(06-10-2013 07:04 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The bad news for schools like Rice is that it just seems harder and harder for private schools to advance far into the baseball postseason. No private school has won a title since Rice and now it even seems a rare occasion for a private school to make it to Omaha (eight public schools will be there this year). Stanford and Miami's programs have dropped in recent years and USC hasn't been a national power for decades now.

I think the combination of fractional schollies and rampant tuition inflation is potentially a real problem.

However, out of state tuitions are very high, and NCSt had a bunch of out of state guys in their lineup.

(06-10-2013 12:13 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 07:04 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The bad news for schools like Rice is that it just seems harder and harder for private schools to advance far into the baseball postseason. No private school has won a title since Rice and now it even seems a rare occasion for a private school to make it to Omaha (eight public schools will be there this year). Stanford and Miami's programs have dropped in recent years and USC hasn't been a national power for decades now.

I think the combination of fractional schollies and rampant tuition inflation is potentially a real problem.

However, out of state tuitions are very high, and NCSt had a bunch of out of state guys in their lineup.

Yet another reason to be in awe of the job Wayne Graham is doing at Rice.

A huge factor in the rise of the ESUs of the world in college baseball has to do with what they are doing with scholarships in the non-"head count" sports, and what Rice is NOT doing.

There are 6 "head count" sports - those in which all scholarships MUST be full (tuition and room & board):

1. Men's basketball (13)
2. Men's football (85)
3. Women's basketball (15)
4. Women's volleyball (12)
5. Women's tennis (8)
6. Women's gymnastics (12)

All others are "Equivalency" sports, in which there is a maximum of a certain number of full scholarships for an entire team. Baseball, for example has specific rules (11.7 scholarships for 27 athletes, with a minimum of 25% for each athlete). The other Equivalency sports don't have that percentage minimum requirement.

To demonstrate what other schools are doing, I will use track & field as an example, in that it is easy to present the information.

I will use Texas A&M as a case study.

Here are track & field scholarship limits -- men (12.6), women (18)

Texas A&M's 2013 roster lists 61 men and 58 women (119 athletes for 30.6 scholarships). You might think that there are just a bunch of walk-ons with minimal ability. You would be wrong. In an "off" year for the Aggies, they had 23 men and18 women qualify for the NCAA Championships (1st Round). Many of these are sprinters (some foreign), who traditionally need (and deserve) full scholarships.

So how do they do it? Easy. Let's say they recruit an athlete who is offered a full scholarship at another school, let's say, Tulsa. Well, A&M will offer the athlete, for example, 30% of a scholarship, and then the university will supplement the remaining 70%, either in need-based aid, or in the way of an "academic scholarship". Voila, A&M has a full scholarship, while only using only 30% of its athletic aid.

Doing this is perfectly legal under current NCAA rules. See how that 12.6 can grow into 20 or 30 or more "full" scholarships?

I would hazard a guess that this is being done in baseball at the big state schools. If Rice is not doing this (and I do not believe it is), then the high cost of attending Rice has got to be having an impact on recruiting. I understand that the demographic for high school baseball players is vastly different from that of track & field athletes, but $52,000 is still $52,000.

Assuming that ESU is combining aid, and that Rice is not permitted to do so, it is astounding that Coach Graham continues to bring in quality baseball players and to so well with them.

If anyone disputes my hypothesis regarding big schools combining aid, I am willing to stand corrected. I know that it is being done in track & field (and the Ivy League schools are GIVING HUGE athletic scholarships that are "financial aid" -ever wonder why Harvard is so good in basketball?), and I am extrapolating that it is being done in the other Equivalency sports, as well.

Next year we'll need 2-3 pitchers to step up to an elite level. The obvious candidates would include McDowell, McCanna, Fox, Rutter and Mason. The new guys coming in -- T Teykl, Duplantier, Dunlap -- would be a huge benefit if they can contribute, but I don't know them well enough to comment on the likelihood of that happening.

Offensively I think we'll have a chance to be better next year. Losing Stringer will hurt, but I think the addition of Reeves will be a big plus to the offense, as well as continued growth from guys like Stainback, Ewing and Byrd.

(06-10-2013 04:25 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  ...

To demonstrate what other schools are doing, I will use track & field as an example, in that it is easy to present the information.

I will use Texas A&M as a case study.
...

Assuming that ESU is combining aid, and that Rice is not permitted to do so, it is astounding that Coach Graham continues to bring in quality baseball players and to so well with them.

