Holly Ellenson speaks...

[Eldon]

IIRC, the Ivy League only has partial scholarships for bball

[StillAWarrior]

IIRC, the Ivy League only has partial scholarships for bball

The Ivy League doesn't offer any athletic scholarships.

[Jay Bee]

Where do you see that?  I believe that is probably the practice, but I'm not sure it's the rule. It is a common misconception that is not true in the non-revenue headcount sports. Is it a rule in BB and FB?

Interesting question: Are there any D-I BBall or FB programs that have recently offered less than full grant-in-aid to a student-athlete?

The full vs. partial is a question of headcount sport vs. equivalency sport. Headcount you can give full.. for equivalency sports, the calculation is explained in the bylaws... for headcount sports, at first glance... it doesn't appear there is anything disallowing you from offering a scholarship for less than full...

Can't imagine anyone would do so... but, looks like it may be allowable.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Head count sports = FULL RIDE

Equivalency sports  = partials or full ride

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/sports-scholarships/head-count-versus-equivalency-scholarships.htm

Black and white.  Been this way since I worked in various athletic departments and I don't think anything has changed it.  We're going through this with my son right now, who would be in an equivalency sport.   

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

This lack of partial scholorship thing protects the small schools I imagine.  Otherwise UNC could take their last two scholorships and create a "tryout " for kids.  Essentially giving them a free look at more talent and lowering the risk.  Transfers would increase but kids that would go to other schools would likely end up at the blue bloods.

Why would we ever want this?

[keefe]

The Ivy League doesn't offer any athletic scholarships.

This is true. However...financial aid for student athletes is indexed to NCAA criteria.

[StillAWarrior]

Head count sports = FULL RIDE

Equivalency sports  = partials or full ride

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/sports-scholarships/head-count-versus-equivalency-scholarships.htm

Black and white.  Been this way since I worked in various athletic departments and I don't think anything has changed it.  We're going through this with my son right now, who would be in an equivalency sport.

With all due respect, I believe the source you linked is wrong.  For many years I was under the impression that Head count sports = full ride.  You can certainly find much support for that on the internet -- often on recruiting service websites (like the one you linked - and even it says "can best be understood" suggesting that they're simplifying things a bit).  I wonder if recruiting services might have an incentive to oversimplify rules like that to make it appear that anyone getting a scholarship in a head count sport is guaranteed a full ride.

And like you, I've been through this process recently -- with a daughter who is in a head count sport.  I can assure you, there are schools out there offering partial scholarships to athletes in head count sports.  Perhaps not basketball or football -- I don't claim to have any expertise in those sports.  I suspect that most if not all D1 football and basketball programs offer only full rides.  But, as I've mentioned, I'd be very interested to know how that is handled in some smaller conferences.  I know first hand that the Patriot League has numerous programs that are less than "fully funded" in volleyball, but I don't know about basketball.

I looked at Article 15 of the NCAA rules, and they don't say anything about minimum and I didn't see anything suggesting that head count sports can only offer full rides (i.e., is prohibited from offering partials).  As I understand it, after going through the process and talking to a lot of people (including a bunch of D1 college volleyball coaches), the head count only sets the number of "counters" that a school is allowed.  If an athlete receives $1000, he or she is a "counter" and fills a scholarship spot.  In volleyball, they're allowed 12 scholarships - so only 12 girls can be on scholarship no matter what the amount is.  If a school is "fully funded" (as most of the big conferences schools are -- but there are some out there who would surprise you), then each of the 12 scholarships will be a full ride.  But in other schools that are not fully funded, they might offer a total of nine scholarships that can be divided up (e.g., 6 full and 6 half -- for a total of 12; or maybe just 9 full).  And I know of at least one underfunded school in a smaller conference (A10) that is budgeted at 4.5 scholarships.  Point being -- for women's volleyball at least -- which is a head count sport -- there can be partial scholarships.

