<p>"“Unless an Ivy, I don’t think the other Div I schools can’t just field a sport at the NCAA level and not award the scholarships.”</p>
<p>Sure they can."</p>
<p>That’s right, they can. That’s why the swimming rules quoted above state that a school MAY offer 14 or 9.9 scholarships per year. They can offer less than that. This might be for financial reasons, or it might be because they are getting terrific walk-ons and don’t need to use all the scholarships they are allowed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just so not true. The Ivy League doesn’t get a special exemption from the NCAA. The Ivy League just sets its own rules which forbid athletic scholarships. The NCAA sets maximum numbers of scholarships per sport, not minimums. Any school or any conference can elect to use fewer than the maximum at any time. This happens all the time, often because the school’s athletic department just doesn’t have the funds to use all the scholarships available to it in every sport. But it can happen for other reasons, too; for example, an athlete may be kicked off the team and have their scholarship pulled for disciplinary reasons or for academic eligibility reasons. In principle, that frees up a scholarship (or a partial scholarship) for a member of the team not currently on scholarship to be rewarded, but there’s no requirement that the available scholarship be used; that’s discretionary with the coach and the athletic director, who may decide to hold it for a promising recruit for next year’s incoming class, or keep the money for financial reasons (perhaps to fund a currently unfunded scholarship slot in another sport), or hold it as an inducement for the dismissed athlete to get his or her act together, get reinstated to the team somewhere down the line, and get the schollie back.</p>
<p>Here’s a helpful article from the NY Times explaining some of this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html?pagewanted=all[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html?pagewanted=all</a></p>
<p>Here’s a key passage, directly on point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The N.C.A.A. also restricts by sport the number of scholarships a college is allowed to distribute, and the numbers for most teams are tiny when compared with Division I football and its 85-scholarship limit.</p>
<p>A fully financed men’s Division I soccer team is restricted to 9.9 full scholarships, for freshmen to seniors. These are typically divvied up among as many as 25 or 30 players. A majority of N.C.A.A. members do not reach those limits and are not fully financed in most of their sports.<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>Great article, bclintonk! It captures that “lore” and weird feedback loop that parents and kids get into. We have seen that where a private position coaches will fill a family full of ideas of glory about a kid. It’s a business at the club levels and parents can forget that. They get pie in the sky ideas about recruitment and potential payoff. I can’t tell you how many times people have asked my if my kid will be getting a sports scholarship. Really? Kid is good, but not THAT good and plays a low scholarship sport anyway. I have used the exact line that kid is way more likely to get good funding for academics (and did) than sports, and will choses a school for academics and let sports fall where they may. Kid has also received many random suggestions to switch from sport kid loves to sport kid hates but where casual bystanders think schollies might be more plentiful. Fortunately kid is level headed and we try to be 
but a lot of parents get sucked into the vortex.</p>
<p>My kids could have gotten sports scholarships if they had really pursued that venue. The oldest certainly could have, and I believe he did get one. The issue came down to whether to go for the money or for the “show”. Those schools where he could have gotten close to a full ride, he probably could have gotten substantial merit money anyways, were cinches for him admissions wise and not schools where he had any interest at all. My non athlete son got a full tuition award last year from one such school. </p>
<p>When one gets to the well known schools, really any school with name recognition, it becomes proportionately more difficult to get any money and even admissions can be dicey. That’s when it becomes a “dance” between the coach and your athlete as to whether he gets in, never mind the scholarship. For such schools even if there are athletic scholarships, the competition for them is high and in some sports the awards are sliced up so that an athlete may only get a sliver of money. My brother was an Olympian and did not get an athletic scholarship. DOn’t know if college even gave them for his sport. THis is from waaay back when, so this is no new thing about the non revenue sports even those that lead to Olympic levels not giving scholarships. THe new development that is really hurting sports like wrestling and swimming and gymnastics for men, is that the schools are dropping those programs entirely so that those going to college cannot continue in the sport under college auspices.</p>
<p>My D participates in a non-revenue NCAA Olympic sport where only 42 schools field teams over in D1/D2 & D3. In the last five years we’ve seen more talented girls quit the sport, because in her sport more than half of the school have rigid admissions standards and subsequently they field teams that are “terrible” and “undertalented” so you have people who participate in NCAA events for their gym class requirement. While I’d love to see the NCAA support non-revenue/Olympic sports, the schools themselves need to look at fielding a worthwhile teams to continue too support the Olympic mission and frankly that doesn’t seem to be their aim.</p>
<p>If I were a college president, I’d have trouble explaining why limited resources should go to further the Olympic mission. It’s a valuable one, but my donors gave to the school to further ITS mission. If the two missions happen to coincide, that’s wonderful, but if they don’t, it’s clear which one should win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not supposed to be. If the USA wants to continue greatness in the Olympics, it’s going to have to start supporting it through a variety of channels. I’d love for colleges to support more “non-revenue” sports both male and female, but with dwindling budgets and money coming from the state, these schools are having to make choices. Some of them are putting a higher priority into education through new academic buildings, greater financial aid for students, fine arts, etc. Others are spending dollars on football and basketball with hopes they hit the jackpot to support other sports.</p>
<p>Great point, schoolhouse. My D’s best friend is a fencer (don’t know her rank but is a “nationals” “junior Olympic” calliber) and was in that quandry of finding a school that offered her sport at a high level and satisfied her academic field of interest and was affordable and she would be admitted (high stats IB scholar but not quite Ivy). She did receive an athletic scholarship of some kind, but I don’t know how much it covers. She ended up choosing the better fit academic school with a fencing program that wasn’t quite as good.</p>
<p>Someone pointed out Alicia Sacramone as an example of an Ivy League Olympian and Rachael Flatt the figure skater will be attending Stanford, but one can’t expect that every Olympian also maintain those academic qualifications while excelling at their sport.</p>
<p>If Olympic Development is the goal, more non-revenue sports should follow USA Triathlon’s lead. Until last year, collegiate triathlon was a club-level only sport with no varsity programs or scholarships available.
