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. So, anyone on the football, men’s or women’s basketball, women’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics or women’s tennis teams is usually on a full scholarship if he or she is receiving aid. The number of scholarships these sports give out almost always equals the number of athletes on the roster.

Equivalency sports are different. In these sports, each team has a certain dollar amount in its scholarship “pot,” so the coach can split up the scholarship amounts however he or she wants. Usually in these sports, partial scholarships are given so that more athletes can be on aid. So if the value of a scholarship at Stanford is $50,000 per year, then Bob on the water polo team can get $10,000 per year in aid, James can get $15,000 and Joe can get $25,000, and that all falls under one scholarship for the water polo team (it would be three in a head count sport). It follows from here that it is harder to get a full scholarship in one of these equivalency sports because the coach would rather split up money and try to get as many good athletes as possible with the lure of at least some aid. Equivalency sports are all the sports at Stanford that are not headcount sports—baseball, softball, soccer, water polo, wrestling, etc. Coincidentally, the equivalency sports have some of the largest rosters of all the athletic teams.

Let’s take a look at these equivalency sports. At Stanford, men’s soccer gets 9.9 scholarships, men’s volleyball and men’s water polo both get 4.5 and baseball receives 11.7. The number of players that actively contribute to these teams is way more than the scholarship allotments. In fact, in soccer, volleyball and water polo, not even the whole starting lineup can be on full scholarship. Factor in key reserves and players who are not starters but definitely play a lot, and that makes a lot of deserving players for such a small amount of aid. In these sports, it is often the case that if you can qualify for financial aid and get more money than athletic aid would give you, then you will take the financial aid and open up the athletic aid for someone else.

Now let’s compare this to some other teams. There are 15 scholarships for women’s basketball, 20 for women’s rowing, eight for tennis, 12 for volleyball, 12 for gymnastics, 85 for football, 13 for men’s basketball and 12 for women’s squash. In all these sports, there is clearly an abundance of money. The starters are on full rides. The reserves are on full rides. The benchwarmers that seldom play are on full rides. Heck, someone who is injured and hasn’t competed in three years is probably on a full ride. This is where the scholarship picture gets muddled. There are national championship winners and contenders and multiple-time All-Americans in equivalency sports that are getting little to no scholarship aid. Yet there are people who may not see playing time, or who are third string, who have full scholarships. Speaking for the minds of many across the nation…is this fair?

But I can’t come down hard here. The third-string player on a full ride is probably quite good regardless. Athletes on teams at Stanford deserve to be here and deserve a spot on the team and a chance to compete. Whether they end up making the starting lineup could be argued as irrelevant. And there are also several players on full rides who succeed above and beyond most athletes at Stanford, so their scholarships are absolutely justifiable. But it is frustrating for some to see an unequal distribution of scholarship aid and unequal compensation for what is deemed to be aid based on outstanding performance.

So why are there equivalency and headcount sports? The NCAA’s basis for that is that headcount sports generally bring in more revenue for schools than equivalency (“Olympic”) sports, so they give the headcount sports more money per athlete to spend. Excluding football and basketball, which almost always generate the most revenue at Division I schools, you can debate whether the rest of the headcount sports are among the highest grossing. If you take headcount sports at Stanford, there is one full scholarship for about every 1.13 athletes (almost 1:1) and in equivalency sports, there is one full scholarship for about every 2.5 athletes. That is more than double for all you fuzzies out there. So these six sports are unlike the rest of the 25 teams on the Farm when it comes to athletic aid.

And behind the drama of equivalency and headcount sports is Title IX, which is the reason that the number of scholarships for females must equal the number of scholarships for males. It is often argued that females have an easier time getting athletic aid. Just think: 85 scholarships for the guys on the football team, so because there is no female equivalent to football, 85 additional scholarships must be dispersed among female sports to equalize. That gives an average of about four to five more full scholarships per female sport solely because of the football team at any Division I institution. In fact, after some math from GoStanford.com, I found that there is one full scholarship for every 2.15 male athletes and one full scholarship for every 1.8 female athletes. Not a large difference, but a difference indeed.

I think Title IX definitely has its place in society and in sports. In the bigger sense, it was a necessary change. Whether the individual effects of Title IX really evened the playing field, as was the goal, is a separate issue. As far as equivalency and headcount sports go, it doesn’t look like there is change coming from the NCAA on that matter. But it is something you can keep in mind when wondering about scholarships to student-athletes.

Someone out there is going to argue, “At least athletes are getting their education paid for…why are they complaining about the exact amount?” I will say that scholarships are a reward for talent and excellence exhibited for several years in the athletic arena (and at Stanford, coupled with quality in the classroom) just as your talent and excellence in and out of classroom got you into Stanford. The issue is not why athletes are getting money—it is about who is getting it and how much they are getting.

Speaking with a male athlete in an equivalency sport who has two All-Americans to his name and a National Championship ring on his finger and is not getting any athletic aid—he doesn’t like the system, not just for himself but for all his other athlete friends who are in the same position as him. They definitely have a right to be upset.

I have presented a bunch of unbiased facts here that reveal the deeper characteristics of athletic aid at colleges. Is the NCAA dishing out a good scholarship system? I think it’s up to you to decide.

Danny Belch almost opened up a huge storm by talking about Title IX. Ask him to elaborate his stance on the law at dbelch1 “at” stanford.edu.