I learned this because when I started the process with my daughter, lots of people told me that because volleyball is a head count sport each D1 team offers 12 scholarships and they are all full-ride.  Sounded great.  I later learned that people simply are misinformed and/or misunderstand what it means to be a head count sport.  Most schools are fully funded and offer only full scholarships -- certainly in the BCS conferences -- but it's not required.

[keefe]

Whatever happened to the gal from Northern CA who signed with MU LAX? Her dad was a frequent poster.

[ChicosBailBonds]

With all due respect, I believe the source you linked is wrong.  For many years I was under the impression that Head count sports = full ride.  You can certainly find much support for that on the internet -- often on recruiting service websites (like the one you linked - and even it says "can best be understood" suggesting that they're simplifying things a bit).  I wonder if recruiting services might have an incentive to oversimplify rules like that to make it appear that anyone getting a scholarship in a head count sport is guaranteed a full ride.

I don't know, that wasn't the case when I was working in the field.  We are talking Division I, yes?

CBS News says this

"Full-ride sports scholarships are scarce. There are only six sports where all the scholarships are full ride. These so-called head-count sports are football, men and women's basketball, and women's gymnastics, volleyball, and tennis. In these Division I sports, athletes receive a full ride or no ride."


On the NCAA site is says headcount sports have full academic year applied to the number of counters.  While equivalency sports are used as a fraction.  Nowhere do they say fractions can be applied to Headcount, but go out of their way to say it can be done for equivalency.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Division_I_Financial_Aid_(Foundational).pptx

In the manual, bylaws 15, I just don't see anywhere that they can be split up for headcount sports.  There are exceptions where if a women's volleyball player graduates at mid year, but those are extremely rare.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D116JAN.pdf


Maybe it's there, I just don't see it and it would surprise me that so many scholarship sites would have it wrong, as this is what they do for a living.

[Jay Bee]

I don't know, that wasn't the case when I was working in the field.  We are talking Division I, yes?

CBS News says this

"Full-ride sports scholarships are scarce. There are only six sports where all the scholarships are full ride. These so-called head-count sports are football, men and women's basketball, and women's gymnastics, volleyball, and tennis. In these Division I sports, athletes receive a full ride or no ride."


On the NCAA site is says headcount sports have full academic year applied to the number of counters.  While equivalency sports are used as a fraction.  Nowhere do they say fractions can be applied to Headcount, but go out of their way to say it can be done for equivalency.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Division_I_Financial_Aid_(Foundational).pptx

In the manual, bylaws 15, I just don't see anywhere that they can be split up for headcount sports.  There are exceptions where if a women's volleyball player graduates at mid year, but those are extremely rare.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D116JAN.pdf


Maybe it's there, I just don't see it and it would surprise me that so many scholarship sites would have it wrong, as this is what they do for a living.

What sites say - CBS News or scholarship sites, aren't relevant.

What StillAWarrior I think is saying.. and what I am saying, is that it doesn't appear to be prohibited that a headcount sport could offer someone less than a full grant-in-aid package. Why would they ever do this? Would they ever do this? I don't know.

The language in Bylaws around headcount counters is simple, presumably because even if someone is awarded less than full grant-in-aid, they are a full counter. Thus, there is no reason to go through calculations like they do for equivalency sports. The calculation is: "you give someone athletic aid, you take up 1.0 of your available counters, period."

Now, my challenge back to StillAWarrior is to find an example or help explain plausible reasons (extreme financial stress?) where a headcount sport would not give full grant-in-aid.

In other words, I think the answer is probably "technically, one could give less than full grant-in-aid to a scholarship player in a headcount sport; however, it rarely if ever happens so talking about it is stupid."

[StillAWarrior]

I don't know what to tell you.  We're just dealing in an area where a lot of people don't know how it works.

Odd to see you citing CBS News as authoritative.  I didn't think you were a big fan of the main stream media.     But they're wrong.  I can't tell you why they are wrong, but they are.  I suspect it's because like most college sports fans they focus on football and men's basketball, and I suspect that partial scholarships are exceedingly rare in those sports (if at all).

