So, I guess the question is why don't other similar schools do the same thing (or do it as well) or why do schools that don't do it manage to win the national championship most years.
Vanderbilt baseball scholarship issue
- Thread starter USC2USC
- Start date
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Do we know that those other schools have the kind of endowment that Vandy is sitting on? If they don't, then they can't use money they don't have. It's not something that Vandy can do because they are a private school. They have the money on hand to be able to do so, and this is how they chose to use said money. Public or private can do the same IF they have the endowment to do so.
Maybe they aren't driven by the desire to win football games.
Harvard's endowment makes Vanderbilt look poverty stricken.
Some of these schools play Div. 1 baseball. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
That first statement, if true, would be odd considering their historical alignment.
You’re being obtuse. I’ve already explained to you why it isn’t an advantage in football and basketball.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I didn't say they didn't. It's about how a school chooses to use their money. You asked why other schools don't do it. It's simple. They choose not to.
A great example is @Carolina Doc 's mention of Harvard. They absolutely could do it. IF they wanted to.
Some of those big money schools were state schools, I noticed. I noticed that someone raised the issue of Title IX. Title IX applies to any school that receives federal funds. Many of these private schools receive federal research grant funding, including Vanderbilt. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/federalrelations/for-congressional-staff/Research-at-Vanderbilt.php
I make that point not for probative purposes, but as information. The crux is that Vanderbilt is great in baseball because they choose to be. I believe that was a foregone conclusion. If they want it that badly, then they deserve to have it, as far as I'm concerned.
Nope you keep ignoring that they have unfair advantages compared to their SEC rivals.
While they may want it more then Harvard, they don’t want it more than we do.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Gotcha King. I probably misread some of your posts, and thought you were going in a different direction than you were.
^^^This is why I dont believe the NCAA is done looking into this. The fact the NCAA has made efforts to reduce a percieved advantage this past year is to admit they believe they do indeed have an advantage imo. And although they may have reduced it, I dont believe they have eliminated it. Even if it were reduced to a slight advantage, a slight advantage is still an advantage and must be addressed.
It can't be this simple. No way. If it were this simple, Auburn would have millions in a football endowment and would have a 100 kids on scholarship. They would also fund another women's sport to take care of title 9 issues. Their that crazy.
Am I missing something?
2021 SEC Baseball Conference Standings | WarrenNolan.com
SEC Conference Standings for College Baseball with division standings, games back, team RPI / ELO, streaks, and conference RPI / ELO
This season, three other SEC teams had approximately the same record as they, including the one they are up against now. But we as a program - I'm not talking about the fans now - evidently don't want it as much as we used to want it, or as much as the other contenders nearest Vanderbilt. We came within a hair's breadth of three in a row within the last decade. I suggest we concentrate on our own slippage. We're not even close to the point where Vanderbilt's perceived "advantage" would make a difference in our overall prospects. We're as far behind other league teams as we are behind them.
They had tradition before Corbin?
Hum. I must have slept on the mighty Commodore baseball history.
An advantage? Yes. Unfair? Nope.
Unfair to me is the 11.7 scholarship limit in baseball.
Is softball the same?
Why is baseball severely restricted and their athletic worthy players unduly denied a full ride?
I’m surprised someone hasn’t challenged it.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I wonder if someone is closely reading last week's SCOTUS ruling to find a way to challenge the allocation now that the NCAA has been put on notice that the way they do business is basically illegal.
I don’t know what the justification would be.
Another example of the NCAA doing things that aren’t really defensible.
I didn’t read the entire Kavanaugh opinion but it seems this would fall within his admonishment.
Why is it so hard for some to understand. If you are a "designated" private university, which Vandy is, then donors can designate where teyre endowment goes specifically. Either to a sport, or in some cases to a specific individual, without penalty, or in a specific field of study or research project. There are no limitations.
Goodness.....
uscwatson21 said:
What that means, is that he said Vandy did NOT have any tradition pre-unfair advantage, that came with Corbin, and therefore WITHOUT that unfair advantage today, there would still be NO tradition for Vanderbilt baseball.
