Scholarship question

[Schmick's Gloves]

Being the advocate for debate that I am and having always been told that a standard student is to be given the same treatment and opportunities as student athletes, how does the NCAA count out of state student athletes scholarships as just 1 vs the allotment at schools where out of state students pay tuition that is much higher?

Let's take LSU as an example. In state tuition at LSU is roughly 12,000 dollars a year. Out of state tuition at LSU is 28,600. So, by LSU's own math,.any out of state student athlete at LSU should count as 2.4 scholarships vs LSU's scholarship allotment per sport.

Not wanting to pick on LSU
UCLA in state tuition is 13k while the out of state tuition in is 43k. Every out of state scholarship at UCLA should count as 3.2 vs the allotment.

Oklahoma is 11,763 and 27,144 (2.3)
Alabama is 10,780 and 30,250 (2.8)
Oregon is 12,720 and 36,615 (2.9)
Washington is 11,465 and 38,166 (3.3)
Florida is 6,381 and 28,659 (4.5)
Oklahoma State 9,019 and 24,539 (2.7)

So come on NCAA, either NARP's (non athletic regular people) count the same as students at these universities or they don't.
If they do, then all of these schools need to address their scholarships to their athletic programs
If they do not, then they need to stop saying that they do.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[QueueCT]

I'll bite. A scholarship from the NCAA's standpoint is a certain number of athletes, not a certain amount of money. The tuition is irrelevant. If the NCAA adopts the system you propose then private schools would have an inherent advantage because there is no in-state/out of state differential and they could recruit nationally whereas public schools would get the biggest bang by restricting themselves to in-state athletes. The % of full ride approach would appear to be the fairest when it comes to creating an even playing field across universities.

If you want to argue that athletic scholarships are used to attract athletes to specific programs rather than defraying tuition costs based on actual financial need, that is a whole different discussion.

If you want to argue that too much money is spent on athletic scholarships rather than merit or need scholarships, that's discussion about the role of a university.

 

[Schmick's Gloves]

I'll bite. A scholarship from the NCAA's standpoint is a certain number of athletes, not a certain amount of money. The tuition is irrelevant. If the NCAA adopts the system you propose then private schools would have an inherent advantage because there is no in-state/out of state differential and they could recruit nationally whereas public schools would get the biggest bang by restricting themselves to in-state athletes. The % of full ride approach would appear to be the fairest when it comes to creating an even playing field across universities.

If you want to argue that athletic scholarships are used to attract athletes to specific programs rather than defraying tuition costs based on actual financial need, that is a whole different discussion.

If you want to argue that too much money is spent on athletic scholarships rather than merit or need scholarships, that's discussion about the role of a university.

I just want to see my state better represented and make the state schools be made up of players from the state the school is in....and coached by someone from that state.

There are more players from California than any other state in D1 softball, more coaches from California too. But only 1 school from California in the final 16. That doesn't seem equal to what California produces.

In the 16 softball programs alive 85 players are from California and 7 head coaches are from California (Oklahoma, ucla, Florida, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Florida State and Georgia)

Just want actual representation of California and not just a bunch of other states hiring Californians to get their state's programs to the NCAA playoffs


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Cannonball]

If you are wanting to draw these distinctions, then you need to add breakdowns like in region. Also, for many schools in metro areas, that border other states, students in the metro are considered in-state even though they actually live in another state. My dd was "in-state" with this approach even though she lived in the bordering state. When my dd was recruited by certain schools, she was offered one other category but I forget what it was titled. When you consider that few players get a full scholarship, these distinctions matter if the player/parents have to worry about financial monies.

 

[Strike2]

A "full" athletic scholarship equals the retail tuition that would be charged to a non-athlete. In state or out, private or public, doesn't matter. Never has, and I doubt it ever will. California has plenty of Div 1 schools...and there is no shortage of talent to draw from. Perhaps they should do a better hiring & recruiting job.

As noted, full scholarships are rarer, so whatever is left has to be made up with merit money, grants, loans, or out of pocket. More expensive schools are at a disadvantage in terms of the available talent pool. More expensive schools with higher academic standards are at an even greater disadvantage.

 

[Rolling Hard]

I'll bite. A scholarship from the NCAA's standpoint is a certain number of athletes, not a certain amount of money. The tuition is irrelevant. If the NCAA adopts the system you propose then private schools would have an inherent advantage because there is no in-state/out of state differential and they could recruit nationally whereas public schools would get the biggest bang by restricting themselves to in-state athletes. The % of full ride approach would appear to be the fairest when it comes to creating an even playing field across universities.

If you want to argue that athletic scholarships are used to attract athletes to specific programs rather than defraying tuition costs based on actual financial need, that is a whole different discussion.

If you want to argue that too much money is spent on athletic scholarships rather than merit or need scholarships, that's discussion about the role of a university.

Almost all 18 year old (adults) players are going to have a financial need. Most have zero to little income, but they are adults. Why should the parents income has any bearing on the amount of the adult's scholarship? Think about it. When an 18 year old goes to a dealership to buy a car the parents income is irrelevant to cost of the car.

 

[Schmick's Gloves]

Any time a school recruits a kid from another state that school is essentially saying that the in state kids are not worthy of representing their state's school

Same goes for coaches, what Oklahoma , Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State and Georgia are telling the residents of those states is that none of the coaches in that state are as good as some coach from California.


How do the fans of those state's schools take any pride in their state's school telling them that they're not good enough to represent the state's school and their kids may not be good enough either?
"Hey DD, let's go down to the local University and watch a bunch of kids from other states and a coach from another state represent our state's school because our state's school says we aren't good enough, grab your jacket"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Strike2]

Almost all 18 year old (adults) players are going to have a financial need. Most have zero to little income, but they are adults. Why should the parents income has any bearing on the amount of the adult's scholarship? Think about it. When an 18 year old goes to a dealership to buy a car the parents income is irrelevant to cost of the car.

The guv'ment says different. It's not just income, but also assets. I get "expected family contribution" numbers that would put a serious dent in my retirement plans. Fortunately, merit aid is a thing where my kids go, and they get outside scholarships as well.

BTW, no 18yo with little income is buying a car from anyone...but their parents can, and income certainly does play into it unless you're a cash buyer.

 

[Strike2]

Any time a school recruits a kid from another state that school is essentially saying that the in state kids are not worthy of representing their state's school

Same goes for coaches, what Oklahoma , Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State and Georgia are telling the residents of those states is that none of the coaches in that state are as good as some coach from California.


How do the fans of those state's schools take any pride in their state's school telling them that they're not good enough to represent the state's school and their kids may not be good enough either?
"Hey DD, let's go down to the local University and watch a bunch of kids from other states and a coach from another state represent our state's school because our state's school says we aren't good enough, grab your jacket"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

That is one very odd perspective.

 

[QueueCT]

Almost all 18 year old (adults) players are going to have a financial need. Most have zero to little income, but they are adults. Why should the parents income has any bearing on the amount of the adult's scholarship? Think about it. When an 18 year old goes to a dealership to buy a car the parents income is irrelevant to cost of the car.

Sure, you could take that approach. But then nobody gets financial aid money, shutting out low income families from a path to private universities. Rich families will continue to pay for their kids to attend and the poor families get the shaft. Universities have determined that having a more balanced student body is valuable to them.