USAT opened what they are calling the Elite Triathlon Academy in conjunction with the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Selected college-age triathletes live together and train at the OTC, and attend school at UCCS. Training and expenses are covered by USAT, not UCCS, but at school athletes receive the perks of a varsity athlete as far as scheduling classes, facilities access, etc.</p>
<p>Athletes who truly have olympic-caliber potential can qualify. Everyone else in the country competes at the club level, for the most part on their own dime.</p>
<p>[Elite</a> Triathlon Academy Launched at University of Colorado Colorado Springs - usatriathlon.org](<a href=“http://www.usatriathlon.org/news/articles/2011/06/elite-triathlon-academy-launched-at-university-of-colorado-colorado-springs.aspx]Elite”>http://www.usatriathlon.org/news/articles/2011/06/elite-triathlon-academy-launched-at-university-of-colorado-colorado-springs.aspx)</p>
<p>“Someone pointed out Alicia Sacramone as an example of an Ivy League Olympian…”</p>
<p>Wasn’t she a college dropout?</p>
<p>Maybe it was a different gymnast, then - someone attending Brown?</p>
<p>Just checked and you are correct mini - she did leave Brown</p>
<p>^ Are you trying to get this thread shut down? Take it somewhere else, it has nothing to so with collegiate or Olympic sports.</p>
<p>Actually it does - and I am not the one who tried to promote the University of Colorado Colorado Springs and the Olympic Training Center.</p>
<p>Carry on. I deleted the message.</p>
<p>Men’s football and basketball still stir the drink. Nothing else even moves the needle at the vast majority of schools.</p>
<p>[Campus</a> Connection: On-field success helps UW cash in on new media rights deal](<a href=“http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/campus_connection/campus-connection-on-field-success-helps-uw-cash-in-on/article_3c8eeb6a-b18b-11e1-95c9-0019bb2963f4.html]Campus”>http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/campus_connection/campus-connection-on-field-success-helps-uw-cash-in-on/article_3c8eeb6a-b18b-11e1-95c9-0019bb2963f4.html)</p>
<p>Seriously, parent1986? You are aware the title of this thread is “As colleges struggle to support non-revenue sports, U.S. Olympic future is threatened”. How is my post explaining one sport’s solution to the problem a “promotion of the OTC/UCCS?”</p>
<p>Yes, seriously jcc - promotion is just another way of telling someone about something. That is what you did.</p>
<p>However, as I think about this further after your second post, one has to wonder about the public and private partnership you are describing and how it impacts taxpayers.</p>
<p>Geez, parent1986- wrong side of the bed today?</p>
<p>I think the triathlon model is a great one. Colorado Springs is a great venue for all three sports and I think it’s a good partnership between the school and the Olympic Training Center. I doubt many taxpayers are out there carrying protest signs.</p>
<p>People in C Springs are quite supportive of the Olympic Training Center. I believe athletes resident there are allowed to take classes at in-state rates. </p>
<p>Given the training center and nearly twenty sports governing organizations located in the Springs, they’d be foolish not to. I suspect it contributes significantly to their economy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you’d also be concerned about students from UCCS who work in various roles at the OTC as well? Or maybe that do work at the AFA? I know a couple of professors out at UCCS who have students doing things at both the OTC and AFA AND have classes being taught by individuals from the NSCA which is a private organization…</p>