Vanderbilt baseball scholarship issue
- Thread starter USC2USC
- Start date
The problem that we are a public school in a poor state?
That is a much bigger issue than an athletic department problem and certainly not one that a baseball team can fix.
Even if that's true - and that is an oversimplification - it is the precise definition of "closer to home".
No it isn't. Your argument is so simple minded I pray you're just refusing to admit you're wrong.
Imagine if the government said you couldn't buy a beer tomorrow because you couldn't afford to buy 27,000 other people a beer. But because I can afford to buy 12,000 people a beer, the government allows me to go buy a beer tomorrow.
No one in their right mind would say that's your fault you can't buy a beer. Every rational adult in the room would acknowledge it's an unfair regulation by the government. You have the money to buy a beer, so why can't you?
You're so preoccupied with their situation vs. ours that you are propounding irrational arguments. Your example depicts that we have been left feckless and bereft because of what they are able to do. The fact is, we are able to be competitive, as other teams are competitive, by getting our house back in order. We have, or could have, resources of our own that we can bring to bear. Do you deny this? Had Tanner continued to coach, and to coach with zeal because he wanted to coach, do you believe we would be engaged in this argument today? Why are we embroiled in this argument today? It's because we as fans don't have anything else to do. It's because we're sitting home and they are playing. But if Miss. State can be where they are tonight, then so could we. Our current futility is ours to correct. It doesn't depend on Vanderbilt or any changes to Vanderbilt.
My argument is perfectly rational. You're the one resorting to completely irrational arguments. Could we have done better post Tanner than we did? Absolutely. Does that change that Vanderbilt has an unfair advantage? Absolutely not.
Those are two different arguments that you're conflating because you've completely lost it on the latter argument. Time to just be an adult and admit you're wrong.
It's starting to feel like several posters are on the same side of the coin, but are bickering with each other over the nuances.
In part, I agree with all of you.
In part, I agree with all of you.
No. We had several posters who didn't really understand the Vanderbilt situation. Instead of educating themselves on it, they stuck their foot in their mouth. Now instead of admitting they were wrong, they keep changing the goalposts to try to find something they're right about.
Appears we've reached the point where they're arguing, "but we could do better than we have!" Well sure, everyone could do better. However, that doesn't change the Vanderbilt situation.
No, I don't think anyone is contemplating something similar to a tip jar, but it's not hard to imagine something like a local car dealership, owned by a booster, inviting the entire baseball roster to a weekend publicity function with a $1000 "appearance fee" for each player. A handful of such appearances each semester starts to take a big chunk out of that 1/2 tuition. The Jackie Bradleys and Michael Roths of the team would have additional sources of outside revenue, of course, but for baseball programs with followings like ours, LSU's, Miss State's, etc., I don't think it would be too hard for players to make up the 1/2 scholarship difference through appearance fees, depending on how this new name-and-likeness world plays out.
The bottom line is, if the NCAA didn't have its ridiculous and arbitrary rules in place regarding the baseball scholarship limit, Vandy wouldn't have its built-in advantage that Corbin has capitalized on.
But to address another poster's argument that if Tanner was still coaching we wouldn't be in this situation, I whole-heartedly disagree. The cat is out of the bag now. The top recruits would have seen the writing on the wall that Vandy is the place to go if you're wanting a full scholarship -- and to be surrounded by similar talent capable of winning championships.
Well said on the last part. In all honesty, Tanner probably saw the writing on the wall himself and was most likely a factor in his decision to retire.
It's a nice thought, but how this thing will flesh out is anybody's guess at this time.
If you're including me in that, it isn't hard. It's about 55 miles from my house.
They are capitalizing on what their situation affords. Being a prestigious, well-heeled university should have some benefits to offset the lower athletic profile, lesser athletic budget, smaller enrollment, and inferior facilities - areas in which other schools enjoy marked advantages. I consider Vanderbilt's countermeasures to be commendable and visionary. Apparently every other school in the country similarly situated in terms of scholarship finances, even those that take athletics seriously, as do Notre Dame and Stanford, have not been nearly as successful. If that's a matter of institutional choice, their priorities do not devolve on Vanderbilt or detract from them. Even though Vanderbilt might one day be blunted by rules governing scholarships, Vanderbilt is to be congratulated in the present. They are operating within the rules, winning, and educating some people. There's nothing more that could be asked of a program.
Not sure Post #57 did anything to refute my post. Three other SEC teams had equal records to Vanderbilt's is not the question - its that Vanderbilt's record is equal to those 3 other teams' records. How did those teams build their programs in order to get those records?? I doubt it was done on a level playing field. And that is my point.
Lets apply your logic another way: would ANYONE not named King Ward say, "when we once again field a football team that can win 10-11 games in a season, but STILL cannot vanquish a Clemson team that regularly pays for it's top talent under the table, then we'll talk again"??? Because, that's pretty much what your above logic contends. And I seriously doubt that even if we go 0-12 in CFB, that we'd be OK with Clemson taking advantage unfairly to establish their success. Cheating is cheating.
South Carolina hasn't had many 48-50 win seasons in the SEC over the years. Only seven (7) times.
For seasons 2000 (56), 2001 (49), 2002 (57), and 2004 (53), we were a combined 12-1 with three sweeps of Vanderbilt. But that was early in the 2000s, and they hadn't implemented their endowment system fully yet.
By our CWS title years they had, and in 2010 (54), 2011 (55), and 2012 (49) we were a combined 6-5 against Vanderbilt.
