A friend of my sons was already cut as a freshman at his new college. The coach said he over-recruited. My son is also being considered for the Class of 2018 AFTER the coach decides how many of the incoming freshmen he is going to cut. Is this the norm? The 2017s are just now playing Fall Baseball. In his friend's case, he will never experience a college game?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
c5tx posted:A friend of my sons was already cut as a freshman at his new college. The coach said he over-recruited. My son is also being considered for the Class of 2018 AFTER the coach decides how many of the incoming freshmen he is going to cut. Is this the norm? The 2017s are just now playing Fall Baseball. In his friend's case, he will never experience a college game?
If your friends son was already cut before the the end of semester it wasn't because the coach over recruited or he had an athletic scholarship. What division? Be more specific please.
This isn't normalike, but to answer your question, often D3 AND JUCO coaches over recruit, knowing the will cut players.
D3 for friend's son. Coach told him he over-recruited; and cut him.
But the other college is a D1 that is considering my son. Looked back in history and they cut 3-4 freshman every year. Big red flag.
I remember you posted a question about "no response" from coaches and got some good feedback and things eventually worked out. Similarly, there are a ton of reasons not visible (at least at first glance) to us outsiders why college coaches must over-recruit to an extent. That extent varies. You have to think about the process... they wish to recruit the best players they can for all positional needs and have plenty of depth to allow for injuries, grades, poor performance, leave school, etc. Answers from players don't all come in a timely manner. They have to have plan B thru Z. They can't afford to come up short. It is impossible to get it exactly right. They can afford to come up with too many.
Freshman year cuts are very real. Sometimes they are massive blood baths. They happen later years as well. It is important that your son have good direct dialog with the HC about where he sees him fitting in the program before he accepts an offer. Getting some athletic scholarship $ is at least some skin in the game on their part. Even then, it is still 100% up to your son to then show up and deliver on what the HC thinks he saw in him. And then, he has to keep doing it day in and day out. And then, the next year (or even over the winter break), new recruits will be brought in. It is also the coaching staff's job to bring in better players than the ones they have.
When son knows this is the reality and embraces it, he will be in the best position to flourish in the environment of actively earning his spot every day for the next four or five years.
Regarding your comment - "My son is also being considered for the Class of 2018 AFTER the coach decides how many of the incoming freshmen he is going to cut. Is this the norm?" ...
Well, as stated, it's not out of the norm to cut freshmen. But, for me, that's a new way to tell a recruit you are delaying his offer. Strange, IMO.
Agree with you...players must work hard...the tryout never ends. Just trying to learn how things are these days. A good friend played D1 at a major college back in the 90s. I asked him...and he said they redshirted kids; but never cut them. Some left for academic reasons...but no cuts. Just wondering if it is the norm for coaches to over-recruit and plan on cutting? I don't think it was that way years ago.
When I see this type of conversation I start thinking of the importance of "fit", whether it be a D1 player going to a D3 or not. Was it the right college aside from baseball? These college coaches are searching for the best players to put on their roster, regardless of D1 or D3. Coach's have a job, and doing well at said job, will potentially lead to a better job and higher paying job. The sooner that players and their parents understand this, the better off they'll be. This is probably the reason some D3's are much better than some D1's; players found a fit where they could thrive as a student, as well as a player. Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.
And, I wish my kid hadn't been a late bloomer...or that we hadn't been off on the recruiting timeline...
He will be fine; solid D1 skills that will prevail at a D3 matched up with a top education prepared for the future.
Great stuff on this site.
This has been a good reminder - have seen a lot on over recruiting, but not much on cutting. Cabbage, thanks for the great advice as usual. And as I see here at least once a week, the "Go where you're loved" mantra makes perfect sense.
"Go where you're loved..." I think that might be the right decision. Thanks.
Even if a coach doesn’t cut players who wants to be player #40 on a roster? College ball isn’t about getting on a roster. It’s about receiving the opportunity to earn your way on to the field and stay there. Being on the back end of a roster is no guarantee of getting an opportunity.
Was the D3 a recruited player?
FYI, any freshman who signed an NLI at a D1 or D2 program normally will not be cut his first season.
Any freshman who walked onto a program (no NLI) can easily be cut end of the semester.
You can only carry 35 on the roster. Would you bring in 35 players with a max of 35 allowed? How many would you actually end up with after the fall? Academic casualties? Injuries? Players who don't get with the program and have to be excused for a multitude of reasons? It is very easy to only look at this from the players perspective.
If you are an incoming freshman getting money you are safe the first year unless academic issues or disciplinary issues arise. But after that all bets are off. When you look around at the start of the fall season and there are 42 players present everyone knows they better get after it and be on point because at least 7 guys will not be there after the fall. This creates a very competitive environment and incentive to not give the staff a reason to make you one of those 7 guys that have to be gone. If everyone were to look around and see 35 guys at the start of the fall season would the environment be the same?
Coaches want enough players available to be able to have some choices to make. I can tell you at the JUCO level you will see 60 to 70 guys at some programs when the fall starts. At the D2 level 40 to 50 is not uncommon. The bottom line is very few players are going to have things go exactly as they would like them to go. If you are one of those 35 players great. Now how many of those 35 players are going to have a significant role? Only 9 or 10 position players are actually going to play. Out of those pitchers how many are going to get significant innings?
College baseball is tough. You better be tough. You better come in squared away. You better show value on the field and no issues off the field. Otherwise be prepared to deal with a host of issues.
Some great replies here but I think some are dancing around the original topic a little here.
Yes, many (not all) college coaches are over recruiting these days and cutting players. And it happens at D1's in the form of players being pressured to transfer out, being told they won't play etc
This is partly a symptom of kids committing at early ages and the NCAA coaches having only guesses as to which 9th & 10th graders are going straight to the MLB draft, which will be contributors, and which will be busts. Lots of projection of 14 & 15 year olds going on and it is out of control.
Yes. It is happening. Yes, it is a problem.
c5tx posted:D3 for friend's son. Coach told him he over-recruited; and cut him.
But the other college is a D1 that is considering my son. Looked back in history and they cut 3-4 freshman every year. Big red flag.
You say "cut", but there may be much more to the story and you can't necessarily draw the simple conclusion that a coach will over recruit with plans to cut. For example, are you certain that the 3-4 you mention were actually cut and didn't simply choose to leave on their own? Were they red-shirted? Injured?
A few examples. A HS teammate of my son's has already left his team (staying at the school). In a nutshell, he wasn't cut out for this particular program. At my son's school, a couple of freshmen are hearing about possible red-shirting next season. Another is having surgery, so a medical red-shirt is planned.
When you hear of 3-4 being cut, it's important to know if those were scholarship or walk-on players. Not typical that scholarship guys would be cut in freshman fall season.
My point is that there's probably a lot more backstory that will bring context to what you're seeing. Based on fully understanding the situation, you can see how those might impact your son, i.e. if he's scholarship and all the cuts have been walk-on players, then probably a fairly safe assumption he wouldn't be cut in the fall.
With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
And as 3and2 points out, over recruiting is a reality at all levels. That will lead to players being cut, "encouraged" to leave (no playing time, told in advance no playing time, etc), etc. It is a reality. I don't think that early recruiting is as much of the problem as I think those early recruits that don't develop simply never see an LOI from that school. I think the early recruiting will lead to more decommits in baseball than we've seen before.
Some coaches are known for over recruiting and cutting, so certainly understand the history of the programs your son is considering, and to my earlier point, make sure you understand the real history and context of what you see.
CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Do you believe that there's no drama at JUCO? So they can carry a roster of 60 and you don't think there's drama when 9 can be on the field at a time? Sounds a lot like HS where (sarcasm font key lock on) there's never any drama.
Nuke83 posted:CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Do you believe that there's no drama at JUCO? So they can carry a roster of 60 and you don't think there's drama when 9 can be on the field at a time? Sounds a lot like HS where (sarcasm font key lock on) there's never any drama.
