4 year scholarships

[T-Dog]

Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

I'm fairly sure FB, MBB and WBB are the only ones that have to sit. Also think they are the only ones that have to give full schollies.

I'm not certain if this has anything to do with anything, But all mentioned are head count sports. Women's Volleyball, women's tennis, and women's gymnastics are also head count sports (not sure if they have to sit out a year upon transferring), but I wonder if this will be where they eventually draw the line.

The others are called equivalency sports, where scholarships can be split among team members. Head count is one player, one full scholarship.

So FCS football is considered an equivalency sport? They give out partials so that fits the definition of equivalency. Another reason to move when we did.

Yes, FCS Football is an equivalency sport because they can give out partial scholarships. When we made the move last year, everyone on partials (like McElfresh) was bumped up to full scholarships.

Here's a primer on scholarship limits, head count vs equivalency sports.

http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

However for sports like baseball, they can't give out a partial scholarship of less than 33% of a full ride and can't have more than (I believe) 30 players on some form of scholarship. That's because old coaches use to give 20-30 incoming freshmen enough money to buy books (book scholarship), come and try out and if they made the team, they would get a higher percentage and the ones who didn't make it would be dropped.

[AppSt94]

Thanks for the information. I find it interesting that Ice Hockey looks to get a full complement of scholarships. I don't live up north so I am curious if it is considered a revenue sport.

[BeauFoster]

I have friends who attended colleges up north, one Minnesota. She said hockey is way more important to the student body than football. The games at many schools are very well attended, but I don't think they could be self-sustaining.

[WVAPPeer]

watauga03 wrote --- "Someone else argued its not the non-revenue athletes fault that their sports aren't revenue sports. Its also not the janitor's fault that we pay the dean more money - even if the janitor is excellent and the dean is terrible."

That was my argument and I really think your analogy is completely wrong - the football player and women's tennis player are both college student athletes - carrying basically the same work load - same classes, same workouts, same team meetings, same travel, same time constraints, same eligibility requirements, same graduation requirements and at the same cost - whereas the Dean and the Janitor only have in common that they work for the same employer --- It is totally unfair to relegate non-revenue athletes to a lower level simply because they don't happen to excel in a sport that generates revenue - they work no less hard TO GIVE THEIR ALL TO APP STATE !!!

[JTApps1]

Are the transfer rules the same for say tennis as they are the revenue sports? It seems like I heard players in those sports don't have to sit out a year. Just need some clarification.

I'm fairly sure FB, MBB and WBB are the only ones that have to sit. Also think they are the only ones that have to give full schollies.

I'm not certain if this has anything to do with anything, But all mentioned are head count sports. Women's Volleyball, women's tennis, and women's gymnastics are also head count sports (not sure if they have to sit out a year upon transferring), but I wonder if this will be where they eventually draw the line.

The others are called equivalency sports, where scholarships can be split among team members. Head count is one player, one full scholarship.

The reason I was asking is if they are not bound by transfer rules, and the scholarships aren't full rides then it should not be a mandatory 4 year scholarship. Some on here started speaking about equity, but it's not an equal comparison. The athletes in those sports aren't bound to the school like those in football, basketball, and baseball so why should the school be bound to them?

[wataugan03]

watauga03 wrote --- "Someone else argued its not the non-revenue athletes fault that their sports aren't revenue sports. Its also not the janitor's fault that we pay the dean more money - even if the janitor is excellent and the dean is terrible."

That was my argument and I really think your analogy is completely wrong - the football player and women's tennis player are both college student athletes - carrying basically the same work load - same classes, same workouts, same team meetings, same travel, same time constraints, same eligibility requirements, same graduation requirements and at the same cost - whereas the Dean and the Janitor only have in common that they work for the same employer --- It is totally unfair to relegate non-revenue athletes to a lower level simply because they don't happen to excel in a sport that generates revenue - they work no less hard TO GIVE THEIR ALL TO APP STATE !!!

The Med School professor makes more than the English professor. Both teach classes and conduct research at the same institution, but one is making a lot more than other. Why? Because the Med School professor can bring in revenue (both in higher tuition and in grants for research).

If you're defining fairness as: the amount of effort you put in directly corresponds to what you get out then its going to be very hard to find examples of fairness in the world. That's not how we operate. You get whatever you can take. Your value is whatever someone will give you for your effort. If you want higher payoffs for your effort, don't be an English professor or a tennis player, be a Med School professor or a quarterback . . . if you can.

[App91]

watauga03 wrote --- "Someone else argued its not the non-revenue athletes fault that their sports aren't revenue sports. Its also not the janitor's fault that we pay the dean more money - even if the janitor is excellent and the dean is terrible."

That was my argument and I really think your analogy is completely wrong - the football player and women's tennis player are both college student athletes - carrying basically the same work load - same classes, same workouts, same team meetings, same travel, same time constraints, same eligibility requirements, same graduation requirements and at the same cost - whereas the Dean and the Janitor only have in common that they work for the same employer --- It is totally unfair to relegate non-revenue athletes to a lower level simply because they don't happen to excel in a sport that generates revenue - they work no less hard TO GIVE THEIR ALL TO APP STATE !!!

WVAPP-Fair is where you go to buy cotton candy!

[WVAPPeer]

watauga03 wrote --- "Someone else argued its not the non-revenue athletes fault that their sports aren't revenue sports. Its also not the janitor's fault that we pay the dean more money - even if the janitor is excellent and the dean is terrible."

That was my argument and I really think your analogy is completely wrong - the football player and women's tennis player are both college student athletes - carrying basically the same work load - same classes, same workouts, same team meetings, same travel, same time constraints, same eligibility requirements, same graduation requirements and at the same cost - whereas the Dean and the Janitor only have in common that they work for the same employer --- It is totally unfair to relegate non-revenue athletes to a lower level simply because they don't happen to excel in a sport that generates revenue - they work no less hard TO GIVE THEIR ALL TO APP STATE !!!

WVAPP-Fair is where you go to buy cotton candy!

you're right 91 but isn't there a fare to go to the fair?
Really all I am saying here is that ALL scholarships should be for 4 years - not saying anything about pay or money for likeness whatever ---

[BeauFoster]

Really all I am saying here is that ALL scholarships should be for 4 years - not saying anything about pay or money for likeness whatever ---

If you're going that far, then make it 5 years. How many football players only spend 4 years in school these days?

I know this isn't only football, but football is the main revenue sport driving this.

[WVAPPeer]

Really all I am saying here is that ALL scholarships should be for 4 years - not saying anything about pay or money for likeness whatever ---

If you're going that far, then make it 5 years. How many football players only spend 4 years in school these days?

I know this isn't only football, but football is the main revenue sport driving this.

I agree - not much red-shirting in the other sports ---