NCAA Roster size

35 max and yes for every conf.

And it is lunacy. It results in more injuries to those on the roster, fewer players getting the opportunity to develop, and fewer players getting the experience of college baseball and its opportunities for leadership, hard work, teamwork, and loyalty. The NCAA's roster size rule is a travesty depriving good people the chance to play college baseball.

I don't agree isaac.

How many of those players beyond the 35 would ever see any meaningful playing time?

I'd like to see where you have some stats that shows it results in more injuries.

35 players on a baseball team is more than enough.

It was one of the preventative measures the NCAA put in to keep larger programs from stockpiling players, a fairly common practice. In conjunction with the new scholarship minimums, it leveled the playing field and also helps prevent abuse of the recruiting process.

I think you both have valid points. The injury hting is a bit of a stretch also it did nthing to correct over recruitong. In fact there are more guys who will be cut that may have been developed and more that can/t transfer without sitting due to the sit rule. It is true that 35 is more than enough.

Generally teams travel with 25, and many D1 teams don't carry anywhere near the 35 man limit.
A 35 man roster is more than ample.

Are red shirts included in this 35?

RS are included in the 35 max.

quote:

Originally posted by rbinaz:
Generally teams travel with 25, and many D1 teams don't carry anywhere near the 35 man limit.
A 35 man roster is more than ample.

I agree that the 35 man limit does not hurt most teams or kids. We've had an egregious example of stockpiling talent right here in our backyard that this seems to be designed to prevent.

One issue that coaches have raised is that with the schedule compressed there are more mid-week games which may mean more pitchers are needed. On the other hand, this combination of factors brings into play something I'm in favor of, the two way player.

quote:

I agree that the 35 man limit does not hurt most teams or kids. We've had an egregious example of stockpiling talent right here in our backyard that this seems to be designed to prevent.

The only change I would recommend is imposing the 35-man limit on the first day of FALL semester rather than in January. That way, programs cannot stockpile players in the fall and then discard the poorer performers in December.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:

quote:

I agree that the 35 man limit does not hurt most teams or kids. We've had an egregious example of stockpiling talent right here in our backyard that this seems to be designed to prevent.

The only change I would recommend is imposing the 35-man limit on the first day of FALL semester rather than in January. That way, programs cannot stockpile players in the fall and then discard the poorer performers in December.

Could not agree more. I would also have a requirement that players signed to an NLI have a roster spot for the first year. Either that or a player that is not given a spot is allowed to transfer without restriction. Doesn't seem right that an NLI locks a player for 2 years (1 at the school and 1 transfer sitout year) but does not ensure that he has a spot for even 1 minute on the 35 man roster.

If that means fewer NLIs are signed in November as coaches leave wiggle room to deal with the draft, that is fine with me.

infield08,

I agree with that also. Not fair to the kids that they get cut and have no place to go. there all settled in their dorms, friends and etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 08Dad:
I would also have a requirement that players signed to an NLI have a roster spot for the first year. Either that or a player that is not given a spot is allowed to transfer without restriction. Doesn't seem right that an NLI locks a player for 2 years (1 at the school and 1 transfer sitout year) but does not ensure that he has a spot for even 1 minute on the 35 man roster.

If a player signs a NLI and attends the NLI school, he will by rule spend the entire championship segment on the 35 man roster. (He must be awarded countable aid in order to sign a NLI, and once he enrolls, he is a counter, and all counters must be on the 35 man roster.)

But it doesn't mean that he will get to play, and I suppose that the school could even keep him from practicing, although I can't see why that would happen.

A recruited walk-on has the possibility of transferring mid year, so that he is eligible his sophomore spring season.

If the school really doesn't want an NLI player, perhaps it would release the player from the NLI, so that the player could transfer mid-year without triggering the NLI one year sit out penalty.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:
[QUOTE]I would recommend is imposing the 35-man limit on the first day of FALL semester rather than in January. That way, programs cannot stockpile players in the fall and then discard the poorer performers in December.

As an FYI, rosters become official the day before the opening of the championship segment, which this year is 2/20/09, so rosters are official 2/19/09.

I don't know of any programs, although I'm sure there are a few, that are leaving any number of players hanging. There are fall exit interviews with the HC where he lays out what he projects you as come spring season. That should pretty much give you a sense of where you belong and not strung along.

I was thinking about the stink raised earlier on this board when it came out that some school (I am not positive which one so don't want to point fingers incorrectly) had signed kids to NLIs and then, after orientation etc., told them not to come to school.

While they might have forced the issue by showing up for the first day of school anyway (thereby collecting 1 years tuition), I am sure most scrambled to find another place to play.

My belief is that if you sign the NLI, there should be no backing out for the first year. You get a roster spot. Nothing says you have to play - but the school should not be able to back out after taking the kid off the market.

CPLZ that is Inf08s point. After the exit if you are cut you have to sit a year if you transfer after being cut.

BBH,
Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood.

