NCAA Scholarship Award Limits Per Sport, Division I and II Universities
The following table indicates the total number of scholarships which can be offered by division, sport, and gender for a fully funded university athletics program.
Armed with these numbers, families can appreciate why we discuss fractional scholarships (between 0.25 and 0.50 scholarships) being offered to entering freshmen. Once you read these numbers, you will quickly understand that it is very unlikely that a freshman player on a team of 25 players will get a "full ride" in their first year for athletics alone.
Remember, academic scholarships are typically more valuable, easier to get, and they are not reversed if you cannot play or decide to quit your collegiate team.
2010-2011 Guide for the College Bound Student-Athlete
Recruiting Rules for Men's and Women's Lacrosse - Division II Only Rules
Recruiting materials - coach may begin sending printed materials starting September 1st of your junior year
Telephone calls - you may call coach at your expense only, college coach may contact you once per week beginning June 15th between junior and senior years.
Off-campus contact - a college coach may contact you or your parents/guardians off the college's campus beginning June 15th between junior and senior years. Three in-person contacts off-campus is the limit.
Official Visit - you may make official visits starting the opening day of classes in your senior year. You may make one visit to a given college and visit up to five Division I and Division II schools.
Unofficial Visit - you may make an unlimited number of unofficial visits.
Re: NCAA Rules and Regulations
#857 04/17/1109:49 AM04/17/1109:49 AM
Inside that document, the most important contact points are the following : Contact the NCAA Eligibility Center to determine your status - Go to www.eligibilitycenter.org or call 877/262-1492. To answer your question, Page 9 seems to be the critical point.
Written permission-to-contact Generally, if you are enrolled as a full-time student at an NCAA or National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) four-year school and you want to transfer to a different NCAA school to play, your current school’s athletics director must give written permission-to-contact to the new coach or member of the athletics staff before you or your parents can talk with one of them. That is called having a permission-to-contact letter.
You may write to any NCAA school saying that you are interested in transferring, but the new coach must not discuss transfer opportunities with you unless he or she has received written permission-to-contact from your current school.
If your current school does not give you written permission-to-contact, another school cannot contact you and encourage you to transfer. This does not preclude you from transferring; however, if the new school is in Division I or II, you cannot receive an athletics scholarship until you have attended the new school for one academic year.
Also, if your current school officials deny your request to permit another institution to contact you about transferring, they must tell you in writing that you have a right to appeal the decision. In that instance, a panel of individuals from your current school who are not involved in athletics will conduct a hearing to decide the issue.
Do not talk to another school’s coach until you know the rules about receiving written permission.
When do you not need written permission-to-contact? In Divisions I and II, if you are transferring from a school that is not a member of the NCAA or NAIA, you do not need written permission-to-contact.
Also, if you are now in Division III, you may issue your own release (called a self-release) to allow another Division III school to contact you about transferring. The self-release applies only to transfer student-athletes from a Division III school to another Division III school.
Defeat of Phone Call Proposal Makes NCAA Clean Up Harder July 18, 2011 By John Infante
Proposal 2010-30 was supposed to the start of major deregulation of the recruiting rules. It wasn’t supposed to be about what the actual phone call rules were. Rather, it was about the fact that there are currently seven different regulations for when and how often a coach can call a prospect and their parents. The new rule would have cut that to three. Still not ideal, but a massive improvement over the current system.
After Proposal 2010-30 was passed with overwhelming support, coaches and administrators balked. Many of the comments on the 106 override requests opposed a move toward earlier recruiting and thought the increased workload would give an advantage to schools with larger coaching (and noncoaching) staffs.
Fewer rules slims down the Manual and cuts down on the cost of monitoring since you spend less time training staff on numerous rules. It also sets a baseline rule that could then be tweaked rather than creating a new rule on a sport-by-sport basis. A lot of inertia on basic recruiting rules would have been broken.
Instead we’ll keep the current set of rules. And more importantly, a bigger proposal coming this year that removes limits on the frequency of calls now looks much less likely to pass. That proposal will cut down dramatically on monitoring costs since schools would only need to check that coaches are not calling prospects too early. Proactive monitoring systems would also become much more affordable and accessible for smaller schools.
It’s an issue of priorities. The membership has reiterated that early recruiting and competitive equity are still major priorities. But if extra benefits, agent activity, and pay-for-play are also priorities, that means something has to give, in this case having a smaller, simpler rule book which requires less administrative overhead to maintain and enforce. It also means more resources have to be spent on compliance rather than something else, which is good or bad depending on where you sit.
There’s talk now that just about every rule is becoming untenable. Amateurism, initial eligibility, recruiting regulations, financial aid limits, and staff limitations have come under fire. It’s likely only a matter of time before the concept of eligibility itself is challenged. If we’re going to declare rules failed though, we should start with the little ones that take a lot of time and effort first, rather than jumping straight to core values.
The Division I Legislative Council during its conference call Thursday narrowly defeated a proposal that would have allowed earlier phone contact with recruits in sports other than football and men’s basketball.
The Council’s action averts an override vote on the matter unless the Division I Board of Directors acts differently at its Aug. 11 meeting.
