Aaron Fitt: Don’t Expect Institutional Aid Reform

#1

OldTimer

919 miles
Staff member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
9,034
Likes
21,877
#1
Good article by Aaron Fitt on D1-Baseball.com talking about the advantages of some programs vs. others. Makes some very good points and I love his closing statement, "You can either complain about it, or you can put your head down and do your best with what you’ve got. The little guys have always had to do that; now some of the big boys are having to as well."

It's a little long but worth the read........

Fitt: Don't Expect Institutional Aid Reform - D1Baseball.com

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The rise of Vanderbilt and Virginia to the top of the college baseball world has prompted plenty of indignation from rival coaches about the way those schools and others like Stanford, Rice and North Carolina can use financial aid and academic scholarships to supplement their 11.7 athletic scholarships. It’s no secret that Vanderbilt, in particular, has a huge advantage because of its massive amount of institutional aid; it doesn’t even have to sign many players to a National Letter of Intent, because it doesn’t need to give many players any athletic scholarship money at all.

The NCAA’s new baseball head, Ron Prettyman, raised some alarms last week when he told Kendall Rogers, “I want to make sure some of the loopholes are either limited or completely closed off, making it more difficult to do some of those things that creates advantages.”

But that response was out of step with the position of ABCA executive director Craig Keilitz, who represents college baseball’s coaches.

“Being an equivalency sport, we’re always going to have those issues. Schools that have more financial aid, that’s fantastic in the big scheme, because we’re giving more opportunities to student-athletes,” Keilitz said. “Now, it is uneven, and could be construed as unfair, but that’s where we are right now — 11.7 scholarships for 35 student-athletes, that doesn’t add up. So there’s a lot of moving pieces that we need to do to improve our game and give opportunities to young men to get an education and play baseball. It’s a very, very complex situation that there’s no easy answer for.”

Actually, there is one easy answer — accept the fact there is not a level playing field, and there never has been. Just as the Yankees have a lot more resources than the Oakland Athletics, LSU and Mississippi State and Vanderbilt have a lot more resources than Stony Brook and Kent State, or IPFW and Coppin State. There are haves, and there are have-nots, and there are varying degrees of both.

This is an outdoor sport that begins in February; there’s an inherent inequality right off the bat between Northern schools and Southern schools. It’s also a partial-scholarship sport where Tulane has the same 11.7 athletic scholarships to distribute to students paying $65,000 to attend as LSU has to distribute to in-state students paying $22,000 to attend. And that’s before you factor in academic scholarships financed by lottery money.

Every school should be allowed to use the resources at its disposal, and if that creates inequality, so be it. As one coach put it, “You can’t legislate equity.” Mississippi State can draw 15,000 fans, and UCLA can only draw 1,500 — that gives the Bulldogs an advantage. So should we try to neutralize that advantage by mandating that all teams play every game at a neutral site?

It’s hard enough for college baseball to attract premium athletes away from football and basketball when it only has 11.7 scholarships and a 35-man roster. If we try to reduce the amount of additional aid schools can give, we’ll only drive more top athletes to other sports — and that would be a grave mistake. Besides, baseball players should be allowed access to the same academic and financial aid that is available to other students.

Some rival coaches cry foul when baseball players at other schools get academic money with lower standardized test scores than a run-of-the-mill chemistry major who doesn’t play sports, but baseball is a special skill, like playing the violin or excelling at debate. Financial aid officers look at a student’s overall package of academics, extra-curriculars and test scores when they hand out academic money; it’s an oversimplification to boil it down to test scores only.

Ultimately, a school’s financial aid office should have some discretion when distributing merit scholarships, as long as the system isn’t being misused to give academic scholarships to poor students in order to circumvent the 11.7 athletic scholarship limit. But the inner workings of any particular university’s scholarship office are subject to oversight by the university itself, not the NCAA or the school’s conference. That’s an academic and institutional matter, not an athletic matter.

The bottom line is that using academic and financial aid is not a “loophole.” The schools that have those advantages are playing within the rules, and a number of rival coaches told us they’d do the same thing if they had those resources at their disposal.

Is it fair that some schools can give out huge amounts of aid while others cannot? Nope. But college baseball is like life — it never has been fair, and it never will be. You can either complain about it, or you can put your head down and do your best with what you’ve got. The little guys have always had to do that; now some of the big boys are having to as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3
#3
The beauty of reverse discrimination. Wonder if softball splits 11.7, or does Title IX see to it that even their 3rd string bullpen catcher is on a full-ride?

What a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
Below is the AD budget for 2015-16 as wells as the results of 2014-15.


http://cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/bf36b4...//1394943282000-Vols-baseball-at-missouri.jpg


I think it's kind of boring to continue looking at this the way Mr. Fitt (and he's not alone) continues to look at this.

