SEC Baseball

sgacock

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2000
27,726
1,287
113
we;;, Texas and Oklahoma bring more prestige to SEC baseball.

During SEC Media Days, Sankey expressed that the SEC is very disgruntled about the 11,7 scholarship limitation in baseball and expressed that the conference would like to expand it to full-roster 28 scholarships. Now, we probably won't be able to if the SEC stays in the NCAA. He didn't say we are leaving the NCAA but he did consider it an option.

Whatever happens, SEC baseball will remain kings. We just have to get back in the palace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lakecock1

sgacock

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2000
27,726
1,287
113
The scholarship limit is one of the dumbest rules the ncaa has ever enacted. It should be changed.
It is limited because of all the small schools that are in D-1 that claim they can't afford more scholarships (though the .7 remains dumb). Sankey indicated that football P-5s have always wanted more. So, will they P-5s have their own division and CWS? Would hurt a school like Coastal or Pepperdine unless they could choose to offer 28 schollies and play in the big boys division. Sankey was talking about softball too.

Heck, NCAA hockey has 18 schollies.
 

Gamecockben1979

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
6,186
7,390
113
It is limited because of all the small schools that are in D-1 that claim they can't afford more scholarships (though the .7 remains dumb). Sankey indicated that football P-5s have always wanted more. So, will they P-5s have their own division and CWS? Would hurt a school like Coastal or Pepperdine unless they could choose to offer 28 schollies and play in the big boys division. Sankey was talking about softball too.

Heck, NCAA hockey has 18 schollies.
I think the way dominoes are falling for the super conferences the little guys will be told to pony up on the scholarships or get out of the way…and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. If you want to play big boy ball, play big boy ball.
 

world famous 3rd base hecklers

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2011
28,987
12,235
113
we;;, Texas and Oklahoma bring more prestige to SEC baseball.

During SEC Media Days, Sankey expressed that the SEC is very disgruntled about the 11,7 scholarship limitation in baseball and expressed that the conference would like to expand it to full-roster 28 scholarships. Now, we probably won't be able to if the SEC stays in the NCAA. He didn't say we are leaving the NCAA but he did consider it an option.

Whatever happens, SEC baseball will remain kings. We just have to get back in the palace.

Maybe one day we'll finally beat Texas... But I love it that Texas will have to come to Columbia... I don't think Texas would actually come to Columbia next year... They would have found a way to back out on the agreement...
 

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
The scholarship limit is one of the dumbest rules the ncaa has ever enacted. It should be changed.
I think there are also Title lX considerations with regard to total number of scholarships available by gender also. That will also cause some growing pains going to 100% scholarships across all sports.

Well, it will be somewhat problematic. At least in the beginning. It shouldn't effect Football, Basketball or any other sport that already has 100% schollies. The problem is going to lie with the sports that currently DON'T have 100%.

Example: Baseball currently can be awarded up to 11.7 schollies split between up to 27 of the 35 roster spots in the program. I'm unfamiliar with the roster positions. Are 27 "Scholarship" positions and the other 8 Walk-Ons? Either way, common sense tells me as soon as we offer greater than the 11.7 schollies, UK Baseball should no longer be eligible for the NCAA Tournament.

This is why Sankey needs the other Power Conferences to fall in with this. Otherwise, the post season will be the SEC Tournament and that's all she wrote.

Like I said earlier, this shouldn't effect Football and Basketball since they had 100% schollies anyway.
 

sgacock

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2000
27,726
1,287
113
I think there are also Title lX considerations with regard to total number of scholarships available by gender also. That will also cause some growing pains going to 100% scholarships across all sports.

Well, it will be somewhat problematic. At least in the beginning. It shouldn't effect Football, Basketball or any other sport that already has 100% schollies. The problem is going to lie with the sports that currently DON'T have 100%.

Example: Baseball currently can be awarded up to 11.7 schollies split between up to 27 of the 35 roster spots in the program. I'm unfamiliar with the roster positions. Are 27 "Scholarship" positions and the other 8 Walk-Ons? Either way, common sense tells me as soon as we offer greater than the 11.7 schollies, UK Baseball should no longer be eligible for the NCAA Tournament.

This is why Sankey needs the other Power Conferences to fall in with this. Otherwise, the post season will be the SEC Tournament and that's all she wrote.

Like I said earlier, this shouldn't effect Football and Basketball since they had 100% schollies anyway.
Sankey didn't just mention baseball. He talked about softball too. There's your Title IX balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lakecock1

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
Sankey didn't just mention baseball. He talked about softball too. There's your Title IX balance.
Sankey is talking about 100% scholarships across all sports. My comment wasn't really about baseball. I was clearly using baseball as an example.

What I was implying is that some schools will likely have to drop or add sports to fulfill the gender equality requirements of Title IX.

I think scholarship equality with regard to gender for Title IX is accomplished by fractionalizing scholarships across a sport's roster. Going 100% scholarships is probably going to throw that previous method gender equality for scholarships off.
 

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
Sankey didn't just mention baseball. He talked about softball too. There's your Title IX balance.
On SC's rosters alone, you have 27 Women's Softball players and 35 Men's Baseball players. At 100% scholarships, you're already off by 8 women's scholarships according to Title IX.
 

bucketdad

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2009
5,993
4,182
113
I can see a place for the ncaa being about rules of the game in a national rules kinda way. That is to say the way the game is actually played, not off field stuff like how teams are formed. I could see them overseeing postseason play as a way to determine a national champion as well, that's why you gotta have a national rules standard with few exceptions.
That's pretty much it for their role tho imo. And if they dont like it, screw'em. I am sure they can be replaced by some other entity. But against my better judgement, I'm throwing them a bone albeit neutered and on a short leash.
 

sgacock

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2000
27,726
1,287
113
On SC's rosters alone, you have 27 Women's Softball players and 35 Men's Baseball players. At 100% scholarships, you're already off by 8 women's scholarships according to Title IX.
He was talking about 28 full rides. We can presently have 28 partial schollie players dividing up the 11.7 schollies. The rest are walkons who get no financial assistance.. His thoughts were full ride for all scholarships players. Same for softball.
 

Garnet chicken

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2004
6,527
4,548
113
Title IX in itself is unequal. You take money from sports that make money and distribute it to ones that lose money just because. If every sport had to stand on it's on, either be self sustaining or drop it. There would be very few that make it.
 

caughtlookin

Member
Jan 16, 2021
225
288
63
Title IX in itself is unequal. You take money from sports that make money and distribute it to ones that lose money just because. If every sport had to stand on it's on, either be self sustaining or drop it. There would be very few that make it.

Unequal, maybe. But just because? If this didn’t happen, most schools would only have football and MBB. Also lost would be tons of schollies each year leaving more kids without sports or education. Why, so we can build another weight room for football?

I have daughters and would like for them to have a chance if opportunities present themselves.

It’s not like it’s out of our paychecks for redistribution.