Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    How is an Athletic Scholarship different from Financial Aid?

    Hello,

    How is an Athletic Scholarship different from receiving financial aid (if you qualify for it) in the amount equal to a year's tuition, room, and board? Does an Athletic Scholarship include more things--shoes, training room, tutors--that wouldn't be included if you were on the team, but didn't have an Athletic Scholarship?

    GO DUKE!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Athletic scholarships come from different pots of money than financial aid or merit scholarships (money from the athletic booster club/athletic budget instead of the school's academic scholarship funds, for example). The NCAA also watches over the athletic scholarships, regulating the number of scholarships and such.

    During my tenure, things like the weight room, training room, shoes/clothing, etc., were open to, or distributed equally to, all members of the team whether scholarship or not.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chester, VA
    An athletic scholarship covers room & board and tuition for the entire time an athlete holds that scholarship. They can lose them, they can gain them depending on the team's situation and needs.

    Financial Aid does not necessarily cover room and board and tuition and often times does not come close and is often for non-scholarship athletes and regular students. It's financial AID, not a scholarship. It is merely smaller amounts of money to assist one in paying their room and board and tuition. (And other costs such as books).

    Huge differences

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Got_Duke View Post
    An athletic scholarship covers room & board and tuition for the entire time an athlete holds that scholarship. They can lose them, they can gain them depending on the team's situation and needs.

    Financial Aid does not necessarily cover room and board and tuition and often times does not come close and is often for non-scholarship athletes and regular students. It's financial AID, not a scholarship. It is merely smaller amounts of money to assist one in paying their room and board and tuition. (And other costs such as books).

    Huge differences
    No difference at all from that perspective, as an athletic scholarship does not have to cover full room & board and tuition. Once you get past football and basketball, in fact, most athletic scholarships at Duke are partial scholarships.

  5. #5

    What about the Ivys? Could an athlete do this?

    Hi,

    I wonder sometimes, for example, that the Ivy League schools say they don't give out athletic scholarships--However, if a kid, let's say from Cambridge, Mass, qualifies for a lot of financial aid, enough to cover his going to school (books, room, board everything) and he would not have been admitted to the school if it not for his basketball prowess, how is that different from giving a kid an athletic scholarship and just calling it what it is? I am trying to get my head around this. I just don't see the difference. Is the difference simply that Financial Aid can't be taken away and a scholarship can? So a kid could go to Harvard based on his athletic skills to play let's say ice hockey for a year and then really screw the school by saying he no longer wanted to play and since it was Financial Aid it couldn't be taken away from him if he wanted to attend the next three years and get a degree? Just curious.

    GO DUKE!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kewlswim View Post
    Hi,

    I wonder sometimes, for example, that the Ivy League schools say they don't give out athletic scholarships--However, if a kid, let's say from Cambridge, Mass, qualifies for a lot of financial aid, enough to cover his going to school (books, room, board everything) and he would not have been admitted to the school if it not for his basketball prowess, how is that different from giving a kid an athletic scholarship and just calling it what it is? I am trying to get my head around this. I just don't see the difference. Is the difference simply that Financial Aid can't be taken away and a scholarship can? So a kid could go to Harvard based on his athletic skills to play let's say ice hockey for a year and then really screw the school by saying he no longer wanted to play and since it was Financial Aid it couldn't be taken away from him if he wanted to attend the next three years and get a degree? Just curious.

    GO DUKE!
    Your understanding is correct. Amaker himself has said this to recruits - that is, Harvard is free to a LOT of them (I believe like 80% of the b-ball team gets a full ride). If your parents make less than $80,000/yr, Harvard is free. And obviously most of these students wouldn't get into Harvard without their basketball skills - I'm not saying I disagree with preferential admittance (I clearly don't), just stating a fact. The thing that confuses me is what if a walk-on is on financial aid, does that count toward the scholarship limits at ACC schools? Why couldn't Sean Dockery, for example, have come to Duke and gotten a full ride through financial aid (I'm fairly certain his contribution would be close to nothing) and then "walk-on" to the basketball team? My understanding is that this would count towards the 13 scholarship limit, no? If that's the case, what if Steve Johnson was on financial aid, even a partial one (I have no idea if he is or not)? Does that not also count towards the 13? That wouldn't be fair that only students NOT on financial aid could potentially walk-on to teams. He clearly wasn't recruited to play basketball at Duke - maybe that's the difference. Obviously, I expect that anybody can tryout for teams. Was just wondering how the NCAA makes the distinction if a player legitimately walked-on or not. I asked this question about Johnson in the past, but nobody answered to the best of my knowledge.