Can we get a drama free emoji?
Coach May nailed it. If your son is entering the world of college athletics...baseball, he (and you) had better be tough. At all times and at all levels.
If you cannot cut it academically, you will be gone soon enough. If you cannot separate yourself as a contributing member of the team on the field, you will be gone eventually. If you are looking for any guarantees, you are fooling yourself.
Coaches do not have time to carry players that they don't think help them achieve their mission....winning baseball games and graduating players. (Likewise, players who find themselves not contributing get frustrated and are usually bad for team chemistry - making the coach's job harder and the player very unhappy).
Its a tryout every minute your son is on the field, in the classroom, on campus. Whether he has a scholarship or not, he must prove himself...then re-prove himself time and time again.
If you believe its a red flag, then you have to believe its a red flag for all of college athletics. There are simply no guarantees. This is not recent, it has been this way for sure since our older son entered in 2004.
CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Juco at some levels is no picnic either. you have 2 years and you have to contribute right away.
Yes, sometimes kids that were early recruited don't get an NLI, but in general coaches want to keep that to a minimum. They don't want to get a bad reputation in that regard. They are competing with other top schools for the best 9th & 10th graders in the country and don't want to give ammunition to other schools to say "you know they pulled offers from X amount of kids, can you really trust them?" Etc etc
3and2Fastball posted:Yes, sometimes kids that were early recruited don't get an NLI, but in general coaches want to keep that to a minimum. They don't want to get a bad reputation in that regard. They are competing with other top schools for the best 9th & 10th graders in the country and don't want to give ammunition to other schools to say "you know they pulled offers from X amount of kids, can you really trust them?" Etc etc
Five years ago I would have agreed with you. Today, no way. No matter what, the schools/coaches hold all the advantage in the recruiting game. Don't kid yourself if you believe otherwise.
justbaseball posted:Coach May nailed it. If your son is entering the world of college athletics...baseball, he (and you) had better be tough. At all times and at all levels.
If you cannot cut it academically, you will be gone soon enough. If you cannot separate yourself as a contributing member of the team on the field, you will be gone eventually. If you are looking for any guarantees, you are fooling yourself.
Coaches do not have time to carry players that they don't think help them achieve their mission....winning baseball games and graduating players. (Likewise, players who find themselves not contributing get frustrated and are usually bad for team chemistry - making the coach's job harder and the player very unhappy).
Its a tryout every minute your son is on the field, in the classroom, on campus. Whether he has a scholarship or not, he must prove himself...then re-prove himself time and time again.
If you believe its a red flag, then you have to believe its a red flag for all of college athletics. There are simply no guarantees. This is not recent, it has been this way for sure since our older son entered in 2004.
This is a great post. I am definitely NOT the type of person who would say "this or that is unfair" nor do I spend much time wishing things were different. I prefer to deal in reality. It is what it is. That really applies to so much in life, not just Baseball...
The big thing is going in "eyes wide open" and I think it needs to be thought through in terms of "pre-college" too. Does the director of a travel program have integrity? Can he really help in the recruiting process? Etc
Strange to hear of a coach cutting a kid at a D3 and using "over-recruited" as the reason. There is no over recruiting at D3's....there are no roster limits and the kids don't get money from baseball. I'm not suggesting anything, as I don't know the situation, but D3 coaches typically don't cut kids in the fall....and certainly not because of over recruiting. The coach could have already seen enough to tell the kid that he likely won't see any significant (or any) playing time....or maybe the kid just fell out of love with the program and decided that competing against 50 other guys wasn't for him and used the over recruited thing as a way to get out and put the blame on the coach. Again, not suggesting either way, just seems strange.
That being said, kids need to understand the situation before they go to a school....any school, whether it's D1, NAIA, Juco, whatever. Look at past years.....talk to current players/parents, etc. If you don't do the homework on potential schools, there's nobody to blame but yourself if things don't go the way you expected. Some D1's never bring in extra guys.....some bring in 5 or 6 extra (or more) every fall and make cuts. You'll never know if you don't ask.
bacdorslider posted:CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Juco at some levels is no picnic either. you have 2 years and you have to contribute right away.
IMO, juco is even riskier from a baseball perspective. Many of those NCAA guys who were cut or red-shirted are coming after your position in the spring. Even if you make the spring roster as a freshman, the next fall another boatload of freshmen and transfers will show up looking to replace you.
Find the right fit, regardless of division.
Coach May absolutely nailed this. If you want to play baseball at the next level — you had better be ready to earn it. Being good in high school only gets you in the door. What you do once you are there is up to you. People all too often want some sort of guarantee and that isn’t the way life works.
Players and parents get confused all the time about exerting energy trying to control things they have no influence over. If you are smart you figure out how to spend time on the things you do have a level of control over — when do you show up, hard hard you hustle, how hard you study, the choices you make about parties, how you treat your teammates, how much work you put in when no one is looking, etc… — then let the rest go.
bacdorslider posted:CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Juco at some levels is no picnic either. you have 2 years and you have to contribute right away.
CaCO, one of my sons went the JC route the first three years (one redshirt), two different California JC's. Each of the three years, there were no fewer than 85 players that showed up in the fall with the majority being good players - at a minimum, all-league at their respective HS's. These JC's typically ended up with about 28 on the Spring roster. So, over those three years, he experienced nearly 200 of his friends/teammates getting cut in the fall.
One of the JC's was also notorious for asking several freshmen to redshirt so they can develop physically before starting their college playing career. So, immediately into the freshman year, the student/athlete is asked to fall behind a year in his college academic progress. Then, he has to go through the recruiting process all over again into a 4-year school. Then, he has to hope all the classes transfer properly (often, they don't). Then, he's the new guy again, trying to earn his spot with an entirely different group of coaches and players.
Certainly, there is no lack of drama going the JC route.
MAM posted:Coach May absolutely nailed this. If you want to play baseball at the next level — you had better be ready to earn it. Being good in high school only gets you in the door. What you do once you are there is up to you. People all too often want some sort of guarantee and that isn’t the way life works.
Players and parents get confused all the time about exerting energy trying to control things they have no influence over. If you are smart you figure out how to spend time on the things you do have a level of control over — when do you show up, hard hard you hustle, how hard you study, the choices you make about parties, how you treat your teammates, how much work you put in when no one is looking, etc… — then let the rest go.
Reminds me of a quotes I heard in an ESPN special when they were exploring student-athlete academic eligibility. One football player was quoted, and I am paraphrasing, that there really wasn't enough time to perform well both on the football field and in the classroom (I believe this player played at Miami), so they had a saying "C's get degrees."
Being an athlete who has the prospect of going pro in a sport is much different than most of the talent level of most of our kids. I can see where a player would make those concessions in order to achieve the larger goal of being drafted. Putting yourself in a competitive sport at the college level is not easy. I can understand why coaches over-recruit.
Gov posted:When I see this type of conversation I start thinking of the importance of "fit", whether it be a D1 player going to a D3 or not. Was it the right college aside from baseball? These college coaches are searching for the best players to put on their roster, regardless of D1 or D3. Coach's have a job, and doing well at said job, will potentially lead to a better job and higher paying job. The sooner that players and their parents understand this, the better off they'll be. This is probably the reason some D3's are much better than some D1's; players found a fit where they could thrive as a student, as well as a player. Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.
Do you feel your son was D1 talent? Just curious because from your posts here it seems that you are bitter, that perhaps your son belongs at a D1 and not a D3. I would imagine if a player has the option to play D1 and get scholarship money most would take the chance and see how it works out. I have heard that a few D1 kids will transfer and play Juco for a couple years then end up at D2 and D3 schools in the end, but they gave D1 a shot. I just sense that you feel your son is better than D3.
Cabbage, very well detailed. I don't characterize it as drama... But a definitely 2x's the challenge. Certain Jucos in Texas are much the same, particularly San Jacinto, Weatherford, etc. And they feed into heavy hitter D-1's...Tx A & M, UT Austin, Baylor. Competition is fierce!