If anyone disputes my hypothesis regarding big schools combining aid, I am willing to stand corrected. I know that it is being done in track & field (and the Ivy League schools are GIVING HUGE athletic scholarships that are "financial aid" -ever wonder why Harvard is so good in basketball?), and I am extrapolating that it is being done in the other Equivalency sports, as well.

Harvard (and the other Ivies, who are all ostensibly NO ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS PER LEAGUE CHARTER) have done this for years. Back in 1980, I was offered guaranteed, 4 year, full academic scholarships by all 8 of the Ivies. But by sticking to the no scholarship fiction, they continue to stay within their league prohibition against athletic scholarships.

forgot about older Tekyl. how did he do in juco ranks this year?

IIRC, he was substantially more touted out of high school than anyone else on our 2014 roster, including Lemond and Stephens.

(06-10-2013 07:53 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  forgot about older Tekyl. how did he do in juco ranks this year?

IIRC, he was substantially more touted out of high school than anyone else on our 2014 roster, including Lemond and Stephens.

From San Jac's stat site : Record 2-1 21.1 IP, 18 Ks, 12 BBs WHIP 1.45 2.95 ERA

Wouldn't many, if not all, of the recruited/accepted athletes qualify for Rice's (self-described) generosity in need-based aid offered to regular students?

(06-09-2013 11:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  A few insiders told me at today's tailgate that he's almost surely leaving, but given the money he'll likely be offerred (under $400,000), you have to wonder why?

Probably less than $100,000. Last pick of 11th round.

And reading the article about John from the Draft thread, the Nats aren't even that high on him. Very few guys make it to the majors, but every one dreams, don't they?

@Chronicle_Owls: #Rice coach Wayne Graham says he wouldn't be surprised if Tigers pay above 4th-round slot value ($400, 000) to sign RHP Austin Kubitza

@Chronicle_Owls: Wayne Graham, 77, on future at Rice: "It's about health. I haven’t even had mine checked lately because sometimes you don’t want to know."

(06-10-2013 08:34 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Wouldn't many, if not all, of the recruited/accepted athletes qualify for Rice's (self-described) generosity in need-based aid offered to regular students?

My understanding is that, in the situations in which the Rice student-athlete is eligible for financial aid, then the portion of the athletic scholarship is considered part of the need-based aid. It is not supplemental at Rice, where it is at virtually every other school.

Example: if a student-athlete is deemed to need 70% aid, based on the family's income, if he/she is getting a 30% athletic scholarship, then the school kicks in only 40%. At other schools, the financial aid is additive, so as to create extra "full scholarships".

(06-11-2013 12:05 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:34 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Wouldn't many, if not all, of the recruited/accepted athletes qualify for Rice's (self-described) generosity in need-based aid offered to regular students?

My understanding is that, in the situations in which the Rice student-athlete is eligible for financial aid, then the portion of the athletic scholarship is considered part of the need-based aid. It is not supplemental at Rice, where it is at virtually every other school.

Example: if a student-athlete is deemed to need 70% aid, based on the family's income, if he/she is getting a 30% athletic scholarship, then the school kicks in only 40%. At other schools, the financial aid is additive, so as to create extra "full scholarships".

Interesting. That makes perfect sense as a 'best use of your overall scholarship money' perspective, but not from an athletics perspective. I'm okay with that.

If I understand the discussion of sports with full scholarships (football, basketball, etc.) and partial scholarships (baseball, track and field, etc.), Rice is at a disadvantage in the partial scholarship sports because it doesn't use its financial aid package to supplement the athletic money but instead counts the athletic dollars as part of the financial aid package. Other schools add the athletic money on top of the financial aid, putting Rice at a distinct recruiting disadvantage.

If that is the case, then why is Rice far more successful in the sports with partial scholarships (baseball, tennis, track and field) than it is in sports with full scholarships (basketball and football)?

(06-10-2013 04:25 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  . . .

A huge factor in the rise of the ESUs of the world in college baseball has to do with what they are doing with scholarships in the non-"head count" sports, and what Rice is NOT doing.

. . .

So how do they do it? Easy. Let's say they recruit an athlete who is offered a full scholarship at another school, let's say, Tulsa. Well, A&M will offer the athlete, for example, 30% of a scholarship, and then the university will supplement the remaining 70%, either in need-based aid, or in the way of an "academic scholarship". Voila, A&M has a full scholarship, while only using only 30% of its athletic aid.