    Edit: Woot! Post 1,000! I guess that could be seen as a bad thing...
    Last edited by Bluedog; 04-17-2009 at 04:16 PM.

  7. #7

    This whole system seems flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Your understanding is correct. Amaker himself has said this to recruits - that is, Harvard is free to a LOT of them (I believe like 80% of the b-ball team gets a full ride). If your parents make less than $80,000/yr, Harvard is free. And obviously most of these students wouldn't get into Harvard without their basketball skills - I'm not saying I disagree with preferential admittance (I clearly don't), just stating a fact. The thing that confuses me is what if a walk-on is on financial aid, does that count toward the scholarship limits at ACC schools? Why couldn't Sean Dockery, for example, have come to Duke and gotten a full ride through financial aid (I'm fairly certain his contribution would be close to nothing) and then "walk-on" to the basketball team? My understanding is that this would count towards the 13 scholarship limit, no? If that's the case, what if Steve Johnson was on financial aid, even a partial one (I have no idea if he is or not)? Does that not also count towards the 13? That wouldn't be fair that only students NOT on financial aid could potentially walk-on to teams. He clearly wasn't recruited to play basketball at Duke - maybe that's the difference. Obviously, I expect that anybody can tryout for teams. Was just wondering how the NCAA makes the distinction if a player legitimately walked-on or not. I asked this question about Johnson in the past, but nobody answered to the best of my knowledge.

    Edit: Woot! Post 1,000! I guess that could be seen as a bad thing...
    Hi,

    If schools push the envelope on what is fair and ethical recruiting, it would seem they would also push it in terms of mucking around with scholarships and financial aid. I bet Tommy would prefer to just give out Athletic Scholarships and not have to deal with this. I am guessing from your reply and the silence from others that theoretically a kid could really screw his Ivy League team. Fortunately, I think most kids are more honorable than some coaches out there and I imagine the situation I describe rarely if ever happens.

    I am a bit troubled by the idea that athletic scholarship can be revoked willy-nilly on an annual basis. I imagine there must be some sort of injury clause in there too. I can't imagine the school would say, "Sorry, you broke your back playing hoops, hope you feel better soon we are taking away your scholarship and giving it to someone else. Both the Registrar and Bursar can be found in the Allen Building in case you have any last minute details that need taking care of. I am sure someone can wheel you there."

    GO DUKE!

  8. #8
    A friend of mine who was recruited heavily by Princeton back in the late 90's was told he probably would never have to pay anything to go to school there. I would expect his parents made six figures combined. I guess there are no scholarships, but you only have to pay tuition if you're filthy rich.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kewlswim View Post
    I am a bit troubled by the idea that athletic scholarship can be revoked willy-nilly on an annual basis.
    This happened to Matt Gilroy, a hockey player at Boston U. BU assumed he was going to go pro after last year and as such revoked his scholarship because they thought he wouldn't need it. However, he came back and won the Hobey Baker Award (Heisman equivalent for NCAA Hockey) as well as the national title for BU, all without a scholarship.