One other nuance here that seems worth mentioning. Just because a D1 roster limit is 35, for example, does not guarantee the coach will carry 35 players.
I have heard a D1 coach say, that after the Fall, there were only going to be 32 or 33 players on his final roster. He said that was where the line was in terms of kids that were out practicing in the Fall who could contribute.
I imagine at the D3 level, there comes a point where having 40, 41 or 47 players becomes a burden, especially if a good number of them have no chance of seeing the field.
We can analyze past rosters all we want, but the coach will draw the line where he feels he needs to draw the line.
Also, son's D1 keeps 33.....keep in mind that only 27 travel to non-conference away games (except spring trip...everyone goes) and the league mandates only 24 travel to conference away games....so just making the roster at son's school only guarantees they'll dress for about 20-22 of the 54 games considering they can't play at home until the snow melts lol
Curious if this would ring true at high academic schools (Ivy League, Stanford, GTown, etc.)? Much tougher to get accepted which would in turn mean most roster spots are "secure" as long as you take care of business?
Stanford has cut players as late as last week before games.
A question you have to ask yourself is, "Would I (or my son) want to just be on the team even if there is no chance I will play?"
I know one player who answered yes to this question for four years (he played a little bit his senior year) - wonderful young man that was well respected by his teammates. I know many more who would have never said yes to that, and when faced with it, transferred.
CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
There's a lot of reasons: Academics, Credits Transferring in the future, etc.
cabbagedad posted:bacdorslider posted:CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Juco at some levels is no picnic either. you have 2 years and you have to contribute right away.
CaCO, one of my sons went the JC route the first three years (one redshirt), two different California JC's. Each of the three years, there were no fewer than 85 players that showed up in the fall with the majority being good players - at a minimum, all-league at their respective HS's. These JC's typically ended up with about 28 on the Spring roster. So, over those three years, he experienced nearly 200 of his friends/teammates getting cut in the fall.
One of the JC's was also notorious for asking several freshmen to redshirt so they can develop physically before starting their college playing career. So, immediately into the freshman year, the student/athlete is asked to fall behind a year in his college academic progress. Then, he has to go through the recruiting process all over again into a 4-year school. Then, he has to hope all the classes transfer properly (often, they don't). Then, he's the new guy again, trying to earn his spot with an entirely different group of coaches and players.
Certainly, there is no lack of drama going the JC route.
I couldn't imagine having to spend 3 years at a JC, but some do as you have stated above. It would be a complete waste in most cases, money wise, time wise, academic development wise. Depending on what school you transfer to after, you will have issues with credits transferring. Ryan has credits that are not transferring, so his 2 years of schooling aren't really 2 years. Thankfully, he had college credits from HS, and he is going into accounting where some of the credits can be used towards his CPA license when he is done.
Buckeye 2015 posted:Strange to hear of a coach cutting a kid at a D3 and using "over-recruited" as the reason. There is no over recruiting at D3's....there are no roster limits and the kids don't get money from baseball. I'm not suggesting anything, as I don't know the situation, but D3 coaches typically don't cut kids in the fall....and certainly not because of over recruiting. The coach could have already seen enough to tell the kid that he likely won't see any significant (or any) playing time....or maybe the kid just fell out of love with the program and decided that competing against 50 other guys wasn't for him and used the over recruited thing as a way to get out and put the blame on the coach. Again, not suggesting either way, just seems strange.
That being said, kids need to understand the situation before they go to a school....any school, whether it's D1, NAIA, Juco, whatever. Look at past years.....talk to current players/parents, etc. If you don't do the homework on potential schools, there's nobody to blame but yourself if things don't go the way you expected. Some D1's never bring in extra guys.....some bring in 5 or 6 extra (or more) every fall and make cuts. You'll never know if you don't ask.
You make a good point: It is good to ask. Sometimes it will not be possible to research past history, because it may be a new, first time HC at the school. Ryan's D-1 brought in 49. I am not sure what the breakdown is as far as scholarship to walk on guys, but it is easy to see quite a few guys will not be remaining with the program.
Chicago643 posted:Gov posted:When I see this type of conversation I start thinking of the importance of "fit", whether it be a D1 player going to a D3 or not. Was it the right college aside from baseball? These college coaches are searching for the best players to put on their roster, regardless of D1 or D3. Coach's have a job, and doing well at said job, will potentially lead to a better job and higher paying job. The sooner that players and their parents understand this, the better off they'll be. This is probably the reason some D3's are much better than some D1's; players found a fit where they could thrive as a student, as well as a player. Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.
Do you feel your son was D1 talent? Just curious because from your posts here it seems that you are bitter, that perhaps your son belongs at a D1 and not a D3. I would imagine if a player has the option to play D1 and get scholarship money most would take the chance and see how it works out. I have heard that a few D1 kids will transfer and play Juco for a couple years then end up at D2 and D3 schools in the end, but they gave D1 a shot. I just sense that you feel your son is better than D3.
Hopefully you'll learn a lot from this site so that you can develop a solid recruiting plan for your son. When somebody relays their experience I guess it's possible for a bit of bitterness to come out...you should be able to lean on "my-our" experiences to help your own son.
Gov posted:When I see this type of conversation I start thinking of the importance of "fit", whether it be a D1 player going to a D3 or not. Was it the right college aside from baseball? These college coaches are searching for the best players to put on their roster, regardless of D1 or D3. Coach's have a job, and doing well at said job, will potentially lead to a better job and higher paying job. The sooner that players and their parents understand this, the better off they'll be. This is probably the reason some D3's are much better than some D1's; players found a fit where they could thrive as a student, as well as a player. Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.
I agree that finding the right fit is the most important thing. The best "fit" is often defined by who wants you the most. Good things tend to happen when you go where you are wanted. The best D3 programs play good baseball - better than a lot of people think. The same is true in the better JUCO programs. Anyplace that is competitive can be the right environment to help your son learn life skills that will help him succeed in life once his playing career is over. Realistically speaking, that is the biggest benefit of playing college baseball for almost any young man. Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters. D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players do. The reason for this is, while D3 players are good, almost all of them have a hole in their game somewhere, or they are small, or they are unorthodox in some way. That is just reality - and there is nothing wrong with that. Way too many people are hung up on what number comes after the D.
adbono posted:Gov posted:When I see this type of conversation I start thinking of the importance of "fit", whether it be a D1 player going to a D3 or not. Was it the right college aside from baseball? These college coaches are searching for the best players to put on their roster, regardless of D1 or D3. Coach's have a job, and doing well at said job, will potentially lead to a better job and higher paying job. The sooner that players and their parents understand this, the better off they'll be. This is probably the reason some D3's are much better than some D1's; players found a fit where they could thrive as a student, as well as a player. Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters.
I agree that finding the right fit is the most important thing. The best "fit" is often defined by who wants you the most. Good things tend to happen when you go where you are wanted. The best D3 programs play good baseball - better than a lot of people think. The same is true in the better JUCO programs. Anyplace that is competitive can be the right environment to help your son learn life skills that will help him succeed in life once his playing career is over. Realistically speaking, that is the biggest benefit of playing college baseball for almost any young man. Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters. D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players do. The reason for this is, while D3 players are good, almost all of them have a hole in their game somewhere, or they are small, or they are unorthodox in some way. That is just reality - and there is nothing wrong with that. Way too many people are hung up on what number comes after the D.
Concur with most of what you said. But, I didn't say "a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters"
I said: "Plenty of D1 kids on top D3 rosters." My son finally learned that it wasn't about D1,2, or 3. It was about finding the right fit for him as a student aspiring to play baseball at a top academic college.
rynoattack posted:cabbagedad posted:CaCO, one of my sons went the JC route the first three years (one redshirt), two different California JC's. Each of the three years, there were no fewer than 85 players that showed up .... So, over those three years, he experienced nearly 200 of his friends/teammates getting cut in the fall.
