quote:
The scholarship rules hurt private schools way more than most public ones. Add to that a bunch of stuffed shirts on the admissions board that won't cut athletes any slack (NCAA standard is much lower than what they require) and recruiting is a bitch. Tulane does allow 12 "non-qualifiers" but football and basketball get all of them.

double d - I suspect the limit of just 12 "non-qualifiers" is just the tip of the iceberg. Rice also has a few spots for people that are not admitted through the normal Athletic admissions process which already allows a significantly lower standard for athletic admission.

Rice commissioned a study by an outside consulting firm to help the school decide whether to stay in D-1A. It revealed some interesting details about the impact of athletics on the Rice finances and the makeup of the student body. In 2003 the average non-athlete at Rice had an SAT score of 1428 which was in the top 2% of people taking the SAT test nationwide. The average athlete scored 1130, top 30%. School wide only about 5% of admits had SATs below 1100. The study doesn't say but I suspect most of those are athletes.

Mossyoak - In the 5 years from 1999 to 2003 Rice admitted about 4500 male students of which 1900 enrolled. They rejected almost 14,000. A least at Rice this means that Athletic scholarships are reducing university revenue. How much is an open question because a very large percentage of students get need based financial assistance.

As to the general idea that Title IX is why baseball scholarships are low, I think it is a small part of the overall equation. I think the cost of Athletics is getting too high for most schools and they have to cut somewhere.

My theory is that the loss of baseball scholarships is really to protect the billion dollar BCS football industry (AKA NFL minor leagues). Do you think any football team really needs 85 scholarships? Assume you have 22 first, second and third string players, 2 kickers and 2 punters. That still only 70 players. Even if you assume you've got 10 people injured at one time you still have 5 players on the fourth team. Suppose you cut 20 slots. Couldn't the 3rd team right guard also back up the 2nd team left guard? It makes financial sense but it also means 20 more good players going to the lower division 1-A schools and more upsets of the BCS schools in the non-conference schedule. It would make football more like baseball where schools like Rice, Tulane and CSF can compete. That would in turn jeopardize the big TV contracts and the big coaching contracts.