What I mean by that is that offering in-state for only 100% athletes doesn't really help a school get around the 9.9 scholarship limit. A 100% wrestler is paying zero whether he gets in-state or out-of-state tuition, so it makes no difference to him either way. For those athletes, the in-state tuition subsidy only saves a bit of money in the athletic department's budget.

If the subsidy is available to athletes on partial scholarships, it's a much bigger deal. An out-of-state 50% scholarship athlete at VT would pay $25K/year out of pocket at VT, while an in-state athlete would be paying maybe $12K/year. So an in-state tuition subsidy would turn a 50% scholarship as far as the 9.9 limit goes into a 75% scholarship as far as the athlete is concerned.

The further down the subsidy goes, the bigger the difference becomes. If you can offer it for someone on 10% scholarship, in-state tuition turns that into a 55% scholarship for an out-of-state athlete.

I don't know if @HokieToph is right or not about it being only available for 100% scholarships.

EDIT: I should add that even if it's only available for 100% athletes, the in-state tutition subsidy would be a huge financial windfall for football with its 85 full scholarship budget. If you have 40 out-of-state football players, an in-state tuition subsidy would save the program $1M/year on scholarships alone.
[Post edited by nvpbrown at 03/13/2022 12:01PM]