......
I couldn't imagine having to spend 3 years at a JC, but some do as you have stated above. It would be a complete waste in most cases, money wise, time wise, academic development wise. Depending on what school you transfer to after, you will have issues with credits transferring. Ryan has credits that are not transferring, so his 2 years of schooling aren't really 2 years. ...
I hear ya, Ryno, but it wasn't a COMPLETE waste of time. For him, an injury late fall of freshman year and being too stubborn to give up on the game caused the extra JC year. After a long path (I'll spare those who have heard the story 
), he is a semester away from his bachelors in the major he truly belongs and is looking into a masters program. Meanwhile, he successfully completed his college playing career, is now gaining college coaching experience and will have a relatively manageable student loan debt when he is done.
The incentive of baseball, even with all of the detours, kept him on track and in college long enough to find himself as an adult outside of playing the game.
" Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."
I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site. To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate. One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point. The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.
We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams. One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.
The key is making a good decision. If a program is high on a player and giving him a lot of attention chances he’s not going to get cut. When a player doesn’t receive money the program doesn’t have any skin in the game. Cutting this kid is no loss. Reaching for the dream program that wasn’t really after the player is a risk. Usually players getting cut freshman year were out on a limb in the first place. The key is to recognize the situation and make another choice.
Ever see kids get one D1 offer and several D2 or D3 offers? There’s a message when this happens. Did several colleges make a mistake or did one? If the D1 didn’t offer any athletic money there’s no risk on their end. See the red flags when going through recruiting. Ignore the unicorns and rainbows. Walk ons who become MLBers really beat the odds. Usually things (injuries) have to luckily fall into place on top of being ready for the opportunity.
As several have noted, the college game is about performance. When we first started looking at the possibility of our son playing baseball after high school, I got caught up in the fear factor of my son getting cut after finding a home. I kept reading and focusing on posts that talked about "Go where you're loved." Good recruiters will make every player feel loved. That is their job. It still comes down to performance. Don't get me wrong...I still think it is important for both player and parents to do their homework. There are definitely programs and/or coaches with a track record of taking the over-recruiting thing to another level.
You also should be aware of how many years the HC has left on contract and previous season W-L records. Know of a D1 school down south where the HC released a number of players which included a family friend who was redshirt freshman. I was told, and later confirmed, that HC was in final year of contract so pressure was on. He released players and brought in a number of JUCO transfers.
I say all this but it comes down to your son's goals and making sure that he is going into any situation with eyes wide open.
infielddad posted:" Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."
I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site. To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate. One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point. The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.
We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams. One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.
adbono: No self-respecting D1 baseball program would want any of those incomplete players from Trinity, Texas Lutheran or Southwestern.
Mid-Eastern and Southwestern Conferences: Hold my beer.
(Just kidding, adbono. :-)
infielddad posted:" Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."
I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site. To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate. One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point. The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.
We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams. One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.
Exactly, and then there is the question of the player's role on a team. Would you rather be a starter on a great team like Trinity, attending a great school like Trinity, or be a guy who gets 10 PA's or 2 innings per year at a mediocre school in a lower tier conference?
"You also should be aware of how many years the HC has left on contract and previous season W-L records. Know of a D1 school down south where the HC released a number of players which included a family friend who was redshirt freshman. I was told, and later confirmed, that HC was in final year of contract so pressure was on. He released players and brought in a number of JUCO transfers."
Coach, while I agree with your point, I think its importance can be confusing because the same risks exist on the front end of a contract. The recent situation at Alabama is a good illustration. A past at UNLV is the most well known and egregious example.
A new coach coming to an under-performing program, especially at the D1 or Power 5, needs to "win." Far too many times, they have the tacit approval of the AD to get their own players and to get "rid" of those of the coaching staff which was not "winning.
MidAtlanticDad posted:infielddad posted:" Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters."
I am constantly intrigued at how this type of issue generates friction at various times on this site. To say it is a rare exception, in my view, is pretty much inaccurate. One would only need to compile the successes of D3 players in Summer Wood bat leagues to prove that point. The 2016 Trinity CWS team had players and pitchers in Wood Bat leagues from the Northwoods, to NECBL to the Coastal Plain and others and more than 1/2 of them were top performers and All Stars.
We have to remember D1 covers nearly 300 teams. One could venture to say and be pretty accurate that teams from 100-300 are not fully funded and many of those are funded with few scholarships. As Gov correctly views the situation, in my opinion, many players and pitchers at the top performing D3's would do very well at the D1 level when we get outside most of the Power 5 and probably 30-50 more programs beyond those.
adbono: No self-respecting D1 baseball program would want any of those incomplete players from Trinity, Texas Lutheran or Southwestern.
Mid-Eastern and Southwestern Conferences: Hold my beer.
(Just kidding, adbono. :-)
You are right (sort of). If you replace "self-respecting" with competitive you would be correct - even though your response was tongue in cheek. Since you named some schools I will do the same. Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure. Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD. They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play. So we are back to the point of finding the right fit. Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns.
There have been a lot of good comments in this thread, and I just want to point out one minor differentiation to "go where you are loved" or "where they have a plan for you". I think it should be "go where you think you can compete" [for a spot on the roster]
The D"X" does not matter IMO, what matters [in the baseball part of the decision] is can the player be competitive within the level of play of the program. Get this decision right, together with academic fit, location, cost, etc, and then the player has the best chance of success.
It is all about reducing risk, and in college baseball there are lots of risks, if you can reduce the risk in all of these elements then the student/athlete gives himself the best chance of success.
Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going?
"Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."
Nope, don't agree with this at all. To be completely upfront, our son played at Trinity, was a 2 year All-Star in the NECBL, was drafted and also offered numerous opportunities to transfer, including to very top D2's in FLA and other now Power 5 programs. I also know the coaching staff the pretty well.
As an illustration, when the coaches scout the Stanford Camp or the AZ Fall Classic, they are looking for players with D1 skills but who might be considered, for a number of reasons, the #2-3 guy on a D1 board. For Trinity, that D1 board comparison would be Ivy's etc. One of the main reasons is strength, not ability.
They follow those kids through the NLI signing period and then they start recruiting those who were the #2s and #3's on the D1 boards who didn't get an NLI, for whatever reason. To give you a vivid illustration, a top freshman in the 2017 Big West season (and in the regional and Super-Regional) had deposited at Trinity. He had very little D1 interest and the Trinity coaches loved him. He was seen in a scout team game in June by the Big West team and that option opened.
When the margin between the D1 and top D3 is strength or explosiveness rather than talent, that margin gets narrowed quickly in college when the talented kid gets into a great strength and conditioning baseball specific program. Those kids are not uni-corns. Trinity sent 2 rising sophomores to play on the top team in the Alaska league last Summer and each performed at the highest levels while starting nearly every game.
PS-I watched the 3 game UTD/TU series in 2016. Highly entertaining, for sure. Trinity swept. To be clear, I am not saying a roster of a D3 1-9 competes for innings at a D1 program in the 150 range. I am saying more than one guy in the top 5 of a top D3 (especially after one year of baseball specific strength training) will challenge for plenty of innings at the D1 level (again outside the Power 5 and that next tier.)
Since the MLB draft is comprised of High School, JUCO, NAIA, D3, D2, AND D1players...wouldn't it be safe to say you can find D1 talent on the rosters in all cases?
CaCO3Girl posted:Since the MLB draft is comprised of High School, JUCO, NAIA, D3, D2, AND D1players...wouldn't it be safe to say you can find D1 talent on the rosters in all cases?
infielddad posted:"Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."
Nope, don't agree with this at all. To be completely upfront, our son played at Trinity, was a 2 year All-Star in the NECBL, was drafted and also offered numerous opportunities to transfer, including to very top D2's in FLA and other now Power 5 programs. I also know the coaching staff the pretty well.