That being said, there is still no leaving players hanging. A coach can't cut a scholarship player, that roster spot is guaranteed. (Although the coach could "cut" the player, he can't take a scholarship away and the roster spot is still used on the cut player...never heard of this happening outside of disciplinary reasons.) The players that would be cut are non-roster, non scholarship. That means they could transfer mid year and be eligible to play the following spring at their new school.

A coach that practices this would or should be, well known to incoming recruits, especially those being asked to walk on. A walk on player in such a circumstance should know the odds against him and if chose that route, then must lie in the bed he made.

quote:

I agree that the 35 man limit does not hurt most teams or kids. We've had an egregious example of stockpiling talent right here in our backyard that this seems to be designed to prevent.

One issue that coaches have raised is that with the schedule compressed there are more mid-week games which may mean more pitchers are needed. On the other hand, this combination of factors brings into play something I'm in favor of, the two way player.

What I don't get is how people ***** about over recruiting and then complain about this new roster limit limiting the opportunities of players. You can't have it both ways.
As far as the 2 way player, logic tells you that this should be all the rage with these new rules. However, there's still very few legitimate 2 way guys out there. We may not have one in Arizona this year.
Its a very competitive world in major college baseball. If you can compete in a program you can find a role and you will play. If not you will likely have to search out a more appropriate level of competition.
Survival of the fittest if you will......

.

44 Observations/Questions..

- Smaller rosters + Squashed schedules This is a tough combination. Squashed schedules + smaller legislated rosters/ pitching staffs = shorter turn arounds/less rest....Shorter turn arounds/less rest = more injuries...More injuries shorten the cycles once more. Saw more arm injuires/wear at DI last year as a result of these two and expect to see more this year.

- Two Way Initially a fan of 4 year two way...I agree, VERY few players can do this legitimately. After watching a couple two way in DI last year, IMO Two way in college is very hard on arms and really takes a toll on both defense and hitting. Many of the players I saw who were pressed into two way ended up lame, and ineffective both as pitchers, as hitters and struggled defensively with arm issues.

- Question...Mid-year cuts? Correct me if I am wrong...but from a practical standpoint, Isn't a player cut at mid year still out of two years? Technically he could leave in December and sit for a calendar year and be added at mid season at the new school, but can't legally practice in the fall with the new school can he? IF that is the case how many DI's are adding players at midseason without any fall work?

44
.

O44,
I believe that mid-year transfers can legally practice beginning in the fall. The one year sit out applies to competition. There probably are significant practical issues with mid year transfers, including meeting academic progress requirements. First year players who have signed a NLI would also need to negotiate a release.

I don't follow why the 35 man roster limitation should affect injuries. The 25 man travel roster limit hasn't changed, and my sense is that even before last year, a player who wasn't on the travel roster seldom played at home either.

If there has been an increase in injuries, I'd speculate that it is primarily caused by the shortened schedule.

Rbinaz the over recruiting and the 35 man roster limit really having little to do with each other.
My son's college in his freshman year had 42 players shpw up for way in. They carried 38 players back then. My son and most players were shocked at the # of guys there. They all seemed very talented but under todays 35 man limit 7 would be cut. Bcak then they cut 4. That means 3 less players to get a shot at playing in the spring. That is 3 less that get a chance to develop.
The strang thing is many players do leave for various reasons during the year and some become academically inelligible or get injured.
One thing that amazed me over the last 3 years is how many changes occur in a roster. Players and coaches change it seems evrey 2 or 3 years. I assume that the sit rule may affect players leaving and I really only see that as a problem. The 35 man roster is more than enough players but coaches do make mistakes in their selection. I have seen very talented players who have been cut or who a particular coach didn't see the talent who transferred and went on to great success. We talk about fit and it is impossible to know what will be the best fit because things change so rapidly. Coaches come and go and so do players and over recruiting is here until the rules are changed.

quote:

Coaches come and go and so do players and over recruiting is here until the rules are changed

I guess I don't understand. Exactly what rule would you like to see?
The roster limit was imposed partly to impact this issue of "over recruiting"- whatever that means. The sit rule is designed to lower the number of transfers and therefore have a positive impact on baseball's APR.
Whether this will be the case remains to be seen.

Again, what rule would you like to see put in place?

I have no problem with over recruiting but many do. When my son called and said there were way more guys than the roster spots the college normally carried, I laughed and tolt him he had nothing to worry about because he had a very large scholarship. He laughed and told me he asked the coach what was going on and the coach told him the same thing.
I would think that some people are shocked by over recruiting as my son was but the truth is you are always competing for the right to play. In our case even the 25 man travel roster changed according to how well you played.
My only change I would make is to the sit rule. If a player is cut let him transfer. They now get an automatic release but still have to ist. I do know this year players that were looking at transferring didn't because they would have to sit but is that really what the NCAA wants ?

I understand the sit rule is a whole new world for the D1 baseball community, but keep in mind that other sports have always had it.
When the NCAA made the change they also imposed the 25% minimum scholly rule, as they felt that it was unfair to impose the sit rule on those who were receiving tiny amounts of scholarship money.
The irony is that the new sit rule also applies to walk ons who are rostered, and with the number of scholarship players dropping to 27, a larger number of walk on players seems a certainty.