Doing this is perfectly legal under current NCAA rules. See how that 12.6 can grow into 20 or 30 or more "full" scholarships?

. . .

This may be a very dumb question, but how can this possibly comply with NCAA scholarship rules? Doesn't this completely vitiate the limit? What prevents a team from giving every potential walk-on an "academic" scholarship or financial aid? Even if the NCAA requires schools to comply with the same standards it uses for giving academic scholarships or need-based aid to non-athletes, those standards are normally subjective enough and "black-box"-like to make policing this completely impractical if not impossible.

Am I misunderstanding how this works?

(06-11-2013 09:45 AM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 12:05 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:34 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Wouldn't many, if not all, of the recruited/accepted athletes qualify for Rice's (self-described) generosity in need-based aid offered to regular students?

My understanding is that, in the situations in which the Rice student-athlete is eligible for financial aid, then the portion of the athletic scholarship is considered part of the need-based aid. It is not supplemental at Rice, where it is at virtually every other school.

Example: if a student-athlete is deemed to need 70% aid, based on the family's income, if he/she is getting a 30% athletic scholarship, then the school kicks in only 40%. At other schools, the financial aid is additive, so as to create extra "full scholarships".

Interesting. That makes perfect sense as a 'best use of your overall scholarship money' perspective, but not from an athletics perspective. I'm okay with that.

I disagree that counting partial scholarships as part of your need-based package is the best use of scholarship money.

First, it seems unfair to completely disregard the additional skills the athlete brings to campus and the extra value an athlete has to the university. (Admittedly, I can't remember how academic scholarships count against calculated need, so maybe this is consistent with how academic schollies are treated.)

Second, the university shouldn't be involved in any endeavors it doesn't intend to excel at and isn't willing to pay the necessary costs to support. I realize this a proposition that not everyone agrees with but, if we're going to participate in big-time athletics, then we need to take the measures necessary (within all the relevant rules) to be competitive. In my mind, it doesn't matter whether the endeavor in question is arguably not part of the university's core mission. Doing anything halfway, especially something as visible as athletics, does nothing to further the mission of the university. Striving for excellence in everything we undertake will have a significant positive effect on the core mission. Accepting mediocrity will do just the opposite.

Given the relative sizes of the student body and the baseball roster, I find it hard to believe the overall quality of the student body would be significantly affected if Rice chose to ignore partial athletic schollies when calculating aid. On the other hand, insisting that top-level athletes pay far more to play at Rice than they would have to at other schools will almost certainly hinder the success of our baseball program. And, I don't think the math changes that much if you expand this to all the partial-scholarship sports.

On a side note, this seems another good reason why jacking up the tuition costs with the intention of offsetting the expense to students with more financial aid is a bad idea. I don't know why being a great educational value was such a repulsive part of the school's identity that it's had to go to such great lengths to eliminate that as a selling point. I realize this is the trend in higher education today, but I don't think it's one that we needed to follow.

(06-11-2013 11:34 AM)SammyT Wrote:  On a side note, this seems another good reason why jacking up the tuition costs with the intention of offsetting the expense to students with more financial aid is a bad idea. I don't know why being a great educational value was such a repulsive part of the school's identity that it's had to go to such great lengths to eliminate that as a selling point. I realize this is the trend in higher education today, but I don't think it's one that we needed to follow.

I agree. But from a college-business/customer-(parent/student)-perception point of view, it turns out the parents who can afford to pay full tuition don't want to send they precious ones to any "value" school, no matter what its academic reputation. That would be beneath their projected place in life.

I've posted this link several times over the years ... but it continues to make depressing reading (especially when comparing the then-high 2006 tuition levels with today's): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/educat...wanted=all

It's conceivable that the extra $$ Rice gets from all the fully-paid higher tuitions that it now receives more than balances the added financial aid that it must pay out to admit the more-needy students. (And that all the state lottery moneys around the country that were intended for schools actually increased education funding rather than just replaced it. Yea, right.)

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)Benchwarmer Owl Wrote:  If I understand the discussion of sports with full scholarships (football, basketball, etc.) and partial scholarships (baseball, track and field, etc.), Rice is at a disadvantage in the partial scholarship sports because it doesn't use its financial aid package to supplement the athletic money but instead counts the athletic dollars as part of the financial aid package. Other schools add the athletic money on top of the financial aid, putting Rice at a distinct recruiting disadvantage.