Overall South Carolina holds a 59-38 series advantage over Vanderbilt. But beginning with the 2010 season, we are 16-20 against Vanderbilt. Again, that INCLUDES our most successful title-winning seasons in program history. We were 43-18 against them prior to 2010.
Perhaps one day we WILL return to those 48-50 win seasons like we used to have. The question is, when that time comes, will we be looking up at Vanderbilt down 20+ games to them in the overall series?? And if it does come, will it even matter to the established program that Vanderbilt will have OVER US?
When Nick Saban took over at Alabama, he and his staff cheated their asses off on the recruiting trail. Did it for years. The NCAA even changed rules and created new recruiting guidelines in response to Saban and staff cheating, such as the "bump" rule, also known as "The Saban Rule", among others.
But that doesn't mean that Saban cheats today. Because he doesn't have to. All it took was Saban getting Alabama back to the top for 2-3 years, and then the program name and identity took care of itself. And look where they are today.
Does Dabo Swinney cheat today with Clemson? Probably not, but then he and his staff doesn't need to. They cheated their asses off during the years that Spurrier and USC were kicking their asses every year, finally got some dubious 5-star talent that busted as often as they excelled, but they hyped it and started playing in BCS bowls and started contending for conference titles, and Swinney made it all seem like they were a college team winning the Super Bowl every year, crying on the field into the ESPN cameras after every game.
And he built it up until they actually DID win a national title, and they probably don't have to cheat at ALL anymore. Because the program's success now takes care of itself, just like with Alabama.
Tanner didn't cheat - he built the program up with fundamentals and coaching. When he retired, that coaching retired with him, and his successor didn't cheat either. And perhaps one day we WILL win 48-50 games again, but by then Vanderbilt will be the modern-Day LSU of SEC baseball, and they will have passed us by. And we shouldn't be OK with how they went about doing it......
Your argument has so little merit. You are actually trying to claim that if Program A has the natural, fair resources - that ALL other programs have equitable access to - and staff skills to build their program to great levels of success, that it shouldn't be an issue at all for Program B to get to that same great level of success by means that are UNFAIR and NOT equally accessible to ALL other programs.
And that's been pretty much your ENTIRE argument - you say, "wait until we are winning 48-50 games again, and come talk to me". But if we DO win 48-50 games, it will be by the same resources and means that ALL other programs have equal access to.
While once we GET THERE, and THEN see how we compete against a Vanderbilt, we will be doing it as a program that had to do it a different and UNFAIR way that Vanderbilt went about doing it for them. We will be doing it with players making do with partial scholarships, against a team that will be full of full-ride scholarship players.
In college football, they call that a FCS team playing against a FBS team. This is YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN THIS THREAD: that if a FCS team can be highly successful in it's division, that it should be equal in fairness against a FBS opponent, in how it got there. That argument is flawed to the point of massive mutation......
At this point, they have become the equivalent of Duke basketball. Any kid who wants to play elite DIv I baseball at a strong academic institution looks at them now.
Your feelings toward Vanderbilt are irrelevant to the discussion. While you may commend them, it doesn't change the fact that Vanderbilt has an unfair advantage.
While you cry about it - and some teams compete - I'm contemplating a day of golf and lunch with friends, and maybe a dip in the pool afterwards. If you want to do another eight hours or so of this later on, I'll be glad to accommodate you.
Please don't pretend you're not miserable because people who are actually content with their lives are able to admit when they're wrong.
I'm having a wonderful time. I'm retired and pastimes such as this invigorate me.
They have specific minority endowments which they can offer incredible financial packages to anyone who is not white. Their roster reflects it.
As long as the scholarships are available to all students and awarded based on uniform criteria, I don't have a problem with Vandy offering the academic scholarships to baseball players. They are essentially using their massive endowment to reduce their effective tuition.
In-state tuition and fees at Mississippi State is about $8,900 per year. That's about $10,000 less than the in-state tuition and fees at UVA or Penn State. Does that give Mississippi State an advantage ove those schools when it comes to recruiting baseball players who are only being offered partial scholarships? Maybe. Is it unfair? I don't think so.
In-state tuition and fees at Mississippi State is about $8,900 per year. That's about $10,000 less than the in-state tuition and fees at UVA or Penn State. Does that give Mississippi State an advantage ove those schools when it comes to recruiting baseball players who are only being offered partial scholarships? Maybe. Is it unfair? I don't think so.
Part of Vandy's advantage is that its a great education (best in the SEC) in a great city.....and Tim Corbin is a heckuva baseball coach. Yes he has advantages to get players, but he also is a really good coach who knows how to win in the postseason....thats a key factor bc not everyone can win in the tournament. And as Vandy continues to win on a large stage, it becomes that much more attractive to high school kids.
This is not true.
Basically, Vandy financial aid office meets full-need for ALL students. This means students submit the FAFSA, and whatever cost is not met by state and federal grants or university scholarships is awarded through university grants. Students do not have to take out loans. This is relatively common amongst selective admissions schools but a huge advantage over state schools and less selective privates. This is possible through revenue from its very large endowment....$6.3 billion vs Carolina's $780 million.
Below is cut and paste from their financial aid website:
- Since talent and promise recognize no social, cultural, economic, or geographic boundaries, our admissions process is need-blind for U.S. Citizens and eligible non-citizens.
- Vanderbilt will meet 100% of a family’s demonstrated financial need.
- Financial aid awards do not include loans. Instead of offering need-based loans to undergraduate students, Vanderbilt offers additional grant assistance. This does not involve income bands or "cut-offs" that impact or limit eligibility.
That is all true. They have all the tools and some... it's the "and some" that concerns a lot of people.