As an illustration, when the coaches scout the Stanford Camp or the AZ Fall Classic, they are looking for players with D1 skills but who might be considered, for a number of reasons, the #2-3 guy on a D1 board. For Trinity, that D1 board comparison would be Ivy's etc. One of the main reasons is strength, not ability.
They follow those kids through the NLI signing period and then they start recruiting those who were the #2s and #3's on the D1 boards who didn't get an NLI, for whatever reason. To give you a vivid illustration, a top freshman in the 2017 Big West season (and in the regional and Super-Regional) had deposited at Trinity. He had very little D1 interest and the Trinity coaches loved him. He was seen in a scout team game in June by the Big West team and that option opened.
When the margin between the D1 and top D3 is strength or explosiveness rather than talent, that margin gets narrowed quickly in college when the talented kid gets into a great strength and conditioning baseball specific program. Those kids are not uni-corns. Trinity sent 2 rising sophomores to play on the top team in the Alaska league last Summer and each performed at the highest levels while starting nearly every game.
PS-I watched the 3 game UTD/TU series in 2016. Highly entertaining, for sure. Trinity swept. To be clear, I am not saying a roster of a D3 1-9 competes for innings at a D1 program in the 150 range. I am saying more than one guy in the top 5 of a top D3 (especially after one year of baseball specific strength training) will challenge for plenty of innings at the D1 level (again outside the Power 5 and that next tier.)
I should have known that I'm arguing with an attorney. The fact that Trinity swept a series with UTD in 2016 is hardly relevant. Two of those games could have gone the other way. Both those are top 20 D3 programs and they are very comparable. The fact that 2 Trinity players did well in Alaska one summer doesn't prove anything either. Top D1 talent isn't in Alaska during the summer - mid level talent is. You say more than one player on a top D3 can do this or that. I say a couple might be able to. That is pretty much the same thing.
Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .
Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc. They have done so nearly every Summer. The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.
Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league. I never said "Top D1." In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams.
I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn. When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?
Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages. They are not isolated to a unicorn.
Elijah posted:Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going?
Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.
MidAtlanticDad posted:Elijah posted:Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going?
Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.
First, let me plead ignorant to knowing anything about football recruiting. My question stems from seeing news reports of HS football players changing their minds when they have already verbally committed to another program. Georgia just landed a top QB that was going to Penn State. This is just one recent example of stories I see in football which was why I asked. The common perception by some here is that committing to a program so early does not benefit the player. That makes sense if the verbal means nothing without the official signing. So I am wondering if this could also benefit the player, as well, or if the early signings will lead to kids jumping to other schools after a couple of years being verbally committed to another school?
All this said, I would not encourage my son to take an offer if all the details (that are often written about on this site) did not line up positively. But I do think it would be challenging as a parent. There is much talk about finding the right fit, which as my son gets older makes more sense to me as his personality reveals itself. He would have no clue about college if you asked him about it now. He also will not be receiving an offer anytime soon, so my question is not a personal one.
Elijah posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:Elijah posted:Seems like in football, a verbal commitment does not mean much and kids change their mind frequently. I wonder if this will be more common in baseball now that 8th and 9th graders are being recruited? So even if a player verbals to a school, other schools would still recruit them up until signing day. As a parent, I believe it would be a difficult situation if your big state school came calling early. Maybe an early verbal could be the attention getter for other schools to take notice to truly get the process going?
Do D1 football programs make offers to kids who have already committed to other schools? Either directly or through back-channels? I haven't heard of that happening with baseball... yet.
First, let me plead ignorant to knowing anything about football recruiting. My question stems from seeing news reports of HS football players changing their minds when they have already verbally committed to another program. Georgia just landed a top QB that was going to Penn State. This is just one recent example of stories I see in football which was why I asked. The common perception by some here is that committing to a program so early does not benefit the player. That makes sense if the verbal means nothing without the official signing. So I am wondering if this could also benefit the player, as well, or if the early signings will lead to kids jumping to other schools after a couple of years being verbally committed to another school?
All this said, I would not encourage my son to take an offer if all the details (that are often written about on this site) did not line up positively. But I do think it would be challenging as a parent. There is much talk about finding the right fit, which as my son gets older makes more sense to me as his personality reveals itself. He would have no clue about college if you asked him about it now. He also will not be receiving an offer anytime soon, so my question is not a personal one.
I don't know anything about the football side, either. I guess I'm assuming that a kid is only going to change his mind if the new school has made a more attractive offer. So far, I haven't heard of that happening with baseball, but I would probably be naive to assume that it doesn't.
The thing I don't like about football is that kids take visits to other schools AFTER committing to another program. I'm sorry, but this is just a totally classless thing to do, but you see it all the time. My son was still talking to a couple schools when he accepted his baseball offer. I had told him beforehand that if he accepted an offer, he was sticking with it....unless something major such as a coaching change occured. I can't imagine a college football coach being too thrilled to hear one of his committed guys is still taking visits to other schools. If it's me, the offer is gone immediately if that would happen, but I guess that's why I'm not a major college football coach 
It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
infielddad posted:Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .
Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc. They have done so nearly every Summer. The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.
Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league. I never said "Top D1." In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams.
I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn. When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?
Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages. They are not isolated to a unicorn.
There were 1215 players selected in the 2017 MLB draft. 12 were from D3 schools. That is 1%. There were 75 players selected from the SEC alone. With rare exception, D3 players are on D3 rosters & D1 players are on D1 rosters. So the top 1% of D3 players could play D1 at some level - okay I will buy that. Maybe "unicorn" was a poor choice of words on my part in the context that it was used. I guess the unicorn would choose to go to Swarthmore if they were good enough to play at North Carolina. However, I'm on the field enough to know this much - D1 line drives sound different than D3 line drives. And one of my kids played D3 so I'm not knocking it. I am around top 25 D1 programs and they play a different game. And no, I don't have a kid in a D1 program - I'm just stating the facts. Even the best D3 baseball is not in the same conversation with a mid level D1 - primarily because of the disparity in the pitching. That doesn't mean that a good D3 couldn't beat a D1 on any given day. They could, because we all know that anything can happen in baseball.
RJM posted:It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.
My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting.
My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so.
adbono posted:infielddad posted:Don't know what my profession has to do with my enjoyment of baseball and the HSBBW. .
Trinity has a history of players doing well in Summer leagues dating back to 2002, including in the Cape, Northwoods, NECBL, Coastal, etc. They have done so nearly every Summer. The 2 in Alaska were examples of the 2017 team but only as a reflection of D3 players who, every Summer, perform well against D1 competition.
Not sure why you are changing the landscape with the reference to the 2 players who performed well in the Alaska league. I never said "Top D1." In fact, I excluded top D1 by breaking out Power 5 and the next tier of teams.
I have never thought of our son, or all those who followed him in performing well iin excellent Summer leagues (or getting drafted) as some type of unicorn. When he was lining pitches against Team USA and pitchers from Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc, no one seemed to think they were D3 line drives?
Again, this is not the first thread where "tension" gets created by suggesting top D3 players can perform well on a number of D1 stages. They are not isolated to a unicorn.
There were 1215 players selected in the 2017 MLB draft. 12 were from D3 schools. That is 1%. There were 75 players selected from the SEC alone. With rare exception, D3 players are on D3 rosters & D1 players are on D1 rosters. So the top 1% of D3 players could play D1 at some level - okay I will buy that. Maybe "unicorn" was a poor choice of words on my part in the context that it was used. I guess the unicorn would choose to go to Swarthmore if they were good enough to play at North Carolina. However, I'm on the field enough to know this much - D1 line drives sound different than D3 line drives. And one of my kids played D3 so I'm not knocking it. I am around top 25 D1 programs and they play a different game. And no, I don't have a kid in a D1 program - I'm just stating the facts. Even the best D3 baseball is not in the same conversation with a mid level D1 - primarily because of the disparity in the pitching. That doesn't mean that a good D3 couldn't beat a D1 on any given day. They could, because we all know that anything can happen in baseball.