For instance, the rules regarding cost of attendance have changed and everyone in the P5 are going to pay it or they will be left behind.

Title IX was very important, but like a lot of rules, laws, there becomes a time for change. At the time it was the only way.

Now, at it's best, it's a minimum requirement. No one at the time could have foreseen the amount of money in college sports.

By my count, on current rosters at UTSports, there are 322 male/female students that do not play football or men's/women's basketball. To put all of them on scholarship at a figure of $37,050/year would cost $11,930,000.

That IS a lot of money, but compared to what? According to the budget we will spend almost 40 Million on salaries and benefits for coaches and administrators.

We had a net surplus of 13.1 million last year.

We will get just over 34 Million in SEC and and NCAA distributions this year alone.

The operating budget will be nearly 120 Million dollars...

UT shows net surplus of $13.1M for 2014-15; reserve fund at $6.9M

So we can keep paying these ridiculous salaries and building football palaces under the guise of keeping up with the rest or....

we can take the next step and realize that while football is the cash cow that drives everything the athletes, all of them, are more important. That all of the athletes on campus work hard and deserve a full athletic scholarship as long as they represent the University well and do what's required of any full ride athlete on campus.

Certainly, there are many half measures that could be taken in baseball, none would satisfy everyone, but the money in college sports as it exists today could not have been imagined at the time of Title IX and in my opinion, that's what needs to be addressed by the Power 5.

There is no reason, at least at Tennessee, why every athlete on campus isn't on a full ride. That's better than Title IX and shouldn't we be shooting for that?


GBO!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
Very good reads to the underbelly of sports in college and trying to keep up. I see that people at any level will try to get away with what they can and there never will be level playing fields for all. Loopholes are there for the taking, and...that's the way it is. Always has been...always will be. I grew up on a farm with nothing. Didn't stand around and ***** about it...too much work to do...:)

GO BIG ORANGE!
 
#6
#6
I would also like to add that College Softball and College Baseball will begin to benefit from the television deals, both sports will become more popular and the shear number of inventory (because there are so many games) will change the landscape for both sports.

In other words, those sports won't always be non revenue producers, they could eventually be revenue sports.

Think about the popularity of women's basketball in the 70's and where it is now due to television. There would not be a WNBA without tv's and bona fide star college players.

Finally, did you know...

The Women's College World Series was viewed by more people than the Men's CWS?

https://nfca.org/index.php?option=c...n-s-college-world-series&catid=109&Itemid=149
 
#9
#9
The question is, will the agents really have the best interest for these young men? In principle, I think it's a good idea. But I don't know if it will really work out that way.

Kids already had agents

This just makes the selective enforcement obsolete
 
#10
#10
The question is, will the agents really have the best interest for these young men? In principle, I think it's a good idea. But I don't know if it will really work out that way.

I think the most interesting thing about this vote is that it is baseball specific. It will no doubt open up the discussion about college players having agents, not just in baseball, but having specific rules regarding agents for football and basketball.


Of course when ever there is a third party and money involved there's always the risk that somebody might push it too far.

Overall though, and I agree with Bruin, this is just a step that ensures a few don't have to pay a penalty for a violation of a rule that everyone has knowingly been breaking for decades.
 
#11
#11
Tax return shows SEC made $527.4 million in first year of CFP, SEC Network

The return, which the conference provided Thursday in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports, also shows that SEC had $527.4 million in total revenue for a fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2015. That was the first fiscal year in which the conference began receiving money from the formation of the SEC Network and from the new College Football Playoff.


Overall, the SEC ended its 2015 fiscal year with a $17.2 million annual revenue surplus. That is the conference's greatest surplus since its 2008 fiscal year, when it had a $7.6 million surplus, and likely is its greatest single-year surplus.


On its new tax returns, the SEC reported $311.8 million in television and radio rights fees -- a nearly 50% increase over the $210.4 million it reported for its 2014 fiscal year.

The conference also had enormous growth in its revenue from postseason events, reporting $162.8 million in such revenue on its new return, compared to $98.6 million during its 2014 fiscal year. That's a 65% increase.
 
#12
#12
90 SEC games televised this season, up from 80 last year, plus a bases loaded to kick off SEC games and 5 wild card games so they can pick the best game and announce at a later date.

Vols Games on the Schedule (All Games on the SECN except ***):


March 22 - Tenn. Tech at UT - 7 PM

March 26 - UT at Bama - 9 PM

March 27 - UT at Bama - 4 PM

April 14 - UT at Auburn - 7 PM

April 15 - UT at Auburn - 7 PM

April 30 - UT at Mizzou - 4 PM ***ESPNU***

May 1 - UT at Mizzou - 1 PM

May 14 - LSU at UT - 1 PM

May 21 - UT at UGA - 12 PM


2016 SEC Baseball Television Schedule Released – College Baseball Daily
 

VN Store



Back
Top