Regarding the NCAA rule you cited, it's helpful to consider the "scholarship" and the financial aid separately.  In the head count sports, the scholarships cannot be divided like it can in equivalency sports.  One person = one scholarship.  But the financial aid given to the athlete does not have to equal the full cost of tuition/fees (and I'm not even getting into the new "cost of attendance" stuff).  By contrast, in equivalency sports, they can divide the scholarship (and the financial aid) among as many kids as they want.

If you look hard enough, there are references to it out there.

• Here's an article with Georgia's football coach mentioning it ("Although a school can offer a partial scholarship to an athlete in a head-count sport, that is typically not the case at Georgia."
• Here's another ("...so whether a player is given a full athletic scholarship or given only a dollar, s/he is counted toward the headcount...).
• Another ("There are fewer NCAA  head- count sports than equivalency sports; head count sports mean the stated scholarship limit is absolute, and the number of student athletes receiving awards cannot exceed this number. NCAA I football and basketball are headcount sports as well as a few others noted above. For example,  NCAA FBS football schools can have a maximum of 85 players under scholarship during a year. Head count sports generally award a much higher percentage of full scholarships to participants than equivalency sports.")
• Another ("In the NCAA, there are two types of sports when it comes to scholarships: headcount sports and equivalency sports. In a headcount sport, each athlete on scholarship counts toward the maximum number of athletes a school can have on scholarship. So, no matter if a player is given a full ride or just 10 cents a year, he or she is counted toward the overall scholarship limit for that sport. For this reason, it is in the interest of these headcount sports to offer full scholarships to attract the best players possible.")

   

It's very clear that this is widely misunderstood, and I suspect it's because most people focus on big time programs and revenue sports.  But once you get down into smaller schools and non-revenue headcount sports, you find out that not all scholarships in head count sports are full rides.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What sites say - CBS News or scholarship sites, aren't relevant.

What StillAWarrior I think is saying.. and what I am saying, is that it doesn't appear to be prohibited that a headcount sport could offer someone less than a full grant-in-aid package. Why would they ever do this? Would they ever do this? I don't know.

It doesn't say it is permitted either, where the bylaws go out of their way to show it is permitted for equivalency sports.  Seems to me, if it was permitted, the manual and bylaws would say it is permitted, just as they do clearly for equivalency.  Why go into extreme detail to say fractional offers are ok for one, and if they are ok in headcount option why not also say it?  Instead, the headcount option is kept extremely simple.

That's my view, and in the years I was involved our compliance department said flat out, full ride or no ride.  I'll ask with my son's stuff, but I'm going with Occam's Razor on this. 

[Jay Bee]

It doesn't say it is permitted either, where the bylaws go out of their way to show it is permitted for equivalency sports.  Seems to me, if it was permitted, the manual and bylaws would say it is permitted, just as they do clearly for equivalency.  Why go into extreme detail to say fractional offers are ok for one, and if they are ok in headcount option why not also say it?  Instead, the headcount option is kept extremely simple.

That's my view, and in the years I was involved our compliance department said flat out, full ride or no ride.  I'll ask with my son's stuff, but I'm going with Occam's Razor on this.

You have the right to your view, but it differs from mine and therefore is incorrect.

Again, I can't come up with many reasons why a program would give out less than full grant-in-aid to a headcount sport SA, but it doesn't appear there's anything barring it. So, yes... MU's compliance department (btw, compliance departments get crap wrong ALL THE TIME) would/should say "full ride or no ride".. because it makes sense, under the rules... however, it doesn't mean you CAN'T do it. It would just be dumb to do it, so no need to talk about it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, Still....I'm focusing on men's basketball and football. 

I'll call my guys at the NCAA on Monday and try to get clarification.

[Jay Bee]

Yes, Still....I'm focusing on men's basketball and football. 