The Legislative Council in April adopted legislation (Proposal No. 2010-30) that would have allowed schools:
•One telephone call per month to a prospect (or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) on or after June 15 at the end of the prospect’s sophomore year in high school through July 31 after the prospect’s junior year; •Two telephone calls per week beginning Aug. 1 before the prospect’s senior year in high school; and •One telephone call per week to a two-year or four-year college prospect (or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians).
The legislation is what currently is in place for men’s basketball, and proponents of Proposal No. 2010-30 liked the idea of uniform contact rules for other sports. After it was adopted, though, 106 schools submitted override requests by the June 27 deadline, which not only required the Legislative Council to revisit the proposal (it takes 30 override requests to prompt that action), but that total also exceeded the 100 requests necessary to suspend the legislation.
Of the 29 conferences present and voting on Thursday’s call, 14 retained support and 15 voted to defeat the proposal. Because of the Council’s weighted-vote structure for conferences, the actual tally was 24.0 in support and 24.3 to defeat, meaning the legislation previously adopted is now rescinded.
The Board of Directors will review the action Aug. 11 and does have the authority to resurrect the proposal. If the presidents do so, that would require a membership override vote later this year.
The discussion on Thursday’s conference call reflected the ongoing debate of earlier access and the burdens placed on the compliance community to monitor phone calls and electronic communication. Some conference representatives who voted to support the legislation in April said they had several individual league members subsequently request an override.
Coincidentally, the Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet in July proposed legislation to eliminate limits on the number and frequency of telephone calls to prospects (though it would not change the permissible date on which institutions may begin calling prospects or who makes the calls).
The cabinet also proposed allowing all forms of electronic correspondence (such as email and texts) to be sent to recruits starting at the same time that phone contact is allowed in a given sport.
Both of those proposals – neither of which would affect the time at which contact could begin to be made with recruits, but both of which affect the methods of the contact – will be acted upon during the 2011-12 legislative cycle.
So this means no change from how things are right now, correct?
Basically, yes. Nothing is changing regarding phone call recruitment rules for lacrosse. However, what this does point out is that the NCAA is becoming increasingly aware that early signings (verbals) are taking place and these are being done on the edge of the rules. The rules themselves are becoming increasingly difficult to understand much less police.
If you are a University Compliance officer reporting to the NCAA, are you really able to accurately manage seven different sets of phone call regulations, particularly if you are at a Division I sports program with two dozen sports and 500 athletes?
The following links provide details on the academic qualifications required of NCAA Freshman. While most students will not run afoul of these requirements, these are certainly worth reviewing as student-athletes prepare for college showcases and coaching discussions.
The following NCAA By-Law deals with College Coaches working with local sports clubs in their home community. Herein you will find the discussion of the "50-Mile Rule" dealing with how far an individual student-athlete can commute to be part of the local sports club and still coached by the associated college coach.
Bylaw 188.8.131.52 – Local Sports Clubs In sports other than basketball, an institution’s coach may be involved in any capacity (e.g., as a participant, administrator or in instructional or coaching activities) in the same sport for a local sports club or organization located in the institution’s home community, provided all prospective student-athletes participating in said activities are legal residents of the area (within a 50-mile radius of the institution). In all sports, an institution’s coach may be involved in any capacity (e.g., as a participant, administrator or in instructional or coaching activities) in a sport other than the coach’s sport for a local sports club or organization located in the institution’s home community, provided all prospective student-athletes participating in said activities are legal residents of the area (within a 50-mile radius of the institution). Further, in club teams involving multiple teams or multiple sports, the 50-mile radius is applicable only to the team with which the institution’s coach is involved; however, it is not permissible for the coach to assign a prospective student-athlete who lives outside the 50-mile area to another coach of the club. A coach also may be involved in activities with individuals who are not of a prospective student-athlete age, regardless of where such individuals reside. (In women’s volleyball, see Bylaw 184.108.40.206 for regulations relating to a coach’s involvement with a local sports club and the permissible number of evaluation days.) (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/16/93, 9/6/00, 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02, 5/11/05)
220.127.116.11.1 Exception The 50-mile radius restriction shall not apply to a prospective student-athlete who resides outside a 50-mile radius of the institution, provided the institution documents that the local sports club is the closest opportunity for the prospective student-athlete to participate in the sport. (Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
18.104.22.168.2 Legal Resident A prospective student-athlete who relocates to an area within a 50-mile radius of the institution on a temporary basis (e.g., to participate on a club team or attend an institution while maintaining a permanent residence outside of the 50-mile radius) is not a legal resident of the area regardless of whether the prospective student-athlete meets legal standards of state or local residency for governmental purposes. (Adopted: 9/18/07)
22.214.171.124.3 Institutional Sponsorship of Local Sports Club Neither an institution’s athletics department nor an institution’s athletics booster group may sponsor a local sports club that includes prospective student-athletes. It is permissible for a department of the institution that operates independent of the athletics department (e.g., physical education department, recreation department) to sponsor a local sports club that includes prospective student-athletes, provided no athletics department staff member is involved with the club team. (Adopted: 1/16/93, Revised: 1/11/94)