Yes you can't compare football and basketball to BB. Those sports have full rides and a lot more scholarships.
The 27 min leaves 8 spots on a BB roster assuming the team uses the max. Yes there will be a lot more WOs and possibly less players getting any BB money. If you gave out the full 27 that limits a coach picking up players in the fall. It is to a coaches advantage to over recruit and to keep spots open.
There will always be unhappy players even amoung the scholarship guys. It is very common to see guys who didn't play a lot for a couple years step into starting roles.
I am still not sure how the limits will unltimately affect recruiting. Many colleges are carrying les than 35.
I was taking to a HC and he totld me he had 18 guys with Ds and Fs thssi fall. 23 had Cs or lower. He has imposed 3 weekly 4 hr study halls in the BB facility for those 23. Could this dessimate his team ?

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
I was taking to a HC and he totld me he had 18 guys with Ds and Fs thssi fall. 23 had Cs or lower. He has imposed 3 weekly 4 hr study halls in the BB facility for those 23. Could this dessimate his team ?

Wow, it looks like the easiest way to get on the field at that school is stay in class.

The kicker is that the school usually has an excelent academic record. He told me only 5 guys were exempt from the mandatory study hall.
That is scary.

Here's what LSU's head coach did today:

"He said he informed pitchers Taylor Martin, Shane Ardoin, OF Cody Reine and utility player Taylor Davis that they no longer had spots on the LSU roster."

One more cut to make involving OF Chad Jones, a football player. The coach is saving a spot for him and if he decides to play baseball, another player will be cut.

According to LSU's web site, they have 36 players not including the football player, so they will have to cut possibly two....tough lesson for those who put their faith or wishes on trying to play for a top notch or any program which brings too many players onto campus with the "opportunity to compete for a position".

quote:

Originally posted by Homerun04:
According to LSU's web site, they have 36 players not including the football player, so they will have to cut possibly two....tough lesson for those who put their faith or wishes on trying to play for a top notch or any program which brings too many players onto campus with the "opportunity to compete for a position".

Although the decision rests with the player and his family, each should hope that honesty prevailed prior to it.

The four players mentioned were not incoming freshmen. One JC transfer senior, one junior, and two sophomores. One of the sophomores had redshirted his freshman year.

LSU had 38 rostered players last year, and lost 4 seniors. Six juniors were drafted, but 2 returned for their senior year. There were 12 recruits for this year; 2 were drafted in the early rounds and didn't make it to campus, 4 others were drafted late and are on the 2009 roster.

Taking into account the above additions and subtractions, LSU ended up with 40 players, and needed to reduce by 5. I don't know where the 5th player went.

Had the the 2 seniors not returned and if a couple more of the drafted recruits decided to go pro, they would have been pretty close to the 35. (The football player is currently listed on the roster of 36 names, so they may not have to cut anymore.)

My own opinion is that schools need not carry 35, and it would be nicer if they didn't recruit to handle the contingency that fewer players than expected arrived at campus. But in the spectrum of behavior of college baseball teams, LSU didn't go overboard.

The four players mentioned were not incoming freshmen. One JC transfer senior, one junior, and two sophomores. One of the sophomores had redshirted his freshman year.

-----------

Then 3 were once incoming freshman.....????

Ask your coach what a cheap local recruit is?

Of the 4 players cut by LSU's baseball coach, two (2) were freshmen, one a Soph. 2 year letterman, and a fourth a Junior 1 year letterman. This is unforgivable. They loose 1 year of eligibility and haven't played a single college baseball season. The junior is done with college baseball and probably the sophomore, too. I like the roster limits, but it should never have applied to Freshmen. So for those of you considering this program, run away real quick because there is no ethics or fairness remaining at LSU. He should have never recruited and signed so many freshmen. And I'm a big fan.

quote:

Originally posted by Louisiana Lightning:
They loose 1 year of eligibility and haven't played a single college baseball season.

I don't like what has happened to these players either, but let's try to keep the facts straight.

None of the players have lost a year of eligibility. Those that choose to transfer to D1 will need to wait one year to be allowed to compete, but their remaining eligibility isn't affected. The two freshmen can, if they so desire, transfer to a JC, play spring 2009, then transfer to a D1 next fall and play spring 2010.

The freshmen may not have played a college baseball season; the others have.

quote:

I like the roster limits, but it should never have applied to Freshmen.

Perhaps you mean the transfer rule shouldn't apply to freshman? I don't see how it would be desirable to have a roster limit, but exclude freshman from the limit.

I got my facts wrong on LSU cutting freshmen. I was looking at the 2008 roster. Players cut and their year in college:

Taylor Martin: Sophomore
Shane Ardoin: Junior
Cody Reine: Sophomore
Taylor Davis: Senior Juco transfer last year.

So, as far as I can tell, no freshmen were cut and I am happy about that.

Louisiana Lightning,

Did you read my first post in this thread? It's just two posts above your second post in this thread. Or OS8's response?

Let me get up on the soapbox, and strongly recommend that we never post the same message in two threads or forums (or whatever the plural of forum should be ). It leads to confusion.