I'll call my guys at the NCAA on Monday and try to get clarification.

Great, but be clear on the question and remember the NCAA staff often gets things wrong (including RPI calcs!... trust me, I know first hand).

[real chili 83]

Kinda surprised D1 hockey isn't considered a revenue sport.  It's big time at the vast majority of schools that have it.  In fact, can think of two schools that are D1 in hockey and D2 in everything else.

[Brewtown Andy]

My understanding on "head count sports" was any player that gets even $1 in aid from the school counts as one player on scholarship. 

Thus the name: you're counting the number of players on scholarship (a head count), not how many full ride scholarships are being offered.

[jsglow]

My understanding on "head count sports" was any player that gets even $1 in aid from the school counts as one player on scholarship. 

Thus the name: you're counting the number of players on scholarship (a head count), not how many full ride scholarships are being offered.

I'm not going to go back and read all this but that does seem ridiculous to me.  For that to be true, every walk-on's parents would be compelled to forfeit their kid's academic scholarship package simply to play basketball.  'Um, dad, Wojo wants me to sit at the end of the bench in uniform, it'll probably require extra summer school to graduate on time, and it'll mean giving up my $10,000 annual Ignatius scholly.' 

Yeah, that conversation will work. 

[GGGG]

As long as a walk-on is getting an academic scholarship offered to all students with similar academic profiles, they're good.  And yes the NCAA will audit this if they feel abuse is occurring. 

[ecompt]

So,

Wally still maintains a full scholarship ride at MU.

Wally can now concentrate on his Olympic ability as a track/field athlete full time. 

Wally probably told by staff that his minutes will be non existent next year due to incoming recruits.

Wally's family upset over his basketball career, when in reality next year it would be sitting at end of bench. He would not even have a shot at NBDL or a Europe gig. I for one, if my son was a potential Olympic candidate, would surely encourage him to totally commit to Olympic aspirations.

Maybe Wally liked the camaraderie of being on the basketball squad, but so be it.

How would the Ellensons felt had Wally torn an ACL playing basketball, thus ruining his Olympic chances? The Ellensons owed MU as much as MU owed them. Nothing.
 

[Nukem2]

As long as a walk-on is getting an academic scholarship offered to all students with similar academic profiles, they're good.  And yes the NCAA will audit this if they feel abuse is occurring.

And, it would be rather obvious if the abuse were to be occurring.  Don't see many walk-ons that are that "good".  Wisconsin seems to be the rare exception with its numerous "preferred walk-on" players over the years.  Walk-ons on most teams look like what one would think of as a walk-on for practice purposes. 

[GGGG]

And almost all of Wisconsin's preferred walk-ons get an athletic scholarship if they do turn out to be good.

[StillAWarrior]

What sites say - CBS News or scholarship sites, aren't relevant.

What StillAWarrior I think is saying.. and what I am saying, is that it doesn't appear to be prohibited that a headcount sport could offer someone less than a full grant-in-aid package. Why would they ever do this? Would they ever do this? I don't know.

The language in Bylaws around headcount counters is simple, presumably because even if someone is awarded less than full grant-in-aid, they are a full counter. Thus, there is no reason to go through calculations like they do for equivalency sports. The calculation is: "you give someone athletic aid, you take up 1.0 of your available counters, period."

Now, my challenge back to StillAWarrior is to find an example or help explain plausible reasons (extreme financial stress?) where a headcount sport would not give full grant-in-aid.

In other words, I think the answer is probably "technically, one could give less than full grant-in-aid to a scholarship player in a headcount sport; however, it rarely if ever happens so talking about it is stupid."

