Curious with the settlement coming out yesterday...if schools wanted to, especially at P5 level, does it essentially end the 11.7 scholarship cap?
There was actually already discussions, separate from this settlement, about Power 5 teams moving to 32 scholies. This certainly won't limit that discussion.
Yep. NIL effectively ends scholarship limits in every sport.
As a current baseball parent, the 11.7 is a detriment to the student athlete... Why 11.7, why 32? 40 man roster, 36 full scholarships. Most of these players are active year round and have no ability to work a part-time job. At the conclusions of ones season, most are off to play summer baseball for two months, with maybe two weeks home to get ready for the next school year. Off season has less travel demands, but the daily routine is still fully consuming... During season, the athlete barely has a chance to do anything buy baseball or school work... And that is ok... It's what they signed up for, but I think it is wrong for someone to determine that a sport this demanding only have 11.7 scholarships when the need is much greater. The following is a fully funded roster need, in my opinion.
- 18 pitchers
- 8 position players
- 2 non-starting catchers
- 3 non-starting outfielders
- 4 non-starting infielders
- 5 development/wellness players on 20% scholarship
I think this would dramatically cut down on the transfer portal chaos that really cost everyone a lot time and money.
As for NIL... I think we are co-mingling. I think the spirit of Name, Image and Likeness was to allow the athlete to benefit from camps, a portion of the jersey or apparel sales, video games, advertising spots, social media, endorsements and so on. I don't think the spirit on NIL was to allow larger institutions with big donor pockets the opportunity to buy players... I do not believe the spirit of NIL was intended to be co-mingled with the institution, yet should be governed by the institution in regards to University/College values. Example; Liberty U may have a value statement that prevents a student athlete from representing a vaping product. I think if big donors want to contribute to the success of the athlete, donors should be able to contribute to a hardship fund that supports the athlete's living expenses and travel per diems for families... I think a student athlete should make as much money as he or she can, but big donors should not be able to buy athlete's. It should be purely on the marketability of the athlete and nothing to do with scholarships.
Agree across the board. And, to sort of pile on re the summer commitments. My son is a pitcher in the Prospect League this summer...had their organizational meeting yesterday, first game is tonight. They play almost every day of the week from now till end of July...even as a PO, his report time is 3:30 every single day (even if he started the game the the night before), for a 7:00 start time, and they can get home as late as 4:00 a.m. from road trips and start it all again the next day at 3:30....like you said, not a complaint, but just a reality of the schedule...its impossible to try and keep up a summer job with that schedule. I also agree that the scholarships across the board would dramatically cut down on the transfer portal.