Why are you talking about SEC and now top 25 programs, especially in the context of the draft proving something. More than 99% of the D3 players nationally are not going to be recruited to an SEC or top 25 out of HS (other than a possible exception in Wisconsin/NY etc where D1 options are very limited.)
I am certainly not and have never compared any D3 player with the SEC, top 25 or even Power 5. I am not even comparing better D3 players with those competing in the top 150 of D1 baseball. Where I am completely in disagreement with you is the "unicorn" argument about top D3 players and D1 programs from 150 to 300. BTW, how many players were drafted from teams 150 to 300? Trinity has more players drafted than a number of D1 programs ranked 200 to 300 if we go back a few years.
All I can tell you is in the NECBL, against Team USA and in Milb against many top arms, the line drive off the wood bat of the D3 kid didn't sound any different than the line drive off the bat of the Vanderbilt kid.
Elijah posted:RJM posted:It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.
My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting.
My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so.
Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job. So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews? I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.
CaCO3Girl posted:Elijah posted:RJM posted:It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.
My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting.
My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so.
Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job. So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews? I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.
In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job.
Elijah posted:CaCO3Girl posted:Elijah posted:RJM posted:It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.
My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting.
My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so.
Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job. So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews? I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.
In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job.
You are talking about after you have been there awhile, I'm talking about job interviews. Just seems like a classless thing to do. If your not sure and want to look at another school then don't commit. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept.
I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature. Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world. Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it? This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.
CaCO3Girl posted:Elijah posted:CaCO3Girl posted:Elijah posted:RJM posted:It seems nothing in football is a commitment until the NLI is signed. I realize leagally this is true in all sports. But in most college sports a verbal means a signing will follow.
I do not see a problem with players having more leverage especially if the prevailing view is that uni's (in baseball) have all the power after a kid verbals. If a verbal truly means nothing without signing, then a player, through his play, should be able to garner legitimate attention from other uni's. I get that it would ruffle feathers and might not be in your best interest, but I like the option for players. I agree, somewhat, with BUCKEYE that it shows more class to stop speaking to other schools after verbally agreeing with a uni. Not sure it is best for the player, though.
My son is with a respectable org here in GA. Each year you have to try out to make a team again. There are no guarantees and they tell you to go try out with other orgs. I appreciate that honesty. It also means we have to still be engaged in this ongoing process and have relationships with other orgs. Things change in college baseball all the time. Why should they change everywhere else except with the player? Seems limiting.
My thinking could be misguided. Someone correct me, if so.
Elijah, we talk often about college baseball being a job. So if you are job hunting and you have three interviews set up that week and the first guy gives you an amazing offer that you accept, do you go to the other two interviews? I don't, I either tell them you are no longer on the market OR I ask company number one to give me a week to decide.
In a job, you still have leverage if you are valuable even after you have already accepted. Companies can try and recruit you and your present company has a reason to keep you happy. There is nothing wrong with talking to companies while in your current job.
You are talking about after you have been there awhile, I'm talking about job interviews. Just seems like a classless thing to do. If your not sure and want to look at another school then don't commit. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept.
Then you are not talking about what I am asking about. To be clear, I am not advocating giving a college a verbal only to keep looking for a better looking scenario. I am simply wondering what might be the result of kids giving a verbal so early and then having so much time go by. Just so I am clear, do universities have to honor the verbal agreement with an actual signing, or can they back out?
My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
Midwest Mom posted:I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature. Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world. Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it? This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.
Not the same scenario that I was asking about. One usually does not accept a job and then have 4 to 5 years to report to it. In that time, your employer might find someone else that they like better than you. They look every year for better talent than the year before. But you have stopped looking for other opportunities. You wouldn't do this with a job. So yes, I was talking about things changing, more specifically from a school's perspective and how it would affect the player's future.
Just to be clear, if my kid gave a verbal to university, the idea would be not to give it unless he is meaning to honor it. But I also do not think it is a big deal if another school wanted to chime in with, "If things change, we would like to talk to you." Because what if things change, like a coaching change? Happens alot in football. Although I am not even sure if that is allowed. Just learning as I go here.
Elijah posted:Midwest Mom posted:I'm all for equating baseball with a job because in the real world someone who takes a job and then either doesn't show up or comes back and says, "Sorry, I've accepted a job somewhere else," is called unethical (someone else said "classless") and I think immature. Same applies to students -- or schools -- who do the same in this baseball recruiting world. Sometimes circumstances do change for programs and for players, but this is not what we're really talking about here is it? This thread has been eye opening for me -- thanks to those of you who have shared.
Not the same scenario that I was asking about. One usually does not accept a job and then have 4 to 5 years to report to it. In that time, your employer might find someone else that they like better than you. They look every year for better talent than the year before. But you have stopped looking for other opportunities. You wouldn't do this with a job. So yes, I was talking about things changing, more specifically from a school's perspective and how it would affect the player's future.
Just to be clear, if my kid gave a verbal to university, the idea would be not to give it unless he is meaning to honor it. But I also do not think it is a big deal if another school wanted to chime in with, "If things change, we would like to talk to you." Because what if things change, like a coaching change? Happens alot in football. Although I am not even sure if that is allowed. Just learning as I go here.
Agreed. Which is why committing too early is a huge risk for the player, as others have pointed out.
Louise posted:My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
I propose we make the word, UNICORN, an official term for this site. It's definition shall be understood thusly: (u-ni-korn), noun. 1.a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. 2. A D-1 caliber player, who can play D-1, has offer(s) to play D-1, but chooses to play D-3.
All those in favor say, "Aye."
All HSBBWebsters please make note of this new vocabulary word so in the future when someone posts, "My 2020 unicorn is at a crossroads with his recruitment and we are looking for advice .....................," we won't have to waste time with follow-up questions like, "Wait............your son is a unicorn??????? Is this a real post?????"
Thank you.
I am curious to get the opinions of parents of kids who verbally committed early (frosh/soph)..the thought process behind the decision, the outcome of course and how their kid maintained the focus to be a prospect for the next 2 to 3 years.
All HSBBWebsters please make note of this new vocabulary word so in the future when someone posts, "My 2020 unicorn is at a crossroads with his recruitment and we are looking for advice .....................," we won't have to waste time with follow-up questions like, "Wait............your son is a unicorn??????? Is this a real post?????"
Elijah, I have no problem with a kid committing and another school saying hey if things change give us a call. I have a problem with a kid tweeting I've blessed to continue...blah blah at university X, then next month he's tweeting "had a great time busting University Y today, complete with pictures of him in the locker room wearing a jersey and a name tag for a school that he did NOT commit to just last month. That's what's going on right now, and I agree, pull the offer if a kid is still visiting other schools.
Louise posted:My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
Louise - Despite a little "ribbing" from #1 Asst Coach, I hear what you are saying loud and clear. For my son it was about the education and he ranked a couple offering D3s over offering D1s because of his major. Baseball was the secondary criteria in evaluating college admission offers. Let's face it....there are all kinds of situations, perspectives, and thought processes out there. I think it is fantastic that a lot of these kids get to choose between some really good D1 schools and some really good D3 schools. If your kid is fortunate to be one of those recruits regardless of which one they select, then I think they are doing a lot of things right at a young age. As always, JMO
Louise posted:My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn. If he chose Amherst over UC-Riverside he is a smart kid that made a really good decision - but not a unicorn.
Fenway, well said. A lot of comments lately about D1 vs D3. Not all D1s (and D3s) are created equal in terms of baseball and not all education at these same schools are created equal. Depends on a player's baseball ability, academic ability and future goals and ambitions.
fenwaysouth posted:Louise posted:My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
Louise - Despite a little "ribbing" from #1 Asst Coach, I hear what you are saying loud and clear. For my son it was about the education and he ranked a couple offering D3s over offering D1s because of his major. Baseball was the secondary criteria in evaluating college admission offers. Let's face it....there are all kinds of situations, perspectives, and thought processes out there. I think it is fantastic that a lot of these kids get to choose between some really good D1 schools and some really good D3 schools. If your kid is fortunate to be one of those recruits regardless of which one they select, then I think they are doing a lot of things right at a young age. As always, JMO
Couldn't agree more !
Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). But was still on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
#1 Assistant Coach posted:Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). Was on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...
#1 Assistant Coach posted:Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). But was still on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
This is a little noted aspect of recruiting. It is widely understood, I think, that most players (and parents) highly value, say, an SEC, ACC, PAC12, or Big 12 program -- it is considered to be objective reality, not snobbishness or anything of the sort, that OF COURSE those are the most highly desirable programs. OF COURSE that is where kids want to go play. #1 Assistant Coach makes the point that for some kids, that is not necessarily the case. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Stanford, Duke, UVa, Vandy, Cal, Notre Dame?), but for the kids/parents referenced by #1 Assistant Coach, the academics are more important than the baseball. Not "equally important" not "also important" but "more important." I know a kid who turned down UCLA for Harvard; he didn't do it for the baseball or the weather. Last weekend I overheard a coach at a Mountain West program ask an MLB scout about a kid, and the scout said, in essence, and in a nice way, "he's not going to be interested in your school."
As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.
2019Dad posted:#1 Assistant Coach posted:Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). But was still on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
This is a little noted aspect of recruiting. It is widely understood, I think, that most players (and parents) highly value, say, an SEC, ACC, PAC12, or Big 12 program -- it is considered to be objective reality, not snobbishness or anything of the sort, that OF COURSE those are the most highly desirable programs. OF COURSE that is where kids want to go play. #1 Assistant Coach makes the point that for some kids, that is not necessarily the case. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Stanford, Duke, UVa, Vandy, Cal, Notre Dame?), but for the kids/parents referenced by #1 Assistant Coach, the academics are more important than the baseball. Not "equally important" not "also important" but "more important." I know a kid who turned down UCLA for Harvard; he didn't do it for the baseball or the weather. Last weekend I overheard a coach at a Mountain West program ask an MLB scout about a kid, and the scout said, in essence, and in a nice way, "he's not going to be interested in your school."
As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.
2019 you hit it on the head. So many different types of kids and different types of families (socioeconomic, parental feelings about various schools with different priorities; so many different types of recruiting experiences and situations.
Gov posted:I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...
Pretty good: Tanner Nishioka
| TEAM | LG | LEVEL | G | AB | R | H | TB | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | IBB | SO | SB | CS | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | GO/AO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | LOW | NYP | A(Short) | 22 | 71 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 20 | 6 | 0 | .268 | .354 | .324 | .678 | 1.12 |
And also the kid from MIT, Austin Fillere:
| 2017 | CUB | AZL | ROK | 2 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | .125 | .125 | .125 | .250 | 0.00 |
| 2017 | EUG | NWL | A(Short) | 49 | 176 | 22 | 46 | 78 | 14 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 32 | 1 | 56 | 1 | 2 | .261 | .392 | .443 | .835 | 0.68 |
| 2017 [-] | 2 teams | - | Minors | 51 | 184 | 22 | 47 | 79 | 14 | 0 | 6 | 26 | 32 | 1 | 60 | 1 | 2 | .255 | .382 | .429 | .812 | 0.64 |
JCG posted:Gov posted:I wonder how that kid that was drafter fared in rookie ball... solid player, set records in every category I think... 2nd baseman I recall...
Pretty good: Tanner Nishioka
TEAM LG LEVEL G AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS GO/AO 2017 LOW NYP A(Short) 22 71 6 19 23 2 1 0 4 5 0 20 6 0 .268 .354 .324 .678 1.12
And also the kid from MIT, Austin Fillere:
2017 CUB AZL ROK 2 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 .125 .125 .125 .250 0.00 2017 EUG NWL A(Short) 49 176 22 46 78 14 0 6 25 32 1 56 1 2 .261 .392 .443 .835 0.68 2017 [-] 2 teams - Minors 51 184 22 47 79 14 0 6 26 32 1 60 1 2 .255 .382 .429 .812 0.64
Thanks JCG... looks like he has some speed as well...given the SB's.... He wanted to go into medicine and opted for Pomona over a number of D1 opportunities. Looks like has options!
Looks like the data got screwed up in pasting.
I'll try again:
BTW he hit a ton of HR in college but none in A ball, so that may be a concern. And chances are he'll be done with pro ball in a few years and go off to med school or whatever, but you can say that about the vast majority of draftees.
| YEAR | TEAM | LG | LEVEL | G | AB | R | H | TB | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | IBB | SO | SB | CS | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | GO/AO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | LOW | NYP | A(Short) | 22 | 71 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 20 | 6 | 0 | .268 | .354 | .324 | .678 | 1.12 |
| Minors Career | - | Minors | 22 | 71 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 20 | 6 | 0 | .268 | .354 | .324 | .678 | 1.12 |
1. My son was very fortunate as he played with a hell of a lot of unicorns in his four years of college baseball.
2. STEM and D1 baseball are mutually exclusive. (except for Ivy's, and a handful of others)
3. It is a lot more fun to play for a winning and exciting D3 than play for a perpetually losing D1, or one that does not make the post season. There is nothing like championship baseball regardless of level.
4. My son, and a number of other players I know could have signed with a pro team but chose not to as they were smart enough to know that professional baseball grinds up most players so the top 4 rounders have someone to play with.
there are thousands of stories, thousands of reasons, needs and desires on why kids end up where they are. I think this thread has gotten way more specific and attempting to break down who is or is not a D1/D3 type player.
To some here D2 is a great compromise, to others power 5 is the be all end all, others think D2 is the where the great unwashed go that aren't good enough for D1 and can't afford D3, others thing saving every dollar possible on scholarship is most important, others care about professional networks after school, what type of personality does the kid have and where does he want to be, to some the amount of money is not even relevant to the conversation of where or what level they are playing at...I have seen boys on D1 rosters that can't start on a great D3 team, have seen D3 kids who absolutely be players on D1 rosters. I know freshman right now on campus at a D3 who is being recruited by a D1 to transfer there due to some changes...I know D2 rosters with 12 or more step down transfers from D1...
There isn't enough time in the day for all the variables to be considered, just sit back and enjoy the ride. The time goes so fast, the stress is just not worth the pain it causes, the arguments will never be won because there are to many variations of the dream for any one of us to be correct.
Bottom line to the tread topic is - yes it is now the norm for (many but not all) coaches to over recruit - it happens at every level and is inevitable. The other truth is people don't realize how many kids flame out so even though IMO some coaches absolutely over recruit it isn't as bad as the numbers may make it appear and it is at times a moving target on what the proper number for a team is on a given year.
Gov and JCG,
I would not pay too much attention to the numbers for the 2 D3 kids.
The positives are each played at their clubs short season A level (NWL and NY/PENN.) Each got a decent number of AB's but I am guessing there may be more to the story on Nishioka's games played and AB's.
From the experience of our son, the major adjustment may be to the velocity they faced at the D3 level contrasted with short season A. There is also the factor that each probably had not have a live AB for 6 to 8 weeks from their last D3 game until the first game of short season.
Without tracking their progress over the season, our son's experience was he faced big challenges at the start of the season around June 20 because he did not have live AB's and even with having faced a pitcher taken in the 7th round in the Regional, he needed to adjust to regularly facing 88-92. However, once he did he performed extremely well during the last 1/3 of the season.
ST for each of this kids will be extremely important. Each needs to earn a spot on a roster at A ball.
infielddad posted:Gov and JCG,
I would not pay too much attention to the numbers for the 2 D3 kids.
The positives are each played at their clubs short season A level (NWL and NY/PENN.) Each got a decent number of AB's but I am guessing there may be more to the story on Nishioka's games played and AB's.