Then you challenge his post by saying, "they had tradition before Corbin?"
which was EXACTLY what uscwatson21 JUST got through saying.....
Virginia is taking the same advantage for athletic endowments that Vanderbilt is now using. Virginia was a basement dwellar in ACC baseball, then started taking advantage of athletic endowments in the early 2000s, the same time Vanderbilt did.
Their first ever appearance in Omaha was in 2009, and now they've reached it 5 times beginning in 2009, with a championship and a runner-up finish.
Virginia appeared in the NCAA tournament just 3 times prior to 2004 - once in the 1970s, once in the 1980s, and once in the 1990s. We're talking Regional appearances here. Then starting in 2004 they made the tournament 14 consecutive seasons, with the streak ending in 2018. They made it back this season for the first time since 2017.
You and King Ward are missing pretty much EVERYTHING.
Throw football and basketball out of the window. Those sports ALREADY get everything they need and then some. You CANNOT have 86 football players on full-ride scholarships, because that is a NO-NO per the NCAA. Only 85 maximum. You cannot have 14 MBB players on full ride, or 16 WBB players on full ride, for the same exact thing. Your program will then be heavily penalized by the NCAA.
But the CFB and CBB (basketball) programs already get a full ride on pretty much everything, due to them being the major revenue generators for ALL collegiate athletics, so there's nothing more than can be done for them. You can't keep filling the plate when the food that's on it keeps falling off onto the floor.
So there is NO advantage for those sports. Vanderbilt CANNOT do anything more for those sports that EVERY OTHER DIVISION I ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT in the nation isn't already doing for their own programs. SO, ZERO advantage.
But for a program like college baseball where it is unique in that an entire team of 20-30 players have to share 11.7 scholarships, the ability to give full-ride equivalent scholarships to ALL 20-30 players is a DEFINITE advantage for any program that can do that. Then tack on that Vanderbilt is a premier academic institution, and that it's baseball program plays in the cream of the national crop of conferences for that collegiate sport, and it's almost too good to be true for elite prospects.
Even if the program wasn't a quality program, quality prospects would flock to it for all the other advantages, if it's all for free. But then when the program starting winning on a national stage, it sort of runs away with itself. And it IS extremely unfair....
You're kidding yourself. I've been dragging the pond throughout this conversation in search of a true bottom line. I found it in post #57. When we once again field a team that can win 48-50 games in a season (which three other teams in the league besides Vanderbilt just did), but still can't vanquish those people most years, then we'll talk again. I suspect the first requisite will be years in the making, whether Vanderbilt is throttled by subsequent regulations or not.
Last edited:
Vanderbilt wasn’t private pre-Corbin?
Vandy didn’t have a huge endowment?
They didn’t provide income-based scholarships in the past?
And, you can bleat “unfair” all your little heart desires. That is just a (butthurt) opinion.
I suppose their superior academics and reputation is also unfair.
And, clearly, having a very good baseball coach who can leverage the strengths and advantages of his school is unfair.
Again, address the underlying issue that is unfair to college baseball players and really not defensible. That is what creates the advantage. That is what needs to change.
Since, the NCAA can no longer unfairly restrict academic related support, perhaps our ever on the cutting edge of progress Administration can come up with some creative needs-based or academic-related supplements.
I can’t believe all our recruits, especially those out of state, have parents that are affluent enough to not qualify for some sort of aid beyond whatever % of the 11.7 they get.
Or, stand the F up and challenge the 11.7 restriction.
Or, just whine and deflect from what our real issues have been.
Some of that is a little cruder than I would have put it, but that is essentially where my sentiments have landed. I would also add that competitiveness at the top of the SEC clearly isn't dead. As for the rest of us, we've got work to do.
That's what I was thinking about. We've had some Carolina baseball players who could have done quite well for themselves with name-and-likeness money while in school. At a minimum, better money than many of their peers made going to the minors out of high school. Most people have focused on the implications for football and basketball, but it could be a game changer for sports like baseball. Couldn't it make scholarship limits basically obsolete?