    This whole scholarship/financial aid stuff is a mess if you ask me. I mean the best player in the nation isn't on a scholarship for his senior season?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Your understanding is correct. Amaker himself has said this to recruits - that is, Harvard is free to a LOT of them (I believe like 80% of the b-ball team gets a full ride). If your parents make less than $80,000/yr, Harvard is free. And obviously most of these students wouldn't get into Harvard without their basketball skills - I'm not saying I disagree with preferential admittance (I clearly don't), just stating a fact. The thing that confuses me is what if a walk-on is on financial aid, does that count toward the scholarship limits at ACC schools? Why couldn't Sean Dockery, for example, have come to Duke and gotten a full ride through financial aid (I'm fairly certain his contribution would be close to nothing) and then "walk-on" to the basketball team? My understanding is that this would count towards the 13 scholarship limit, no? If that's the case, what if Steve Johnson was on financial aid, even a partial one (I have no idea if he is or not)? Does that not also count towards the 13? That wouldn't be fair that only students NOT on financial aid could potentially walk-on to teams. He clearly wasn't recruited to play basketball at Duke - maybe that's the difference.
    And you're right, that is the difference. There is a technical definition of a "recruited athlete" in basketball, and if you're technically a recruited athlete, it counts against the limits. Johnson was a track athlete, so he wouldn't count against any limits for basketball.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kewlswim View Post
    Hi,

    If schools push the envelope on what is fair and ethical recruiting, it would seem they would also push it in terms of mucking around with scholarships and financial aid. I bet Tommy would prefer to just give out Athletic Scholarships and not have to deal with this. I am guessing from your reply and the silence from others that theoretically a kid could really screw his Ivy League team. Fortunately, I think most kids are more honorable than some coaches out there and I imagine the situation I describe rarely if ever happens.

    I am a bit troubled by the idea that athletic scholarship can be revoked willy-nilly on an annual basis. I imagine there must be some sort of injury clause in there too. I can't imagine the school would say, "Sorry, you broke your back playing hoops, hope you feel better soon we are taking away your scholarship and giving it to someone else. Both the Registrar and Bursar can be found in the Allen Building in case you have any last minute details that need taking care of. I am sure someone can wheel you there."

    GO DUKE!
    Well, there isn't an injury clause in there, but when you think about it, a school would be pretty foolish to continually cut off kids that have career ending injuries. In football, for example, this happens quite often. If a school constantly pulled all aid for a kid that had his football career ended, it would be pretty difficult to attract recruits. What ends up happening at Duke, as well as most places, is that if a kid has his playing career ended by injury, the school still offers him the opportunity to complete his degree if he wants to.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by gvtucker View Post
    And you're right, that is the difference. There is a technical definition of a "recruited athlete" in basketball, and if you're technically a recruited athlete, it counts against the limits. Johnson was a track athlete, so he wouldn't count against any limits for basketball.
    So how did the year Lee Melchionni agreed to pay his own way fit into this equation? Was he not a recruited athlete until we had a scholarship available?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by turnandburn55 View Post
    So how did the year Lee Melchionni agreed to pay his own way fit into this equation? Was he not a recruited athlete until we had a scholarship available?
    He wasn't on financial aid. I think that if he was recruited, and one year agreed to not have an athletic scholarship, but he qualified for financial aid, he would would to also turn down the financial aid or else he would have counted towards the 13. Since he paid the whole ticker price, he clearly doesn't count towards the 13 scholarships. At least, that's my understanding.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    A kid I went to high school with was recruited by Harvard for lacrosse (and ended up going there.) He said he was told, point-blank, the check would be in the mail as soon as he signed.

    I don't know the history behind the Ivy Leagues not giving athletic scholarships, but it seems silly to just put on the pretense of not giving them.

  15. #15

    scholarship

    Quote Originally Posted by gvtucker View Post
    And you're right, that is the difference. There is a technical definition of a "recruited athlete" in basketball, and if you're technically a recruited athlete, it counts against the limits. Johnson was a track athlete, so he wouldn't count against any limits for basketball.
    This is absolutely wrong.

    The NCAA has a heirarchy of sports to prevent schools from evading the scholarship limits in the major sports by giving them scholarships in the non-revenue sports.

    If, for instance, a player on a track scholarship plays football, he counts against the football limit. If a tennis player (on scholarship) plays basketball, he counts against basketball. Football trumps everything -- if Greg Paulus had ever gone out for football, he would have counted against the football limit, not the basketball limit. Basketball is second on the list.

    Don't know Steve Johnson's scholarship situation with track, but if he gets anything, even a partial, it counts against basketball's limit. Back when Jay Heaps was a soccer all-American and a basketball scrub, he counted against basketball.

    That applies to being a recruited athlete on an athletic scholarship -- if you're recruited in any sport, it counts against football or basketball (if you play those sports).