From the experience of our son, the major adjustment may be to the velocity they faced at the D3 level contrasted with short season A. There is also the factor that each probably had not have a live AB for 6 to 8 weeks from their last D3 game until the first game of short season.
Without tracking their progress over the season, our son's experience was he faced big challenges at the start of the season around June 20 because he did not have live AB's and even with having faced a pitcher taken in the 7th round in the Regional, he needed to adjust to regularly facing 88-92. However, once he did he performed extremely well during the last 1/3 of the season.
ST for each of this kids will be extremely important. Each needs to earn a spot on a roster at A ball.
Infield, thanks for that perspective... never been denial in the difference of pitching velocity and depth of pitching between D3 and D1, or which level will better prepare a player for the next level. Live AB's, adjusting to speeds....
The MIT kid hit Cape Cod league pitching well, it will be interesting to see how he develops..
adbono posted:Louise posted:My son is a unicorn - picked a top school in the NESCAC over competitive D1 - and he is very happy with his decision! I think your choice of words was fine. Also, was recruited by Swarthmore
If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn. If he chose Amherst over UC-Riverside he is a smart kid that made a really good decision - but not a unicorn.
There are a lot more UC-Riversides in D1 than UCLAs. If your son is academically inclined, the list of D1 targets can get pretty small. The NESCAC temptation will be in play. Unicorn? Maybe.
#1 Assistant Coach posted:Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). But was still on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
If it 's the same unicorn I'm thinking of, he BECAME a unicorn.
As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.
smokeminside posted:As the AD at my son's HS said in a parent meeting about recruiting: "There are 300 D1 programs and you folks are only interested in about 35 of them." I don't think that is the majority of the kids/parents out there, but it's not unicornish-ish either. And for those kids for whom academics are more important than baseball, if they can't achieve one of those 35 schools, they would rather go D3 than play for one of the other 260 D1 programs.
The same 35, more than likely!
CaCO3Girl posted:With all this drama I don't understand why more kids don't take the JUCO route.
Might help to read the thread "JUCO the good the bad and the ugly". Lots of good insight to that possible route.
smokeminside posted:#1 Assistant Coach posted:Perhaps to further define a HSBBWeb "unicorn" more clearly, is a kid who is highly focused on the academic component of the recruitment choice. Gov and Fenway shed light on that aspect, and it is a VITAL component of the choice for a lot of kids. All too often the "go where you're loved" mantra (I believe) is geared toward who is showing you the best scholarship, best academic money, or whatever. My son found himself in a position where he was courting high academic D-3s and some reasonably high academic D-1s. Had offers from several D-1s, one was 50% (athletic and baseball), and another 80% (academic and baseball). But was still on verge of accepting a very high academic D-3 with $0 due solely to the quality of education and degree.
At last minute an offer from a high academic D-1 came in and son took that. So mine was almost a unicorn, and I would have been thrilled if he was. BTW, the one D-3 he was on verge of committing to was a California LAC that had a guy drafted in 5th Rd last year. So I guess he'd be a unicorn too?
If it 's the same unicorn I'm thinking of, he BECAME a unicorn.
I stand corrected! I went back to Tanner Nishioka's HS stats and the kid was a stud, so I guess he was, is, and always will be a unicorn.
By the way, I am completely sold on the term "unicorn". When Nishioka was hitting all those dingers last year, I bet his opponents couldn't believe their eyes.
Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.
As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what, one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.
This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level. Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond. They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18. Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA. Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role. Academics plays a big role also.
For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.) With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.
He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player. I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body. Our kids are not unicorns.
I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.
infielddad posted:Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.
As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what, one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.
This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level. Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond. They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18. Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA. Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role. Academics plays a big role also.
For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.) With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.
He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player. I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body. Our kids are not unicorns.
I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.
I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.
I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns." Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1. A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject. BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice. Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.
adbono posted:infielddad posted:Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.
As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what, one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.
This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level. Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond. They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18. Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA. Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role. Academics plays a big role also.
For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.) With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.
He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player. I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body. Our kids are not unicorns.
I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.
I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.
I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns." Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1. A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject. BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice. Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.
Your exact words from 2 days ago:
"Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters. D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players "
That was followed by this one:
"Since you named some schools I will do the same. Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure. Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD. They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play. So we are back to the point of finding the right fit. Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."
I think your posts speak for themselves. Perhaps you meant something different than you posted.. but there is nothing revisionist in my post.
Sorry, I'm not buying anything you are selling.
infielddad posted:adbono posted:infielddad posted:Personally, I find this "unicorn" concept less than appropriate in describing any student athlete at any level of college baseball.
As it got originally brought into this thread, it was the "one" in, what, one thousand D3 kids who could play at any level of D1. Now it appears to have morphed to that HS player who can successfully compete at the top 25 programs and chooses D3.
This is completely unfair to those at the D3 level and those at the D1 level. Far too many of these players are grinding in the classroom, in the weight room and on the baseball diamond. They sacrifice a fair amount but relish the challenges in ways I certainly didn't understand when I was age 18. Summer wood bat leagues provide a very fair playing field to measure D1/D2/D3 and JC along with NAIA. Baseball is very different than football or basketball and 11.7 plays one role in that and less than fully funded plays another role. Academics plays a big role also.
For instance, our son was about 150lbs and a multi-sport guy coming out of HS. He had D1 options (not a lot and certainly not an elite D1 recruit by any means.) With 2 years of college, baseball specific conditioning, and playing baseball year round, he was a D1 player.
He was not a unicorn He was a grinder who made himself, through great college coaching, into a fine baseball player. I don't think our son was too unique except in the fact he ended up at a very high level by using every ounce of talent in his body. Our kids are not unicorns.
I don't like anyone setting the concept of "unicorn" when it truly does not reflect reality and, to me, cheapens the effort it takes to become an awfully talented baseball player.
I see some revisionist history in your summation, counselor.
I am the one who initially used the term unicorn in this thread when I said, "Kids that have enough talent to play at COMPETITIVE D1 programs and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns." Later in the thread I clarified exactly what I meant when I said, "If he chose Amherst over UCLA he is a unicorn." Seems pretty clear to me (and pretty sure everyone else) that it was never said (or implied) that only one in a thousand D3 kids could play at any level of D1. A statement like that would be ridiculous, so I certainly don't appreciate you assigning your blatant misinterpretation to me. I will thank you to use someone else to work out your own personal issues on this subject. BTW, there is nothing derogatory about D3 players in any post I have ever made. Most have managed to have some fun with this. Some have even claimed that their sons are unicorns. I'm guessing that they take pride in knowing that more value was placed on academics than baseball when those families made a college choice. Seems to me that you have a lot to be proud of - not a lot to complain about.
Your exact words from 2 days ago:
"Now for the part I disagree with - there are absolutely NOT a lot of D1 players on D3 rosters. Maybe one here and there - MAYBE. But with a very rare exception D1 players are on D1 rosters & D3 players are on D3 rosters. D1 players are more complete that D3 players. Lots of D1 players sign pro contracts. Hardly any D3 players "
That was followed by this one:
"Since you named some schools I will do the same. Texas State or UT-Arlington would not want any of the players at Texas Lutheran or Southwestern for sure. Trinity is a better program but form probably holds there too - with possible exception. I am very familiar with the program at UTD. They are on par with Trinity. There are a couple of kids there that could be on a low to mid-level D1 roster - and never play. So we are back to the point of finding the right fit. Kids that have enough talent to play at a COMPETITIVE D1 program and CHOOSE NOT TO are unicorns."
I think your posts speak for themselves. Perhaps you meant something different than you posted.. but there is nothing revisionist in my post.
Sorry, I'm not buying anything you are selling.
Do you work for Donald Trump ? I just gave you clear definition of what I meant - as it related to the term unicorn, because your last post was focused on your objection to that term. So lets move the target ? I get it - and guess what ? I'm not buying what you are selling either.