If that is the case, then why is Rice far more successful in the sports with partial scholarships (baseball, tennis, track and field) than it is in sports with full scholarships (basketball and football)?

We are falling behind in the partial scholarship sports. We have not maintained our previous level of excellence in track & field. We had exactly one man and one woman at the NCAA meet, and neither garnered a point for the team.

Women's tennis is a head-count sport (only full scholarships).

Baseball = Wayne Graham. Without a change in Rice's philosophy, baseball, in my opinion, will slip badly whenever Coach Graham retires.

(06-11-2013 03:30 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)Benchwarmer Owl Wrote:  If I understand the discussion of sports with full scholarships (football, basketball, etc.) and partial scholarships (baseball, track and field, etc.), Rice is at a disadvantage in the partial scholarship sports because it doesn't use its financial aid package to supplement the athletic money but instead counts the athletic dollars as part of the financial aid package. Other schools add the athletic money on top of the financial aid, putting Rice at a distinct recruiting disadvantage.

If that is the case, then why is Rice far more successful in the sports with partial scholarships (baseball, tennis, track and field) than it is in sports with full scholarships (basketball and football)?

We are falling behind in the partial scholarship sports. We have not maintained our previous level of excellence in track & field. We had exactly one man and one woman at the NCAA meet, and neither garnered a point for the team.

Women's tennis is a head-count sport (only full scholarships).

Baseball = Wayne Graham. Without a change in Rice's philosophy, baseball, in my opinion, will slip badly whenever Coach Graham retires.

But we don't compete in most sports with full scholarships. We are weak in football and terrible in basketball.

quote='SammyT' pid='9402099' dateline='1370968489']


My understanding is that, in the situations in which the Rice student-athlete is eligible for financial aid, then the portion of the athletic scholarship is considered part of the need-based aid. It is not supplemental at Rice, where it is at virtually every other school.

Example: if a student-athlete is deemed to need 70% aid, based on the family's income, if he/she is getting a 30% athletic scholarship, then the school kicks in only 40%. At other schools, the financial aid is additive, so as to create extra "full scholarships".
[/quote]

Interesting. That makes perfect sense as a 'best use of your overall scholarship money' perspective, but not from an athletics perspective. I'm okay with that.
[/quote]


I disagree that counting partial scholarships as part of your need-based package is the best use of scholarship money.

First, it seems unfair to completely disregard the additional skills the athlete brings to campus and the extra value an athlete has to the university. (Admittedly, I can't remember how academic scholarships count against calculated need, so maybe this is consistent with how academic schollies are treated.)

Second, the university shouldn't be involved in any endeavors it doesn't intend to excel at and isn't willing to pay the necessary costs to support. I realize this a proposition that not everyone agrees with but, if we're going to participate in big-time athletics, then we need to take the measures necessary (within all the relevant rules) to be competitive. In my mind, it doesn't matter whether the endeavor in question is arguably not part of the university's core mission. Doing anything halfway, especially something as visible as athletics, does nothing to further the mission of the university. Striving for excellence in everything we undertake will have a significant positive effect on the core mission. Accepting mediocrity will do just the opposite.

Given the relative sizes of the student body and the baseball roster, I find it hard to believe the overall quality of the student body would be significantly affected if Rice chose to ignore partial athletic schollies when calculating aid. On the other hand, insisting that top-level athletes pay far more to play at Rice than they would have to at other schools will almost certainly hinder the success of our baseball program. And, I don't think the math changes that much if you expand this to all the partial-scholarship sports.

On a side note, this seems another good reason why jacking up the tuition costs with the intention of offsetting the expense to students with more financial aid is a bad idea. I don't know why being a great educational value was such a repulsive part of the school's identity that it's had to go to such great lengths to eliminate that as a selling point. I realize this is the trend in higher education today, but I don't think it's one that we needed to follow.
[/quote]


You are absolutely right in saying Rice should strive for excellence in every endeavor it participates in. Unfortunately the Board and President don't really share this view. Now they will say they do ..... but the reality is they don't in so many different ways. Financial aid for athletes is a perfect example. Prior to Wayne, Rice offered need-based financial aid to all students EXCEPT athletes. Wayne Graham realized the lunacy of this and got Rice to change its policy so they would treat athletes like all the other students. This change is attributable to Wayne.....and should be part of his legacy at Rice!