Well, it would mitigate the need for them, not for their less popular peers - unless everyone's money goes in the tip jar. They aren't contemplating that, are they?
It's amazing how opinionated you are on a subject and you're completely unwilling to do even a little bit of research.
The Vanderbilt Opportunity scholarships began in 2008. Their first CWS appearance came in 2011, which is when that first class of free rides would have been college juniors.
It's irrefutable how much of a factor this scholarship was to their success in baseball.
It's just mind boggling how idiotic this argument is from some people.
NFL rosters are 53 players. I don't know the actual participation report for key plays in college football, but based on the NFL there are at least an additional 32 players on full scholarship in football than actually needed. If you already have 30+ players more than you need how would offering a full ride to an 86th player truly benefit you?
NCAA division I basketball has 13 scholarships per team. Baylor played a total of 8 players more than 1 minute in the national championship game. That means they had 5 more players on their roster than they actually needed. Gonzaga played a total of 7 players so they had 6 extra players. What do these posters think adding a 14th or 15th player is going to do when you're only playing 7 or 8?
Now apply that to baseball where you're allowed 11.7 scholarships for a division 1 team. It's literally impossible to play an entire weekend series with just 11.7 players. You need 9 players just to field a lineup. You play 3 games over the weekend so you need at least 3 pitchers. So that puts you at 11 players over a 3 game series if every pitcher throws a complete game. If you throw in a DH to bat instead of the pitcher you're already at 12 players and not enough scholarships to go around.
Do you not see how much of a difference this makes when suddenly you have a week day starter that's on full scholarship? Or or relief pitcher to come in and take innings off a starter? Or a closer to close out important games.
You have to be completely obtuse to not understand why baseball is different than the sports and why this is the epitome of an unfair advantage.
They're not playing by the rules, everyone else is being punished by the rules. How many scholarships would Carolina fans pay for if the NCAA would let us? We used to have 13 before the madated 10% reduction. We don't have an endowment like that because our school wasn't founded by a criminal enterprise.
First, you said the advantage came with Corbin.
He was hired in 2003. The VO started in 2008.
If the baseball coach got Vanderbilt University to create a new scholarship fund, then kudos to him.
Does UofSC not offer need-based scholarships to students in need?
If yes, then there is nothing unfair about what the Vandy baseball tram is doing.
Unless you consider UofSC’s (and most others) inferiority vis-a-vis academic prestige, alumni support and financial coffers, unfair.
But, that is hardly Vandy’s, or the NCAA’s, fault.
You completely get why their advantage matters in baseball. On that, we agree completely .
But, the reason it exists is on the NCAA and their unfair and arbitrary restriction.
Just because a lot of colleges can’t, or don’t, want to fully fund baseball doesn’t justify prohibiting those that can from doing so.
That is what is unfair and should be challenged.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You're completely ignoring the factors that matter in this discussion. I'm wondering if it's on purpose or you truly don't understand why they matter?
LOL.
You have consistently confused inferior with unfair.
I don’t concern myself with symptoms. I look at root cause(s) and solutions.
That is what ultimately matters. Not your endless crying about Vandy.
Are you being obtuse or do you really not understand what the VO is?
You can start by opening your wallet.
You do understand why it matters in baseball. Good.
The ultimate solution is to address the 11.7.
There is no defense for denying a certain group of student-athletes a full scholarship if their school wants to provide it.
It is essentially what SCOTUS, and certainly Kavanaugh, said either directly or read between the lines.
Didn't you employ that word already today? I thought I noticed it earlier. Maybe he isn't the one who is ignoring the factors that matter. I'm certain all the factors have been laid out by now so that what "matters" becomes a "matter" of opinion. I have a word in mind, but in the spirit of civility, I will hold it in abeyance unless I'm compelled.
Yes, the 11.7 is exactly why it's an issue of fairness and not inferiority. Our school doesn't have the resources to match the vanderbilt fund even if we wanted to do it.
No it isn't an opinion and you conveniently keep ignoring the facts that contradict your "opinion" which is really just an invalid argument.
Well, I was going to say "oblivious", but I see now that "haughty" is more descriptive.
Similar threads