    The question of recruited or non-recruited athlete IS very important when it comes to financial aid. A kid that is on financial aid, as opposed to an athletic scholarship, can come out for football and basketball and not count against the limits IF that person was non-recruited -- in any sport -- by that school.

    The difference between an athletic scholarship and financial aid is simple -- the former is an award given solely for athletic prowess; the latter is given to meet financial need.

    While it's common to break up athletic grants in non-revenue sports, in the two major sports, scholarships are almost always full grants -- covering room, board, tuition, equipment and a few other carefully defined items.

    I would be surprised if very many financial aid students get as much as a kid on a full athletic scholarship. At least when I was in school, there was a formula, depending on your family income ... it was assumed that your parents would contribute a certain amount of their income/net worth to the total. I'm sure there are some kids so poor that they get everything from financial aid, but I can't imagine a middle-class family escaping some payment, even for the richest schools.

    Indeed, the way the financial aid tables work, a family would pay just as much out-of-pocket to put a kid through a cheap school such as ECU as through an expensive one, such as Princeton ... it's just that in the first case, the same family contribution might cover 50 percent of the cost, while in the latter case, it would cover less than 10 percent of the cost.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Smile Recruiting /= Scholly

    Quote Originally Posted by turnandburn55 View Post
    So how did the year Lee Melchionni agreed to pay his own way fit into this equation? Was he not a recruited athlete until we had a scholarship available?
    Lee paid his own way freshman year, so he didn't count against the scholly limit for obvious reasons.

    sagegrouse

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    This is absolutely wrong.

    The NCAA has a heirarchy of sports to prevent schools from evading the scholarship limits in the major sports by giving them scholarships in the non-revenue sports.

    If, for instance, a player on a track scholarship plays football, he counts against the football limit. If a tennis player (on scholarship) plays basketball, he counts against basketball. Football trumps everything -- if Greg Paulus had ever gone out for football, he would have counted against the football limit, not the basketball limit. Basketball is second on the list.

    Don't know Steve Johnson's scholarship situation with track, but if he gets anything, even a partial, it counts against basketball's limit. Back when Jay Heaps was a soccer all-American and a basketball scrub, he counted against basketball.

    That applies to being a recruited athlete on an athletic scholarship -- if you're recruited in any sport, it counts against football or basketball (if you play those sports).

    The question of recruited or non-recruited athlete IS very important when it comes to financial aid. A kid that is on financial aid, as opposed to an athletic scholarship, can come out for football and basketball and not count against the limits IF that person was non-recruited -- in any sport -- by that school.

    The difference between an athletic scholarship and financial aid is simple -- the former is an award given solely for athletic prowess; the latter is given to meet financial need.

    While it's common to break up athletic grants in non-revenue sports, in the two major sports, scholarships are almost always full grants -- covering room, board, tuition, equipment and a few other carefully defined items.

    I would be surprised if very many financial aid students get as much as a kid on a full athletic scholarship. At least when I was in school, there was a formula, depending on your family income ... it was assumed that your parents would contribute a certain amount of their income/net worth to the total. I'm sure there are some kids so poor that they get everything from financial aid, but I can't imagine a middle-class family escaping some payment, even for the richest schools.

    Indeed, the way the financial aid tables work, a family would pay just as much out-of-pocket to put a kid through a cheap school such as ECU as through an expensive one, such as Princeton ... it's just that in the first case, the same family contribution might cover 50 percent of the cost, while in the latter case, it would cover less than 10 percent of the cost.
    I wasn't referring to a basketball scholarship vs a track scholarship, I was talking about being on athletic scholarship vs being on financial aid. If you're a recruited athlete, financial aid does count against the scholarship limits, as you noted. I thought, though, that the definition of a recruited athlete was sport specific, as in you could be a recruited athlete in one sport but not another. But hey, you prolly know more about it than I do.

Similar Threads

  1. athletic scholarships
    By tecumseh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 01:02 PM
  2. Greatest Athletic Performance Of All Time...
    By DevilHorse in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-27-2007, 09:48 PM
  3. Michael W. Krzyzewski Center for Athletic Excellence
    By DukeUsul in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 08:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •