mississippi and states like louisiana and georgia had state scholarship programs that allowed the teams to use to their advantage
lsu can take kids who are on tops, and only give them what they need for room and board, and then use the other scholarships for other players that are out of state or wouldnt qualify for tops
This. The roster limit was put in place because schools in Louisiana, Georiga, etc. would have a mammoth advantage by loading their rosters with in-state players without using baseball scholarships and then giving their baseball scholarships to top players from other states. They often were able to bring in top talent from other states because they could give them more scholarship money because they weren't using it on in-state players.
Posted on 6/14/09 at 11:11 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
If that's the case why does men's hockey get more schollies?
there are about 60 D1 men's hockey programs, there are over 300 D1 baseball programs.
If you think baseball doesn't get more schollys because they don't bring in enough money, why does softball get 13 and track and field get like 15?
Posted on 6/15/09 at 12:20 am to msukb79
I think it has something to do with the Title 9 BS.
Posted on 6/15/09 at 10:57 am to Alabama Slim
quote:
it should be raised and academic lottery scholys should not be allowed. level the playing field for teams in states without education lotteries.
Disagree. If a state allows for greater access to higher education, and a side effect of that is an advantage in athletics, that's a good thing. If Alabama doesn't want to fund higher education, screw them and all their public-university teams.
Posted on 6/15/09 at 11:00 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
there are about 60 D1 men's hockey programs, there are over 300 D1 baseball programs.
That shouldn't really affect the calculations for an individual school.
Why not have 15 for baseball and take a few from, say, men's golf? You'd be the same in terms of Title IX...it's the NCAA that says you can't do it.
Plus the courts have exempted NCAA rules from the Title IX laws.
ETA: My last sentence isn't clear. The NCAA (organization) is exempt from Title IX, the individual schools aren't. The ruling came in a case where a female athlete graduated with eligibility left and went to graduate school somewhere else. The NCAA wouldn't let her play. She sued because the NCAA routinely lets male athletes play in that situation...the NCAA basically admitted to treating women different and took the position that it was legal. The NCAA won on that point.
This post was edited on 6/15/09 at 11:18 am
Posted on 6/15/09 at 11:17 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Its a cash thing. The 'AA dosen't give out more baseball scholarships because the sport as a whole generates little money
Baseball makes more money for the NCAA than everything other than Basketball. Thats because of the regionals and CWS. Football goes to the schools and the bowls. Baseball is like that because of Title 9. Football takes up a majority of mens schollies and they have to even it out. Womens rowing has more scholarships than baseball.
Posted on 6/15/09 at 12:27 pm to Cajunboy19
quote:
Football takes up a majority of mens schollies and they have to even it out.
True, but that still doesn't explain why deadweight men's sports like water polo exist. Why not sacrifice those for the sake of baseball?
Posted on 6/15/09 at 12:49 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:I agree with this. When Polk was bitching and moaning about states that had it made it unfair to have to compete against. Rather than bitching about states that had it, he should have been in Jackson lobbying to get it for our students. Unfortunately, our legislature considers lotteries "gambling" yet somehow having boats on the lakes and creeks and rivers is somehow not "gambling".
Disagree. If a state allows for greater access to higher education, and a side effect of that is an advantage in athletics, that's a good thing. If Alabama doesn't want to fund higher education, screw them and all their public-university teams.
Posted on 6/29/09 at 8:04 am to Bestbank Tiger
Those sports pretty much only exist at non-football schools. With those 85 scholarships missing at those schools, the school has to fill the void with something. So you can't cut them and add to baseball, because that makes the numbers not work for football schools. Remember, the school itself doesn't control the amount of scholarships it can give. This is all controlled by governing bodies like the NCAA. And Title IX makes sure that there are an even number of scholarships available to men and women at a given institution. So since football takes up 85, other mens sports suffer to makes things even with women sports.
Posted on 6/29/09 at 12:32 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
True, but that still doesn't explain why deadweight men's sports like water polo exist. Why not sacrifice those for the sake of baseball?
Yeah, it would seem like a deal could be worked out. The SEC plays very few of the 88 (or whatever) sports approved by the NCAA. It is, after all, a pain in the arse to run all the bullshite sports that they do in places like Stanford and UCLA. Still, why can't the SEC just add an additional female sport, and then strike some deal with the NCAA? It's obvious that somebody is being incredibly obstinate.
The hockey thing is pretty unusual, as it is truly a regional sport (unlike baseball), and thus only pertains to about 8 major sports programs: Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Boston College, Connecticut, & Notre Dame.
For these 8 schools, hockey is a major sport on par with basketball.
Then again, in the SEC, we're almost to the point where you can say that 6 of the schools are "baseball #2" schools (LSU, Ole Miss, SCAR, MSU, Auburn, & Arkansas), where annual baseball attendance usually outpaces basketball attendance.
Really, I think there's almost a paradoxical situation where baseball is given too few scholarships, for the very reason that it's played in so many schools out of long-standing traditions.
All 6 major conferences have at least 10 baseball teams (Syracuse, Wisconsin, Iowa State, & Colorado, are the only major schools in the country that don't play), and if the NCAA upped the scholarship allowance, baseball would be cut at a few more schools who are already on the fence about whether they should be playing baseball or not.
Ironically, then, baseball gets lower average attendance than it would, for the very same reason that allows it to be played at over 300 D1 schools (perhaps more than it really should).
So, in a way, it's just a Catch-22.
But only to a certain extent. I still side with Ron Polk on this--in the general scheme of things, the NCAA scholarship limit for baseball is totally fricking ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure that the 12 teams in the SEC alone topped the top 12 teams in the nation in hockey in terms of annual attendance this year, and that no sport can touch baseball's attendance for the playoffs, which was over 800k this year (and only basketball generates more playoffs revenue).
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News