1. Overall, it seems like another good argument to decrease the football scholarship limit. Take another 15-20 away and spread them around men's non-revs...give baseball more benefit than others. Get it back to more than the last 10% cut.
2. The whole "baseball is the #2 championship revenue generator for the NCAA," while true, is a total red herring based on a fairly meaningless distinction or 2. Football generates the most money by a country mile. Men's basketball generates tons of money. Baseball is a $$$ sink for schools.
3. The whole "they're paying to play" comes off bad to me. Yes, in a way they are, but guess what? They're also paying significantly less than their peers to get an education just because they're good at baseball. And many are getting that opportunity when many other kids with better academic credentials but no baseball skills don't get it. A ton of players wouldn't sniff admission without baseball. That guy saying he hates negotiating fractions of scholarships with parents? Yeah, I get it, but does he realize how many parents would kill to have the opportunity to argue over whether a 0.28 scholarship or 0.32 one is enough to go to his school? Hell, even just to be recruited individually and face-to-face in their home.
4. The whole "schools with money have an advantage" is true, but hardly specific to baseball. I'm up for ways to level the playing field, but that's not really a baseball issue.
5. I wonder how things would change if we did away with equivalency and every sport only had full scholarships. Or how it would work if in equivalency sports, your only option was 0.5 or something. (beyond the obvious needed changes to some of the fractional limits)