I believe it is a financial situation.  Some schools just don't support their athletics at the same level that we're used to seeing in big time programs.  As I've said in previous posts, my knowledge of these things comes from experiencing it first hand in the volleyball setting.  Basketball may -- and probably does -- differ (certainly in practice, if not according to the rules).  Even in the Big East (which we all like to consider a big time conference -- and did have three teams qualify in the volleyball tournament), there are several schools that don't fund the full 12 scholarships for volleyball.  It's my understanding that most of the Patriot League does not fund all of their scholarships in volleyball and I know first hand that several don't.  I know of on A10 program with only 4.5 volleyball scholarships (but they are increasing that).  In short, they don't spend the money.

As for why they would offer something less than a full ride, I think that comes down to coach's preference.   Suppose a school decided they would fund 9 scholarships in volleyball (a common number in programs that are less than fully funded).  For the sake of simple math, assume that each scholarship is worth $50k.  So, the program's budget for scholarships is $450k.  Some schools might elect to give nine full scholarships and fill the rest of the roster with walk-ons.  Some schools might elect to give six full scholarships and six half scholarships, thinking it will help them with some depth.  Both schools are spending the same $450k.  And some schools do it by tinkering with the number of years that they offer -- with girls paying their way for the first year or two (with the hope being that they can get 12 girls at a "full scholarship" caliber on the roster).  Just different ways to deal with the fact that they've only got $450k to spend on scholarships.  I'm not a big video game guy, but I would view it similar to building a roster on Madden or one of those games.  Do you want some 10s a bunch of 2s?  Or do you want a team full of 5s and 6s?  I think that is the decision faced by coaches in programs that are less than fully funded.

If a program has the resources to fully fund all the allowed scholarship, there would be no reason to ever give something less than full grant-in-aid.  I could see banking an entire scholarship because the next year's class looks more attractive, but not a reduced scholarship.  The only time I could see some sense in it -- and this would be only in a program that is really pinching pennies -- would be the situation we sometimes see when a team has an extra scholarship and decides to give it to a walk-on to recognize prior contributions to the program -- maybe give half but not the full boat to save a little cash.  But I would think that a school pinching pennies would simply bank the scholarship and anyone trying to recognize a kid in that situation would give the full ride.

I can only assume that the rules don't specifically address this because they're talking about the maximums that schools can do, and not minimums.  When listing that the maximum head count for basketball as 13 scholarships, the rules don't say what the minimum number is.  But I think we all agree that a basketball team can offer less than the maximum number of scholarships.  Similarly, the rules specify the maximum financial aid that schools can give to a kid on a scholarship, but don't say what the minimum is.  And the reason they specify how scholarships can be broken down in equivalency sports but not in head count sports is because they are fundamentally different.  Three kids can share one scholarship in an equivalency sport, so they have to explain how that works.  Kids cannot share scholarships in a head count sport, so there is no need to address splitting scholarships.

Edited to add:  After reading another thread, I remembered something that I've heard other less than fully funded programs do (although do not have any first hand knowledge here).  Smaller state schools might peg the value of the financial aid at the in-state tuition so for kids from out-of-state, the financial aid will be less than a full-ride.  And I heard some will have a specified number of in-state and out-of-state scholarships available.  All can be awarded to girls from out-of-state, but some will only get the financial aid equivalent of an in-state.

[GooooMarquette]

Kinda surprised D1 hockey isn't considered a revenue sport.  It's big time at the vast majority of schools that have it.  In fact, can think of two schools that are D1 in hockey and D2 in everything else.

I figured there would be a few more, so I did a search.  Of the 60 D1 hockey schools, 16 are D2 in other sports, and 6 are in D3.  Way more than I expected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_ice_hockey_programs

No idea what kind of revenue these schools bring in, but pretty interesting that over one-third of all D1 hockey is played at lower-level athletic programs.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great, but be clear on the question and remember the NCAA staff often gets things wrong (including RPI calcs!... trust me, I know first hand).

Here's the question I'm going to ask, if you would like me to modify it, let me know.


"At the DI level, for all headcount sports, are partial scholarships allowable or must they be full grants only?  Are there any differences between men's hoops and football, say versus the three headcount women's sports?"